New Altitude Limit?

[Yucaipa Dave]

Have you read AMA President, Dave Brown,s column in the August issue of Model Aviation? If you haven’t, go grab a copy and read it now! Dave has been in talks with the FAA about establishing an altitude limit on all model flying. The current limit in the AMA safety code has enough ”wiggle” room that we can talk ourselves in believing it doesn’t apply to us, and the 1981 FAA Advisory Circular limiting us to 400 ft isn’t “law” it is advisory in nature.

The limit that Dave mentioned in the article is between 700-1000 ft, and would presumably become LAW. How would that affect your flying? If you had an incident with a manned aircraft above that altitude would you be covered by your homeowners insurance, or the AMA insurance (which is secondary)? Could you afford to pay damages and legal expenses out of pocket? Would you like to be breaking a Federal law when you do your normal Sunday flying?

IMHO Dave seems to be going to the FAA hat in hand and is very willing to take whatever they offer and be glad they didn’t offer less. I wonder why Dave settled for such a low altitude limit? Is it because it was acceptable to him and the kind of flying he does and he didn’t care to check what the membership thinks? Is that representing your interests? It certainly doesn’t represent me!

I urge you to spread the word and write your AMA district rep, AMA Executive Director, Don Koranda, Dave Brown, the FAA, your Congressman, and anyone else you can think of and tell them what limit you think is appropriate before a limit is imposed on us that is unacceptable for the continued general enjoyment of R/C soaring enthusiasts.
Dave

[RapidRaptor]

Thanks for pointing this out. I routinely fly higher than 1000' with several different types of gliders. I'm not sure what would constitute a reasonable altitude for every type of flying but I know that the TD guys regularly get up to >1500' with the big ships.

Cheers,

Eric

[MikeBanyai]

I have a personal best of 3000 feet as read out by a Picolario, pretty regular get to 2500 while in good controll with a 3 meter sailplane...I would be pretty anoyed to be limited to 1000 feet AGL...I have been told that the Traverse City guys made 4500 feet with the plane against a cloud deck background..I cant get that high and still see the plane with a blue sky background, course flying into the cloud is a lot of grief... :rolleyes: Mike

[dave_beardsley]

it would seem that the AMA press is a bit misguided -

Especially considering the FAI events (and the AMA events for that matter) that are held at the AMA field each year require that sailplanes routinely break 1000 ft of altitude.

As we all know, these sailplane events are held all over the world and sanctioned by the FAI. Many are held in the USA, the Nationals at the AMA field. He should look out the window and get a clue.

Maybe he's so focused on the "sporty forty / weekend fun flyer" side of model aviation that he's missing the obvious.

My gut tells me this will end up a dead issue - especially if the LSF / FAI / CMIA end up involved.

[John Gallagher]

You don't know the FAA. Once they are aware that RC gliders are flying at these altitudes they will regulate it. They will never let go. More than likely, all the people in this forum who have been bragging about going 3000' and higher have got the attention of the FAA. This is a public forum.
There's no way they will allow rc aircraft to fly in controlled airspace. The possibility of a collision with an airplane, no matter how remote, will compel them to ban RC at altitude.

The FAI has no say in US airspace regulation.

[dave_beardsley]

they already know..... as they do for rockets, low altitude R/C photography / video stuff, surveillance equipment etc.... the list goes on and on.....

In fact, just the other week I had to file a Nodem (sorry SP), to airman that was to be heard on ATIS (SP again), so full scale pilots in the area would know we were flying and where operations were happening. This is the 3rd time for sure (that I was involved in) we've notified an FBO / CAP / FAA of model aircraft operations for safety reasons. I'm sure its happened many other times in other locations as well.....

So - the FAA already knows, and has known for a long time.

I can see them doing something more official, especially if (for some crazy reason) we needed to fly into IFR controlled altitudes (I think that’s about 18K?)

I think the reason for this happening is the nuts with video gear on some P.O.S. foam thing who bragged about their model flights up to 20K feet. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and all parties involved will make a smart decision that won’t adversely affect model flying currently sanctioned by the FAI / AMA.

[dave_beardsley]

I spoke with my flight instructor about this topic tonight, and also called a good friend, who is a full scale pilot, and multi-time world R/C soaring champion.

Both agreed something should probably be done as our models and radio gear have improved over the last few years and flying above 1000 ft is the norm for sailplanes.

They both agreed that whoever thought 1000ft was a good starting point to talk with the FAA is a nut, who has little clue what’s going on in the R/C soaring community.

Both agreed it would be nice to know where model operations where being held (at any altitude), so pilots would know what to look out for when approaching an unfamiliar area.

We all agreed there is NO WAY AT ALL to enforce any type of a rule like this. For multiple reasons, not the least of wich is that we have no way to know exactly what altitude our models are at.

Someone with some "pull" should get a hold of the AMA and help them proceed in a manner that conciders the needs of RC Soarign pilots.

Clearly, nobody wants to fly in an unsafe manner, and all soaring pilots I've seen are very good about being smart when full scale traffic is near.

I think its important to help the AMA proceed in a smart way, so we don’t end up holding the bag, left out, as they just considered the vast majority of "sporty forty’s" when they decided to start talks with the FAA.

