HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale

What does the recent FAA cancelation memo mean?

Is the FAA trying to erase the 1981 doc that legalized RC drones?

Splash

Is the FAA making changes on how they handle RC flight?

Today I saw this on the FAA site: AC 91-57 (Cancelled) - Model Aircraft Operating Standards. My big question is what does that mean. It sure doesn't sound good for the RC community. I was in communication today with Jason Koebler. He writes for Motherboard and has a piece about this issue. He also said he is a big fan of RCGroups.

Here is an overview on the story from Jason Koebler of Motherboard:

The Federal Aviation Administration put in a request to formally cancel the document under which model aircraft have legally operated since 1981.

The document it wants to kill is called Advisory Circular 91-57, and it's a very important for those who fly first person video. The document from 1981 sets the voluntary guidelines under which RC planes can be flown.

Today the agency issued a memorandum "to request cancellation of AC 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards."

This would apply to both hobby FPV pilots and commercial users, except for those with express permission (like some movie studios and one oil company).

"This AC is superseded by statutory language in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 336," the memo, written by a member of the agency's Airspace Policy and Regulations Group, said. "The guidance in [AC 91-57] is no longer applicable."

That part is key—earlier this summer, the FAA put out an "interpretation" of that FAA Modernization law that the agency says gives it wider latitude to restrict certain very popular types of drone activity, such as first person view flights. The latest interpretation is much more restrictive than AC 91-57.

Viewed through that lens, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the agency wants to kill off the document that explicitly says all its FPV rules are voluntary.

The memo also states that a "new advisory circular is under development," which suggests that, rather than putting out a notice for public comment and standard rulemaking, as the agency was ordered to do by Congress, it's thinking about putting out yet another document that's not legally binding.

Read more on this topic at Motherboard.

Discussion

Reply
Thread Tools
Old Oct 10, 2014, 06:56 PM
Shut up and fly
papabatman's Avatar
United States, CO, Firestone
Joined Jun 2008
10,593 Posts
wow
papabatman is offline Find More Posts by papabatman
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: fun with a parkzone
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2014, 07:13 PM
La Mesa Air
La Mesa, CA
Joined Mar 2010
357 Posts
It means we march on the local FAA offices with plans to overtake.
.
.
.
Just kidding.
kf6bbl is offline Find More Posts by kf6bbl
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2014, 07:13 PM
La Mesa Air
La Mesa, CA
Joined Mar 2010
357 Posts
But seriously, this is bad.
This is a telegraphed punch to the nuts of ALL model aircraft, not just us FPV goggle lovers. The obvious thing to me here is the FAA sees our 'legs' as being AC 91-57. I can't even grasp how this is legal for them to do that. It's sort of like revising history. Whether they rescind a 33 year old advisory still does not change the well established FACT that they have not historically considered models as aircraft that they regulate. There is other evidence of that in other memos too.
As absurd as this move seems, I think it means they plan to regulate model aircraft by way of ever increasingly restrictive advisory circulars. We all know Public Law 112-95 prevents them from making regulations for model aircraft, but it doesn't say they can't screw everything up for us by way of advisory circulars.

Mark my word, it is going to take an all out lawsuit and court order to stop them.
kf6bbl is offline Find More Posts by kf6bbl
Last edited by kf6bbl; Oct 10, 2014 at 07:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2014, 07:19 PM
I'm not lost, they are
pullup!'s Avatar
Co.
Joined Jan 2005
1,414 Posts
Would like to know what this actually means.

Kind of sounds like "if you don't want to play my way I'll just take my ball home."
pullup! is offline Find More Posts by pullup!
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2014, 07:30 PM
BEOWULF
North vancouver, B.C. Canada
Joined Apr 2008
18,576 Posts
This should help you understand what it means

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...-112publ95.pdf
David22 is offline Find More Posts by David22
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2014, 07:39 PM
ninja's fly low
Slovakia, east
Joined Jan 2009
68 Posts
It is not FAA.. I bet it is bunch of scumbags from FBI, CIA, NSA etc that do not want you to spy on spies... Nobody asked me if I like it or to state my decision which I have right to do so, so I will not obey this sh(*! Coma.
cupsster is offline Find More Posts by cupsster
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2014, 07:43 PM
1202017
Hiccup's Avatar
Joined May 2014
47 Posts
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the FAA cannot do anything without the approval of the congressional committee which funds it, and, controls it.
The FAA is NOT autonomous and therefore anything they present as a possible action on their part must be approved by Congress.
Revocation of long standing imbedded rules would necessarily require much more definitive proof to the congressional committee that the existing rules are obsolete and should be done away with than just a collective opinion of the FAA.
As much as everyone believes that Congressmen are useless, I find that having been on a few of their websites and watching some of them on live media that most of them are very aware of the implications and shenanigans that the agency(ies) their committee monitors, oversees, and allocates funds to is trying to pull off.
Having posted the above, I will readily concede that they are all politicians, and, like diapers, need to be changed often for the same reason.
I wouldn't start listing my FPV or RC equipment for sale just yet.
Look at it this way, if they remove the, "Voluntary" compliance rule, then we wont have to, "Volunteer" to comply any more until there is a regulation in place that specifically outlaws any particular activity.

