Espritmodel.com Telemetry Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by Gary Evans, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old Feb 21, 2013, 03:51 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,408 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshy View Post
AC 91-57 is not a regulation, it is not necessary to follow it, if it was it would
be a regulation. They wouldn't need to "encourage" anything if they are telling
you exactly "what must happen."

-Blues
This has to be one of the most restated facts on RCGroups but I have not run across anyone with history on the subject who didn't know that it is a guideline. A more relevant fact IMO is that they have long since taken the position that all aircraft need specific authority to fly in NAS. If it were not for the advisory than what exactly has been our authorization to fly models? FAA has stated that it is AC91-57 but then if you don't follow it what authorization allows you to fly in NAS?
The AP guys found out that the answer was they didn't have any.

There is no shortage of opinions on how this would work if push ever came to shove and only being tested in court would provide a definite answer. Lets hope thatís not how we find out. This is all about to become history since the NPRM will lay their cards on the table.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Feb 21, 2013, 04:07 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,822 Posts
Remember that this is not the only NAS participant that has minor to no regulation.

There are also the Ultralight Flyers who enjoy pretty much the same benefits under Part 103.

In the meantime we enjoy flying :-)
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 04:16 PM
FPV Browncoat
prelator's Avatar
United States, CO, Parker
Joined Mar 2011
1,470 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary
If it were not for the advisory than what exactly has been our authorization to fly models? FAA has stated that it is AC91-57 but then if you don't follow it what authorization allows you to fly in NAS?
The AP guys found out that the answer was they didn't have any.
I think the answer is that AC 91-57 and the FAA's subsequent policy statements give us authority to fly, but that authority is not conditional upon following every provision of the AC. It's an unconditional grant of authority to fly model aircraft for recreational purposes, subject to recommendations on how to fly safely, but not following each and every one of those recommendations in no way means that you don't have authority to fly. In other words, you can benefit from the authority granted by the AC without actually following it.
prelator is online now Find More Posts by prelator
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 04:20 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,395 Posts
And as I've said before, I don't think AC91-57 creates authority in unto itself. It can't.
It's not a law, or a reg, or even a policy statement.
I think the existing amateur modelling exemption exists because no other regulation
covers us (as the FAA's own statement above says).

Basically, amateur modelling is exempt from all our other regulations and AC91-57 is some
good advice to follow if you happen be engaged in this activity.

I don't know why it needs to be more complicated than that. One thing people don't
realize in our current atmosphere of regulation versus anti-regulation debates is that a lot of
the original FAA regs are pretty loose outside of controlled airspace and take
a real common sense approach. These days people keep looking for explicit
grant of rights, when that's not the way laws are supposed to work. The rights
exist inherently, and the laws set limitations on them. If the law doesn't say you can't
do something, you basically should have the right to do it, otherwise there'd
be nothing new done in the world.

ian
Daemon is offline Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by Daemon; Feb 21, 2013 at 04:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 04:48 PM
OSUFPV - KF7VFT
Corvallis, OR
Joined Apr 2010
1,761 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Evans View Post
all aircraft need specific authority to fly in NAS. If it were not for the advisory than what exactly has been our authorization to fly models?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
These days people keep looking for explicit
grant of rights, when that's not the way laws are supposed to work. The rights
exist inherently, and the laws set limitations on them. If the law doesn't say you can't
do something, you basically should have the right to do it, otherwise there'd
be nothing new done in the world.
I think Ian summed up nicely what my counterpoint is. The sentiment that
for every single action you take there must be a corresponding law that
authorizes that action is ludicrous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Evans View Post
This is all about to become history since the NPRM will lay their cards on the table.
Agreed. Whatever the real position of the FAA on these topics is they
probably don't really care right now about enforcing or even explaining their
positions. Why should they? In a little while all of this will be obsolete.

-Blues
Blueshy is offline Find More Posts by Blueshy
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 04:53 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,408 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelator View Post
I think the answer is that AC 91-57 and the FAA's subsequent policy statements give us authority to fly, but that authority is not conditional upon following every provision of the AC. It's an unconditional grant of authority to fly model aircraft for recreational purposes, subject to recommendations on how to fly safely, but not following each and every one of those recommendations in no way means that you don't have authority to fly. In other words, you can benefit from the authority granted by the AC without actually following it.
I have an even better one. I think they know deep down that flying is an unalienable right and if word ever got out it would be chaos so they tried to stop that with AC91-57 by adding confusion. What you may ask do I have to back this idea up? Well none really I just think thatís what happened.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 05:09 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,395 Posts
Sarcasm aside, I don't know what you read into AC91-57 that makes it look like
it's trying to stop or confuse anything, especially when the first sentence contains
"encourages voluntary compliance". It is no more than it says it is.

