Our hobby has faced many challenges this year as we address an increase in government intervention and proposed regulations. AMA has been aggressively advocating for our hobby, and during the past few weeks, we’ve been happy to report successful progress.
Today, our members have yet another AMA government advocacy victory to celebrate.
There has been confusion among our members as to whether operations above 400 feet are permitted by the FAA. AMA has remained steadfast that the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act) permits operations above 400 feet if conducted within our safety program requiring the pilot to be an AMA member, to avoid and not interfere with manned aircraft, and to keep the model in visual line of sight of the pilot/observer. It should be noted that the AMA Safety Code requires model aircraft to remain below 400 feet above the ground when within 3 miles of an airport unless there is notification or an agreement with the airport that allows models to safely go higher.
In January of this year, the AMA requested that the FAA clarify the 400-foot issue in writing. We are happy to share that in a recent letter to the AMA, the FAA recognized AMA’s role as a community-based organization and acknowledged our safety program, including allowing flight above 400 feet under appropriate circumstance.
In this letter, dated July 7, 2016, the FAA states:
- “…model aircraft may be flow consistently with Section 336 and agency guidelines at altitudes above 400 feet when following a community-based organization’s safety guidelines.”
“Community-based organizations, such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics, may establish altitude limitations in their safety guidelines that exceed the FAA’s 400 AGL altitude recommendation.”
Essentially, this letter confirms that sailplanes, large model aircraft, turbines, and other disciplines can responsibly operate above 400 feet if the AMA member is operating within our safety programming. Equally important, the FAA again acknowledges AMA as a community-based organization.
This victory falls on the heels of other successful AMA efforts, including an AMA member exemption from the FAA’s Final sUAS Rule (Part 107), the removal of problematic text in the 2016 FAA Reauthorization Bill, and preserving the Special Rule for Model Aircraft through 2017.
These successes do not transpire easily and our advocacy efforts are not over. We will continue to work with the FAA toward reducing the burden of registration requirements on AMA members. Throughout the next 14 months, we will continue to work with Congress toward a long-term reauthorization bill that will further strengthen the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.
We want to extend our appreciation to all of our members and donors for your support throughout this process. To read the letter from the FAA clarifying the 400-foot guidance, click here.
While this is good news for the time being you failed to mention that the only reason that this was pushed to 2017 is the failure of a “gridlocked’ legislative branch to get anything done which forced them to temporally fund the FAA. This isn’t over and just a stay till 2017.
Mike
Congress must periodically review FAA’s authority and budget, which can affect our hobby. This regulatory cycle is now part of our world, even after 2017.
While this is sometimes called an extension, it was a bill that included new FAA provisions requiring the signature of the President. During the House/Senate debate, we successfully argued that previously proposed UAS regulations on our hobby be removed and the Special Rule remain intact.
My faith has been restored..good job to all at AMA!
Does this mean that we no longer are require to “register” with the FAA and have the number in or on our aircraft?
Hi Marty,
The FAA still mandates that all modelers, including AMA members, must register and place their number on or in their aircraft before flight. At this time, the only exception are pilots who exclusively fly CL, FF, indoors, or models under .55lbs.
If the Special Rule For Model Aircraft is still in effect as previously stated then registration of our aircraft is a violation of the Special Rule
Great job AMA.
Rusty
AVP, D-IV
How does this affect the 400 foot altitude restriction for all fields within 30 miles of National airport. Capital area soaring association’s home field is within this area.
Those restrictions remain the same. The National Capital Region is governed by a Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) within a 30-mile radius of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, which restricts all flights in the greater DC area.
The SFRA is divided into a 15-mile radius inner ring and a 30-mile radius outer ring.
Flying an unmanned aircraft within the 15-mile radius inner ring is prohibited without specific FAA authorization.
Flying a UAS for recreational or non-recreational use between 15 and 30 miles from Washington, D.C. is allowed under these operating conditions:
-Aircraft must weigh less than 55 lbs. (including any attachments such as a camera)
-Aircraft must be registered and marked
-Fly below 400 ft.
-Fly within visual line-of-sight
-Fly in clear weather conditions
-Never fly near other aircraft
Were do you register an aircraft?
CRTSR,
Registration can be completed online at https://registermyuas.faa.gov/. This method gives the pilot one registration number that registers all the aircraft he or she owns. There is also a paper form of registration that can be completed and mailed in, but this option requires much more time and is only good for one aircraft.
AMA staff- Thanks for seeing this through! Great result and precedent!
As a full scale glider pilot and an RC pilot I had been very worried that my pilot’s license could be lifted by flying over 400′ within 5 miles from more than one airport. We had been flying at that site for about 20 years without an incident. Finally I have something in writing that will protect me. Thank You AMA. You came through for me.
Lee,
You are very welcome, glad this letter helps. Thank you for supporting the AMA.
Does this mean it’s mandatory to be a AMA member to fly above 400 feet
or just follow the AMA safety guidelines?
Hi Ken,
To satisfy all of the requirements of Section 336, the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, you must operate “within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization.” To operate within AMA’s programming, membership is required. All members must sign off on our Safety Code, receive continuing education through email/magazine/clubs, and foster responsible flying with AMA benefits like insurance.
How do you respond to the email from the FAA’s sUAS Integration office that has been posted on RC Groups and RC Universe that clearly states AMA membership is not required to be in compliance with Section 336.?
I feel doing so is unethical and borders on stealing intellectual property, but the FAA clearly said AMA membership is not required. Many are giddy with delight at the contents of this email.
