[BDealhoy]

That's the recommendation from the column-writer, not mine. If you have issues with it, take it up with him.

[mwavesdave]

What worries me is anyone that doesn't have an issue with it. Too much of the mentality out there that if it doesn't affect me personally, then I don't care. If I ever get my March issue of the MAAC Mag, I'll be sure to find out who the guy was that wrote that. Transport Canada has specifically stated, in writing, that the "guidelines" published in the Advisory were solely intended for an individual flying on their own, with little or no understanding of air regulations. They've also clearly stated that the ONLY LAW pertaining to model aircraft and rockets is CARs 602.45. That's it, period, full stop. If someone at MAAC is writing differently, then I most certainly will take it up with my Zone Director, and the President of MAAC. We have enough issues to deal with, without someone at MAAC screwing things up worse. I get that for some parkflyers, the guidelines aren't a hardship for them. So once we get rid of model rockets, large scale aircraft, turbines, etc, when they go after parkflyers, those of us no longer flying won't say "I told you so"" Honest.

[Daren71]

Dave, you can go to the MAAC website to view the latest magazines.

At least you could with the old one. I'm on my cell at DFW, so I can't check right now.

Daren

[mwavesdave]

I took a quick look at the site, but didn't see it. If they do post it on the website, argh, why do I have to pay to have it mailed? Waste of $$ in this day and age. I'd prefer digital only copy, and hell, I'm old! lol

[mwavesdave]

OK, checked, and read.

Check the latest edition of MAC magazine (March 2015, vol 46 no. 2) in the Safety report (page 5. It covers the Advisory and what our reaction to it should be. Even as "best practices", they should be followed.""

I suggest a re-read of the document in question. It clearly states,

1) AC 600-02 is by its title “advisory”
and therefore, the suggested best practices it contains can be treated as such
providing common sense is used.
2) MAAC members fly a wide variety of models and participate in events however, which cannot comply with all of the best practices suggested in AC 600-02.
3) While the suggested best practices should be followed whenever and wherever possible, it is o.k. for members to deviate from them under the conditions
stated in the joint release.
4) MAAC Insurance coverage is not affected by the joint release.
5) From a legal perspective, AC 600-02 changes nothing. CARs 602.45 remains unchanged (at least for now) and is still the only rule governing the operation of model aircraft contained in the Aeronautics Act.

Giant Scale, large gliders, large aerobatic aircraft, model rockets, etc, couldn't be enjoyed whatsoever, if the suggested altitude in the AC was followed. Hence why the affirmation that it is ok to deviate from the AC, provided CARs 602.45 is followed. Interpreting aviation regulations, is part of what I do for a living. Interpreting legalese, is also a requirement of my position as a Senior AES Op Flight Instructor. The above statements make total sense to me. I'll abide by CARs, and I won't fly in a manner which constitutes a hazard to aviation safety, and I'll stay clear of cloud. Full stop. My big warbirds, giant scale aerobatic aircraft, 1/4 scale glider, will continue to fly in excess of 300 feet, every time I fly. But our club has also managed that risk, by flying with spotters, as well as having licensed radio operators that put our routine calls that we are operating from zero to 1000 feet, over the Shearwater Deactivated Main Runway. We talk to all aviation traffic in the area, and everyone knows who we are, and where we are. A bit of risk mitigation goes a long way. Any club theoretically, could do the same thing.

[mwavesdave]

A final, I hope, word about the situation with our club. Transport Canada sent a very nice memo to our Wing Operations folks, clearly stating that we are an extremely safe organization, and that the MAAC Guidelines/CARS 602.45 are the way ahead. Our control zone, which is class E airspace, 5 mile radius, up to 3500 feet, precludes any IFR traffic, and we have licensed radio operators, and radio comms with all VFR Traffic. So, we're now cleared, everything, up to essentially 3000 feet!

[Trumpetman]

Great news Dave! Interesting that Transport Canada would step up and clarify the situation. This bodes well for the future.

[Bdegan]

Dave ,

That is great news.

Thank you for sharing



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[Frank Klenk]

Great news Dave, thanks for keeping us in the loop!

[mwavesdave]

Any time! The big ticket item that won everyone over, is the fact that we have qualified radio operators, and radio, so we can communicate directly with any traffic in the area. Something other clubs might want to consider, even if you're not in Class E airspace. It shows a willingness on our part to be as proactive as possible in preventing any incidents.