|Sep 10, 2013, 11:09 PM|
That's not at all what I said. Please re-read it. I explained what the various areas mean
specifically over the Clarksville area. Simply put Clarksville is covered by Class E
controlled airspace starting at 700ft AGL, and south of Clarksville class E starts
at 1200ft AGL. Class G, uncontrolled airspace below that.
|Sep 10, 2013, 11:38 PM|
|Sep 10, 2013, 11:58 PM|
None of this is as black and white as you're trying to make it.
Look at the areas defined on the sectional and you'll have to determine where you
are located relative to them.
I'm only telling you where controlled airspace begins. Where you fly, is
up to you. There will be other full scale aircraft below the controlled airspace,
*generally* down to no lower than 500ft AGL over semi-rural areas. The FAA has
no *specific* regulations regarding RC aircraft in any airspace unless there's a TFR
which will actually say something about all types of aircraft including ultralights, and
model aircraft. We usually operate in a grey area, and it's up to you to decide
what relevance you place on the defined airspace above you. There are AMA RC fields
right next to airports, and well inside class B bubbles which reach down to
|Sep 11, 2013, 01:48 AM|
Joined Aug 2013
Thanks for the replies guys.
But I still don't understand why the US would make some frequencies illegal and legal when having a HAM license.
I think they should do like, under 100mw no ham required, above 100mw ham license required.
|Sep 11, 2013, 02:32 AM|
Joined Apr 2010
advanced of them do have the option to basically transmit on almost any
frequency and power they want. Obviously there are always going to be
bands that cannot be transmitted on (military, licensed, etc).
Well, what you think is not worth very much when you obviously know so
little. There are reasons why that is a bad idea, maybe when you start
studying for your tech class license you'll figure it out...
|Sep 11, 2013, 08:46 AM|
|Sep 11, 2013, 09:26 AM|
United States, OH, Troy
Joined Oct 2010
R-3702 A-B: Restricted basically from surface to 25000 feet intermittently- notification by NOTAM (notice to airmen)
Campbell MOA: 500 feet AGL to 10000 feet, 0700 to 2000
Campbell 2 MOA: 1500 feet AGL to 10000 feet, 0700 to 2000
Alert Area 371: Ground level to 2000 feet. That just means folks are watching what is going on around the base- so you stand a decent chance of being watched, or more of a chance than someone flying outside the Alert Area.
Plus there's a pretty wide Class D area, which is tower controlled from the surface to 3100 feet.
I'd fly south east of the city. Anywhere else is pretty cluttered with multiple control areas and you might get yourself in trouble.
|Sep 11, 2013, 12:39 PM|
Joined Nov 2006
Sectional maps can show you where you should not be such as restricted areas and controlled airspace but they will not tell you how high you can fly a model plane.
The best guidance at this time on altitude is AMA safety code (105).
|Sep 11, 2013, 03:47 PM|
United States, OH, Troy
Joined Oct 2010
Yes they can. If you fly into controlled airspace, you're breaking the law. Controlled airspace applies to anything that flies that is man made. A balloon, a kite, a paper airplane- it doesn't matter.
|Sep 11, 2013, 04:11 PM|
Where does it say anywhere that airspace regulations or any other regulations in the FARs apply to hobbyist model aircraft? The answer is it doesn't. Nowhere have model aircraft EVER been defined in regulation or even policy as aircraft for purposes of regulatory applicability. Occasionally you will see NOTAMS or other airspace restrictions that specifically state that they apply to model aircraft, but there is nothing of that nature for general airspace classifications.
