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

[Wild Bill emeritus]

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.

B4UFLY App​

B4UFLY App | Federal Aviation Administration

Recreational users who only fly their drone for fun, now have an improved app – B4UFLY – to help show where they can and cannot fly with interactive maps.

www.faa.gov

"The FAA has partnered with Aloft (formerly Kittyhawk) to redevelop the FAA's first mobile application, to improve the user experience so that recreational flyers know whether it is safe to fly their drone. The app provides situational awareness to recreational flyers and other drone users. It does not allow users to obtain airspace authorizations to fly in controlled airspace, which are only available through the FAA's Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC)."

 

[mikec]

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.

I think not. FAR 101.25(e, f), the 5-mile from airport and controlled airspace rules, only applies to Class-2 or -3 rockets, not Class 1. The only limitation on Class 1 is 101.23b general operating limitations, "The FAA may specify additional operating limitations necessary to ensure that air traffic is not adversely affected, and public safety is not jeopardized." Which they can and sometimes do argue allows them to require anything they want, basically.

 

[MikeT]

Our R/C Club supports Rocketry and we hold a High Power FAA waiver to 17,000 ft. The AMA actually supports rocketry up to G motors. That 400ft "rule " is for Radio Control operation.

 

[GuyNoir]

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 think you might be overlooking a couple of important items in that statement.

Prior to the implementation of the UAS rules, model aviation had an exemption from additional regulation. When the FAA started the process to write the UAS rules, that exemption was part of the draft rules, and stayed that way until 6 weeks prior to the NPRM publication. At that point, commercial UAS interests (think"Amazon") stepped in and said "you can't leave those airplane guys unregulated". That's when model aviation fell under the UAS rules and no amount of safety citation or lobbying could change it.

Feel free to talk to Jay Marsh about this history for all the gory details.

 

[samb]

@tfrielin So your source is incorrect concerning FAA altitude limits for model rockets and you have some examples here of rockets and RC aircraft peacefully coexisting. Hope you can come to some agreement that lets you fly with the airplanes.

 

[jazzviper1]

I think you might be overlooking a couple of important items in that statement.

Prior to the implementation of the UAS rules, model aviation had an exemption from additional regulation. When the FAA started the process to write the UAS rules, that exemption was part of the draft rules, and stayed that way until 6 weeks prior to the NPRM publication. At that point, commercial UAS interests (think"Amazon") stepped in and said "you can't leave those airplane guys unregulated". That's when model aviation fell under the UAS rules and no amount of safety citation or lobbying could change it.

Feel free to talk to Jay Marsh about this history for all the gory details.

You are TOTALY CORRECT! It is the commercial interests that caused most of the problem. Worst is when interest in "drone delivery" fades we will still be stick with these stupid regs.

 

[Titan II]

FYI...

Special S8 Info - National Association of Rocketry

The United States has very specific requirements for individuals flying Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) such as radio control airplanes and drones. This includes S8 radio control rocket gliders flown in FAI Spacemodeling competiton. Non-US citizens are required to follow the same model aircraft...

www.nar.org

 

[TheTank]

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

Agreed. The AMA has done all the heavy lifting on this for the hobbyist - especially establishing the recognition of CBOs. I would think its an afterthought for NAR and Tripoli as its a very tiny bit of the rocket population.

 

[MikeT]

Agreed. The AMA has done all the heavy lifting on this for the hobbyist - especially establishing the recognition of CBOs. I would think its an afterthought for NAR and Tripoli as its a very tiny bit of the rocket population.

The FAA has already granted CBO status to these organizations. NAR & Tripoli certainly would qualify if they wanted to apply.

• Academy of Model Aeronautics
• First Person View Freedom Coalition
• Flite Test Community Association
• STEM+C Inc.

 

[Peartree]

I'm mostly following this discussion but I have no idea what the acronyms CBO and CBP represent.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I'm mostly following this discussion but I have no idea what the acronyms CBO and CBP represent.