My 2 cents.

Hiccup
Hiccup is online now Find More Posts by Hiccup
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2014, 07:46 PM
KK4NOP
Mike Freas's Avatar
United States, VA, Virginia Beach
Joined Aug 2005
3,368 Posts
Honestly, at this point, I don't care. I'll sell of my long range stuff and fly mini quads FPV if it gets really bad. The FAA can kiss my rear.
Mike Freas is offline Find More Posts by Mike Freas
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Pan/Tilt servo mods
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2014, 07:52 PM
La Mesa Air
La Mesa, CA
Joined Mar 2010
357 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiccup View Post
Let us not lose sight of the fact that the FAA cannot do anything without the approval of the congressional committee which funds it, and, controls it.
The FAA is NOT autonomous and therefore anything they present as a possible action on their part must be approved by Congress.
I wish that were true. Congress already gave them a big pile of money in 2012, with the attached strings of doing X, Y, and Z over the following 3 years. And also DO NOT do A (section 336)
Instead, 2 1/2 years later, they have not even proposed the rules to do X, let alone Y or Z. And instead they are distracted with seeing how they can get around messing with "A".

Yes it is supposed to work they way you suggest, but it is clearly not. And I have no idea what to do about that.
kf6bbl is offline Find More Posts by kf6bbl
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2014, 07:55 PM
ninja's fly low
Slovakia, east
Joined Jan 2009
68 Posts
Instead to designate areas where this rules apply they wan to ban it everywhere.. Incompetent Amateurs..
cupsster is offline Find More Posts by cupsster
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2014, 07:57 PM
KK4NOP
Mike Freas's Avatar
United States, VA, Virginia Beach
Joined Aug 2005
3,368 Posts
Everyone needs to post on their FB site now then turn around and donate to the AMA fund.
Mike Freas is offline Find More Posts by Mike Freas
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Pan/Tilt servo mods
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2014, 08:01 PM
La Mesa Air
La Mesa, CA
Joined Mar 2010
357 Posts
I agree Mike, but I am honestly starting to question if the AMA has any wind left in their sails.

We haven't heard from them. Did they even know this was coming? If not, why not?

Either way, let's support them as best we can.
kf6bbl is offline Find More Posts by kf6bbl
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2014, 08:06 PM
KK4NOP
Mike Freas's Avatar
United States, VA, Virginia Beach
Joined Aug 2005
3,368 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kf6bbl View Post
I agree Mike, but I am honestly starting to question if the AMA has any wind left in their sails.

We haven't heard from them. Did they even know this was coming? If not, why not?

Either way, let's support them as best we can.
The FAA is off the rails and has been for a while. I'm going to continue to support the AMA and fly FPV. The FAA has no current law to stop me from doing so. Hell, the cops watch us fly most weekends.
Mike Freas is offline Find More Posts by Mike Freas
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Pan/Tilt servo mods
Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2014, 08:27 PM
Eye in the Sky
HGhost's Avatar
United States, WV
Joined Sep 2013
1,543 Posts
It is ALL about Money and those who set on these boards and committee's whose pockets it lines.
that includes members of Congress and a host of other organizations and maybe even the AMA and such type members. Who knows for sure how far it reaches ?

IF the FAA can completely control the "airspace" they can sell it to the many businesses that are currently being tested across many places for "unmanned flight"

the FAA and these companies do not want interfered with by simple Hobbyists. They use the excuse of manned aircraft and RC planes coming in contact with each other to hide the fact..IF they take away RC flight from the average Hobbyists, that leaves just these companies who are developing "Drones" to do many things.

They want no one else in their space...both in the high heights of normal manned flight ,and in the low altitudes most RCer's Fly.

What they basically will be doing is selling airspace to certain companies who will pay allot for it.

IF RC Hobbyists get to fly it will be in dedicated areas and club fields only and in limited conditions that will most likely cost them a fee or a license to do so, plus dues and who knows what else.

They force you to buy Insurances, they force you to buy licenses, to get State Inspection stickers and charge you taxes on everything you own.Even simple ATV's you are not allowed to ride on the roads they claim the taxes pay for etc etc.....RC is a booming business here and has grown in popularity, and they will like everything else regulate it and start charging you to enjoy it, like most all Hobbies people do.

It boils down to $$$ MONEY $$$.....always has and always will....that is why the FAA is doing what they are doing.....simple as that.
HGhost is offline Find More Posts by HGhost
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion What Does This Mean To You? Murocflyer Modeling Science 14 Oct 14, 2014 02:50 AM
Article Official RCGroups Response to the Recent FAA Memo jbourke Electric Plane Talk 507 Sep 28, 2014 07:29 PM
Question What does this label mean on ESC? Kevinfred Power Systems 8 Sep 28, 2014 06:51 AM
Discussion What does wheelbase mean ? pratto Multirotor Talk 4 Sep 23, 2014 10:09 PM
Discussion Shall we speculate: what is the FAA trying to achieve with the anti FPV memo? sentera FPV Talk 57 Jul 15, 2014 10:09 PM