FAA Altitude Limit on Model Rockets??? 400 Feet????

[tfrielin]

I've been in touch with a local RC flying club and have been told they will allow me to fly rockets at their field.

I have rockets like the Super Big Bertha and the Nike Smoke which use old school blackpowder engines and composites, respectively (F 26, F 32 sized engines). So they fly to a max altitude of not more than 1000 feet.

But here's the question---My contact there says the FAA has a 400 foot altitude limit on model rockets.

I don't believe that to be true and I'm hoping someone here can put me--and him---straight.

My google research indicates there IS a 400 foot altitude limit for drones, but no mention of same for rockets. Only, it seems, an 18,000 foot altitude for rockets that requires a FAA waiver. The latter altitude will not be a problem here, I can assure you.

So, have I got it right that the 400 foot altitude limit applies only to drones and NOT to model rockeats?

Thanks for any info.

 

[mh9162013]

I'm pretty sure you're right and that the 400 foot limit applies to R/C vehicles. However, I believe the NAR or some other relevant organization was able to clarify that R/C model rocket gliders are exempt from this.

I could be wrong and I'm sure others here will confirm or clarify what I just said.

 

[David J]

CFR Part 101 applies to model rocketry. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-101/subpart-C
Part 107 to unmanned aircraft. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107/subpart-B/section-107.51

 

[BigMacDaddy]

Maybe they are near an airport or something else that needs a lower ceiling?

 

[tfrielin]

CFR Part 101 applies to model rocketry. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-101/subpart-C
Part 107 to unmanned aircraft. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107/subpart-B/section-107.51

Maybe they are near an airport or something else that needs a lower ceiling?

Maybe, but this field is nowhere near an airport—-only the County Landfill!

 

[BEC]

This is not true now....it is an altitude limit for remotely operated unmanned aerial vehicles of all types (including conventional RC airplanes). This is a situation that is currently evolving as the Academy of Model Aeronautics and other groups work with the FAA to get it sorted and to arrange for fewer restrictions at designated and recognized flying sites. Another new requirement is that soon all UAVs will have to either be able to broadcast position and identifying information or be restricted to specific flying sites. As I say, the AMA is working on behalf of AMA clubs to help get this business sorted out and arranged.

One hopes model rockets continue to escape the level of scrutiny by the FAA that UAVs have fallen under.

As @David J pointed out, there are different regulations for the different model types.

 

[astronwolf]

Model rockets are free-flight.

 

[dr wogz]

that is my understanding as well, that the 400' ceiling is for R/C air vehicles (thanks to the nefarious use by the unscrupulous / uneducated..)

 

[Titan II]

Model rockets are free-flight.

Not necessarily.

 

[Scott_650]

This is not true now....it is an altitude limit for remotely operated unmanned aerial vehicles of all types (including conventional RC airplanes). This is a situation that is currently evolving as the Academy of Model Aeronautics and other groups work with the FAA to get it sorted and to arrange for fewer restrictions at designated and recognized flying sites. Another new requirement is that soon all UAVs will have to either be able to broadcast position and identifying information or be restricted to specific flying sites. As I say, the AMA is working on behalf of AMA clubs to help get this business sorted out and arranged.

One hopes model rockets continue to escape the level of scrutiny by the FAA that UAVs have fallen under.

As @David J pointed out, there are different regulations for the different model types.

I’m going to predict that hobby rocketry will not get anything similar to the restrictions that the FAA have imposed on UAVs - couple of reasons for that prediction: one, the rocketry community has a long standing and generally positive relationship with the FAA that includes a fairly rigorous tradition of well done self-regulation, two, there have been multiple reports of less than stellar behavior from UAV pilots, we don’t have near as many (if any!) analogous incidents from hobby rocketry users.

Will the current rules for conventional RC aircraft be applied to RC rocket planes/gliders? I’d say it’s a good question to ask - considering how more than one of the FAA’s sister alphabet agencies seem to like rearranging the rules whenever the mood strikes them.

 

[samb]

BUT ... it seems to me that sharing an RC flying field to launch rockets brings up the question: How will the sky police differentiate between the legal model rocket and the illegal drone breaking the 400 foot ceiling ? Also does the "Their field, their rules" rule apply when launching on an RC field ?

