What's new
By:
Aloft Forums

Welcome to Aloft Forums. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FAA 400ft Limit

jvaliensi

jvaliensi

Active User
Hi,
Gliders can fly higher than the recent FAA imposed 400ft limit is class G airspace. Many good launches result in that altitude. And how about slope flying.
Apollo Field at Sepulveda Basin was shut down by the FAA earlier this year. It is too close to Van Nuys airport. However, the local club, AMA, City of LA, Van Nuys and FAA were able to come to an agreement to reopen it. Now flights north of the model runway are prohibited and the max altitude is 250ft.

I see the AMA as our only lobbing group. We have little representation. There is much that can be done to protect the Hobbiest, public and manned aircraft operations. But collective model aviation community seems to have their heads stuck you know where. I wish we had the support of the EAA and were powerful like the NRA.
 
"There is much that can be done to protect the Hobbiest, public and manned aircraft operations". Such as? There is the waiver system.

There has been many local ordinances that have restricted modeling on the grounds of being a public nuance. We just now have the FEDs looking into this, based on some wanting to commercialized this airspace. We had much the same freedoms removed when the public airwaves where sold to make room for cell phones and the telecom conglomerates.

It is and always has been about money. And yes votes is about money.

All the best,
Konrad
 
It is a mess.

Personally I think the message needs to be that the RC Aviation Hobby has long existed with our airports and air spaces, often times allowing RC right at an airport with very little issue or concern. I understand the fear, but the reality is far from an actual threat IMHO. For that matter, what good does it do to make it difficult for all of the law abiding RC pilots, if someone wants to do harm they will not be following any laws. It is just stupid.

Shouldn't we take away all the cars as they kill more than 40,000 Americans each year. Makes more sense than taking away our RC flying.

I don't think anyone is all that excited about having drones fly around making deliveries.
 
Regulation and logic rarely follow. Just look at what we have with the "War on Drugs" totally irrational and has been for over 100 years.
 
I think the ideal solution would be the FAA mark the RC flying sites on the charts and give the manned aircraft altitude restrictions above the sites. This is done for many other things, ie power plants. I think the 400ft max altitude may be a good starting point, but in many places a much higher ceiling is needed.

I find, on RCG (gripes) many folks hate the AMA, perhaps more than the FAA. And these types of threads quickly deteriorate. I think the AMA accepted drones because they hope for more members. 200-300k is not enough. It does not help that AMA chases members away and modelers are so cheap the $75 fee is too much for many.

I've read that similar things are happening around the world. But some places models are taken more seriously, like Germany and France.

If there is a bad story about a RC model, it is a drone. Damn things require zero skill or sense to own and operate. They should not be in the same category as model airplanes.

I think the AMA stance as model airplanes flown as recreation is BS. What about education, competition, experimentation?
 
AMA had no choice but to bring on the drones. They present themselves as representing all of model aviation, and that includes drones. With that said, I like a LOT of what the AMA does and has done. They have done a lot in the past, but now that they are really needed they do seem to be failing. These last 5 years have been hard for them to adapt and represent.

There is nothing keeping someone from starting up a new organization that competes and tries to do a better job.

Those who complain probably are not members and probably never have been, do not understand, and or do nothing but complain on forums.

With that said, I don't think anyone is too happy with the FAA of late. They are being pulled in many different directions at the sametime. Some of the noises from the FAA are good and others are frightening.
 
I thought a little about a lobby group. I think it would need the support of the industry and hobby shops. I think education should be a big part of the mission statement. That may make it easier to attract other folks and get more support.
I'm kinda surprised the hobby industry hasn't taken more interest in this. The FAA seems to be on the path to outlaw model airplanes. I'd be concerned if I sold them.
 
We are all concerned with the regulatory reach of the federal administrative courts! But that was a congressional issue. The laws are on the books.

Having had to fight (deal) with the FAA almost weekly for the better part of 20 years. I have no sympathy for the administrator or his designee.
 
Last edited:
AMA is supposed to be taking on that role.. That is who I have been supporting. I am not aware of another option.
 
jvaliensi said:
...
I think the AMA stance as model airplanes flown as recreation is BS. What about education, competition, experimentation?
Click to expand...
To the regulator (revenuer, government) just about anything that doesn't generate a monetary return is recreational. Anyway the three categories your list are well within what I think of a recreational. I love learning, competing, and experimentation those three pillars are what draw me to this hobby.