There have been AMA fields operating in controlled airspace for decades without any formal authorization from the FAA allowing them to do so. Are you saying they've been breaking the law for years and just nobody knew it or bothered to enforce it? And if you consider model aircraft "aircraft" for regulatory purposes, barring an express exemption which I guarantee you does not exist, that means EVERYTHING in Part 91 applies, including licensure, airworthiness certification, transponders, everything. That includes FAR 91.119 on minimum altitude restrictions, which directly CONTRADICTS the FAA's guidance for model aircraft in AC 91-57. AC 91-57 recommends model aircraft stay below 400 feet, while FAR 91.119 requires all civil aircraft to fly over 500 feet unless another exception elsewhere in the FARS applies. So which is it? The only way you can avoid a contradictory result is to assume that model aircraft are not "aircraft" for purposes of regulatory applicability and NOTHING in the FARs applies--including airspace restrictions unless they expressly say they apply to model aircraft.
Any other assumption produces a patently absurd result, not to mention leading to the conclusion that modelers have been breaking the law for decades with the FAA's tacit approval. Did you know it is a very serious federal crime to operate an "aircraft" without a pilot's license? So if your interpretation is correct and model aircraft are considered "aircraft" within the meaning of Federal aviation law, 12 year old Johnny could go to prison for 3 years for flying his park flyer without a pilots license. That's the logical conclusion of your position, which is simply absurd.
It has never been the FAA's policy to treat model aircraft the same as manned aircraft, and they have never stated that general airspace classification restrictions apply. Thus the only logical conclusion is that they DO NOT APPLY. It's a good idea to be aware of the airspace you're flying in and to avoid flying in more heavily trafficked areas, but nowhere are you required BY LAW to abide by airspace classifications and avoid flying in any particular class airspace. The only exception to this is NOTAMS or special restricted zones like the DC FRZ which expressly prohibit model aircraft operations where the restriction is in effect. As long as you're not flying in one of those zones, legally you are perfectly fine flying wherever you want.
|Sep 11, 2013, 11:02 PM|
Meanwhile, the FAA’s release of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would enable wider use of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the U.S. has been further delayed and is now expected early next year. The agency originally expected to issue the proposed rule governing the operation of small UAS weighing up to 55 pounds in December 2011.
Last month at the Unmanned Systems 2013 conference, Williams said he expected the FAA would release the NPRM for comment by the end of this year. But the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) still must clear the rule and has been slowed by across-the-board “sequestration” budget cuts, he said Wednesday. “Every rule has to go through OMB, and their bandwidth has been reduced,” he added.
|Sep 12, 2013, 07:04 AM|
Joined Nov 2006
How models can be flown in NAS and under which rules has been beat to death and I'm not interested in reopening the issue. There is however one point in this regard that has been often stated as fact that I believe is incorrect that being that FAA cannot take legal action against model aviation because there is no law governing its use. This to me isnít cut and dried but more of a gray area as I will explain.
The following Federal Register 2/6/2007 publication (see below in highlighted in red) clearly explains that specific authority is required for any aircraft operating in NAS and for amateur models that authority has been AC 91-57. While AC 91-57 is not a law FAA has officially stated that it is considered authority for amateur models and I have no doubt that actions citing public endangerment could and likely would be taken if ever there were a serious accident between a model and a licensed aircraft.
I do not believe that FAA wants any more involvement with amateur models than is absolutely necessary for safety reasons and would be happy to see AMA administer the safety rules. The way their rules are currently written is likely to be the close to the final version and I believe it would be in our best interest to consider them our guideline. What individuals do is their business but as a group position this would make sense.
Rules and Regulations
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FAA-2006-25714; Notice No. 07-01]
Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of policy; opportunity for feedback.
SUMMARY: This document clarifies the FAA's current policy concerning
operations of unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth D. Davis, Manager, Unmanned
Aircraft Program Office, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591, (202) 385-4636, e-mail: email@example.com.
Simply stated, an unmanned aircraft is a device that is used, or is
intended to be used, for flight in the air with no onboard pilot. These
devices may be as simple as a remotely controlled model aircraft used
for recreational purposes or as complex as surveillance aircraft flying
over hostile areas in warfare. They may be controlled either manually
or through an autopilot using a data link to connect the pilot to their
aircraft. They may perform a variety of public services: Surveillance,
collection of air samples to determine levels of pollution, or rescue
and recovery missions in crisis situations. They range in size from
wingspans of six inches to 246 feet; and can weigh from approximately
four ounces to over 25,600 pounds. The one thing they have in common is
that their numbers and uses are growing dramatically. In the United
States alone, approximately 50 companies, universities, and government
organizations are developing and producing some 155 unmanned aircraft
designs. Regulatory standards need to be developed to enable current
technology for unmanned aircraft to comply with Title 14 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR).
