What FARs cover R/C drones?

[Jim Logajan]

The following news item has the FAA on the Los Angeles' sheriff's case
about the sheriff's use of R/C planes. I've searched the FARs in the past
to see if I could find what regs covered radio controlled (or more
interestingly, autonomous) aircraft and came up with nothing. I think the
Sheriff has a valid question in asking why they need a "certificate of
authorization" but Joe citizen does not. Here's a link to the story and
relevant quoted portions:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/14875403.htm

"Federal authorities have temporarily grounded Sheriff Lee Baca's plans to
fight crime using unmanned surveillance drones.

Baca hopes to use the small, remote-controlled planes to monitor events
such as standoffs and hostage situations, and search for fleeing suspects.
Last week, sheriff's officials demonstrated one of the 3-foot-long planes
in an abandoned field, showing it take off, beam video images 250 feet to
deputies below, and land.

The test, however, irked officials from the Federal Aviation
Administration, who said they had told the Sheriff's Department that it
needed a certificate of authorization from the FAA before flying the
planes."
....
""A private citizen can go to the store and buy one of those model
airplanes and fly them around. But because we're doing it as a public
service, we have to deal with the FAA?" said Sheriff's Cmdr. Sid Heal."

So what are FARs cover R/C aircraft (is there a weight or size threshold)?
Also, what FARs would cover autonomous (robot controlled) aircraft?

[Bob Gardner]

According to this morning's paper, the FAA has shot down the LA Sherrif's
proposal. Never mind.

Bob Gardner

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> The following news item has the FAA on the Los Angeles' sheriff's case
> about the sheriff's use of R/C planes. I've searched the FARs in the past
> to see if I could find what regs covered radio controlled (or more
> interestingly, autonomous) aircraft and came up with nothing. I think the
> Sheriff has a valid question in asking why they need a "certificate of
> authorization" but Joe citizen does not. Here's a link to the story and
> relevant quoted portions:
>
> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/14875403.htm
>
> "Federal authorities have temporarily grounded Sheriff Lee Baca's plans to
> fight crime using unmanned surveillance drones.
>
> Baca hopes to use the small, remote-controlled planes to monitor events
> such as standoffs and hostage situations, and search for fleeing suspects.
> Last week, sheriff's officials demonstrated one of the 3-foot-long planes
> in an abandoned field, showing it take off, beam video images 250 feet to
> deputies below, and land.
>
> The test, however, irked officials from the Federal Aviation
> Administration, who said they had told the Sheriff's Department that it
> needed a certificate of authorization from the FAA before flying the
> planes."
> ...
> ""A private citizen can go to the store and buy one of those model
> airplanes and fly them around. But because we're doing it as a public
> service, we have to deal with the FAA?" said Sheriff's Cmdr. Sid Heal."
>
> So what are FARs cover R/C aircraft (is there a weight or size threshold)?
> Also, what FARs would cover autonomous (robot controlled) aircraft?

[Randy Aldous]

Jim Logajan wrote:
[snipped]
> So what are FARs cover R/C aircraft (is there a weight or size threshold)?
> Also, what FARs would cover autonomous (robot controlled) aircraft?

A Google search, using "FAA radio-control aircraft" and "FAA UAV vs
model aircraft" as the criteria, came up with the following.... from
what I have read, the FAA has some legitimate concerns about UAV
operations, especially in busy airspace (which would be the most likely
places that the law enforcment folks would want to use them, I would
think.) -

"A private citizen can go to the store and buy one of those model
airplanes and fly them around. But because we're doing it as a public
service, we have to deal with the FAA?" said Sheriff's Cmdr. Sid Heal."
- The Sheriff's Cmdr. apparently doesn't understand the difference
between the RC Models and a UAV.

http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/03-29-06/03-29-06memo.html

http://www.acq.osd.mil/uas/docs/airspace2.doc

http://www.politechbot.com/2006/03/29/surveillance-in-the/

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-358461.html

Randy

[Peter Duniho]

"Randy Aldous" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> So what are FARs cover R/C aircraft (is there a weight or size
>> threshold)?
>> Also, what FARs would cover autonomous (robot controlled) aircraft?
>
> A Google search, using "FAA radio-control aircraft" and "FAA UAV vs
> model aircraft" as the criteria, came up with the following.... from
> what I have read, the FAA has some legitimate concerns about UAV
> operations, especially in busy airspace

IMHO, the FAA has a legitimate concern regarding UAV use *anywhere* within
the US, busy airspace or not. They have indicated as much in imposing TFRs
for the purpose of operating UAVs along the southern border (even if that is
a less-than-satisfactory solution).

> [...]
> "A private citizen can go to the store and buy one of those model
> airplanes and fly them around. But because we're doing it as a public
> service, we have to deal with the FAA?" said Sheriff's Cmdr. Sid Heal."
> - The Sheriff's Cmdr. apparently doesn't understand the difference
> between the RC Models and a UAV.

Well, to be fair, even looking at the links you offered, it seems he's not
alone. I'm a bit surprised that there doesn't appear to be anything in the
FARs that at least provides an exception from the FARs for the operation of
radio-controlled models, but perhaps that's implied by some broader
exception I didn't notice.

That said, it does seem to me that there's an obvious difference between
what is considered a UAV (as used by law enforcement, for example) and a
radio-controlled model. Even ignoring the usual difference in size and
flight altitude (which we may as well, since those are not absolutes even
for model airplanes), the primary difference is that radio-controlled models
are always flown in direct sight, under direct control of the operator. And
if they weren't, I would say that would put them squarely into the UAV
category, and subject to the same FAA oversight.