I can see how the quadcopter can fit in your concern about education, competition, experimentation.

We as modelers are an insignificant voting block. We don't have the numbers nor the finance to sway the political machine directly.
How would you get both the numbers and monies to mount an "effective" lobbying group?


All the best,
Konrad
 
theres the rub...
Before drones, our small (tiny) community size kept us off the radar, we attracted about as much attention as a knitting group at the Y.
After drones, we get tossed in with the people who cannot behave rationally, which are a much larger group.
 
Drones or not, the low level airspace was doomed to be regulated when entities wanted to commercialize the space. That toy quadcoptor is a red hearing. If one wants to blame anyone or anything it should be the piezoelectric gyro, and GPS. True nether is needed to enjoy "our hobby". But these did change the landscape, sorry airspace. The quadcopter just takes advantage of this tech. The toy quadcoptor is not the real reason that governments want to regulated the space.
 
The FAA was deep into the regulatory stages way before "Trappy" challenged the FAA and won. Anybody that makes it hard for the government regulator has my respect. (Yes, he was/is a fool in the way he flew. But the FAA, our government officials, were idiots in the way they over stepped their authority. And the courts agreed! In the end we will have clearer regulations. If you think this is a bad thing then Pirker is to be on your enemy list. But be aware the regulations were well on their way because big money needs them. Not because the feelings of the FAA were hurt by a nobody with his toys). If you want to place blame on an entity look to DJI and Amazon. These are billon dollar entities that want to commercialize this segment of the airspace. They are the ones that want controls on the airspace so that they can point to the regulators should anything go wrong.

I think it was way back in the 2013 appropriations bill that the AMA got a rider that the FAA was to stay away from models. The reason the AMA lobbied for this is that the FAA had been under pressure to do just that. Much of that pressure came from the police chief's that did not want their anti-riot activities scrutinized. Just recall what the Ferguson police did to the airspace over Ferguson to keep the NEWS heli away! They knew the power of video, recalling the Rodney King videos. They could and did ground the news heli's on a what was later admitted as a false pretext. Can you just guess how hard it would be for the police to keep the drones grounded when the police want or think they may step outside the law! The 1st amendment might protect one but it will cost a lot of time and money to reverse the charges and fines the FAA could levy if FAA has the appearance of regulatory jurisdiction.

We RC-Modelers are small fry to the bigger picture. But we fly in the contested airspace and to the authorities we can posse a threat.

As deep throat (Mark Felts) said; Follow the money!

All the best,
Konrad
 
Last edited:
From a historical point of view some folks like to point out that models have been flying in the same airspace with little if any issues for 50 plus years. While that may be so, the regulatory environment changed drastically after the ValuJet Flight 592 Everglades crash. The NTBS rightly tore apart the FAA for its lack of oversight. As a result the FAA lost its dual mandate to promote and regulate aviation. Its mandate is now to only REGULATE. There is no agency priority to promote.

It has been known that much interest in full size aviation comes from modeling. This is why in the past the FAA had no issue with models. Models fit squarely in the dual mandate. The FAA no longer has this mandate! Models are in the public airspace and must be regulated by law. The quadcopter had nothing to do with this. The quadcopter came into prominence in this time frame into this regulatory environment. It did not cause this asinine environment!

As a side note the 737-MAX debacle should tear apart the FAA and congress for the faulty and asinine idea that corporations can self regulate! Time and time again this is proven false! (Just look at the ethical and moral standing of the last couple of Boeing CEO. Why would we really think they are capable of making ethical business decision?) Boeing needs to be broken up! Allow honorable firms to fill the void. The big pig that is Boeing needs to go! Congress needs to fund the FAA, FDA and EPA to protect the citizenry and stop gutting the protection we need against profit only motivated corporations (management)!

Wow, was that I that just wrote we need strong government regulation?

So yes we as modelers will never again have the environment we enjoyed. But the toy quadcopter had nothing to do with this change. It the quadcopter (drone) is just a convenient escape goat. Just take a look at the name "drone" the regulators use. Prior to this I had a negative feeling about the term drone as I had associated the term with autonomous hunting and killing machines from my sci-fi readings.

All the best,
Konrad
 
Last edited:
I’m just a retired transportation trial lawyer of forty years (defending common carriers by land, sea and air), with a JD AND an Ll.M., and a commercial license with an ATP, type rated in several gas turbines, but what would I know?