I'm going call the magizne editors I know and see what they have to say too.

[rcbrust]

I wouldn't be surprised if we eventually end up with a similar situation as the rocketry community. I used to fly high power rockets and the altitude issue there is broken down into 3 basic classes based on overall weight of the model and the propellant weight.

Below a certain weight, there were no restrictions. Up to the next level you have to give notification to the FAA. Above that, you have to apply for an FAA waiver.

As long as our AMA leaders do their job properly, I can't see model aircraft being totally banned from a given altitude when following the rules of the system, I can launch a 50 pound rocket at mach 1 to 20,000 ft.

Randy

[rogerflies]

I've had advisories from air traffic control several times for model rocket operations, but never for RC planes. They just asked me to change course so I wouldn't be in a danger zone.

Unless you're near a big airport, you're probably operating under "unrestricted" airspace. VFR pilots will be operating in the "see and avoid" mode. IFR pilots will be at least several thousand feet AGL, because the ATC radar won't pick them up reliably at low altitudes.

Most pilots love altitude. The farther they are from an airport, the higher they'll be. But you've always got the few who like to tool around sightseeing just above the trees.

I agree 1000 feet is much too low for a limit on RC sailplanes. The larger the plane, the easier it is for us AND the full-scale pilot to see. It seems to me that the altitude we fly at is self-regulating. We have to be able to see the plane well enough to control it.

Chances are that any rule the FAA makes for models will be all-inclusive. The models that don't require line-of-sight will be the ones they're worried about, and the rest of us will have to operate under the restrictions they impose.

We get a bum deal even though we've done nothing to endanger anyone.

Roger

[John Gallagher]

Unless you're near a big airport, you're probably operating under "unrestricted" airspace. VFR pilots will be operating in the "see and avoid" mode.
Roger

Unrestricted airspace is not uncontrolled airspace. Outside airport traffic areas the bottom of controlled airspace is either 700 or 1200 feet above ground depending on what part of the country you're in. That's probably why the FAA is talking about a limit of 700 to 1000 feet.

The rule will be unenforcable but it does cover the FAA's butt. If and when a RC/cival aircraft collission does occur, the law is there and noone can say that the FAA didn't do their job. There would be fines/jail time for the RC pilot and a public push to ban RC flight.

[Gary Warner]

FAA controlled airspace starts at 1200 feet AGL, with approach transition areas around airports being at 700 feet AGL. If you fly within 4MN of an airport with a published approach, you are likely in the 700 foot airspace. This can extend out another 3+ MN on the approach ends (see a sectional for transition areas).

The fact is that we regularly fly sailplanes in controlled airspace. The FAA has turned a blind eye to us for the most part. But as the security of air transportation becomes talked about more and more, we are going to have to start standing up for ourselves. Law makers and the FAA see no practical benefits from recreations model aircraft and could (or will) eventually site the safety of the masses as being more important than us enjoying one aspect of model flying.

Look, sooner or later, we are going to have to address these issues and starting a dialogue with the FAA is an important part of that. But throwing around arbitrary numbers is a dangerous thing to do, when dealing with the FAA. I'll assure you, once it's part of the 'record' (a number like 1000') it will never be negotiated higher. Dave needs to be careful and thoughtful when dealing with them on our behalf. Berry Kennedy is on the soaring contest board in district 8 (my district). I'll be taking to him soon and I'll be interested if he was consulted in this matter. Also, another avid sailplane flier is George Parks and he's a Associate VP for this district 8. Again, I'd like to hear if he was consulted.

For now, it's very important that we monitor our own action closely. Flights made to 'pin-spot' altitude should be done with attention to safety. Airspace should be cleared and flights monitored by spotters. We need to give way to any and all other aircraft, even if collision is not a real possibility. Every time an airline pilot reports a 'near miss' or conflict of airspace to the FAA involving an RC plane, we are moving one step closer loosing our freedom to fly as we will.

I'm all for us continuing to fly as high as we personally feel comfortable with. But as a pilot myself, I don't want to think of what could happen if a 70 ounce sailplane and my C172 were collide. The concerns of all aircraft having adequate separation has been around for a long time and will continue to a very real threat to our hobby. As is in most situations that the Feds get involved with, it's the failure of a person or persons to self regulate there activities and to act in a manner that endangers others rights.

I hope that the AMA will present model aircraft in a positive light, especially sailplanes. But I've got a bad feeling that we sailplane fliers are going to get the short end of this one. It's hard to suggest what will happen as a result of an altitude limit, but I'm fairly sure it won't an improvement to our hobby.

Gary
--

[John Gallagher]

Gary, Well said concerning self governing.
Look, sooner or later, we are going to have to address these issues and starting a dialogue with the FAA is an important part of that. But throwing around arbitrary numbers is a dangerous thing to do, when dealing with the FAA. I'll assure you, once it's part of the 'record' (a number like 1000') it will never be negotiated higher. Dave needs to be careful and thoughtful when dealing with them on our behalf.
Gary
--

I seriously doubt that Dave is the one suggesting 1000'. The FAA has probably defined the altitude range they are willing to discuss.