I do find it interesting that the rcgroups.com thread seems to be focusing
somewhat on the commercial vs recreational aspects:

> http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-358461.html

While I wouldn't be completely surprised if the FAA chose that route to
differentiation, I think it would make more sense to focus on the size of
the aircraft and degree of operator involvement. Of most concern is an
operator who is not in the immediate area, looking directly at the aircraft
and the airspace around it.

In this respect, Cmdr. Sid Heal does seem to miss the point in thinking that
his law enforcement craft are somehow equivalent to radio-controlled model
airplanes. But it would be nice if the written law were a bit more clear on
the matter, so that people who don't see these obvious differences can be
referred to a document that gives them something to consider.

Pete

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:08:03 -0000, Jim Logajan > wrote in
>:

>So what are FARs cover R/C aircraft (is there a weight or size threshold)?

The FAA accepts the Academy of Model Aeronautics definition of a recreational
model as weighing 55 lbs (dry, I think) and operating under 400' altitude
(a provision busted every day by all kinds of RC aircraft).

From:
http://www.ihsaviation.com/faa/N8700.25.pdf

NOTICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
N 8700.25
10/10/03
Cancellation
Date: 10/10/04
SUBJ: INQUIRIES RELATED TO UNMANNED AEROSPACE VEHICLE OPERATIONS

NOTE: This notice does not apply to the recreational, noncommercial use of model
aircraft. It is not intended to inhibit or restrict the routine operation of
model aircraft for recreational purposes. (The Academy of Model Aeronautics, in
part, defines model aircraft as weighing less than 55 pounds and being
operated below 400 feet above ground level.) Additional guidance for the
operation of these aircraft is provided in Advisory Circular AC 91-57, Model
Aircraft Operating Standards, dated June 9, 1981.

http://www.eoss.org/faa/AFS_400_UAS_POLICY_05_01.pdf

"AFS-400 UAS POLICY 05-01
TITLE: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the U. S. National Airspace
System - Interim Operational Approval Guidance
DATE: September 16, 2005
1. Purpose: AFS-400 UAS Policy 05-01 provides guidance to be used to determine
if unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) may be allowed to conduct flight operations
in the U. S. National Airspace System (NAS). AFS-400 personnel will use this
policy guidance when evaluating each application for a Certificate of Waiver or
Authorization (COA). Due to the rapid evolution of UAS technology, this policy
will be subject to continuous review and updated when appropriate."

The police officer probably ran afoul of this provision:

"6.11. Flight Over Congested or Populated Areas. If flight over congested areas,
heavily trafficked roads, or an open-air assembly of persons is required, the
applicant must provide information that clearly establishes that the risk of
injury to persons on the ground is highly unlikely."


Both documents refer back to a 1981 advisory circular under which the
Academy of Model Aeronautics has been operating:

http://www.eoss.org/faa/ac91-57.pdf

"1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntary
compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators.

"2. BACKGROUND. Modelers, generally, are concerned about safety and do exercise
good judgement when flying model aircraft. However, model.aircraft can
at times pose a hazard to full-scale aircraft in flight and to personsand
property on the surface. Compliance with the following standards will help
reduce the potential for that hazard and create a good neighbor environment
with affected communities and airspace users.

"3. OPERATING STANDARDS.

"a. Select an operating site that is of sufficient distance from populated
areas. The selected site should be away from noise sensitive areas such as
parks, schools, hospitals, churches, etc.

"b. Do not operate model aircraft in the presence of spectators until the
aircraft is successfully flight tested and proven airworthy.

"c. Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface.
When flying aircraft within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator,
or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport, notify the control
tower, or flight service station.

"d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of, full-scale
aircraft. Use observers to help if possible.

"e. Do not hesitate to ask for assistance from any airport traffic control
concerning compliance with these standards."

RC aircraft have been grounded by the FAA at various times under
SFARS or NOTAMS for security purposes--during the Utah Olympics,
when a major politico is attending an outdoor event. etc.

I've been flying RC models for about 11 years:
<http://moleski.net>.

Marty

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 10:18:47 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in >:

> ... I'm a bit surprised that there doesn't appear to be anything in the
>FARs that at least provides an exception from the FARs for the operation of
>radio-controlled models, but perhaps that's implied by some broader
>exception I didn't notice.

I think the decision has been made administratively rather than
legislatively.

Here are the three links, in chronological order, from the longer post
I just made in this thread:

1981: http://www.eoss.org/faa/ac91-57.pdf

2003: http://www.ihsaviation.com/faa/N8700.25.pdf

2005: http://www.eoss.org/faa/AFS_400_UAS_POLICY_05_01.pdf

In other words, you won't find the exception spelled out in the FARS.

>That said, it does seem to me that there's an obvious difference between
>what is considered a UAV (as used by law enforcement, for example) and a
>radio-controlled model. Even ignoring the usual difference in size and
>flight altitude (which we may as well, since those are not absolutes even
>for model airplanes), the primary difference is that radio-controlled models
>are always flown in direct sight, under direct control of the operator.

Not always. An FAI record was set by Maynard Hill by an aircraft
that was piloted by RC for takeoff, then flown under internal
guidance across the Atlantic, and landed under RC control
in Ireland.

http://tam.plannet21.com/

The plane AND fuel weighed 5 kg (11 pounds) at takeoff.

It was designed, built, and tuned for the flight by Hill, who was
77 years old and legally blind at the time of the flight in
2003.

The flight last 38 hours, 52 minutes, 19 seconds.

It covered 1881.6 miles.

The engine was 10 cc (~0.61 ci), highly modified by
Hill.

>In this respect, Cmdr. Sid Heal does seem to miss the point in thinking that
>his law enforcement craft are somehow equivalent to radio-controlled model
>airplanes.