The Federal Aviation Administration's current policy is based on
whether the unmanned aircraft is used as a public aircraft, civil
aircraft or as a model aircraft.
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operating as Public Aircraft
The most common public use of unmanned aircraft today in the United
States is by the Department of Defense. U.S. operations in Iraq,
Afghanistan and elsewhere have fueled a huge increase in unmanned
aircraft demand. In Iraq alone, more than 700 unmanned aircraft are in
use for surveillance and weapons delivery.
Other agencies have also found public uses for unmanned aircraft.
For example, the Customs and Border Protection uses them to patrol
along the US/Mexican border. In the future, unmanned aircraft could be
used to provide first responder reports of damage due to weather or
other catastrophic causes.
In response to this growing demand for public use unmanned aircraft
operations, the FAA developed guidance in a Memorandum titled
``Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U.S. National Airspace
System--Interim Operational Approval Guidance'' (UAS Policy 05-01). In
this document, the FAA set out guidance for public use of unmanned
aircraft by defining a process for evaluating applications for
Certificate(s) of Waiver or Authorization (COA's) for unmanned aircraft
to operate in the National Airspace System. The concern was not only
that unmanned aircraft operations might interfere with commercial and
general aviation aircraft operations, but that they could also pose a
safety problem for other airborne vehicles, and persons or property on
the ground. The FAA guidance supports unmanned aircraft flight activity
that can be conducted at an acceptable level of safety. In order to
ensure this level of safety, the operator is required to establish the
Unmanned Aircraft System's (UAS) airworthiness either from FAA
certification, a DOD airworthiness statement, or by other approved
means. Applicants also have to demonstrate that a collision with
another aircraft or other airspace user is extremely improbable as well
as complying with appropriate cloud and terrain clearances as required.
Key to the concept are the roles of pilot-in-command (PIC) and
observer. The PIC concept is essential to the safe operation of manned
aircraft. The FAA's UAS guidance applies this PIC concept to unmanned
aircraft and includes minimum qualifications and currency requirements.
The PIC is simply the person in control of, and responsible for, the
UAS. The role of the observer is to observe the activity of the
unmanned aircraft and surrounding airspace, either through line-of-
sight on the ground or in the air by means of a chase aircraft. In
general, this means the pilot or observer must be, in most cases,
within 1 mile laterally and 3,000 feet vertically of the unmanned
aircraft. Direct communication between the PIC and the observer must be
maintained at all times. Unmanned aircraft flight above 18,000 feet
must be conducted under Instrument Flight Rules, on an IFR flight plan,
must obtain ATC clearance, be equipped with at least a Mode C
transponder (preferably Mode S), operating navigation lights and / or
collision avoidance lights and maintain communication between the PIC
and Air Traffic Control (ATC). Unmanned aircraft flights below 18,000
feet have similar requirements, except that if operators choose to
operate on other than an IFR flight plan, they may be required to pre-
coordinate with ATC.
The FAA has issued more than 50 COA's over the past 2 years and
anticipates issuing a record number of COA's this year.
For more information, Memorandum on UAS Policy (05-01) and other
policy guidance is available at the FAA Web site: http://www.faa.gov/uas
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operating as Civil Aircraft
Just as unmanned aircraft have a variety of uses in the public
sector, their application in commercial or civil use is equally
diverse. This is a quickly growing and important industry. Under FAA
policy, operators who wish to fly an unmanned aircraft for civil use
obtain an FAA airworthiness certificate the same as any other type
aircraft. The FAA is currently only issuing special airworthiness
certificates in the experimental category. Experimental certificates
are issued with accompanying operational limitations (14 CFR 91.319)
that are appropriate to the applicant's operation. The FAA has issued
five experimental certificates for unmanned aircraft systems for the
purposes of research and development, marketing surveys, or crew
training. UAS issued experimental certificates may not be used for
compensation or hire.