[MTT]

It's funny that while both here and in the Scale Sailplanes section this thread is running, about the proposed ridiculously low altitude limit, at the same time there is a thread running in the electric sailplanes section titled : Sailplane to 80,000 ft ? (http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=370716)

[Gary Warner]

Gary, Well said concerning self governing.


I seriously doubt that Dave is the one suggesting 1000'. The FAA has probably defined the altitude range they are willing to discuss.

I think you are right. It's common for the FAA to present numbers that include a "safety buffer". I do though wonder, just how was the FAA sold on the idea of being able to enforce such a limit? I can't help wonder if the AMA will mandate an even lower ceiling in an attempt to make sure we don't bust the airspace.

Still, I'm hopeful that we, as sailplane fliers, will be welcome to participate in the use of airspace above a published limit, with the Notice To Airman and ATIS systems. As for our club, we fly monthly contests about 4.5MN from class D airspace, we are under the class B (DFW: 3500 MSL - 3000 AGL) and under the 30NM mode C vale. I wonder just how high they would let us fly in this congested airspace?

Gary
--

[machild]

Perhaps the best policy to observe is fly where the big guys aren't. If a private pilot on approach can't see you, he can't squawk you. Yes, it's true that the FAA limit of 400 AGL is only advisory in nature, and there is no FAR regulating model aircraft altitude, but tick off the wrong guy at the local airport's tower, and you're in for a ton of grief.

The FAA could site "Reckless Endangerment" in a sailplane vs. private traffic dispute; remember the brain surgeon who deliberately punched a hole through the Good Year blimp with a powered ship a few years ago? He deliberately flew right through the blimp, causing enough damage to deflate the gas bag.

Now if an R/C sailplane flies a heading away from approaching general aviation traffic, could it be considered a hazard? Common sense would say no, but there still exists the propensity for an overzealous tower manager to make things difficult for the local flying club four miles away.

[John Gallagher]

I seriously doubt that Dave is the one suggesting 1000'. The FAA has probably defined the altitude range they are willing to discuss.

I received the magazine. From the article, Dave Brown did initiate the topic with the FAA and suggested the 700 or 1000 foot limit. He's actually proud that he did it.
...'we may still end up with a law, but it will be one we can live with.'

This dufus actually thinks he did a good thing. Gas flyers apparently have no problem with a 700 or 1000 foot limit.
The president of the AMA should be representing all member's interest. Not just the interest of the largest segment of the organization.
He's obviously completely clueless about dealing with the FAA, and even more clueless about RC Sailplanes.

[fprintf]

I must admit to being really upset when I read Dave Brown's comments a few days ago. I read it that he went to them with the limit, and that he had not considered sailplane fliers at all.

Since there is sailplane coverage in the magazine, surely there is someone talking to Dave about our typical altitudes? Barry Kennedy? LSF (our SIG)? Where are they?

[evan_s]

if there was an alternative to AMA membership I would be there. You could certainly obtain the coverage, but it probably wouldn't be accepted by CDs and wouldn't be acceptable to most clubs. Our club requires AMA beacause the school where we fly requires it (or requires insurance - I'm not sure) From what I've read in these groups, the only time the AMA insurance paid a claim was after the member sued them to enforce their obligation to pay.

I never ceases to amaze me how out of touch the magazine is. You wouldn't think sailplanes were at all popular from the lack of coverage they give us. The editorials, the letters published, the columns, and the articles are way off base, usually. They've only recently realized that electric power is "becoming" popular. One of the columnists stated that he doesnt own a PC. A couple months ago they published a letter from a guy that stated he won't use the internet anymore because so many of the companies lack real addresses or phone numbers, or something like that. I guess his LHS has everything he needs.

Apparently, their management hasnt learned how to deal with government agencies, either. Who asked them to contact the FAA, anyway? You shouldn't ask a government agency for an opinion or a ruling on which you may not like the answer. You'll be stuck with the answer. And we'll be stuck with an altitude limit.

Don't get me started. I won't know how to stop.

[Chachi639]

From the AMA website, Dave Brown's email address is president@modelaircraft.org. Unless you think that it's purely ceremonial and he won't read it, why not write him directly with our concerns? I sent him an email directing him to this thread.

Hal

[Chachi639]

Mr. Brown,

I read your recent column regarding altitude limitations for R/C aircraft with a sinking feeling. You might find it educational to review some of the comments posted on RC Groups on the subject - some folks are pretty upset with your approach, and while I don't agree with some of the harsh language, I feel that there are some good examples presented there about how your altitude proposal doesn't consider RC soaring. The web link to these thread in question is http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397502. Please keep RC soaring pilots in mind when drafting proposals to the FAA.

Thanks,

<name>
<AMA number>

[Chachi639]

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397784

[evan_s]

I suspect you won't get an answer. reference this post from the other thread to which you referred:

"I have no idea what to belive. Dave's articles are sometimes a bit fuzzy (like this one) and my emails to him have always been unreturned. I can't even tell if from the DB's article if he really thinks a FAA reg is on its way, but he at least leads us to believe an AMA SC update is on its way."