Recreational aircraft should not be operated over a heavily-populated
area. To make a police UAV safe would require far more redundancy
than is ordinarily found in recreational RC models.

Marty

[Jim Logajan]

"Randy Aldous" > wrote:
> The Sheriff's Cmdr. apparently doesn't understand the
> difference between the RC Models and a UAV.

Hmmm. If you read some of the useful links your provide (airspace2.doc
seems to have a nice summary) I think you'll find that "UAV" has various
meanings, some of which include RC models, and some of which don't. Is
there a definition of UAV that the FAA uses that is regulatory? My
fundamental question is what FAR(s) would the FAA cite and convince a judge
that the Sheriff was in violation of?

> http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/03-29-06/03-29-06memo.html
>
> http://www.acq.osd.mil/uas/docs/airspace2.doc
>
> http://www.politechbot.com/2006/03/29/surveillance-in-the/
>
> http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-358461.html

Great links; thanks. They seems to confirm my suspicion that the FAA is
sending confusing signals.

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:45:45 -0000, Jim Logajan > wrote in
>:

>"Randy Aldous" > wrote:
>> The Sheriff's Cmdr. apparently doesn't understand the
>> difference between the RC Models and a UAV.
>
>Hmmm. If you read some of the useful links your provide (airspace2.doc
>seems to have a nice summary) I think you'll find that "UAV" has various
>meanings, some of which include RC models, and some of which don't. Is
>there a definition of UAV that the FAA uses that is regulatory? My
>fundamental question is what FAR(s) would the FAA cite and convince a judge
>that the Sheriff was in violation of?

Far 1.1 Definitions:

"Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the
air."

"Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use
aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in Sec. 91.13 of this chapter) of
air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of
legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise)."

"Pilot in command means the person who:
(1) Has final authority and responsibility for the operation and safety of the
flight;
(2) Has been designated as pilot in command before or during the flight; and
(3) Holds the appropriate category, class, and type rating, if appropriate, for
the conduct of the flight."

So the UAVs are aircraft operated by a PIC.

"The FAA has sole authority over the safe and efficient use of the NAS. The FAA
is responsible for overseeing the safety of the civil airspace, including
operations by the military, government, private pilots and commercial entities.
To this end, the FAA must take appropriate actions to ensure the safety of the
public, which includes the flying public, as well as people and property on the
ground."

Aviation Subcommittee hearing on UAVs
<http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/03-29-06/03-29-06memo.html>.

From the same hearings:

"Recreational Model Aircraft

"Appropriate oversight of model aircraft operations must be considered as the
FAA and interested parties develop standards and regulations for the use of UAVs
in the NAS. The term “model aircraft” is defined by the Academy of Model
Aeronautics (AMA) as a non-human-carrying device capable of sustained flight in
the atmosphere, not exceeding the limitations established in the Official AMA
National Model Aircraft Safety Code, exclusively for recreation, sport, and/or
competition activities. The AMA has been in existence since 1936, and is a
non-profit organization whose purpose is to promote the development of model
aviation as a recognized sport and worthwhile recreation activity. The AMA
coordinates with the FAA and self-polices the operation of model aircraft in AMA
sanctioned events. Some of the operational requirements for AMA sanctioned
activities include:

" * A maximum takeoff weight of a model aircraft, including fuel, is 55
pounds, except for those flown under the AMA Experimental Aircraft Rules;
* Operations shall not take place higher than approximately 400 feet above
ground level, when within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the
airport operator;
* Yielding the right-of-way and avoiding flying in the proximity of
full-scale aircraft and utilizing a spotter when appropriate;
* Operators of radio control model aircraft shall control the aircraft from
the ground and maintain un-enhanced visual contact with the aircraft throughout
the entire flight; and
* No model aircraft shall be equipped with devices that would allow for
autonomous flight.

"The AMA’s position is that model aircraft should not be included in the
standards and regulations for UAVs, and that in establishing the definition of
UAV, the focus should be on the purpose of the vehicle operation as opposed to
the size or ability of the vehicle."

This hearing apparently took place on March 29, 2006. It should be noted
that Dave Brown, president of the Academy of Model Aeronautics, landed
the trans-atlantic model that flew for over 1800 miles autonomously.
http://tam.plannet21.com/

I think the AMA fears that allowing autonomous RC models will bring
the full weight of Homeland Security down on all of us ordinary
"VFR" RC pilots. :o(

Marty

[.Blueskies.]

See: http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/105.pdf for a non-legal definition.

FAA:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e70077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf




