[NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules

[John Ford]

The real issue, as usual, is how to truly enforce a 400' rule. How does a casual observer determine that my pattern plane was at 425 feet or even 725 feet, and if the observer believes it was…how does that get proven to the point of writing up a rules violation.
On the flip side, do casual observers start to cry wolf at 150 feet, thinking that the plane is bigger/smaller or farther/closer than it really is?

Almost impossible to enforce, (or easy to misuse) unless you happen to have a portable radar unit on your utility belt that also does GPS and trig and a few other tricks. 

John



On Jun 24, 2014, at 3:19 PM, DaveL322 via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> Exactly.
> 
> While the capability exists, 400' is not routinely knowingly exceeded.  I have no emails currently or on historical crashed hard drives that would counter this statement.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note® 3
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "Dr. Michael Harrison, DDS via NSRCA-discussion"
> Date:06/24/2014 3:42 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: 'Peter Vogel' ,'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules
> 
> HEY!!! Everybody!!!SHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
> 
>  
> 
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Peter Vogel via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:23 PM
> To: Larry and Eileen; General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules
> 
>  
> 
> The 400 foot rule used to be vague and open to the interpretation that it applied only within 3 miles of an airport.  The current interpretation document eliminates the vagueness and not in our favor!
> 
>  
> 
> Peter+
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Larry and Eileen via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> The 400 ft. rule is not new, and everyone one in R/C has violated the rule at some point in time.  If enforced, the limit will put an end to aerotowing, and most gliding as well.  It’s never been an issue, because no one ever enforced the limit.
> 
>  
> 
> Larry Fitch
> 
>  
> 
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Stuart Chale via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 11:39 AM
> To: Robert L. Beaubien; General pattern discussion
> 
> 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules
> 
>  
> 
> We could not fly with a 400 foot limit either.  Patterns would have to change, planes probably even slower or smaller.
> 
> On 6/24/2014 2:34 PM, Robert L. Beaubien via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> 
> Actually it is 303m or 994 ft at 175m.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -           Robert Beaubien
> 
> -           Sr. Software Architect
> 
> -           Kool Software LLC
> 
>  
> 
> "No trees were harmed in the sending of this message, however a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced."
> 
>  
> 
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Duane Beck via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 11:29 AM
> To: Patrick Harris; General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules
> 
>  
> 
> Top of a 60 degree box at 175 meters out is almost 500'
> 
>  
> 
> Duane
> 
>  
> 
> From: "Patrick Harris via NSRCA-discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> To: "Peter Vogel" <vogel.peter at gmail.com>, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:20:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules
> 
>  
> 
> The IMAC boys will have a cow over the 400 foot rule. 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 
> Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
> 
> Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140624/4c17bae2/attachment.html>