CBO is Community Based Organization: https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreationalfliers/faa-recognized-community-based-organizations

Drone flights at sanctioned events held by CBOs are able to fly under less restrictions than regular recreational drone flights, such as the 400 foot limit.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title49-section44809&num=0&edition=prelim

 

[Peartree]

CBO is Community Based Organization: https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreationalfliers/faa-recognized-community-based-organizations

Drone flights at sanctioned events held by CBOs are able to fly under less restrictions than regular recreational drone flights, such as the 400 foot limit.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title49-section44809&num=0&edition=prelim

Thank you.

 

[georgegassaway]

The FAA has already granted CBO status to these organizations. NAR & Tripoli certainly would qualify if they wanted to apply.

• Academy of Model Aeronautics
• First Person View Freedom Coalition
• Flite Test Community Association
• STEM+C Inc.

NAR is working on getting CBO status to cover rockets that use R/C, such as Rocket Boosted Gliders. I'm sure it will happen, just no idea of when.

Also, there is this year's FAI World SpaceModeling Championships (WSMC) being held this July in Austin, TX.

The S8E (E R/C R/G for Seniors) and S8D (D R/C R/G for Juniors) events use models that boost well above 400 feet. Some S8E models can get about 1000 feet. All competitors from all countries flying R/C will have to be registered with the FAA ($5 fee) and pass the "TRUST" test (not hard). They can do all that in their home country using the FAA website for the "Drone" registration and the TRUST test.

Recent news, not yet published, is that the WSMC *IS* being covered under CBO. IIRC, the AMA is graciously covering the WSMC as an event under AMA's CBO with the FAA, much as AMA covers all AMA club fields.

 

[kalsow]

Recent news, not yet published, is that the WSMC *IS* being covered under CBO. IIRC, the AMA is graciously covering the WSMC as an event under AMA's CBO with the FAA, much as AMA covers all AMA club fields.

Impressive! 31% acronyms.

Edit: It's actually only 24% (10 / (32+10))

 

[aerostadt]

Impressive! 31% acronyms.

Interesting, Indeed. When so many acronyms are combined with so much legalese, it is difficult to know what they are talking about.

 

[Titan II]

Interesting, Indeed. When so many acronyms are combined with so much legalese, it is difficult to know what they are talking about.

The info in post 37 details the issue in plain language.

 

[TheTank]

The FAA has already granted CBO status to these organizations. NAR & Tripoli certainly would qualify if they wanted to apply.

• Academy of Model Aeronautics
• First Person View Freedom Coalition
• Flite Test Community Association
• STEM+C Inc.

I'm aware. I'm heavily involved on the R/C side and was one of the first clubs to submit our FRIA application with the AMA's assistance. While a pain that we are going through this because of idiots with drones... it could be worse. Look at whats happening in Canada. As with most things when the government gets involved, complete train wreck up there.

 

[shockie]

So let me see if I got this straight. If I launch any rc boost or rocket glider that boosts above 400 ft, I have to take the TRUST Drone test 1st?

What if the boost altitude is < 400 ft but it finds a thermal that takes it above 400 ft?

But this drone test only applies to RC boost/rocket gliders? It doesn't apply to free flight gliders?

 

[aerostadt]

I just took the test, answered all questions correctly, and got the certificate. I thought the last section specifically dealt with drones only. On a different note I went back and looked at my drone registration. The same Registration number goes on all my models. This was something about listing all the models. Is this something I need to do?

 

[James Duffy]

So let me see if I got this straight. If I launch any rc boost or rocket glider that boosts above 400 ft, I have to take the TRUST Drone test 1st?

Not quite. You need to register your RC Rocket Glider (or Boost Glider) if it has a total mass at take-off exceeding 250g, regardless of expected launch altitude. You may exceed 400' AGL with an RC/RG (or RC/BG) only if your event holds an altitude waiver issued by a CBO (such as AMA, which is the case for our upcoming World Championships.

The fact that the waivers are issued by Community Based Organizations is a BIG change from the procedures we are familiar with for HP rocketry waivers, and should simplify wavered operations greatly at some point in the near future.

The TRUST Test is a requirement regardless of the take-off mass of the RC/RG (or RC/BG).