Bill Malvey,
Congress writes in Section 336 of PL 112-95 that in addition to following the guidelines of a CBO, modelers must also operate “within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization.” As the FAA writes throughout Part 107, modelers must “satisfy all of the criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95,” not just sections of the law. To operate within AMA’s nationwide community-based programming, a pilot needs to be a member.
The Congressional Conference Committee clearly defines that community-based organizations are “membership based” in their report pertaining to section 336 of the 2012 Modernization and Reform Act as follows:
“…In this section the term “nationwide community-based organization” is intended to mean a membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions, government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members…”
The FAA recognizes the Congressional Conference Committees definition of a community-based organization in their “Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft” which can be read at the link below:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/25/2014-14948/interpretation-of-the-special-rule-for-model-aircraft
Thanks Tyler, I appreciate that and agree with it myself. In fact I have posted as much numerous times in various forums over the past several months.
However, that does not change the fact that the FAA sUAS Integration Office Help Desk wrote an email to an individual that specifically states that the FAA does not feel a person must belong to a CBO in order to follow its safety program and operate a model aircraft under Section 336.
That individual has now started several threads and made a high volume of posts spreading that email everywhere he can.
So I will repeat my question, what is the AMA doing in response to this email?
The only organization with authority to enforce said, and I quote:
“The FAA does not interpret PL112-95 Section 336 paragraph (a)(2) as requiring membership in a CBO…You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO” – UAS Integration Office email dtd 12 July 2016
So the Congressional Conference Committee clearly defines that community-based organizations are “membership based” in their report. Where in the law does it say one must be a MEMBER?
I don’t know why anyone at AMA would care about the email from the FAA that says section 336 compliance does not require membership.
All FAA did was confirm that the law can’t be used as a membership tool – which AMA has said they wouldn’t do anyway for months in these blogs.
They should care because if this email is genuine then it marks a dramatic departure in how the FAA has issued policy for the last several decades. I am hoping that the AMA is working to get an official clarification of the actual standing of this email and if it reflects actual FAA policy. And
BTW, it is factually incorrect to say that this is entirely up to the FAA. Congress, who actually writes the laws, stated fairly clearly in their comments on Section 336 what they meant by a CBO, and it was built entirely around the concept of membership. They even clearly stated that the CBO provides “it’s members” with a safety program.
What is curious is why somebody would think an anonymous FAA email has greater standing and import than what was written by Congress itself.
I’d like to know exactly what this safety program is that the AMA provides. All I see the AMA say is that:
“All members must sign off on our Safety Code, receive continuing education through email/magazine/clubs, and foster responsible flying with AMA benefits like insurance.”
what sort of education do I get via email/magazine? Foster responsible flying with AMA insurance?
What authority does the AMA have? Last I checked they are a private company. What is the purpose of signing off the safety code?
smartflyer – What I understand is this. Signing the safety code implies that if you do anything outside that safety code you will be on your own to defend/protect yourself in the event of a mishap. Otherwise the insurance carried with the AMA will be there on your side. I could be wrong but this is what seems logical about it.
For those who might not have seen it, this is what an email from the FAA UAS Integration Office sent me in response to my question about whether the “…safety guidelines and within programming…” part of section 336 requires membership in a CBO:
“The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO … You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO.”
The email was sent on 12 July, days after the 400 feet letter, and from the very same office.
To me there is a world of difference between a letter on official letterhead with a clear signature and an email with no name on it. As anyone who is familiar with the FAA knows they have a clear method and procedure for issuing policy, and an anonymous email is not one of them.
A membership is, at best, implied in a footnote to a conference report on a law. Nothing in the actual law, and certainly not explicit. Then there’s the email, which is very explicit, but some contend it’s not official policy because it’s just an email. While we’re waiting a resolution, consider this:
Does US Fish & Game, or state game agencies require DucksUnlimited membership to enjoy hunting privileges? And are DucksUnlimited members afforded privileges not afforded to non-members?
Does DOT require AAA membership to operate on public roadways? And does DOT afford AAA members privileges on the public roads not afforded to non-members? No & no.
Does US Coast Guard require BoatUS membership to operate on public waterways? And does it afford BoatUS members privileges on the public waterways not afforded to non-members? No & no.
Does FAA require AOPA membership to operate under part 91 in the public airspace? Does it afford AOPA members privileges not available to non-members? No & no.
Does FAA require EAA membership to operate experimental aircraft in the public airspace? Does FAA afford EAA members privileges not available to non-members? No & no.
In fact, I can’t find any examples where someone is required to be a member of a private dues collecting organization in order to enjoy privileges in public commerce, roads, waterways, airspace, or anywhere. If you have one, I’m sure we’re all interested.
And yet some contend that model aviation is so special, so unique, that Congress and Federal agencies would go against the precedent above? And, in doing so, open the door for AOPA, EAA, Ducks Unlimited, BoatUS, and other private dues collecting organizations to assert the same?
I highly doubt it.
While membership is not required to operate vehicles, boats, or aircraft – training, education, and often insurance is required by law.
The federal government requires all model pilots to receive education and training. The AMA is simply an alternative path from FAA’s Part 107 to receive education.
This is not as unique as you suggest. States often look to non-government entities to educate and license hunters. The FCC recognizes and provides special privileges to HAM radio operators and CBO educational efforts from ARRL. States also allow parents and children to rely on private or home schooling as an alternative to education in public schools.
I have posted this several times and I know you have seen it before, but let me try one more time. This is not a “footnote” to Section 336, it is the actual Conference Committee report is is part of the Congressional Record, which I think most would recognize carries far more weight than an anonymous email.