First, the “courts” were never involved. All proceedings were before an agency, the FAA, which is part of the executive, not judicial branch, an ADMINISTRATIVE law “judge,” an employee of the executive branch with “judicial powers,” (an Article I “judge” not an Article III “true” judge employed by the judicial branch), and finally, the NTSB, another agency of the executive branch, exercising “judicial powers” under Article I to administratively determine issues of law and fact. Secondly, an Article III court (a real judge, not merely an agency employee clothed with judge like powers), was NEVER involved, but would have had Crappy ever appealed, or had the FAA done so (D.C. Circuit). Thirdly, the NTSB rightly determined the device was an “aircraft” within the FAA’s regulatory authority as DELEGATED by Congress in the enabling acts, and fourth, Crappy and his crap bird lawyer blinked, didn’t go to trial, and pleaded no contest which allowed the FAA determination to become final as he did not appeal to the D.C. Circuit as he had a right to do under a nolo contendere plea, no doubt fearing the appellate court would affirm the NTSB and sanction him with its attorneys fees.

Sum: Crappy and his Crappy lawyer were soundly defeated as he was substantively determined by an agency, with authority, to have operated an aircraft recklessly, which he allowed to become final and non appealable, and but for this outrage by Crappy, the FAA’s regulatory authority over US viz reckless operation would not be a legal certainty, but would remain a valid defense issue. He and his arse wipe attorney closed the door, and both were beaten like drums.

I’ve known several Commissioners, including the acting NTSB commission at the time of Crappy’s Nolo plea, and I can tell you that several agencies viewed it as a triumph which made certain rational regulations would be adopted to regulate what likely would have resulted in a tragedy by now.

I’m no conspiracy theorist, just a retired old transportation lawyer, thankful the FAA and the NTSB acted as they did, but I’m shocked the arse wipe wound up where he did.

You can believe whatever you want, as it is not a fact of consequence to anything, and you can give my opinions whatever weight or credibility you desire.

I wish no further debate with you over these issues, or, really, any, though I respect and defend your right to express opinions, even those mistakenly entertained.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Konrad said:
We are all concerned with the regulatory reach of the federal administrative courts! But that was a congressional issue. The laws are on the books.

Having had to fight (deal) with the FAA almost weekly for the better part of 20 years. I have no sympathy for the administrator or his designee.
Click to expand...
This is why I used the term Federal Administrative Courts. I bow to your experience with regard to details of TRAPPY's case. I never really followed it. I still hold firm that Raphael Pirker had nothing to do with the current regulatory environment. That seed can be found in the ValueJet crash.

All the best,
Konrad
 
We are on different planets and I wish no further discourse with you.
 
Fine with me.

That case did bring to the forefront many ambiguities with many of the FAA's own 2007 polices Which the FAA later conceded were not mandatory. Later on clarity on many of these policies points was/is welcomed. Not sure how the courts would have dealt with the foreign national issue. But we won't know as Raphael Pirker got the case dropped for a $1100 fine. A win in my book.

The FAA needed to take a stance just not sure why they choose this case. Even the NTSB had some grave reservation as to why the FAA pursued this case.

I can tell you I've had a few run in with the FAA that cost much more than that, just to clear up their misunderstanding of my maintenance program for some turbo machinery (appliance) with regard of cycle life limits. It is incumbent upon all of us to stand up to the authorities. Make them prove their position.

In case one doesn't know this, unlike criminal courts, in the eyes of the Federal Administrative Courts you are guilty until proven otherwise. This is why I always challenged any legal action. Just for the record the the FAA was fine being shown that I was not in violation of XYZ. I just had to show how what I was doing was compliant with XYZ. The problem with fighting cycle life limits is that each occurrence could carry a huge fine. This drove off the units while I showed that the FAA was IN ERROR. This resulted in unnecessary expense (unit removal and rental cost for replacements). I could not recover that expense, only the fine.

To be clear Trappy is nobody's hero. It is the FAA that was under scrutiny and should always be looked at under a microscope. Like now with the 737-MAX, the FAA with its claim that aircraft are so complicated that they need industry help. I sure hope the FDA doesn't use this line. It was the FDA standing up to Grunenthal and kept Thalidomide out of the USA. The FAA needs to grow a set of balls to stand up to Boeing. It was a woman scientist (regulator) at the FDA that said no too Thalidomide in the 50's. I can tell you that pharmaceutical interaction are far more complicated and not near as well understood as aerodynamic and programing problems. The FAA could learn a thing of two from the FDA!

All the best,
Konrad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top