I spoke at length to the Scottsdale Airport Air Traffic Control Tower Manager last week. He is actually a great guy and spent a lot of time talking to me and exchanging emails. The end result however was that the airport is simply too busy to deal with all the calls they think they are going to be getting, and quite concerned about safety in the second busiest single-runway airport in the US. I was asking for a 400 foot ceiling, but I may go back to him one last time and ask for a 200 or even 100 foot ceiling and see if that would change his mind - but I seriously doubt it will. From his point of view, the FAA holds him accountable for maintaining a totally safe airspace environment at all times, and when I, and other hobby fliers, enter his airspace in an uncontrolled (and invisible) manner, then he simply cannot do the job he is charged with.
On the one hand, I shared with him the full text of Public Law 112-95, Section 336 (where the keyword is 'notify", not 'ask permission') and forbids the FAA from making any rules beyond those in the Public Law regarding hobby aircraft. Then, the ATCT Manager shared with me the formal FAA "Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft" which states, in part, "Finally, the statute sets a requirement for model aircraft operating within 5 miles of an airport to notify the airport operator and control tower, where applicable, prior to operating. If the model aircraft operator provides notice of forthcoming operations which are then not authorized by air traffic or objected to by the airport operator, the FAA expects the model aircraft operator will not conduct the proposed flights. The FAA would consider flying model aircraft over the objections of FAA air traffic or airport operators to be endangering the safety of the NAS." This part of the FAA "interpretation" is clearly out of sync with the Public Law that Congress passed.
The Scottsdale ATCT Manager agreed with my argument, but flatly stated he must obey the terms of the FAA Interpretation and could never permit such hobby operations in the current legislative and regulatory mess. Sorry, but no cigar.
I honestly think that if I ignore the Tower's clear objections to my legitimate hobby flights, I may find myself in serious trouble, particularly if a single pilot complains of a close encounter with a 'drone' during his controlled operations.
What we really need is for the larger drone manufacturers to band together to take the FAA to court and have their 'lawless' and erroneous "Interpretation" of the law overturned. Unfortunately, I did not win the lottery a couple of weeks ago, or I would do exactly that. However, as a poor fixed-income retiree, I simply can't afford the price of a long frustrating legal battle. Now, don't get me started on the National Parks flying restriction. Here in the West, you can rarely find another visitor in some of our National Parks, to annoy or harm.
-mike-