What FARs cover R/C drones?

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 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

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

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?

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

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

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!

"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

"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...