"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> "Randy Aldous" > wrote in message ups.com...
>>> So what are FARs cover R/C aircraft (is there a weight or size threshold)?
>>> Also, what FARs would cover autonomous (robot controlled) aircraft?
>>
>> A Google search, using "FAA radio-control aircraft" and "FAA UAV vs
>> model aircraft" as the criteria, came up with the following.... from
>> what I have read, the FAA has some legitimate concerns about UAV
>> operations, especially in busy airspace
>
> IMHO, the FAA has a legitimate concern regarding UAV use *anywhere* within the US, busy airspace or not. They have
> indicated as much in imposing TFRs for the purpose of operating UAVs along the southern border (even if that is a
> less-than-satisfactory solution).
>
>> [...]
>> "A private citizen can go to the store and buy one of those model
>> airplanes and fly them around. But because we're doing it as a public
>> service, we have to deal with the FAA?" said Sheriff's Cmdr. Sid Heal."
>> - The Sheriff's Cmdr. apparently doesn't understand the difference
>> between the RC Models and a UAV.
>
> Well, to be fair, even looking at the links you offered, it seems he's not alone. I'm a bit surprised that there
> doesn't appear to be anything in the FARs that at least provides an exception from the FARs for the operation of
> radio-controlled models, but perhaps that's implied by some broader exception I didn't notice.
>
> That said, it does seem to me that there's an obvious difference between what is considered a UAV (as used by law
> enforcement, for example) and a radio-controlled model. Even ignoring the usual difference in size and flight
> altitude (which we may as well, since those are not absolutes even for model airplanes), the primary difference is
> that radio-controlled models are always flown in direct sight, under direct control of the operator. And if they
> weren't, I would say that would put them squarely into the UAV category, and subject to the same FAA oversight.
>
> I do find it interesting that the rcgroups.com thread seems to be focusing somewhat on the commercial vs recreational
> aspects:
>
>> http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-358461.html
>
> While I wouldn't be completely surprised if the FAA chose that route to differentiation, I think it would make more
> sense to focus on the size of the aircraft and degree of operator involvement. Of most concern is an operator who is
> not in the immediate area, looking directly at the aircraft and the airspace around it.
>
> In this respect, Cmdr. Sid Heal does seem to miss the point in thinking that his law enforcement craft are somehow
> equivalent to radio-controlled model airplanes. But it would be nice if the written law were a bit more clear on the
> matter, so that people who don't see these obvious differences can be referred to a document that gives them something
> to consider.
>
> Pete
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:31:41 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote in >::

>According to this morning's paper, the FAA has shot down the LA Sherrif's
>proposal. Never mind.

This is not going to go away. Better to get off on the right foot
from the start.

[Chris W]

Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:08:03 -0000, Jim Logajan > wrote in
> >:
>
>
>>So what are FARs cover R/C aircraft (is there a weight or size threshold)?
>
>
> The FAA accepts the Academy of Model Aeronautics definition of a recreational
> model as weighing 55 lbs (dry, I think) and operating under 400' altitude
> (a provision busted every day by all kinds of RC aircraft).
>

In an other post you stated the 400 ft AGL rule was only when you were
with in 3 miles of an airport.

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 03:55:18 -0500, Chris W > wrote in
<X%Nmg.58007$9c6.31230@dukeread11>:

>> The FAA accepts the Academy of Model Aeronautics definition of a recreational
>> model as weighing 55 lbs (dry, I think) and operating under 400' altitude
>> (a provision busted every day by all kinds of RC aircraft).

>In an other post you stated the 400 ft AGL rule was only when you were
>with in 3 miles of an airport.

I was wrong.

I heard it through the grapevine at my club, which operates
fairly close to Niagara Falls International Airport (IAG) and the Niagara
Falls Air Reserve Base, which is on the other side of the runways.

It's 4.7 miles by car from the entrance of IAG to the parking lot at
our field. As the crow flies, we might be right on the three-mile
boundary, depending on how the airport's air space is defined.

<http://local.google.com/local?saddr=IAG+-+Niagara+Falls+Intl+Airport+%4043.099339,-78.945076&daddr=3900+Witmer+Rd,+Niagara+Falls,+NY+14305&f=d&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.411029,67.324219&om=1>

The same in a shorter format:

<http://tinyurl.com/nudjs>

We've heard that the radar operators at IAG can see some of the
larger models at our field on their screens. I don't know how credible
that report is. We had a couple of guys from the AF Reserve in our club,
and I think they knew some of the controllers.

Looking at the FAA documents, it seems that the 400' altitude is a universal
restriction and not just applicable to sites within three miles of airports.

We see lots of aircraft flying in and out of IAG. Fortunately, we're not
lined up with either runway and haven't yet had any difficulties seeing
and avoiding the full-scale traffic. Some helicopters come over the
field at a fairly low level from time to time and perhaps once a year
we might see a low-flying GA aircraft.

If we stuck to the 400' ceiling and full-scale pilots maintained 500'
AGL, there would be plenty of clearance. I don't know anyone in the
club who has an altimeter of any sort, let alone telemetry to transmit
the information back to the ground, so I'm just guessing about how
high our planes fly.

Marty

[john smith]

> It's 4.7 miles by car from the entrance of IAG to the parking lot at
> our field. As the crow flies, we might be right on the three-mile
> boundary, depending on how the airport's air space is defined.

OT... Martin, how far is it from IAG to Lockport?
I was thinking about flying up for the day to see the canal and locks.
Is IAG the closest or is there another airport closer?

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:27:00 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>:

>> It's 4.7 miles by car from the entrance of IAG to the parking lot at
>> our field. As the crow flies, we might be right on the three-mile
>> boundary, depending on how the airport's air space is defined.

>OT... Martin, how far is it from IAG to Lockport?

About 16 miles by car:

<http://local.google.com/local?saddr=IAG+-+Niagara+Falls+Intl+Airport+%4043.099339,-78.945076&daddr=lockport,+ny&f=li&hl=en&cid=&ie=UTF8&ll=43.134815,-78.817635&spn=0.142556,0.262985&om=1>

Shorter URL:

http://tinyurl.com/le5sd

>I was thinking about flying up for the day to see the canal and locks.
>Is IAG the closest or is there another airport closer?

