What FARs cover R/C drones?

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=UT F8&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" 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...

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

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?

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?

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.

"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

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. :-)

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. ;-)

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