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4081333&postcount=21

I also think it's wise not to get too hot with the AMA. They could refuse to renew our memberships, and we couldn't fly in any AMA sanctioned contest or at any AMA approved fields. (Yeah, I know, what's the down-side?) I live in the city. There aren't too many places to fly. AMA is a private club-I don't think anyone has a right to membership. If they don't get any federal funds, they could probably engage in discrimination that would otherwise be prohibited by civil rights laws. They could certainly discriminate against troublemakers like me. But I don't think anyone there reads the RC groups. If they did, electric flight, computers, the internet, and email wouldn't have caught them by surprise.

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

"AMA is a private club"... That's a good one!

So why do I have to belong to a private club to use public lands???

[WGH]

I have this mental image of a group of line control guys sitting in a room and Dave ask "Hey guys whats a good altitude limit" they reply "1000 feet would give us plenty of room Dave". That worthless magazine has to be 80% UKIE stuff and its possibly the least popular aspect of our hobby. I mean how many people do you know that fly line control? The amount of coverage gliders get is pitiful.

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

More money in UKIEs than sailplanes. Just look at all of the sailplane only magazines that have folded or changed or just gone complete onto the web. We are a cheap bunch of SOB's!

[kwmtrubrit]

I just sent this. I don't think it will be worth a damn, but needed to speak up. It was a lot stronger but I toned it down. I cc'd the VP for dist 8 also. I guess I'll go buy some golf balls!!


Dear Mr. Brown,

I am writing to you to let you know of my concern over the possible altitude limitations for RC aircraft drivers. For the most part the power guys are not going to be too affected by a low altitude ceiling, but for the sailplane drivers, myself included, this is a major issue. Altitude is our power, not a fan on the front. It really bothered me that you "offered an opinion" of 700ft minimum as a ceiling with a prefered 1,000ft. What happened to shoot for the moon and come down from there. I've only been involved in this great hobby for 2yrs and really don't want to give it up, but if my launch is 500ft with a 700ft ceiling, I may as well get rid of my planes and go spend my AMA membership in a hobby worth doing.

Sincerely,

Keith * ********
Little Rock, AR

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

The first time rc glider guiders rattled the AMA cage was in the 70's when most were ready to leave and start their own organization. Some of the fiascoes in recent nats keep the momentum going. Now they (the organization(s) involved) are joined at the hip with the AMA. Keep your enemies closer.

The may have come to resurect the idea of an RC sailplane only national organization NOT tied to the AMA.

[Salmon-Run]

Following is Dave Browns reply to my Email on the President's Perspective altitude limit:

"Understand that this was as an alternative to the 400 ft that we are now subject to under the Advisory Circular.
Dave Brown "

It is clear that Dave considers that AC 91-57 section 3.c. ONLY applies to models flown within 3 miles of an airport.

Much more on this subject is contained in a duplicate thread under 'Sailplane Talk'.

Moderator, should the two threads be combined so all the comments can be viewed in one place?

Wayne

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

The AC is clearly 400 foot agl PERIOD. Then 1,000 feet is 600 feet more. As long as this stays an AC who cares.

Bet anti-terror laws are driving this. Could become like DC or NYC where all guns are illegal but have the highest rate per capita of gun killings. Terrorists don't care about what the max ceiling would be.

[Gary Warner]

Do you guys think that this has more to do with collision avoidance or national security?

I'm thinking the latter, at least behind closed doors. The TFR's around the president are enforceable with deadly force. But what enforcement do the feds have against a UAV?

Sailplanes have been flying high and safely for too many years for this to just be about collision avoidance.

Gary
--

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

A balsa and mylar model does not have much radar cross section. Bet it doesn't even blip on most airport radar.

[Gary Warner]

A balsa and mylar model does not have much radar cross section. Bet it doesn't even blip on most airport radar.

You're right. I don't think the feds feel that they can adequately defend against a UAV attack. Spotting, tracking and shoot down seem to me to be much harder with a 10 pound UAV then a 2500 pound Cessna 172.

Gary
--

[kwmtrubrit]

Salmon Run,

If I understand your thread in "Sailplane Talk", the federal side says 400ft period. When within 3mls of an airport, contact the necessary parties (airport operator, tower, flight service).
The AMA side says 400ft max within 3mls of an airport.

Mass confusion seems to prevail at this point.

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

Typical of the AMA.

[rdwoebke]

That was my post that Evan quoted where I said I had written DB. And I had. Twice now, with no response. Salmon, what address did you use? In the magazine, he had listed his "dbproducts" address. I am pretty sure I sent him email to that one rather than the "president@modelaircraft".

I also sent an email to the guy ( a paid non elected position) who has the article at the end of the magazine. No response on that either. A few months ago he had an article about guys "pressing the limits" and was "shame on you" to the guys flying "way above the legal altitude" and I asked him what he meant by that and what legal altitude he referred to.

The first time I emailed DB was 2 or 3 years ago in response to an article he wrote where he was asking for SC update input. My input was that the "flight line" rule in the SC seems to not apply/not be followed by glider pilots. How many contests have you been to where there was a flight line? I can't think of any, including the Nats on the AMA field.

I think the best thing we can do is just continue to email our VP and the Pres and let them know our opinions on this. A few years ago there was an issue of a rule being added that would make slope combat impossible (something about not flying combat within X feet of anybody). A lot of glider guys emailed DB and their VPs and the rule now specifies combat with a motor model within X feet of anybody. So apparently our voices do matter, we just might not get a response.