 

[dr wogz]

a local club (ORG - Ottawa Rocketry Group) used to launch from a CAF base (grenade range). Their LPR & MPR flights were unlimited, but their HPR stuff was limited to 1000' AGL.

they have since lost their feild, and are trying to locate a new one..

 

[T-Rex]

The NASA Houston Rocket Club shares the field with an RC plane group. We do our thing, they do theirs. Our limit is 2000ft. (NASA imposed if I understand correctly.)

 

[rcktnut]

Sky's the limit as far as the FAA is concerned for Class 1 rockets max altitude, period.

 

[SolarYellow]

The NASA Houston Rocket Club shares the field with an RC plane group. We do our thing, they do theirs. Our limit is 2000ft. (NASA imposed if I understand correctly.)

The web site says up to 2500', but anything over 2000' must use dual deployment.

 

[tsmith1315]

Also does the "Their field, their rules" rule apply when launching on an RC field ?

I’d say that’s the real situation here.

You’re going to need some diplomacy to make them feel good about you flying higher than they can on their own field.

 

[samb]

The sky is not the limit. Lots of local rules are implemented by clubs based on unique terrain features, prevailing weather patterns, need to maintain good neighbor relations, etc. @T-Rex Do planes and rockets fly at the same time ? I would think some ground rules would need to be spelled out to accommodate the different FAA rules but IDK.

 

[rcktnut]

The sky is not the limit. Lots of local rules are implemented by clubs based on unique terrain features, prevailing weather patterns, need to maintain good neighbor relations, etc. @T-Rex Do planes and rockets fly at the same time ? I would think some ground rules would need to be spelled out to accommodate the different FAA rules but IDK.

You are correct, on club rules, safety codes, site dimensions and any other rules, OP asked about the FAA altitude limits which on Class 1 rockets there are none. HPR rules apply when using a HPR motor which can then limit altitude due to site dimensions.

 

[T-Rex]

The web site says up to 2500', but anything over 2000' must use dual deployment.

Sorry, I don't use dual deploy, so I don't worry about their rules...... (besides, to me it's an insignificant difference)

@T-Rex Do planes and rockets fly at the same time ? I would think some ground rules would need to be spelled out to accommodate the different FAA rules but IDK.

Yes we fly at the same time. The RC group is probably 75 yards(?) from the rocket group. We watch for their planes the same as we watch for full size aircraft. The 2 groups play nice with each other, we have to if we want to continue.

 

[mikec]

If you fly near an airport and ask the local FAA folks, they will likely insist on altitude limits for Class 1 which they think they are allowed to do because of catch-all language in Part 101. At least I know that happened in one case.

 

[James Duffy]

Will the current rules for conventional RC aircraft be applied to RC rocket planes/gliders?

The recent UAS rules do indeed apply to radio control rocket gliders. When an RC system is added to a rocket, it ceases to be regulated under Part 101 of the FARs and moves to Section 44809 of the FARs ("Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft").

James

 

[James Duffy]

CFR Part 101 applies to model rocketry. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-101/subpart-C
Part 107 to unmanned aircraft. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107/subpart-B/section-107.51

You are correct that Part 101 applies to model ("Class 1") and high power ("Class 2") model rockets. However, Part 107 applies only to commercial operations of unmanned aircraft.

If you do not hold a Part 107 Certificate and are not getting paid to operate your drone or RC aircraft and are just flying recreationally, Section 44809 of the FARs applies: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44809

James

 

[mikec]

The recent UAS rules do indeed apply to radio control rocket gliders.

Is this written down someplace?

Do you know if NAR applied to be a CBO?

 

[James Duffy]

Is this written down someplace?

Do you know if NAR applied to be a CBO?

It is written down in Part 101 and Section 44809, but in an inelegant manner. NAR leadership spoke to FAA on this very subject in relation to an upcoming event, and the FAA official clarified that yes, an RC aircraft is still an RC aircraft regardless of how it got into the air.

The NAR has indeed applied to be a CBO, according to John Hochheimer at the recent Town Hall presentation at Virtual NARCON.

James

 

[mikec]

It is written down in Part 101 and Section 44809, but in an inelegant manner.