There are closer fields. From
<http://www.airnav.com/airports>:

0G0 Lockport, NY, USA North Buffalo Suburban Airport
NK25 Lockport, NY, USA Cambria Airport Private
61NY Lockport, NY, USA Bassett Field Airport Private
59NY Lockport, NY, USA Bent-Wing Airport Private

A friend of mine has a Cessna 172 hangared at North Buffalo (0G0):

http://www.airnav.com/airport/0G0

That page lists other nearby airports with instrument procedures:

KBUF - Buffalo Niagara International Airport (10 nm S)
KIAG - Niagara Falls International Airport (11 nm W)
9G3 - Akron Airport (11 nm SE)
9G0 - Buffalo Airfield (14 nm S)
9G6 - Pine Hill Airport (19 nm E)

I've got a friend with a grass airstrip in Cambria, NY, but it's not showing
up on the airfield locator. It should be on sectionals, although Bill doesn't
know the identifier (I just spoke to him via cell phone; he's en route to
a Cub reunion in Lockhaven, PA). Bill thinks that Cambria and
Bent-Wing are both long closed.

Bottom line: North Buffalo (0G0) has got gas and is closest. You'll
have to contact them to see about courtesy cars. IAG (KIAG?) would
have Hertz and Avis and stuff like that.

Marty

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

>On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:27:00 GMT, john smith > wrote in
>:

>>Is IAG the closest or is there another airport closer?

I looked at an online sectional and couldn't find Smith field.

I did see Royalton in Gasport, which is right next door to
Lockport:

http://www.airnav.com/airport/9G5

http://skyvector.com/perl/code?id=9g5&scale=3

Marty

[john smith]

> >>Is IAG the closest or is there another airport closer?

> I looked at an online sectional and couldn't find Smith field.
> I did see Royalton in Gasport, which is right next door to
> Lockport:
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/9G5
> http://skyvector.com/perl/code?id=9g5&scale=3

Thank You!

[.Blueskies.]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 03:55:18 -0500, Chris W > wrote in
> <X%Nmg.58007$9c6.31230@dukeread11>:
>
..snip...
>
> Looking at the FAA documents, it seems that the 400' altitude is a universal
> restriction and not just applicable to sites within three miles of airports.
>
> We see lots of aircraft flying in and out of IAG. Fortunately, we're not
> lined up with either runway and haven't yet had any difficulties seeing
> and avoiding the full-scale traffic. Some helicopters come over the
> field at a fairly low level from time to time and perhaps once a year
> we might see a low-flying GA aircraft.
>
> If we stuck to the 400' ceiling and full-scale pilots maintained 500'
> AGL, there would be plenty of clearance. I don't know anyone in the
> club who has an altimeter of any sort, let alone telemetry to transmit
> the information back to the ground, so I'm just guessing about how
> high our planes fly.
>
> Marty

400' is a recommendation, not a restriction. The issue is if you (the RC pilot) become a hazard to air navigation then
you are in violation of those FARs, not because you are flying over 400' high. Kite flying off the end of a runway has
the same restrictions...

Hold the RC plane up and look at it from 400' (the length of a football field even) and you will be surprised at how
small it looks, even the 1/4 scale jobs. Indeed folks do fly higher and further than 400' but it does take some doing...

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:15:47 GMT, ".Blueskies." >
wrote in >:

>400' is a recommendation, not a restriction. The issue is if you (the RC pilot) become a hazard to air navigation then
>you are in violation of those FARs, not because you are flying over 400' high. Kite flying off the end of a runway has
>the same restrictions...

Makes sense.

>Hold the RC plane up and look at it from 400' (the length of a football field even) and you will be surprised at how
>small it looks, even the 1/4 scale jobs. Indeed folks do fly higher and further than 400' but it does take some doing...

Our flight line is 800' from the I-190 on the left and about the same distance
to the tree line on the right, so I routinely see my planes at least that far
away as I fly the pattern (such as it is) at our field.

A small version of the field survey is on this page:

http://moleski.net/rc/respark4.htm

For those photos and for the ones on this page, I'm sure I was well above
400':

http://moleski.net/rc/respark3.htm

I've never flown that high before or since. I should rig another camera
one of these days and get some fresh photos of the field. The surveyor
who did the sketch laid out a landing area for us and had us put
fertilizer around it. It worked really well--the greener grass of the
flight line is very visible.

Marty

[.Blueskies.]

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" > wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:15:47 GMT, ".Blueskies." >
> wrote in >:
>
>>400' is a recommendation, not a restriction. The issue is if you (the RC pilot) become a hazard to air navigation then
>>you are in violation of those FARs, not because you are flying over 400' high. Kite flying off the end of a runway has
>>the same restrictions...
>
> Makes sense.
>
>>Hold the RC plane up and look at it from 400' (the length of a football field even) and you will be surprised at how
>>small it looks, even the 1/4 scale jobs. Indeed folks do fly higher and further than 400' but it does take some
>>doing...
>
> Our flight line is 800' from the I-190 on the left and about the same distance
> to the tree line on the right, so I routinely see my planes at least that far
> away as I fly the pattern (such as it is) at our field.
>
> A small version of the field survey is on this page:
>
> http://moleski.net/rc/respark4.htm
>
> For those photos and for the ones on this page, I'm sure I was well above
> 400':
>
> http://moleski.net/rc/respark3.htm
>
> I've never flown that high before or since. I should rig another camera
> one of these days and get some fresh photos of the field. The surveyor
> who did the sketch laid out a landing area for us and had us put
> fertilizer around it. It worked really well--the greener grass of the
> flight line is very visible.
>
> Marty

Nice job, good pix. Looks like you folks are/were struggling to keep the site alive. Similar issues at every club/group
I have ever visited...

[Martin X. Moleski, SJ]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:58:14 GMT, ".Blueskies." >
wrote in >:

>> ... A small version of the field survey is on this page:

>> http://moleski.net/rc/respark4.htm

>> For those photos and for the ones on this page, I'm sure I was well above
>> 400':

>> http://moleski.net/rc/respark3.htm

>Nice job, good pix. Looks like you folks are/were struggling to keep the site alive. Similar issues at every club/group
>I have ever visited...