Ryan

[Salmon-Run]

Ryan,

I sent the Email to the dbproducts address on 8/1 and received the reply on 8/2. I wonder if the MA article generated more interest than DB or the AMA anticipated.

Wayne

[histarter]

I told everyone this was going to happen for the last 10 years; and this was also one of the reasons the Hot Air Masters was formed. In preperations for the loss of freedom! :)

England is having similar problems, and will eventually curtail airspace freedom - while the AMA and FAI have their thumb in bun! Fearful of the aftermath. :confused:

The concentration for edge of vision Soaring has given pilots a "right of way" attitude - to the point that I almost lost one field because of a couple of Love Songs that were launched by winch, and they climbed to 3K altitude over downtown Carrollton TX. The FAA came out (yes, they saw them on radar) and warned us to stop, and that criminal action will start if caught again! [I still flew there for 2 years, because I rarely hit 900 ft AGL, with my short launch practice of 6 min max.] :D

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

Criminal action under what federal law????

Ask to see the radar recordings.

[histarter]

1. Yes, The FAA representitives were 'cop BSing' us. They did show badges, and drove a Govt. vehicle - and that was enough.
2. One doesn't try a case at the flying field. If accosted, cooperate! This is America.
3. As a legal counselor knowing modern American law, there are many ways criminal indictments can occur - that are not related to initial accusations i.e. if the judge (who normally cooperates with prosecution) believes you are the one who is not cooperating! (regardless of whether or not you've relinquished jurisdiction!) he is free to do damage because the 5th ckt court of appeals (the common law Constitutional court that limits judicial power) has been disbanded. This is why we see so much judicial havoc today - with judges making law; applying admiralty or equity jurisdiction.

The bottom line: If we cooperate and engage their limits, we will probably end up with 1000 ft AGL (+ slop). However, if we resist tenatiously, we will be lucky to get 400 ft AGL.

['They' have too much attitude that if you don't think like they do, you are fighting a 'war' against them!]

[carrinsr]

...looks like I might as well not complete my scratch built 24" wingspan, 24" chord sailplane...a giant Sailaire in the making. Our club flies from a Navy touch-n-go airfield that has a runway over a mile long, and I intended to tow it up to altitude using a truck instead of a winch. It probably wouldn't find sufficient lift to keep it airborne for any appreciable time if it was less than 1,000 feet in altitude. But talk about being able to see it...you bet! Anyway, the Navy's airfield is on aviation maps as a "no fly zone" for regular aircraft under a certain altitude, so maybe I'll do just fine after all? OK. Typing all this has convinced me to go ahead and build it anyway. Good! (0: I'll show "them"! Well, I won't TELL "them". haha David

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

1. Yes, The FAA representitives were 'cop BSing' us. They did show badges, and drove a Govt. vehicle - and that was enough.
2. One doesn't try a case at the flying field. If accosted, cooperate! This is America.
3. As a legal counselor knowing modern American law, there are many ways criminal indictments can occur - that are not related to initial accusations i.e. if the judge (who normally cooperates with prosecution) believes you are the one who is not cooperating! (regardless of whether or not you've relinquished jurisdiction!) he is free to do damage because the 5th ckt court of appeals (the common law Constitutional court that limits judicial power) has been disbanded. This is why we see so much judicial havoc today - with judges making law; applying admiralty or equity jurisdiction.

The bottom line: If we cooperate and engage their limits, we will probably end up with 1000 ft AGL (+ slop). However, if we resist tenatiously, we will be lucky to get 400 ft AGL.

['They' have too much attitude that if you don't think like they do, you are fighting a 'war' against them!]

I wouldn't give a Flying Farkel if they brought the Pope with them! They have no legal standing to stop your flying IF you were outside of an airports controlled landing/take off area.

They couldn't take you to jail. They would have had to call the local cops. Once it's explained to the local cops that they are using an advisory and not standing law the cops will walk away. Been there done that!

If you want to bend over for this then go ahead. Don't include the rest of us.

Live Free Or Die!

[Thermalator]

One thing I have yet to see in this discussion is the perspective from the U.S. commercial vendor for RC sailplanes. Once there is a limit imposed, these people stand to lose a lot of money. I hope they are writing Dave et al. at AMA HQ and offering their comments from a financial perspective.

:mad:

[histarter]

I wouldn't give a Flying Farkel if they brought the Pope with them! They have no legal standing to stop your flying IF you were outside of an airports controlled landing/take off area.
They couldn't take you to jail. They would have had to call the local cops. Once it's explained to the local cops that they are using an advisory and not standing law the cops will walk away. Been there done that!
Live Free Or Die!

Freedom is relative! The Darwin Brown Case: Similar situation, we wrote a large Brief proving an Attorney Magistrate couldn’t seize jurisdiction legally ! After 2 years of shuffling Darwin from TX to the corresponding state of MI, he was released to die of colon cancer. The 3 counselors of law (including a law professor from SMU) were unable to extract him. His choice of dying in prison or "freedom" hinged upon him pleading guilty to a misdemeanor ($100 fine) to balance out 'time served'. :mad:

I had been involved in about a half dozen cases like this - just not as extreme!