From that report:
” In this section the term “nationwide community-based organization” is intended to mean a membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions, government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members.”
https://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/02/faa-uas.html
The Congress SPECIFICALLY said that the CBO provides IT’S MEMBERS with a safety program. Not sure how you, or anyone else, can be confused by that.
Completely agree. The AMA is a private company and cannot enforce some mandated membership. Following safety guidelines has nothing to do with membership in a CBO. Try telling me I have to pay a private company to fly a model plane and maybe you can figure out what my response to that would be. Most likely “ROFL” lol
You do not have to join the AMA to fly a model plane. You have the option to instead comply with FAA’s Part 107.
FrankM – Well if that’s the case then this could spells trouble for the AMA which is a Community Based Organization ( CBO ). By trouble I imply lost revenue for the AMA as in lost membership numbers. But then again if regulation under the safety guidelines requires membership then it is not the case, since the AMA states that the safety guidelines apply to members. Thus if you are not a member of the AMA but still follow the AMA guidelines then the argument becomes mute. As an example you are not an AMA member but fly over 400-feet ( 122-meters ) above Mean Sea Level (MSL ) in which case you have violated the FAA mandate that you remain below 400-feet MSL since you have done so without ‘ being a part of ‘ a CBO while doing so. The important thing to note from the FAA is ‘ being a part of ‘. ‘ Being a part of ‘ implies membership because you can only be a part of when you are a member and not vise-versa.
While states and the federal government look to non-governmental agencies to do many things, they don’t REQUIRE membership in private organizations to enjoy full privileges. Even insurance, someone can always take out a bond. Ever heard of “self insured?”
While training, education, and insurance is required to operate many things, there is no legal requirement as of yet to require training, education, and insurance for operations under PL112-96 Section 336 or part 101.41.
Your comment about part 107 is an obfuscation. Per the FAA’s own website, “Part 107 will not apply to model aircraft. We’re not talking about part 107, we’re talking about PL112-95 Section 336 / part 101.41 – which are NON COMMERCIAL operations. Per So discussion of part 107 is not germane to operations as a “model aircraft” and only serves to confuse and/or obfuscate.
Lastly, just because government allows people to send children to private or home school as an alternative, does not equate to the government REQUIRING them to do it.
Once a sUAS is no longer in compliance with ANYTHING in section 336/Part 101.41 then it is no longer, by definition, a model aircraft. Therefore, it is subject to Part 107. Read Part 107 closely, it never speaks to “commercial” use, etc. It is simply the sUAS regulation. If you operate in FULL accordance with Section 336 THEN you are a model aircraft and exempt from Part 107.
And the only agency with the authority to enforce PL112-95 Section 336, soon to be 14 CFR 101.41 is the FAA. And the FAA UAS Integration Office has explicitly said:
“The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO … You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO.”
If and when the FAA says something different, then I’ll comply. I’d note that as of today, they have not. Until then though, I’ll consider the above to be the policy.
So now an email from a help desk is your standard for determining FAA Policy. You should let them know. They have been wasting a lot of time, effort, and money doing it the old fashioned way, you know, publishing an Advisory Circular, entering it into the Federal Register, etc. You know, the way policy is LEGALLY determined and set.
I am astonished that a person such as yourself who is so experienced in manned aviation would be pretending that an email constitutes policy. Myself, i’ll wait until I see it on official letterhead, in an AC, or published in the Federal Register. Until then it is nothing more than an email. And on that note I think we have both made our respective positions crystal clear and now we will need to wait for the FAA to clarify this in an official statement.
Bill,
Since roughly 2002, federal agencies have considered email to be official communications. As part of the Executive Branch, DOT is required to archive them under public records law. Again, if not official, why the archive requirement? And finally, if USG emails are not official, then why the dust up over SECSTATE’s email?
Yes, I am a person experienced in USG policy making and implementation. I also know that in DOD email is official. So the test that it must be on letterhead is not always a valid test.
The email was from an individual to an official email account maintained and answered by the FAA UAS Integration Office.
They were asked a specific question about whether CBO membership is required to comply with PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(2) / 14 CFR 101.41(b) – the “guidelines” and “programming” paragraph.
Despite even mentioning AMA in the body of the email, the FAA still responded to me on 12 July 2016 with : “The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO … You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO.”
So while CBOs, as defined in the conference report draft the aforementioned guidelines and programming, the FAA does not require membership in the CBO. And they’ve said that explicitly.
But a conference report is not law. The FAA has interpreted the PL112-95 Section 336 para (a)(2) / part 101.41(b) and said that membership is not required.
I suppose folks with standing could sue over that interpretation. But that would join another lawsuit on the FAA’s authority to interpret law.
I am sorry, but until the FAA publishes something to the Federal Register stating what is in the email they have not officially done anything with regard to issuing an interpretation regarding CBO membership. It simply amazes me how much value you are placing on an anonymous email sent from a help desk. That is simply NOT an official FAA document, policy, or interpretation. And you know this, but prefer to ignore it because it suits your narrative.
See above. For a number of years email has been considered official communications in the USG. Executive branch agencies are required to retain email under public records laws.
From an official USG email account, one monitored and answered by the FAA UAS Integration Office, FAA UAS Integration Office issued the following statement:
““The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO … You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO.”
Good!!!….I was having trouble keeping my UMX Pitts below 400 ft.!!!