Thanks for the info, James. IANAL but I don't find the definitions of "aircraft" and "rocket" very clear in 101. And I would not trust the FAA to interepret the rules in an unbiased manner. I just hope that rockets stay as lightly regulated as they are. I suspect our counterparts in the amateur balloon community are about to see big changes in their part of 101.

 

[prfesser]

BUT ... it seems to me that sharing an RC flying field to launch rockets brings up the question: How will the sky police differentiate between the legal model rocket and the illegal drone breaking the 400 foot ceiling ? Also does the "Their field, their rules" rule apply when launching on an RC field ?

Obviously the sky police can't...well...unless and until their equipment can easily differentiate between a vertical flight at a couple hundred bananas per second ) and an object moving mostly horizontally, with a few filips, at automobile speeds or thereabouts. I would not have thought that to be a supremely difficult task but I'm increasingly bad at technological knowledge these days.

On launching on an RC field, I have no clue.

 

[SolarYellow]

If you fly near an airport and ask the local FAA folks, they will likely insist on altitude limits for Class 1 which they think they are allowed to do because of catch-all language in Part 101. At least I know that happened in one case.

Look at the air chart. If you're in the controlled airspace associated with that airport, ATC at that airport can tell you what to do all day and night. If you're not in controlled airspace and your flight doesn't enter it, that's a different story.

 

[James Duffy]

Thanks for the info, James. IANAL but I don't find the definitions of "aircraft" and "rocket" very clear in 101. And I would not trust the FAA to interepret the rules in an unbiased manner. I just hope that rockets stay as lightly regulated as they are. I suspect our counterparts in the amateur balloon community are about to see big changes in their part of 101.

The definitions are in part 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/1.1

Briefly, an aircraft is any craft that flies in the National Airspace System. A rocket is just a particular type of aircraft.

Designating a rocket with an RC system a UAS strikes me as an entirely reasonable interpretation, but I recognize the fact that the FAA failed to adequately consider the merging of a 101-legal aircraft (a rocket) with a 44809-legal aircraft (a UAS). This is now on their radar, figuratively speaking.

As far as the impact of this on other communities that fall under 101, consider this. The rocket community has avoided a tremendous amount of federal oversight and regulation due to two simple facts. First, we've done a remarkably good job of regulating ourselves over the past several decades. Second, when the FAA has felt the need to work with the rocketry community, the leaders of NAR and Tripoli have been open minded and constructive during these engagements. The positive quality of these engagements has been reflected in the fairly benign nature of 101. Heck, I suspect the very concept of a "community based organization" emerged from the good relationship between FAA and the rocket orgs.

The model aircraft guys? They approached their engagements with FAA a bit differently, I'm afraid, and it shows in both 44809 and 107.

James

 

[Tractionengines]

BUT ... it seems to me that sharing an RC flying field to launch rockets brings up the question: How will the sky police differentiate between the legal model rocket and the illegal drone breaking the 400 foot ceiling ? Also does the "Their field, their rules" rule apply when launching on an RC field ?

Write up a MoU (Memorandum if Understanding) between the 2 entities. That way everyone has the same "piece of paper" to look at. If something needs to be expanded or added or changed; everyone agrees to the negotiations, then gets new copies.

Sky's the limit as far as the FAA is concerned for Class 1 rockets max altitude, period.

True, except Local AHJ (Athority having Jurisdiction) can set lesser limits.

If you fly near an airport and ask the local FAA folks, they will likely insist on altitude limits for Class 1 which they think they are allowed to do because of catch-all language in Part 101. At least I know that happened in one case.

I believe it needs to be within 5 nautical miles from airport property perimeter. or In the defined approach paths. (Not that they don't try to expand that to anything they feel like.)

 

[BEC]

Heck, I suspect the very concept of a "community based organization" emerged from the good relationship between FAA and the rocket orgs.

The model aircraft guys? They approached their engagements with FAA a bit differently, I'm afraid, and it shows in both 44809 and 107.

I suspect the AMA would beg to differ on the “community based organization“ thing as they have had their hand in this for a good long while. I’m not sure what you’re saying about the regs. I guess I need to go read them from my aircraft modeler’s perspective as well as from a rocketeer’s perspective.

I’m glad to hear the NAR is applying to get on the whole CBO thing. I‘m afraid I didn’t listen to the town hall meeting at NARCON