As a "Slave by Syndication" (wrote a book on the subject), I simply adjust to the mad ravings of our society - learning that 'sugar' will go further than bullheadedness. :)

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

How high was Darwin Brown flying?

[Majortomski]

I wouldn't give a Flying Farkel if they brought the Pope with them! They have no legal standing to stop your flying IF you were outside of an airports controlled landing/take off area.

They couldn't take you to jail. They would have had to call the local cops. Once it's explained to the local cops that they are using an advisory and not standing law the cops will walk away. Been there done that!

If you want to bend over for this then go ahead. Don't include the rest of us.

Live Free Or Die!

SoCal, why do you believe the FAA has "...no legal standing to stop your flying..." Whether it is inside or outside an airport control zone?

T

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

It's been tried locally several times. The flying area in question is right at the 3 mile mark to the side or parallel with the runway of a major national airport. Both times the propagators (local FAA tower) had the local police stop the flying. The local police had their butts reamed by the city attorneys as, upon investigating current law, there is no legal precedence for prosecution for flying in excess of the AC's 400 feet AT THAT LOCATION.

[Gary Warner]

It's been tried locally several times. The flying area in question is right at the 3 mile mark to the side or parallel with the runway of a major national airport. Both times the propagators (local FAA tower) had the local police stop the flying. The local police had their butts reamed by the city attorneys as, upon investigating current law, there is no legal precedence for prosecution for flying in excess of the AC's 400 feet AT THAT LOCATION.

If the site in question was Carrollton Texas and it was over downtown (Hu? Where can you launch a sailplane in Carrollton to fly 'over down town'?) this airspace is under the class bravo (B) for DFW. It's well within the inner most rings and is denoted as 11,000 top and surface bottom. Technically all aircraft in this space have to be under ATC, transmitting mode C transponder and have to get expressed permission to fly in this airspace. Naturally, these rules were written for full-scale planes, but it could very well apply to models.

At 3000 feet in this airspace, they are at the same commonly used altitude as Southwest airlines planes fly going into Dallas Love.

Still, I suspect that the plane was not that high over the official 'down-town' of Carrollton. They might have been to the east of the municipal center (Al Sugar (I think this is 'histarter') flies over there at a park). If it is Al, he's had an axe to grind with winches, all high performance sailplanes and competition involving these sailplanes since the start of time. Around here he is ignored. And if this is Al, he might want to check with the city's ordinances. ALL RC aircraft are banned from Carrollton city parks. So much for 'legal' flying.

Gary
--

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

Local cities can ban activity within their control. Such as lauching from city parks or property. This is ground level activity only. It's questionable as such control should the plane be launched from private property but over fly that muni's public property.

[Gary Warner]

Local cities can ban activity within their control. Such as lauching from city parks or property. This is ground level activity only. It's questionable as such control should the plane be launched from private property but over fly that muni's public property.
One assumes that it's "flying from" that the city objects to.

Gary
--

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

They probably object to everything! But then that is life in the muni.

[John Gallagher]

I'm sure that most cities have general laws against 'threats to public safety'

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

Define "threat". Statistically a leashed dog is more of a threat in an open public area than rc sailplane flying. Then dogs don't fly very high.

[histarter]

Technically all aircraft in this space have to be under ATC, transmitting mode C transponder and have to get expressed permission to fly in this airspace. Naturally, these rules were written for full-scale planes, but it could very well apply to models.

Still, I suspect that the plane was not that high over the official 'down-town' of Carrollton. They might have been to the east of the municipal center (Al Sugar (I think this is 'histarter') flies over there at a park). If it is Al, he's had an axe to grind with winches, all high performance sailplanes and competition involving these sailplanes since the start of time. Around here he is ignored. And if this is Al, he might want to check with the city's ordinances. ALL RC aircraft are banned from Carrollton city parks. So much for 'legal' flying.

Gary
--
Gary, Gary,

Your immaturity is showing.
Although you are a great modeler, your imperialistic ego to elevate a toy to follow aircraft regulations is ludicrous.

U control flying in the parks created the noise ordinance against model aircraft – disregarding the danger. Today all the parks in Carrollton have occasional pilots playing with park flyers, just not frequently - with town council approval.

They never did catch the pilot flying over Lewisville at 3500 ft (and the so called pilot that claimed he saw the aircraft flying along side his jet is still flying [the story was news media distortions of intermingled radar and “hey, buddy do you see anything?”]

PS The Pilot Point sod farms (that the SLNT members avoid like the plague) uses my winch for launching toy sailplanes - Shuttles to Paragons.

[histarter]

A message recieved from England:

You may be interested to learn of an article written by the new President of the British Association of Radio Control Soarers. He is arguing the case for shorter launching lines. He mentions reducing from 150 metres to 100 metres and is of the opinion that what is really needed is 75 metres! He also expressed the opinion that it can now be only 2 or 3 years before the international F3J rules bring the line lengths down significantly. :rolleyes:

*****
Sounds like HAM (Hot Air Masters) to me!

[rogerflies]

I just found this site.
http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/index.htm

It's about releasing a glider with from a balloon at altitudes up to 80,000 feet. The glider has an autopilot to guide it to the desired landing area.