That’s great for the old-school AMA, except of course for drone pilots who were basically sold out to keep the main membership happy. Letting the tombstone agency (FAA) separate your membership into different classes of model aircraft enthusiasts was a giant mistake on your part as anything that comes up can be blamed on the AMA for agreeing to it’s membership being split into the “important” members and the drone pilots.
Quadcopter pilots that are full dues paying members of the AMA now cannot fly at night and have to take an FAA mandated “knowledge test”? WTF? Meanwhile, local municipalities, state parks, government buildings, etc… are passing all sorts of unlawful regulations restricting American citizens legal access to the national airspace system without a peep from the AMA.
So, congrats on your big win in keeping the important members from any new legislation.
Stephen,
All AMA members that fly following the AMA Safety Code enjoy the same freedoms regardless of the aircraft flown. FAA knowledge testing that you refer to is directed towards Part 107 commercial operations, and does not pertain to those flying strictly for the purpose of recreation. All model aircraft are banned from take offs and landing in National Parks and Monuments except in parks that have established model aircraft flying sites. We are currently in talks with the National Park Service to explore options to safely reintroduce AMA modeling under certain conditions.
Ummmm… There is nothing in Section 336 or Part 101.41 that prohibits flying at night or requires a test. Follow the AMA Safety Code, which also does not prohibit night flying and you are good to go.
What in the world are you talking about? The FAA memo applies to drones, just as much as any other hobby aircraft. As I read the quidelines, I can fly my drone at night and can fly above 400 ft as long as I’m following AMA safety guidelines. I don’t know of anything in the AMA or in the Regs that separates drones from other model aircraft.
This is fantastic. You guys are so professional by handling this in a logical, non-emotional manner. Keep up the full court press. Way to go AMA!
OH BOY…. OK can someone answer me this, I am an AMA member, I fly a UAS for fun and volunteer some of my videos to non-profit agencies with no compensation what so ever, It’s just an opportunity for me to get in practice in flying and programming fight parameters for a purpose (rather just zooming around) and learning how to edit videos proficiently using complicated software.
When I fly on a large enough property that is NOT a RC flying field and I can see my UAS at, say 500 feet with a lookout spotter for aircraft to get a particular video shot.(I can see it easily at 400 ft) I am ok as far as the rules are?
Hi Jim S,
As an AMA member, you can fly over 400′ on a non-AMA flying field if you follow our safety code and are not violating any federal regulations or TFRs. It should be noted, AMA’s safety program also does not allow for flight over 400′ within three miles of an airport without coordinating with the airport.
As for taking video/photo, the FAA considers any non-recreational/leisure flight as commercial. Even though you are not being compensated for your work, you are still conducting flight with an intention or purpose – which would classify you as commercial requiring you to comply with Part 107.
Chad,
All of the documents from the FAA about CBO and the 400 foot rule are good news. But, we need to be very cautious in our operations. One accident will change the direction of regulations.
There are still a few loose ends in all of this. Back on 6/18/2014 Michael P. Huerta, FAA Administrator, released and signed a 17 page document “Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.” We all know this as section 336.
These 17 pages defines sec 336, which is only one page long. These 17 pages may be the guidelines the FAA will follow for part 107 wording.
One section is still troubling. This deals with notification of FAA towers and and airport operators within 5 miles. The wording goes beyond notification and talks to authorized. These words could cause trouble for any club who is with 5 miles of an airport. Airport operators could just say “no”.
Below is a copy of the section in the 6/18/14 letter from the FAA.
“Model aircraft must not interfere with and must give way to any manned aircraft. This requirement needs no further explanation, and the FAA would expect that model aircraft operators abide by it. We note that model aircraft interfering with, or that do not give way to, manned aircraft would be subject to enforcement action under section 336(b), as further explained in section III below.
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. Additionally, we note that following this 5-mile notification procedure would be read in conjunction with FAA rules governing airspace usage discussed below.”
Thanks Frank–all good points. And for Malvey, in thirty five years of staying under the FAA’s radar as a professional pilot, I’ve never known the FAA to use a “clear method and procedure” for issuing anything.
Give it up Malvey and Budreau, the above posts have only further resolved my intentions of not renewing my AMA membership. All the above are such blatant and transparent attempts to bully, browbeat, and ramrod further and continued membership for the Academy it’s outrageous. The self serving propaganda spewed forth in it’s publications and bulletins over the last months is equally repugnant. I have real doubts that the FAA “model airplane police” are going to come around and write me up for flying without an AMA card in my pocket. If so, I guess I’ll just have to go back to model railroading.
Fair enough. Just so I am clear, in your 35 years as a professional pilot have you ever seen the FAA issue policy in an anonymous email from a help desk? Would your employer follow a directive to make a repair typically issued in an AD if some guy walked in with an email saying to do it?? Just curious.
Thanks to the AMA for their diligent efforts to protect model aviation, I really appreciate it.
Related to all of the above postings, can someone clarify a situation that I think is somewhat common to many model pilots out there? I am learning that many local municipalities have laws or ordinance prohibiting RC activity of any kind in places like parks, unless there is an area set aside for such use. In fact the Grand Jury of Orange County California has recently made a recommendation for all Orange County Cities come up with their own laws. (https://www.ocregister.com/articles/drone-718200-laws-local.html) I think many readers will find this enlightening as to the public’s perception of our hobby. Obviously most of this is a result and direct to drone flyers since there has been such a huge increase in drone flying and the resulting general public’s paranoia about drones invading their privacy. In short, who has the authority to regulate hobby RC activities in any give community? Is it the local City? Can we fly anywhere as long as we abide by the AMA’s community based guidelines? Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
Todd,
The AMA is aware of the situation in Orange County, and have already contacted the elected officials/councils of the 34 cities affected. Orange County is an ongoing issue, and we will keep our members informed as new updates occur.