The applicable regulations for an experimental certificate are
found in 14 CFR 21.191, 21.193, and 21.195. In general, the applicant
must state the intended use for the UAS and provide sufficient
information to satisfy the FAA that the aircraft can be operated
safely. The time or number of flights must be specified along with a
description of the areas over which the aircraft would operate. The
application must also include drawings or detailed photographs of the
aircraft. An on-site review of the system and demonstration of the area
of operation may be required. Additional information on how to apply
for an experimental airworthiness certificate is available from Richard
Posey, AIR-200, (202) 267-9538; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Recreational/Sport Use of Model Airplanes
In 1981, in recognition of the safety issues raised by the
operation of model aircraft, the FAA published Advisory Circular (AC)
91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards for the purpose of providing
guidance to persons interested in flying model aircraft as a hobby or
for recreational use. This guidance encourages good judgment on the
part of operators so that persons on the ground or other aircraft in
flight will not be endangered. The AC contains among other things,
guidance for site selection. Users are advised to avoid noise sensitive
areas such as parks, schools, hospitals, and churches. Hobbyists are
advised not to fly in the vicinity of spectators until they are
confident that the model aircraft has been flight tested and proven
airworthy. Model aircraft should be flown below 400 feet above the
surface to avoid other aircraft in flight. The FAA expects that
hobbyists will operate these recreational model aircraft within visual
line-of-sight. While the AC 91-57 was developed for model aircraft,
some operators have used the AC as the basis for commercial flight
The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may
operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific
authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the
COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special
airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers
might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are
legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only
applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons
or companies for business purposes.
The FAA has undertaken a safety review that will examine the
feasibility of creating a different category of unmanned ``vehicles''
that may be defined by the operator's visual line of sight and are also
small and slow enough to adequately mitigate hazards to other aircraft
and persons on the ground. The end product of this analysis may be a
new flight authorization instrument similar to AC 91-57, but focused on
operations which do not qualify as sport and recreation, but also may
not require a certificate of airworthiness. They will, however, require
compliance with applicable FAA regulations and guidance developed for
Feedback regarding current FAA policy for Unmanned Aircraft Systems
can be submitted at http://www.faa.gov/uas. (Scroll down to the bottom
of the page and find Contact UAPO. Click into this link.)
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 6, 2007.
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety.
[FR Doc. E7-2402 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
|Sep 12, 2013, 08:20 AM|
Here's a question that I have yet to see anybody answer. What legal basis does the FAA have for asserting that "no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority"? Strangely for a legal document, the 2007 policy statement contains no legal citation for that statement. An FAA policy statement does not have the force of law by itself. Policies can only clarify and interpret previously existing laws and regulations, not impose new ones. I have not yet been able to find any kind of general law stating that you need specific authority from the FAA to fly an unmanned aircraft, otherwise it is prohibited. This appears to be a case of the FAA overreaching by substituting a policy statement for regulation in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, trying to make new regulations by policy rather than the NPRM process. As such, I highly doubt this would hold up in court if challenged.
|Sep 12, 2013, 08:37 AM|
Sure, but who is going to challenge it? I contend that they changed their policy and have docs to support the assertion.
OMB told the FAA that what they had basically stunk. Secondly the White House was concerned about the privacy issue before the election and told the FAA to work on it.
|Category||Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Poll||Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Range||Gary Evans||FPV Talk||65||Aug 10, 2008 02:27 AM|
|Poll||Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Weight||Gary Evans||FPV Talk||16||Jul 30, 2008 01:30 PM|
|Poll||Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Altitude||Gary Evans||FPV Talk||52||Jul 30, 2008 01:05 PM|