Here's the interesting part:
http://members.shaw.ca/sonde/risks.htm

Some excerpts:

"In North America alone, there are 150 radiosonde launch sites, most of which launch small packages twice daily, for some 100,000 launches each year. A large number of these launch sites are in high-traffic east coast areas; some even located on airport land. Locally, there are 3 such regular launch sites in NW Washington state, and south western BC, in addition to several irregular launch sites. In decades of launching at this rate, with millions of total launches, there has not been a single reported incident of a mid-air collision with a balloon package, either on ascent or descent (some have, however, been spotted by airline pilots)."

"Thus, making the worst-case assumption that no effort is made to avoid active GA airports or practice areas, and that GA aircraft see neither the balloon nor the glider, the total risk of collision by a light aircraft in the Fraser Valley is around 1 chance in 600,000 per glider flight. This risk can be reduced to a negligible value by simply avoiding airports and practice areas."

Could info like this be useful in an effort to avoid having an altitude limit imposed on RC sailplanes?

Roger

[histarter]

With all the meteor showers, none ever hit friends or family that I know of either. :)

[DFW_HLG_TG]

PS The Pilot Point sod farms (that the SLNT members avoid like the plague) uses my winch for launching toy sailplanes - Shuttles to Paragons.



Please retract. I know I have asked for a contest date so that some of us SLNT members could come up and fly. I still would like to.

[Hostage-46]

Ya sign me up, sod farm, 20 miles closer....

[histarter]

Please retract. I know I have asked for a contest date so that some of us SLNT members could come up and fly. I still would like to.
How do I do this? 2 years ago we had notified you guys of impending cross-country meet at PP sponsored by the Vet Net and my Company. Your chieftains (no names mentioned here) said 'no way'! :mad:
Without your support, the magnitude of the event for just 5 pilots was ineffectual so it was never executed. [In honesty, Houston, Austin both felt the same about it, so you were not alone.]

This year the SLNT wanted to try a cross-country event that would be difficult within Dallas. Again we volunteered PP (and would take the heat from owners regarding your winch) and again you reneged! The cross country you were looking for would have remained above the sod property limits - that is part of the Vet Net. :eek:

Now any time you wish to give PP a try, you are welcome - just give me notice. We have a sport winch for launching and use 500 ft to turnaround at 15 lbs tension (1/6 hp). Our members run around our country - but usually are in town on the weekend. Typically we get together on a Saturday, if the day is balmy, 5 to 10 mph of wind. More wind - the guys will saunter over to the dam and heave a Duck over the edge (I cannot take the standing however).

To date there is 3 of us left at PP. I am close to perminent retirement from living. There are no contests that we could hold anymore, so sport flying is all that is happening here. However, If Cebola from Brazil is looking for a postal contest, we will have a task we can handle by ourselves - because I know the SLNT is just not interested. :rolleyes:

[Gary Warner]

Gary, Gary,

Your immaturity is showing.
Although you are a great modeler, your imperialistic ego to elevate a toy to follow aircraft regulations is ludicrous.


You said yourself that the FAA boys found the model in violation of CFR's. Where's the "imperialistic ego" in what I said?

U control flying in the parks created the noise ordinance against model aircraft – disregarding the danger. Today all the parks in Carrollton have occasional pilots playing with park flyers, just not frequently - with town council approval.

First off, there is NO ordinance against model airplanes per say. A number of years ago a DEAF member was run off a park by the police. The model airplanes were sited as "an attractive nuance". They later went to city hall and found that the department of parks and recreation upheld the officer's actions and was told that they could go before a judge if they felt they were wronged. The fact is that the parks and recreation department uses the ordinance 133.16(J) to prohibit RC aircraft in parks:

"133.16.(J) To participate or engage in any activity on any public park area when that activity will create a danger to the public or may be considered a public nuisance. The Parks and Recreation Board or the Director may designate particular locations within park areas for specific activities. Overnight camping is prohibited on any park property, except by special permit issued by the Director of Parks and Recreation."

Note it's the Parks and Recreation Board or the Director that decide if given types of activities are permitted, not the city council. Who and when did the city council give you permission to use the parks. Minutes are public record, so I intend to check. I too would like to use our parks IF it’s permitted. What channel did you say you are on?

Second, there is NO ordinance against U-control airplanes. The only reference to model planes has to do with a general noise ordinance that prohibits RC internal combustion engines (as well as an assortment of other noise sources) to be used between the hours of 10PM to 7AM the following day, within 1000 feet of any residential area. Code 130.18 (3):

" Operating of model aircraft, boats, vehicles or other such devices powered by internal combustion or other loud engines, whether tethered or not, within 1,000 feet of a residential area between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day."


They never did catch the pilot flying over Lewisville at 3500 ft (and the so called pilot that claimed he saw the aircraft flying along side his jet is still flying [the story was news media distortions of intermingled radar and “hey, buddy do you see anything?”]

Help me out here…

… to the point that I almost lost one field because of a couple of Love Songs that were launched by winch, and they climbed to 3K altitude over downtown Carrollton TX. The FAA came out (yes, they saw them on radar) and warned us to stop, and that criminal action will start if caught again…

You’re not intermixing the two events? From what field did these two “Love Songs” launch from?