The confusion comes later, when people try to assert that AC91-57 either
1. is the only thing that grants them the right to fly model aircraft in some particular role
2. denies them the right to fly model aircraft in some particular role
It does neither. It's a set of voluntary safety guidelines, nothing more.

If we accept the FAA's jurisdiction over all airspace (debatable), and they say there are
no existing regulations for amateur model aircraft, then why not take them at their word?

As for inalienable rights. One could probably make a case that flying model aircraft
is covered under "the pursuit of Happiness", dontcha think?

ian
Daemon is offline Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 21, 2013, 05:27 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,386 Posts
One only needs to understand that AC means Advisory Circular, and read some of them, to understand what it is. It's not a law... it's an Advisory. Look at some others to get the general purpose of Advisory Circulars...

Here's a standards recommendation for charts... (the purpose of this document is stated as "guidance for the public") http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...cumentID/23118

Here's a specification for systems that turn on the lights... contains "For airport projects receiving Federal funds under the
airport grant assistance or the passenger facility charge programs, the use of this specification is
mandatory" - which implies that for everyone else it's only a suggestion.
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...cumentID/22338

These aren't laws.
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 05:38 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,408 Posts
OK could we get this straight for once and for all? Is AC91-57 an advisory or a law? Can we have a show of hands?
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 05:57 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,822 Posts
No law!
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2013, 06:00 PM
OSUFPV - KF7VFT
Corvallis, OR
Joined Apr 2010
1,761 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Evans View Post
OK could we get this straight for once and for all? Is AC91-57 an advisory or a law? Can we have a show of hands?
Isn't there a bridge you're supposed to be guarding?

-Blues
Blueshy is offline Find More Posts by Blueshy
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 11:51 AM
BFMAC Founding Member
Joined Mar 2003
1,277 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasmine2501 View Post
One only needs to understand that AC means Advisory Circular, and read some of them, to understand what it is. It's not a law... it's an Advisory. Look at some others to get the general purpose of Advisory Circulars...

(snipped)

These aren't laws.
It depends ............

The AC was incorporated by reference into an Interim Guidance doc for operation of UAS in the NAS. FAA and most UAS stakeholders accept the IG as regulatory material (e.g., FAR). AMA, claiming to represent modelers, does not.

There is obviously some confusion resulting by incorporating the AC by reference into the interim regulatory material (presuming acceptance that the IG is regulatory material). This is generally not an accepted way of doing business within FAA, but the IG is after all, 'interim.'
Quote:
From FAA Order 1320.46B:

CHAPTER 5. WRITING STANDARDS
5-1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.
Advisory circulars
d. Incorporation by Reference into FAR'S.
No document, including ACs, should be incorporated by reference into the FARs unless it is absolutely necessary. The Office of the Federal Register will not approve most federal agency documents for incorporation by reference.
The AC is brief, and the drafters of the IG probably think in retrospect they would better have included the text of the AC with "should" replaced by "shall" and "must" rather than incorporation by reference.

Abel
abel pranger is offline Find More Posts by abel pranger
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 12:57 PM
FPV Browncoat
prelator's Avatar
United States, CO, Parker
Joined Mar 2011
1,470 Posts
Well said. I definitely got the idea from my phone conversations with FAA people that they wished they had more than just the AC. I think at least one of them blatantly told me the AC was badly written and will probably be re-written at some point.
prelator is online now Find More Posts by prelator
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 03:40 PM
Gaftopher
Gary Mortimer's Avatar
Nottingham Road South Africa/Bedford UK
Joined Feb 2007
3,817 Posts
Well that time is coming the NPRM date moves towards us.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/suasnew...y-makes-change

(Its about 10 minutes in)
Gary Mortimer is online now Find More Posts by Gary Mortimer
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2013, 04:05 PM
Registered User
San Marcos, CA
Joined Aug 2009
2,822 Posts
Considering that this document hasn't changed in 32 years, no wonder!

However you have to see that there was never a need to regulate RC Airplanes until this whole "Drone - Government Shoot People - Big Brother - Privacy" discussion started ... and people freaked out because of some fear mongers and also some "stupid" remarks of our Government didn't help either.
flyandi is offline Find More Posts by flyandi
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Range Gary Evans FPV Talk 65 Aug 10, 2008 02:27 AM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Weight Gary Evans FPV Talk 16 Jul 30, 2008 01:30 PM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Altitude Gary Evans FPV Talk 52 Jul 30, 2008 01:05 PM