You can not “fly anywhere”, AMA members should follow the AMA Safety Code, trespassing laws, privacy laws, federal/state/local UAS laws, etc. States can regulate the take off and landing aspect of UAS, which the FAA acknowledges in the Final UAS Rule “The FAA notes, however, that state governments have historically been able to regulate the takeoffs and landings of aircraft within their state boundaries.” States are writing/passing laws in regards to “airspace” which the FAA maintains is their (FAA) jurisdiction. These situations typically fall under preemption and will most likely be settled in the future by the court system. The AMA’s hope is to resolve these issues of local bills/ordinances before they pass into law.
FWIW, the Orange County law regarding flying RC in parks has been around for a very long time, it is nothing new. In fact, I have been chased out of a park for flying a hand launch glider. This was 15 years ago!! The OC County Park rule does not talk about what is legal to do in the air, only what is legal with regard to where you are standing while flying.
Thank you Tyler. I am glad you are aware of the issue here in Orange County. I’ll be keeping an eye on things as they evolve here in OC.
I have just read the above letter from the FAA and I can’t see anywhere where it states that you HAVE to join the AMA. All it states is that you have to follow the safety guidelines written by a community based organization and no where does it state that you have to be a member of that community. For the AMA to presume that you HAVE to be a member to legally fly above 400ft AGL is wrong! If that was the case or if that is what the AMA is trying to pursue then they are crossing the line between and organization helping and educating the RC community to one that is controlling it!
AMA membership is required to operate within our CBO programming. Read more at https://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov-cbo.aspx.
Further questions and comments be submitted through the contact link at https://www.modelaircraft.org/, or at the following: https://www.modelaircraft.org/askama/submitissue.aspx . Thank you for supporting the AMA.
I predicted this very argument in 2012. I belong to the AMA because the club I choose to belong to requires it. If I had my own 100 acres, I probably wouldn’t belong…no need.
The quote given does not say you have to be a member of AMA, or any other org. It says as long as you are following their regulations and guidelines. Did I miss something?
Nope. I sent the FAA UAS Integration Office an explicit email asking if CBO membership was required to comply with 336. They said:
“The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO … You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO.”
The FAA letter on 400′ says you have to comply with 336 and CBO safety guidelines.
(minus any membership requirement of course – as they’re on record saying it’s not required).
AMA membership is required to operate within our CBO programming. Read more at https://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov-cbo.aspx.
Further questions and comments be submitted through the contact link at https://www.modelaircraft.org/, or at the following: https://www.modelaircraft.org/askama/submitissue.aspx . Thank you for supporting the AMA.
You can “maintain” that all day long, but that doesn’t change that the only organization with enforcement authority said:
“The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO … You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO.”
If AMA has something from the FAA that says this is not true, or that their email to me was forged, fake, or not official policy, then please post.
Please read https://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov-cbo.aspx which includes Congress’ definition of a CBO and documentation of the FAA recognizing the Congressional report.
Further questions and comments be submitted through the contact link at https://www.modelaircraft.org/, or at the following: https://www.modelaircraft.org/askama/submitissue.aspx . Thank you for supporting the AMA.
To me this all seems like typical government BS. I do agree that it is prudent to see an “official document” properly registered before jumping off the ledge. Also keep in mind that it was people flying the ‘multi-rotor’ aircraft that DIDN’T belong to a CBO, such as the AMA that got the modeling community in the bucket we’re in.
I’ll just keep flying my ‘exempted’ control line airplanes and enjoy the benefits of being an AMA member.
Hi fellow members and the AMA,I might of missed a post or two if they were posted,had to scan fast,at work,with this said my question is is my Phantom 4 included with being allowed over 400ft if flying safe and responsible?
Jim,
All AMA members that fly following the AMA Safety Code enjoy the same freedoms regardless of the aircraft flown.
ThankYou
Thanks for your work. I am, and will continue to be a AMA member. One question that concerns though. When I registered, on the form, I had to agree to not fly over 400′. Does this override what I have already agreed to?
Thank you for your question. You can read more about registration at https://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/faa-uas-faq.aspx.
Questions can be submitted through the Contact link at https://www.modelaircraft.org/ , or at the following: https://www.modelaircraft.org/askama/submitissue.aspx . Thank you for supporting the AMA.
Where does the AMA Safety Code say we must remain under 400 if within 3 miles of an airport unless there is an agreement with the airport to safely fly over 400 ft? I read “without notifying airport operator”. Where did the “agreement” requirement come from? Isn’t “agreement” quite different from “notifying”?
Notification is a minimum requirement in our safety code at https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.PDF. Avoid manned aircraft per line two, rows a-d.
Questions can be submitted through the contact link at https://www.modelaircraft.org/ or at the following: https://www.modelaircraft.org/askama/submitissue.aspx . Thank you for supporting the AMA.
You have not given me what I need for for my club situation; being about 3 miles from non-tower small airport. AMA Safety code 2.c says notify; this seems to implies the air port manager is not given the potential to deny model flight. 2.d very clearly states an agreement is required. This implies the airport manager could deny mixed air flight.
From all the FAA chaos early in the year my club and the air port manager banned IMAC and pattern flight. Just when I though all was well for another year AMA now seemingly adds the “agreement” term.
Which applies?