What if the boost altitude is < 400 ft but it finds a thermal that takes it above 400 ft?

That flyer would be in violation of Section 44809 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. (Unless one holds an altitude waiver to the 400' AGL limit of 44809.)

But this drone test only applies to RC boost/rocket gliders? It doesn't apply to free flight gliders?

My reading of Section 44809 indicates that it applies to all "small aircraft," which includes not only RC aircraft, but free flight and control line aircraft below 55 lbs. as well. I am not an aviation lawyer, though (although I did get an A in Aviation Law class in college!)

Anyone genuinely interested in this stuff should read the actual text of Section 44809, with a copy of the Part 1 Definitions close at hand.

Section 44809: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44809
Part 1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/1.1

James

 

[MikeT]

NAR is working on getting CBO status to cover rockets that use R/C, such as Rocket Boosted Gliders. I'm sure it will happen, just no idea of when.

Also, there is this year's FAI World SpaceModeling Championships (WSMC) being held this July in Austin, TX.

The S8E (E R/C R/G for Seniors) and S8D (D R/C R/G for Juniors) events use models that boost well above 400 feet. Some S8E models can get about 1000 feet. All competitors from all countries flying R/C will have to be registered with the FAA ($5 fee) and pass the "TRUST" test (not hard). They can do all that in their home country using the FAA website for the "Drone" registration and the TRUST test.

Recent news, not yet published, is that the WSMC *IS* being covered under CBO. IIRC, theAMA is graciously covering the WSMC as an event under AMA's CBO with the FAA, much as AMA covers all AMA club fields.

If your a AMA member rocketry (G powered and under } is covered under your membership anyway. So it's no surprise they " graciously" covered that.

 

[MikeT]

I'm aware. I'm heavily involved on the R/C side and was one of the first clubs to submit our FRIA application with the AMA's assistance. While a pain that we are going through this because of idiots with drones... it could be worse. Look at whats happening in Canada. As with most things when the government gets involved, complete train wreck up there.

Me to I'm one of the R/C club officers and went thru the application process also. From what I understand a 400ft altitude waiver canbe applied for. That could help out.

 

[MikeT]

I just took the test, answered all questions correctly, and got the certificate. I thought the last section specifically dealt with drones only. On a different note I went back and looked at my drone registration. The same Registration number goes on all my models. This was something about listing all the models. Is this something I need to do?

As a recreational operator it's not necessary to list models the number identifies you as the operator.

 

[tfrielin]

@tfrielin So your source is incorrect concerning FAA altitude limits for model rockets and you have some examples here of rockets and RC aircraft peacefully coexisting. Hope you can come to some agreement that lets you fly with the airplanes.

Well, no, I won't be flying there.

After I posted here and got the answer back that there is no 400 foot limit on rockets, the RC Club contact seemed to get mad being informed of this, especially since I cited this forum as my authority. Seemed to think I was going behind his back for having the temerity to ask for clarification from a knowledgable group like this.

He initially said it was "too complicated" to explain all this 400 foot limit issue in an email, then changed the terms of his objection, saying the field was in the landing pattern of one of the approaches to the Tallahassee airport and THAT's why the limit.

Well, he could have mentioned that to begin with if that was the REAL issue. Hardly too complicated to explain in an email.

Bottom line is he told be I'm preemptively banned from his field, so I won't be flying there. I don't go where I'm not welcome, for sure.

This is a Radio Control Club, but I think there's also Control Fr*** issues going on here as well. So, best keep flying where I usually do.

 

[georgegassaway]

If your a AMA member rocketry (G powered and under } is covered under your membership anyway. So it's no surprise they " graciously" covered that.

Well, there will be at most only 8 possible AMA members flying the two S8 events, all on the US Team. The dozens of other S8 (R/C Rocket Glide) pilots, from outside the US, are not AMA members.

So, to me, AMA did graciously extend their CBO umbrella to cover the WSMC. AMA is not requiring those fliers to become full AMA members just to turn a buck for something the competitors can only use for 1 week.