We aggravated a neighbor by doing a 6:30 AM TV show with big planes. Noise
carries well on cool, quiet, morning air. :o(

Other than that, we've done OK. It's a big park and the Parks Department has
been very kind to us.

Marty

[Morgans]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
. ..
> According to this morning's paper, the FAA has shot down the LA Sherrif's
> proposal. Never mind.


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/14875403.htm

If the sheriff has any balls, he will tell the FAA to pound salt. As long
as the RC plane is flown in view of the pilot, and can see the plane, or any
possible conflict to full scale planes, there is nothing wrong with him
flying his "toy airplane."

Put the burden of proof back on the FAA, to prove the problem. By the time
the FAA investigates, the airplane will be considered obsolete.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:02:33 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>
>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/14875403.htm
>
>If the sheriff has any balls, he will tell the FAA to pound salt.

Perhaps this quote from the article has sheriff Baca exercising
prudence and restraint:

The FAA won't authorize the county to use drones until it
investigates the incident to determine whether the sheriff's
Department should face disciplinary action, Brown said.

It begs the question, what sort of disciplinary action is the FAA
authorized to apply in this case? I seriously doubt the FAA can
suspend the airmans certificate of the officer who controlled the
drone.

>As long as the RC plane is flown in view of the pilot, and can see the plane, or any
>possible conflict to full scale planes, there is nothing wrong with him
>flying his "toy airplane."

First, I seriously doubt the sheriff assigned an airman to operate the
drone, so it is unlikely there was any real pilot involved its
operation.

Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, the FAA would require a second person
whose sole duty it would be to observe the drone's operation to assure
there would be no conflict with full-size manned aircraft, as is
mentioned in this 25 year old Advisory Circular:

http://www.eoss.org/faa/ac91-57.pdf
ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-57
MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS

The sheriff's department intends to operate their drones over
congested urban areas, not at a designated RC field as is usual for RC
model aircraft. If an engine out incident, loss of control, or
structural failure should occur in a densely populated area, citizens
could be injured by the drone.

That said, I wonder if the FAA will share culpability if they should
actually issue a certificate of authorization to the sheriff's
department.

It would also be interesting to know how big a role the firms below
are playing in this drama:

http://www.ga.com/
www.aerovironment.com
www.aurora.aero
www.auvsi.org
www.boeing.com/phantom
www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Research/Erast/erast.html
www.erast.com
www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ERAST
www.jpdo.aero
www.lmaeronautics.com
www.is.northropgrumman.com
www.psl.nmsu.edu/uav
www.uav.com/home
www.uav-info.com
www.uavforum.com/
www.uavworld.com
www.ucare-network.org
www.unitealliance.com/
www.uvonline.com www.uvs-international.org

[Greg Copeland]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:42:44 -0700, Randy Aldous wrote:

[snip]
> - The Sheriff's Cmdr. apparently doesn't understand the difference
> between the RC Models and a UAV.

Agreed. Plus, he's talking about flying these things in ANY area where
other aircraft are certain to be...such as during high visibility crimes
(bank robberies, hostages, etc...). For certain news will want to be in
the area...now suddenly, with no coordination with the FAA, he expects
helicopter crews to see and avoid tiny, 5-lbs craft. That Sheriff seems
pretty nutty to me.

Greg

[Stubby]

There is a difference between "UAV" and "Remotely Piloted Vehicle".
The difference was drawn to avoid problems with the SALT II Treaty which
prohibits dropping bombs or launching missiles from UAVs.


Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Randy Aldous" > wrote:
>> The Sheriff's Cmdr. apparently doesn't understand the
>> difference between the RC Models and a UAV.
>
> Hmmm. If you read some of the useful links your provide (airspace2.doc
> seems to have a nice summary) I think you'll find that "UAV" has various
> meanings, some of which include RC models, and some of which don't. Is
> there a definition of UAV that the FAA uses that is regulatory? My
> fundamental question is what FAR(s) would the FAA cite and convince a judge
> that the Sheriff was in violation of?
>
>> http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/03-29-06/03-29-06memo.html
>>
>> http://www.acq.osd.mil/uas/docs/airspace2.doc
>>
>> http://www.politechbot.com/2006/03/29/surveillance-in-the/
>>
>> http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-358461.html
>
> Great links; thanks. They seems to confirm my suspicion that the FAA is
> sending confusing signals.

[.Blueskies.]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>
> Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, the FAA would require a second person
> whose sole duty it would be to observe the drone's operation to assure
> there would be no conflict with full-size manned aircraft, as is
> mentioned in this 25 year old Advisory Circular:
>
> http://www.eoss.org/faa/ac91-57.pdf
> ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-57
> MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS
>
> The sheriff's department intends to operate their drones over
> congested urban areas, not at a designated RC field as is usual for RC
> model aircraft. If an engine out incident, loss of control, or
> structural failure should occur in a densely populated area, citizens
> could be injured by the drone.
>


The FAA does not 'require' any observers or assistants.

There is also no requirement to fly at 'a designated rc field.'

[.Blueskies.]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:42:44 -0700, Randy Aldous wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> - The Sheriff's Cmdr. apparently doesn't understand the difference
>> between the RC Models and a UAV.
>
> Agreed. Plus, he's talking about flying these things in ANY area where
> other aircraft are certain to be...such as during high visibility crimes
> (bank robberies, hostages, etc...). For certain news will want to be in
> the area...now suddenly, with no coordination with the FAA, he expects
> helicopter crews to see and avoid tiny, 5-lbs craft. That Sheriff seems
> pretty nutty to me.
>
> Greg
>

New 'copters are required to remain a certain altitude above any 'event', and these 'tiny' aircraft will most likely not
be over a couple hundred feet AGL. The cops would be talking to the cops 'copter if present for coordination purposes...