PS The Pilot Point sod farms (that the SLNT members avoid like the plague) uses my winch for launching toy sailplanes - Shuttles to Paragons.

Al, it’s not the field we are avoiding…

Keep it up Al. You’re ‘fun’ to play with!

Gary
--

[histarter]

1. Officers played bad cop, bad cop! They did not go further. No quoted violations. They simply took the 5 of us by total surprise, and we listened and obeyed! Love Songs are gone - never to fly at Heads Park.
2. “First off, there is NO ordinance against model airplanes per say”. Correct! There is a noise ordinance that the police started to write me up for, until I demonstrated no motor, they then backed off and reported no noise no motor, and let me fly while they watched! [FYI this is another seperate incident at Heads Park, i.e. some one saw me unpacking and setting up, and they called the cops].
3. And; “or may be considered a public nuisance” demonstrates what I said earlier about twisting rules, under color of law – with weak jurisdictional control.
4. Gary, the noise ordinance did initiate with control line. I have been with the Carrollton city managers, along with Mike’s Hobbies 'Gary', pressuring for flying fields dedicated to RC (power and gliders)! Unfortunately soccer wins!
5. Two separate incidents. Lewisville "3500 ft formation flying" got Dallas press notoriety!! Years after Carrollton’s escapade! In fact it occurred last year – and was totally humorous! I thought you were aware of that fiasco, so excuse me!
6. “Keep it up Al. You’re ‘fun’ to play with!” Now that’s the real problem here that links us back to the maturity question! :confused: Now. we should question mine for responding!! :D
7. Flames are out Gary, try to coast instead of toast! :)

[Gary Warner]

Al,

I really am laughing, dude. When I say "fun", it's fun. Don't read anything derogatory into that. This whole thing would have been a dead issue if you hadn’t seen fit to PM me a nasty note filled with 'little minded words'. That’s why I’m calling you on these ‘facts’. You know you ask for it when you constantly pound the SLNT and them respond in like, right? Were you expecting something else?

I'm still waiting to have some of my questions answered, especially the one about the city council. Also, Heads Park? Dude, ANY sailplane flying in that airspace is just bad judgment, rules or not. That's not only under the Class B, It's in the Class D of Addison. I think only New York And LAX might have a more congested airspace corridor. I REALLY hope you never hit anything out there. It would be bad enough for you, but it could kill our hobby in Dallas.

Dude, we fly together from time to time. You're alright. You are also very fun for pushing buttons. It's amazing how your 'lights' go on when we talk at the field. I'm convinced that if the conversation was boring, you'd rather shoot yourself than to be forced to listen to such 'normal' stuff. You think out of the box, so you should know by now that your skin is going to have to be a bit thicker than most.

I'm smiling dude, really. But, lets not go down the maturity road. You don't need to slander my character that way. I'm mature enough to handle myself and I'm in no big hurry to become an old fart. Your mature enough to be convinced that you are right and well, you've earned that. End of name calling!

Question (back on topic)...

Since you are flying a 'maximum' of 900', would you be happy to see a 1000' height restriction in place? Do you think it will further the 'toy' sailplane hobby or hurt it?

Also, do you think Carrollton might consider us using the Sandy Lake landfill when it's caped off, maybe for electrics? With the park next door and scant residential areas it would be a good site. But it is in congested airspace, I know.

Gary
--

BTW, ask anyone who knows me... I use 'Dude' as a sign of endearment, reserved for those who I consider friends that I can goof around with, though many today think it's something else. My uncle was called Dude, that's where I got it from, long before it was slang. Mom says "Dude" was my first word.

[SoCalGliderFlyr]

"Dude" is reserved for those younger than 20 and with in 3 miles of the southern California coast line. You can't use it any more. Sorry.

[histarter]

Question (back on topic)...
Since you are flying a 'maximum' of 900', would you be happy to see a 1000' height restriction in place? Do you think it will further the 'toy' sailplane hobby or hurt it?
Also, do you think Carrollton might consider us using the Sandy Lake landfill when it's caped off, maybe for electrics? With the park next door and scant residential areas it would be a good site. But it is in congested airspace, I know.
So Cal was my home before I was drafted!
In my honest (libertarian) opinion, I hate to see any unnecessary restrictions put into place, creating rules on top of law. I love and respect high tech, but simply feel it is not for everyone. I am not into blindly following paradigms that encourage peer pressure, instead of free thought. I loved the era of flying high and far, but also miss the integrating event that was not biased to perfection that was taken away from us modelers.
My mentors, Don Chancey and Dave Thornburg, were into impromtu contests, that were similar to the Chicago Modelnuts - my second home after military duty. Grab a GL and go for it. Don once won a evening meet with his son's 2X4 (HB kit). :eek: A skilled pilot doesn't need exotics to be successful. :)

A 1000 foot restriction will improve design concepts - especially with the future short launchings imposed by the FAI. If England adapts to 'less' faster than America, they will be the new World Champs by default! :eek:

Carrollton has town hall meetings at Hebron High School. Attending them with a strong following when subjects like Sandy Lake Landfill come up would be wise. I was there for the first public hearing; to learn the score on a following being prime leverage.

I like dude (young), and wish I didn't creek so much! :(