[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

J N Hiller jnhiller at earthlink.net
Mon Jan 28 07:28:12 AKST 2008 

Thanks Tony.
Jim Hiller

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Tony
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 6:30 AM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

The AMA has great contacts with the FAA in these issues.  As a matter of
fact, I just saw a letter this weekend while I was in Muncie at an EC
meeting,from the FAA to the AMA inviting the AMA to sit on a rules advisory
board as THE AUTHORITY on model aircraft.  This puts us in a great position
where we are involved and have a say in what happens.



Tony Stillman, President
Radio South, Inc.
139 Altama Connector, Box 322
Brunswick, GA  31525
1-800-962-7802
tony at radiosouthrc.com
  _____

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Hoard
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:38 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

Or. . . you can have some FAA bureaucrat in a back office write it into law
(lumping model aircraft into the UAV category) and get it signed by the
Administrator. . . . THEN we get to spend months or years fighting an uphill
battle, paying lawyers and and politicians to go back and get the rule
changed. . . meanwhile your local model field will get random checks from
the local FAA FSDO office to check for compliance with the new 400' AGL
rule.
On Jan 23, 2008 4:41 PM, Lisa & Larry < lld613 at psci.net
<mailto:lld613 at psci.net> > wrote:
Two schools of thought on this.

1)       Let a sleeping dog lie.
2)       Take the bull by the horns.

Be careful of the battles you choose. IMHO the AMA should be aware and
should help those fields that come into this issue. If the issue leads to
the FAA, then it is on a path to resolve conflict.

On the other hand, if the AMA goes in guns a blazing this may cause a
reaction of,  "oh, we missed that.AMA you are right.we (the FAA) will
certainly be obliged to correct the document so that it reads *must*, the
you *will* fly under 400ft AGL across the country.

Larry Diamond

  _____

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us>  [mailto:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.f3a.us> ] On Behalf Of Jay Marshall
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:51 PM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

Don't we pay AMA dues to resolve things like this? If enforced it could shut
down many types of models.

Jay Marshall
-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>  [mailto:
nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> ] On Behalf Of Ed White
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:30 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: Altitude limits

I'm not interpreting this the same way at all.  First, the document is a
notice of policy that has been released with the action only for feedback,
not for compliance.  It is not a policy yet and should not be being enforced
just based on this document.  Second, making AC 91-57 the authority under
which model aircraft are flown is not the same as changing its contents from
guidance to mandatory.  The policy does not change any of the words of AC
91-57 and in fact repeats those words, "Model aircraft SHOULD [my caps] be
flown below 400 feet above the surface ..." That is not the same as saying
"Model aircraft MUST be flown below 400 feet above the surface ...".  In
order for the 400 foot limit to be mandatory, the FAA will need to change
the existing AC which only provides "guidance that encourages good judgment
on the part of operators...".

Nothing in the notice of policy suggests to me that the FAA is proposing to
make any such change.

Ed

James Oddino < joddino at socal.rr.com <mailto:joddino at socal.rr.com> > wrote:


Begin forwarded message:

From: Bryan Hudson < gbflyer at sbcglobal.net <mailto:gbflyer at sbcglobal.net> >
Date: January 22, 2008 10:00:42 PM PST
To: James Oddino < joddino at socal.rr.com <mailto:joddino at socal.rr.com> >
Subject: Re: Fwd: [NSRCA-discussion] Altitude limits

Jim,

That used to be correct up till Feburary last year.  Long story short.  FAA
(Advisory Circular) AC 91-57 for model airplanes has been around since 1981.
It "advises" fly models below 400 feet AGL (above ground level).  Because of
the growing unmanned aircraft industry, last February the NTSB / FAA issued
a "Policy Statement" in the Federal Register officially making AC 91-57 the
"Authority" under which models will be flown.  So as of last Feb. fly below
400 AGL is federal law.  This information has recently been added to the
FAA's own web site, and now it looks like the new policy is being enforced.

New regulation on FAA's web site www.faa.gov <http://www.faa.gov/>

To fly a UAS you must have an (Experimental Airworthiness Certificate) EAC,
unless you are a hobbyist and intend to fly your model aircraft in
accordance with the guidance in AC 91-57 "Model Aircraft Operating
Standards."

In other words, if you want to fly higher than AC 91-57 allows (above 400
AGL) then you must have an EAC.  EACs are not being issued to modelers so
don't even think about that.

You can find the Federal Register Policy Statement that lays this out on
this site also.

Go to
www.faa.gov <http://www.faa.gov/>

then click on:
Aircraft Tab
Aircraft Topics - Aircraft Certification
Design Approvals
Types of Aircraft - Unmanned Aircraft

At this point click on Regulations and Policies for links to::
*          Advisory Circulars - AC 91-57 Model Aircraft Operating Standards
*          Policies - Federal Register Notice - Clarification of FAA Policy
<http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/frnotic
e_uas.pdf>
Or after Unmanned Aircraft click on FAQ for statement on FAA's web site.

Bryan




James Oddino < joddino at socal.rr.com <mailto:joddino at socal.rr.com> > wrote:


Begin forwarded message:

From: Ed White < edvwhite at sbcglobal.net <mailto:edvwhite at sbcglobal.net> >
Date: January 21, 2008 1:13:55 PM PST
To: NSRCA Mailing List < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Altitude limits
Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List < nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >

It is written in FAA Advisory Circular AC 91-57, dated June 9, 1981.  You
can download it from the the FAA website ( www.faa.gov <http://www.faa.gov/>
and then type AC 91-57 into the search box).

It says "Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface."
This applies to any location.  But because the next sentence says "When
flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator
..."  some people misinterpret the requirement as 400 feet only when within
3 miles of an airport.

The key point is that it is an ADVISORY Circular.  It outlines the FAA's
preferred model aircraft operating standards, but compliance with the AC is
voluntary.  An AC is not the same as a FAR (Federal Aviation Regulation).

Ed

Mark Atwood < atwoodm at paragon-inc.com <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> >
wrote:
It was always my understanding that we were never supposed to exceed 400 ft
and that full scale aircraft were to stay above 500ft. But I'm not sure
where that's written...

-M


On 1/21/08 2:35 PM, "James Oddino" wrote:

> I'm getting some breaking news that there is some type of advisory
> that says we shouldn't be flying above 400 feet at our field in
> Camarillo. Are there any general rules about altitude limits that we
> should be aware of? We are pretty far from the Camarillo airport and
> never get close to any full size stuff so I don't understand why there
> would be a local restriction. More to follow I'm sure.
>
> Jim O
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion


_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



--

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com <mailto:khoard at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080128/afe82040/attachment-0001.html

More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list