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:33:59 GMT, ".Blueskies."
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, the FAA would require a second person
>> whose sole duty it would be to observe the drone's operation to assure
>> there would be no conflict with full-size manned aircraft, as is
>> mentioned in this 25 year old Advisory Circular:
>>
>> http://www.eoss.org/faa/ac91-57.pdf
>> ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-57
>> MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS
>>
>> The sheriff's department intends to operate their drones over
>> congested urban areas, not at a designated RC field as is usual for RC
>> model aircraft. If an engine out incident, loss of control, or
>> structural failure should occur in a densely populated area, citizens
>> could be injured by the drone.
>>
>
>
>The FAA does not 'require' any observers or assistants.
>

While you are correct, there is no mandatory observer *requirement*
contained within AC 91-57, neither does it mention the county's
necessity to obtain FAA authorization to operate drones. Here's what
it does say about observers:

MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS

1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages
voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft
operators.

3 0 OPERATING STANDARDS.

d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of,
full-scale aircraft. Use observers to help if possible.

So, it would appear that the FAA is operating under different
authority in this case.

>There is also no requirement to fly at 'a designated rc field.'
>

True.

However, have you ever operated a gasoline powered RC model over a
large crowed of people, or even over a congested area of urban
population? Of course not; you seek a safe location that poses less
hazard to the public.

[.Blueskies.]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:33:59 GMT, ".Blueskies."
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>
>>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>> Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, the FAA would require a second person
>>> whose sole duty it would be to observe the drone's operation to assure
>>> there would be no conflict with full-size manned aircraft, as is
>>> mentioned in this 25 year old Advisory Circular:
>>>
>>> http://www.eoss.org/faa/ac91-57.pdf
>>> ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC 91-57
>>> MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS
>>>
>>> The sheriff's department intends to operate their drones over
>>> congested urban areas, not at a designated RC field as is usual for RC
>>> model aircraft. If an engine out incident, loss of control, or
>>> structural failure should occur in a densely populated area, citizens
>>> could be injured by the drone.
>>>
>>
>>
>>The FAA does not 'require' any observers or assistants.
>>
>
> While you are correct, there is no mandatory observer *requirement*
> contained within AC 91-57, neither does it mention the county's
> necessity to obtain FAA authorization to operate drones. Here's what
> it does say about observers:
>
> MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS
>
> 1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular outlines, and encourages
> voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft
> operators.
>
> 3 0 OPERATING STANDARDS.
>
> d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of,
> full-scale aircraft. Use observers to help if possible.
>
> So, it would appear that the FAA is operating under different
> authority in this case.
>
>>There is also no requirement to fly at 'a designated rc field.'
>>
>
> True.
>
> However, have you ever operated a gasoline powered RC model over a
> large crowed of people, or even over a congested area of urban
> population? Of course not; you seek a safe location that poses less
> hazard to the public.

Only reasonable people think this way, and if the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) member wants to be insured, then
they will operate the aircraft per the AMA safety code. If insurance is available or liability is somehow limited, then
the operator would not need to be as concerned - congested area really doesn't mean anything. I was wondering why the
sheriff was requesting some sort of blessing from the FAA.

Does anyone remember when the wacko flew the RC plane into the (I think Goodyear) blimp?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:53:05 GMT, ".Blueskies."
> wrote in
>::

>> However, have you ever operated a gasoline powered RC model over a
>> large crowed of people, or even over a congested area of urban
>> population? Of course not; you seek a safe location that poses less
>> hazard to the public.
>
>Only reasonable people think this way, and if the AMA (Academy of Model
>Aeronautics) member wants to be insured, then
>they will operate the aircraft per the AMA safety code.

Are you implying that the AMA insures it's members' RC operations
provided they are in compliance with the AMA Safety Code?

>If insurance is available or liability is somehow limited, then
>the operator would not need to be as concerned

Such a liability-limited RC aircraft operator wouldn't need to be
concerned about operating over a crowed of people, unless s/he felt a
moral obligation to refrain from maiming his fellow citizens in the
event of loss of control.

> - congested area really doesn't mean anything.

Doesn't operating an RC aircraft over people mean that the probability
of hitting someone with it is substantially increased over the
probability when operating over unpopulated land?

>I was wondering why the sheriff was requesting some sort of blessing from the FAA.

I wasn't aware sheriff Baca was requesting anything from the FAA.
Where did you find that information?

>Does anyone remember when the wacko flew the RC plane into the (I think Goodyear) blimp?

Why?

[.Blueskies.]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:53:05 GMT, ".Blueskies."
> > wrote in
> >::

> Are you implying that the AMA insures it's members' RC operations
> provided they are in compliance with the AMA Safety Code?
>

Uh, yes, this is the primary reason many folks join the AMA...

>>If insurance is available or liability is somehow limited, then
>>the operator would not need to be as concerned
>
> Such a liability-limited RC aircraft operator wouldn't need to be
> concerned about operating over a crowed of people, unless s/he felt a
> moral obligation to refrain from maiming his fellow citizens in the
> event of loss of control.
>
>> - congested area really doesn't mean anything.
>
> Doesn't operating an RC aircraft over people mean that the probability
> of hitting someone with it is substantially increased over the
> probability when operating over unpopulated land?
>

Yes, and that is the point, if the person is not concerned about the crowd, they can fly over it with no legal issues,
until something goes wrong or someone complains about 'noise'.