This question is best handled through our ticket system so we can learn more about your club and the type of airports within three miles. The three mile rule and agreement has been in place for many years to assure models never interfere with manned aircraft.
https://www.modelaircraft.org/askama/submitissue.aspx or call 765-287-1256 x230
Bruce,
There are two sets of policy that overlap, one issued by a private organization, and the other federal law. The private organization says you have to notify. The airport is under no obligation to follow what AMA says.
PL112-95 Section 336(a)(5) says that “when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation.” Although the law does not explain what would happen if the airport objects, the FAA addressed that in their Interpretation of the Special Rule on Unmanned Aircraft. In that document the FAA said this:
“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.”
If you don’t notify, you’re not operating as a model aircraft and FAA can take enforcement action. If you do notify, and they say no, but you fly anyway, then you’re endangering the NAS and they can take enforcement action under 336(b).
Some of Frank’s interpretations above are not correct. Bruce, please contact AMA directly to discuss further at 765.287.1256 x235 x227 or x230.
If you read my post of 3 Aug, there are more details. I would also like to know AMA’s answer for this.
The FAA has a history of generating letters and notification that gives their interpretation of regulation and rules. This letter was released in June of 2014. This interpretation could very well become the words of FAR Part 107. I know the local airport manager believe he can say “no”.
The AMA believe they can talk FAA airport managers out of this position, but managers abide by documents released by the FAA, not the AMA.
Ray,
It is our understanding that Part 107 flight approval (for commercial operations) will eventually be web based, allowing for instant approval/denial. This type of notification system will require airports to have TFR and NOTAM’s in place for denial of flights.
PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(5) says : “when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).”
14 CFR 101.41(e) says : “When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation.”
Starting at the bottom of page 13 in the FAA’s Interpretation of the Special Rule on Model Aircraft, it says : “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.”
PL112-95 Section 336 and/or 14 CFR 101.41 establish five criteria you must satisfy to operate as a model aircraft. One of those criteria is to notify the airport(s) within 5 miles. The FAA said that if you make the notification, if the airport objects, and if you fly anyway, then the FAA “considers” that to be “endangering the safety of the NAS.”
And PL112-95 Section 336 (b) says: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.”
We often find airports are not equipped or trained to address the notification requirement. We believe the best approach to fulfill the notification requirement is to send a short letter to the airport identifying your location and contact information. Contact the AMA at 1-800-435-9262 x227 for a sample notification letter.
I can’t respond to the AMA’s comment – there’s no reply button.
Ok, but while that is the method AMA prefers, is it not true that ultimately the airport gets 51% of the vote with respect to what they will and will not accept?
The FAA looks to airports to manage the airspace, but FAA has ultimate preemption based on the authority given to them by Congress. Airports cannot deny Sect 336 operators based on a modeler’s mere presence in the airspace.
(again – no reply button)
So are you saying this passage does not exist? I see no place where their authority on this issue is limited nor any requirement where they need to justify their objections.
“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.”
— Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, 79 Fed. Reg. 36,172 (June 25, 2014).
If there is a document that cites the list of valid reasons for which airports can object, or a list of reasons why they cannot, please cite that document.
If a modeler is compromising safety in the NAS, their operations must cease and corrective actions are to be taken. We have helped hundreds of modelers and flying sites fulfill the notification requirement across the country. For more guidance, you should contact us at https://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/organization/hqstaff.aspx.
On the FAA’s FAQ page it gives an alternative to belonging to a CBO – basically just following their safety guidelines.
This seems contrary to Section 336 (part of an Act of Congress) which requires operating “within the programming” of a CBO.
Can you elaborate? Is the FAQ wrong?
To fully satisfy Sect 336, you need to operate within a programming of a CBO. Congress defines a CBO as membership based. Congress created this law and has ultimate authority over the FAA.
The FAA’s role is to ensure safety in the airspace, their job is not to explain how each CBO works. The FAA will not, nor do we want the FAA to, explain AMA’s membership policies.
Why you keep deleting my comments/response?
You can read our blog policy at https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama-blog-policy/
I think you need to go back and read my post of 3 Aug. The FAA interpretation of sec 336 date June 2014 says we must get permission to fly with 5 miles of an airport. If the operator or ATC of that airport says “no”. We are in violation of FAA regulations.
My comments were not about Part 107 commercial operators. My concern is for hobby people.
Ray,
This is the direct quote from the June/2014 FAA interpretation of model aircraft,”the FAA would expect modelers operating model aircraft in airspace covered by §§ 91.126 through 91.135 and part 73 to obtain authorization from air traffic control prior to operating.” This quote says that the FAA “expects modelers” and does not say that “modelers must” gain authorization from airports. Even the FAA clearly states that their guidelines are not required by law unless the word “must” is used. This can be read directly from the FAA website at the following link: https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/plain_language/articles/mandatory/
You really should have also posted the very next sentence, as it adds substantial meaning to the word “expects” used in the prior sentence.
“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.”
-— Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, 79 Fed. Reg. 36,172 (June 25, 2014).
Yes, safety in the NAS is first and foremost.
OK, I copied this from the FAA document of June, 2014. There seems to be a difference in meaning. Out government is not always consistent.
Below is a copy of the section in the 6/18/14 letter from the FAA.
“Model aircraft must not interfere with and must give way to any manned aircraft. This requirement needs no further explanation, and the FAA would expect that model aircraft operators abide by it. We note that model aircraft interfering with, or that do not give way to, manned aircraft would be subject to enforcement action under section 336(b), as further explained in section III below.