OK, just now it occurs to me that when AMA is hosting FAI R/C events in the US, competitors coming form other countries, AMA must be doing the same thing (not requiring AMA membership of non-US fliers), and expectedly so. But that would be for model aircraft events. Now, technically under FAI bureaucracy, AMA is in charge of "Space Modeling" (model rockets), but AMA has agreed to let the NAR be in charge of that. So in a way AMA is technically obliged to do so, but could have chosen otherwise.

In any case, very good news that AMA is doing so. And first official use of a CBO for R/C Rocket Boosted Gliders.

It would have sucked so badly to have changed the S8E event to D power, and S8D event to C power (S8D models smaller and lighter than S8E models), to try to keep the models from exceeding 400 feet (and FAI might not have allowed that power class change for the WSMC), would have been a huge mess.

 

[aerostadt]

At the moment only 4 CBO's are listed as approved by the FAA and NAR and TRA are not on the list, but the AMA is on the list. Does this mean that when a local rocket club applies for an FAA waiver for a scheduled local rocket meet that if they have an AMA member involved in applying for the waiver, then rocket R/C gliders can accede the 400' limit? Will the NAR and TRA in the future have their (our) organizations added to the accepted CBO list?

 

[Steve Shannon]

At the moment only 4 CBO's are listed as approved by the FAA and NAR and TRA are not on the list, but the AMA is on the list. Does this mean that when a local rocket club applies for an FAA waiver for a scheduled local rocket meet that if they have an AMA member involved in applying for the waiver, then rocket R/C gliders can accede the 400' limit? Will the NAR and TRA in the future have their (our) organizations added to the accepted CBO list?

I’m no expert, so my understanding might be incorrect, but it appears that once an organization has been recognized as a CBO then they must also designate flying fields. I don’t know the next step.

It might be easier in the long run for local clubs to file as CBOs, rather than having a national organization manage whatever the process is for local permissions. That’s what I would do if Big Sky Rocketry Association were a 501(c)3. We’re not, and I really don’t want to go down that road.

 

[aerostadt]

It might be easier in the long run for local clubs to file as CBOs, rather than having a national organization manage whatever the process is for local permissions. That’s what I would do if Big Sky Rocketry Association were a 501(c)3. We’re not, and I really don’t want to go down that road.

So, is that a requirement for a CBO that they are a 501(c)3. I have been told that some rocket clubs are 501(c)3 entities.

 

[georgegassaway]

At the moment only 4 CBO's are listed as approved by the FAA and NAR and TRA are not on the list, but the AMA is on the list. Does this mean that when a local rocket club applies for an FAA waiver for a scheduled local rocket meet that if they have an AMA member involved in applying for the waiver, then rocket R/C gliders can accede the 400' limit? Will the NAR and TRA in the future have their (our) organizations added to the accepted CBO list?

NAR is working on becoming a CBO. I have no idea when that may happen.

AMA uses its CBO status to cover all AMA clubs.

So I'd expect when NAR becomes a CBO, that all NAR sections would be included (though perhaps a bit of red tape for the section apply to NAR HQ to be included in the NAR's CBO, rather than automatic. Hopefully, automatic.).

Until then, even with an FAA waiver for rockets, that waiver does not apply to "drones" (R/C model aircraft. no matter how it gets into the air).

This is why there were such concerns about the WSMC in Austin, TX. It could have a waiver to 10,000 feet, for example, and still the S8 R/C Rocket Gliders would be limited to 400 feet.

 

[Steve Shannon]

So, is that a requirement for a CBO that they are a 501(c)3. I have been told that some rocket clubs are 501(c)3 entities.

It looks like it:
Community Based Organizations (CBOs) that meet the statutory definition in Section 44809(h) of the Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft, may apply for FAA recognition:

Described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
Exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
Mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of model aviation;
Provide a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for all aspects of model aviation;
Provide programming and support for any local charter organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and
Provide assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites

FAA-Recognized Community Based Organizations | Federal Aviation Administration

Community Based Organizations (CBOs) that meet the statutory definition in Section 44809(h) of the Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft, may apply for FAA recognition:

www.faa.gov