>>I was wondering why the sheriff was requesting some sort of blessing from the FAA.
>
> I wasn't aware sheriff Baca was requesting anything from the FAA.
> Where did you find that information?
>

They said the situation would be "cleared up' soon...
"Sheriff's officials described the controversy as a misunderstanding that soon will be cleared up."

>>Does anyone remember when the wacko flew the RC plane into the (I think Goodyear) blimp?
>
> Why?

No regulations followed the incident - it was handled using currently existing laws and the 'wacko' was jailed.

[Aluckyguess]

The Sherriffs should tell the FAA they are trying to do thier job and if
they get in the way they will be arrested. If I was them I woulded let the
FAA any where near operations of the drone. What can they really do?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:42:33 -0700, "Aluckyguess"
> wrote in >::

>The Sherriffs should tell the FAA they are trying to do thier job and if
>they get in the way they will be arrested.

That would bring the issue to a head.

>If I was them I woulded [sic] let the FAA any where near operations of the drone.

How would you prevent the FAA from observing the drone's operation?

>What can they really do?

Revoke the drone operators airmans certificate?

[Stubby]

Aluckyguess wrote:
> The Sherriffs should tell the FAA they are trying to do thier job and if
> they get in the way they will be arrested. If I was them I woulded let the
> FAA any where near operations of the drone. What can they really do?
>
The FAA can decide the airspace where the drone is operating is
controlled from the surface to FL180.
The sheriff will not have jurisdiction in that case.

[Morgans]

"Stubby" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Aluckyguess wrote:
>> The Sherriffs should tell the FAA they are trying to do thier job and if
>> they get in the way they will be arrested. If I was them I woulded let
>> the FAA any where near operations of the drone. What can they really do?
> The FAA can decide the airspace where the drone is operating is controlled
> from the surface to FL180.
> The sheriff will not have jurisdiction in that case.

The damn thing weighs three and a quarter pounds!!! Most trainer RC's
weight more than that.

I know it is asking too much, but the FAA needs to get a life, and judge the
realities of the issue, and let it fly. It wouldn't leave much more than a
bruise, even if it hit a person, dead on!
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:12:51 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>It wouldn't leave much more than a bruise, even if it hit a person, dead on!

You are attempting to be believed in saying that a 5# missile
traveling at ~2,640 feet per second with a gasoline powered propeller
in front rotating at high speed would only cause a bruise if it hit
you in the head. Perhaps your head is harder than most. :-)

[Jim Logajan]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:12:51 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote in >::
>
>>It wouldn't leave much more than a bruise, even if it hit a person,
>>dead on!
>
> You are attempting to be believed in saying that a 5# missile
> traveling at ~2,640 feet per second with a gasoline powered propeller
> in front rotating at high speed would only cause a bruise if it hit
> you in the head. Perhaps your head is harder than most. :-)

The sheriff's R/C plane travels at 1800 mph (about mach 2.3 at sea level)?
Well no wonder the FAA was upset! Supersonic prop research allegedly ended
decades ago. Clearly the sheriff's department down there has breakthrough
technology. ;-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:51:48 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote in >::

>Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:12:51 -0400, "Morgans"
>> > wrote in >::
>>
>>>It wouldn't leave much more than a bruise, even if it hit a person,
>>>dead on!
>>
>> You are attempting to be believed in saying that a 5# missile
>> traveling at ~2,640 feet per second with a gasoline powered propeller
>> in front rotating at high speed would only cause a bruise if it hit
>> you in the head. Perhaps your head is harder than most. :-)
>
>The sheriff's R/C plane travels at 1800 mph (about mach 2.3 at sea level)?
>Well no wonder the FAA was upset! Supersonic prop research allegedly ended
>decades ago. Clearly the sheriff's department down there has breakthrough
>technology. ;-)

Oops. That should have been ~2,640 feet per minute, or ~44 feet per
second.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:42:33 -0700, "Aluckyguess"
> wrote in >::

>The Sherriffs should tell the FAA they are trying to do thier job and if
>they get in the way they will be arrested. If I was them I woulded let the
>FAA any where near operations of the drone. What can they really do?
>

So, how do you feel about a sky filled with advertising drones being
flown over your head?

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/invention/
Thursday, June 29, 2006

Remote-controlled advertising

Swiss telecommunications firm Swisscom has been playing with
remote-controlled toy planes, cars and boats. The company sees
such fun gadgets as a serious new tool for targeted advertising.

A small unmanned plane could be flown over a concert or sports
audience, beaming advertising messages, news flashes and weather
updates to those below using Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or another wireless
standard. The messages would be stored aboard the plane and
refreshed by a control server using a separate wireless link.

The plane would draw attention to itself by beeping and flashing
its lights. This should encourage anyone nearby to check their
phones and PDAs for new messages.

People waiting in a long queue on a hot day could be told about a
cold beer, given lotto results or warned to expect rain. Drivers
in a traffic jam could get localised updates from a plane
overhead.

Swisscom even suggests that tiny toy boats could be used to send
out messages from a pond or river.

Click here for the Remote-controlled advertising patent.
http://tinyurl.com/hma9n

[Jose[_1_]]

> The plane would draw attention to itself by beeping and flashing
> its lights. This should encourage anyone nearby to check their
> phones and PDAs for new messages.

I can't see people being interested in getting an ad on their PDA. It
would require such interest for this to work.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:11:42 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >::

>> The plane would draw attention to itself by beeping and flashing
>> its lights. This should encourage anyone nearby to check their
>> phones and PDAs for new messages.
>
>I can't see people being interested in getting an ad on their PDA. It
>would require such interest for this to work.

Bill Maher said it best:

The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genius at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people. -- Bill Maher

Regardless, marketers know no self-restraint. I can just see the
future with swarms of little UAVs so thick you need protection to walk
the streets.