According to the AMA, they advise that pilots not fly above 400 ft when within 3 miles of an airport. http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf. I've seen some folks here advise maintaining > 5 miles from an airport and not flying at all within those 5 miles. Is there any reason this would be different for a model plane vs a Phantom?
Flying near airports...
- Thread starter jiva
- Start date
No, no difference.
Just use common sense. A multirotor, plane or heli through the engine of a commercial jet and you're looking at a serious accident.
Just use common sense. A multirotor, plane or heli through the engine of a commercial jet and you're looking at a serious accident.
Real simple. Just don't fly there. There are many other places to fly and unless you are a fan of Homeland Security cavity searches, stay away from commercial flight operations.
The key reason is because flying close to the airport, unless you have the FAA sectional charts to check where the controlled airspace is, you would not know. In the vicinity of the airport, the controlled airspace extends down to the ground, and away from the airport the next layer starts at about 700 feet (inverted cake). The problem is that the space extend horizontally in an irregular shape depending on traffic patterns, obstructions etc. Bottom line, you should not fly close to airports. Why call FAA's attention and get a letter (or worse).
Here is my current understanding of the recommendations for interest, comment, or correction. The current FAA recommendation is stay under 400 feet AND greater than 3 miles from an airport and you will NEVER be entering FAA restricted airspace (which it is illegal to do without a pilots license and more paperwork). The AMA and other groups are fully aware that there are at least 5 general levels if "FAA airspace" and all of them (away from airports) are sufficiently above 400 feet that you will never be wrong up TO 400 feet (away from an airport). But the most common FAA airspace levels start much higher, as in 1200 feet, so IF someone takes the time to look up the maps and do the research there is a LOT of open space out there where legal RC drone/aircraft flying up to much higher FAA airspace levels are possible and legal. But to know and be sure...you have to check an airspace MAP.
If you haven't checked and don't know for sure....stay under 400 feet. If you are within 3 miles of an airport, the FAA airspace MIGHT extend right to the ground so you should not fly at all.
Our "birds" have the potential to enter and violate FAA airspace just about everywhere....if John Q Anybody just pushes their stick full up with a full battery. THAT has got a lot of people really concerned.
Presumably the long and highly anticipated pending FAA regulations will clarify and address all of this.
If you haven't checked and don't know for sure....stay under 400 feet. If you are within 3 miles of an airport, the FAA airspace MIGHT extend right to the ground so you should not fly at all.
Our "birds" have the potential to enter and violate FAA airspace just about everywhere....if John Q Anybody just pushes their stick full up with a full battery. THAT has got a lot of people really concerned.
Presumably the long and highly anticipated pending FAA regulations will clarify and address all of this.
Phantasmic said:
Oh wow, a big a** stationary jet engine, bolted in place on the ground.....
No panicking pilots or 100's of skittish passengers and no flaming lithium polymer battery. Even if nothing happens with a real aircraft (no serious accident), they would land the plane for an emergency maintenance inspection and inconvenience to 100's of now ticked off passengers.
rmklaw said:
An article discussion what you may be alluding to.
http://gigaom.com/2013/12/08/so-you-want-to-fly-drones-heres-what-the-law-says/
Phantasmic said:
Flight safety is based on worst case speculation, including the test rig you referenced.
If you think FOD is nothing but fearmongering, you should definitely get in touch with the military and every jet aircraft and engine manufacturer since they were invented.
The other issue is the much greater potential and possibility of a drone strike by a light propeller driven airplane or even worse, by a small, media, LE, or other helicopter. The results are unpredictable....and unpredictable is exactly what the FAA has zero tolerance of.
Re: the potential for damage to jet engines...when an aircraft carrier leaves port, they don't line up the entire crew to walk shoe-to-shoe the length of the flight deck to pick up any and every smallest bolt, washer, screw or pebble, for nothing.
Re: the potential for damage to jet engines...when an aircraft carrier leaves port, they don't line up the entire crew to walk shoe-to-shoe the length of the flight deck to pick up any and every smallest bolt, washer, screw or pebble, for nothing.
OI Photography said:
Im one of the few pilots that I know of that has actually injested FOD while on take off roll and had one of the engines quit at rotation (absolutely worse case scenario). Luckily its one of the emergencies we regularly train for and we made it back safely.
Point being Foreign Object Debris is highly dangerous, and a quad going through a turbine is going to be ugly. I see some of these YouTube videos of people flying their quad 1500 to 2000 ft high. Be aware that even if your flying 10 or 15 miles from an airport, commercial aircraft routinely fly at those altitudes and distances for pattern entry, obstacle, weather and or traffic avoidance.
Fly Safe.
Similar threads