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. Additionally, we note that following this 5-mile notification procedure would be read in conjunction with FAA rules governing airspace usage discussed below.”
While the third paragraph in Ray’s post above does not specifically use the word “must”, it sure sounds like if ATC says a modeler can’t fly within 5 miles of their airport, then the modeler can’t fly, period.
Bob, I concur with your assessment given…
PL112-95 Section 336(b): “STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.”
And
14 CFR 101.43 “Endangering the safety of the National Airspace System.
No person may operate model aircraft so as to endanger the safety of the national airspace system.”
If an ATC determines that a modeler within five miles of an airport is careless and reckeless, then those safety concerns need to be resolved. A airport cannot deny operations based on a modeler’s mere presence.
So are you saying that this statement is not true?
“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.”
— Pg 14, Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, 79 Fed. Reg. 36,172 (June 25, 2014).
Safety in the airspace is paramount. We do not understand your question.
You made the statement: ” A airport cannot deny operations based on a modeler’s mere presence.”
I’ve not been able to find any source documents that lists the acceptable reasons for an airport objection to sUAS operations inside five miles. Nor have I found a list of unacceptable reasons.
Your statement is declarative. Please cite the source that supports that statement.
The FAA has not provided this blanket guidance you request and instead looks to airports to assess and manage the airspace. While airports are fully knowledgeable about full scale regulations, many are not yet trained, staffed, or equipped to deal with UAS operations and regulations.
AMA Staff,
Quoting from Ray’s post above:
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. Additionally, we note that following this 5-mile notification procedure would be read in conjunction with FAA rules governing airspace usage discussed below.”
Then you stated:
“If an ATC determines that a modeler within five miles of an airport is careless and reckeless, then those safety concerns need to be resolved. A airport cannot deny operations based on a modeler’s mere presence.”
What this sound like to me is that:
1) I tell the airport operator and ATC that I will be flying at some place that is within 5 miles of their airport.
2) They tell me, “Sorry, but you can’t fly there.”
3) I tell them, “No, sorry, but you can’t stop me unless you can PROVE that I’m conducting my flights in a careless or reckless manner”. ATC has no way of doing this, so…
4) Instant and lasting hostility develops between the airport and me.
There might be some times when flying within 5 miles of an airport could be dangerous, even if the modeler is not flying in a careless or reckless manner. For example, if a modeler is going to fly gliders just outside of the airport’s perimeter they could pose a hazard to aircraft taking off and landing, even if they are flying in what would be considered a safe manner.
I would suggest that the AMA Government Relations team get together and distill all of the rules and caveats into one single AMA communication that would be sent to all the membership. Then we wouldn’t have to all be reading and trying to interpret FAA regulations, and exemptions for AMA members. It would all be spelled out clearly in one place that everyone could easily understand and apply to their modeling operations.
Bob,
Correct modelers need to have a cordial and cooperative relationship with airports. We plan to compile and distribute this information soon per your suggestion.
AMA Staff,
Guys, not to belabor the point, but after thinking about it, I think that having the AMA issue a document to all it’s members that summarizes in clear language the requirements and privileges of flying by AMA members should not be a “good idea” but something that the AMA is REQUIRED to do. I would guess that 90% of members will never look at the FAA’s written regulations and as I said above, some of the regs can be interpreted in more that one way, especially by those who aren’t all that familiar with them.
AMA should have a document that is accessible from the AMA home page, and is kept up to date as all of this wrangling with the FAA progresses. Then, instead of reading the BLOGS and trying to follow all of the posts, members could go to one document and have all they need to know.
I know that I said pretty much the same thing above, but now I’m referring to permanent documentation and not just a one-time communication.
Bob,
We are in the process of updating portions of our website, but you can currently find the requirements under the “Know Before You Fly” link on the Government Relations page: https://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx. We are not done with our updates, and will take into account your advice when making additional changes.
Thank you
AMA Staff,
Would it make sense to incorporate all of the FAA requirements into the AMA’s Safety Code? We’re supposed to abide by the Programming of a CBO, and if both the AMA and FAA requirements were all in one document, then we could be sure that we were covering all of the bases just by operating by the AMA Safety Code and not having to include directives in other documents, even AMA documents, as well. The simpler the better.
It’s true that the Safety Code would then have to be updated periodically as negotiations with the FAA change things, but it should be possible to broadcast a note to the membership informing them that an update to the Safety Code had been made, so everyone could read it and get the new info.
Bob,
We evaluate the AMA Safety Code on a regular basis. Your timing is actually good regarding this question, as we are looking at it now to determine what revisions should be made. Thank you very much for your input.
AMA Staff,
Okay, then I would like to make one more suggestion. When all of the updates, based upon current regulations, are incorporated into the AMA Safety Code, the Safety Code should be presented to the FAA and get them to OFFICIALLY approve it. By doing so, the FAA would be agreeing that if all of our members strictly abide by the AMA Safety Code they will be in total compliance with all applicable regulations and there would be no ambiguities based on conflicting wording in some FAA documents. The FAA should not be reluctant to do this, because they have already agreed that if we operate per the programming of a CBO then we comply with the law.
Bob,
We have spoken to the FAA about this very thing. The response given to us by the FAA is that they do not have the resources or the authority to approve a safety code for UAS operations within our organization. However, the FAA does continue to point to the AMA as the recreational industry leader in regards to safety.
Here are a couple of points from actual FAA documents:
“4. WHEN NOTIFIED OF A MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATION, THE ATC
MANAGER OR AIRPORT MANAGEMENT MAY DENY OPERATIONS IF
THEY IMPACT THE SAFETY OF OTHER OPERATIONS AT THE AIRPORT.
SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THE OBJECTION SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO
THE PERSON NOTIFYING THE ATCT OR AIRPORT MANAGEMENT AT THE
TIME OF THE REQUEST AND DOCUMENTED. ”
And also this
(3) AC 91-57A advises that hobbyist UAS operators provide notice to the airport
operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is
located at the airport) if the operation will take place within 5 miles of an
airport. However, if the airport operator or the air traffic control facility
believes the operation could impact safety, the facility may deny the operation
and notify the UAS operator of the specific objection. The hobbyist is not
required to request permission for the operation.
NOTES-
1. The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than model aircraft operators
might be flying UAS with the misunderstanding they are legally operating under the
authority of AC 91–57A. AC 91–57A only applies to model aircraft operators and
specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.
2. Model aircraft operators are not required to consider the different classes of
airspace as long as they comply with the requirements listed in the AC 91-57A, which
states that hobbyist UAS operators provide notice to the airport operator and the
airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the
airport) if the operation will take place within 5 miles of an airport.
This is from:
Air Traffic Organization Policy – N JO 7210.889
As demonstrated in the above posts, there are many conflicting messages in these FAA documents. I have been a full and RC pilot for nearly 50 years. The FAA publishes regulations. They also publish interpretations of these regulations. They publish various Advisory Circulars with more detailed instructions. The fact is sometimes all of these documents are not in agreement and can be interperated in different ways.
PL 95-112 sec 336 was written in 2012. Since that time the FAA has written an interpretation in 2014 and updated AC 91-57A twice. We have seen the FAA require us to register, as a result of the increase in drone conflicts with full scale aircraft. Now the FAA is writing a FAR part 107. In short, a lot has happen since 2012. So, I think the AMA needs to spend some time reviewing these FAA publications, point out the conflicts and get a current position from the FAA. This would be better than everyone playing lawyer and defining the meaning of various words.
Section 336 clearly states “(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).”
Obviously a working relationship with an airport is the best route, but not a requirement under the law (this is why 336 says “should” and not “must” in regards to operations being mutually-agreed upon).
The AMA has been very successful helping members with airport notifications across the country. On the rare occurrence of an issue arising, AMA members should contact our headquarters and we would be glad to help you work through the issue. Additional questions regarding airport notifications can be asked through our ticket system at the following: https://www.modelaircraft.org/askama/submitissue.aspx
AMA staff,
It is getting very tiresome to come here and see the same thing addressed over and over. Many posts and replies are based on either misinformation or misinterpretation of other posts rather that factual information. All of this rambling is not productive and does not give a particularly good impression.
Some time ago either here or on another blog, someone from AMA said that ALL of the known issues would be put into one document for reference. This should have taken only a day or two. When will this be done?
Hi Ron,
Approaches to fulfilling the airport notification requirement can vary depending on numerous factors. Generally, the following letter of notification is the best method to notify airports of your operations https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Letter-of-Notification.pdf.
Over the past couple days we have made some significant updates to modelaircraft.org/gov and will be including airport notification guidance soon.
I noted the web page does not even refer members to the the statement starting at the bottom of page 13 of this official FAA document:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
This is the FAA Guidance to ATCT personnel regarding UAS Notification Calls:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjkiMrW7L7OAhXCRSYKHWpZA-AQFggiMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sarahnilsson.org%2Fapp%2Fdownload%2F964548909%2FGuidance%2Bfor%2BUAS%2BATCT%2BNotification%2BCalls.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHbZB4LSuSHIKKcNOy3Tk8SFUtgFw&sig2=vboM0Rs8P-5KuO6KtozZfA
I suggest people read it.
That’s been out for quite a while, but it’s good to remind folks what it says. I also think it’s of value also reminding members what else the FAA says about these notifications. From page 13 & 14 of the FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule on Model Aircraft:
“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.”
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
Well actually it was just issued and goes into effect on October 6, 2016.
Fresh off the FAA presses:
“Chapter 3. Part 101, Subpart E Operations
A. ATC services. ATC services, inclusive of separation, are not provided to Part 101, Subpart E
operators (also known as modelers/hobbyists).
B. Notification. Part 101 operators are required to notify the airport and ATCT, if one is operational,
when operating within 5 statute miles of the airport.
1. If the facility is contacted directly and the operation poses no hazard:
a. Acknowledge the notification.
b. Do not use the word “approved” in the communication with the operator.
2. If the facility determines that a hazard exists:
a. Deny the operation .
b. State the reason for denial.
REFERENCE: FAA JO 7110.65, para 2-1-1; 14 CFR, Part 10, Subpart E; FAA Reauthorization and
Modernization Act 2012, Section 336; and AC 91-57. ”
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_JO_7200_23_2.pdf
Unless I’m missing something, the airport still gets 51% of the vote. All they would have to do in order to deny ops would be to say that it poses a hazard. I don’t think that would be difficult to do.
“The area of proposed operations could conflict with VFR helicopter flight paths.” “The area of proposed operations is used from time to time by aircraft in distress.” “The area of proposed operations is sufficiently close to VFR traffic going to and from the airport that we cannot guarantee safe separation.”
Since VFR traffic can be all over the place near a small airport, those are just the ones off the top of my head.
I believe you are correct. The path of appeal would be to the FAA FSDO that covers your area. I doubt any calls from the AMA would change the mines of airport managers that do not want model aircraft within 5 miles. The FAA has told airport operators not to use the word approved. But, they can say no.