[NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules

[Del R]

I only envision a problem if we have private pilots flying at the legal 500 foot level at models being to close for them to file a complaint.. I don't think the FAA is going to start routinely showing up at our fields checking for height violations but I have seen on numerous occasions some of our other big brother showing interest in our activities and doing surveillance only when I saw them. I'm certain they were not interested in how high we were flying but what our intent was and if we fit an issue to warrant further scrutiny. Heaven forbid if we had to routinely fly with a height violator on our planes ~~  < tic >
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Ford via NSRCA-discussion 
  To: DaveL322 ; General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] FAA Rules


  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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20140624/1caa6a2b/attachment.html>