Espritmodel.com Telemetry Radio
Reply
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by Gary Evans, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old Jan 08, 2010, 05:02 PM
Registered User
Dennis H.'s Avatar
Denton Tx.
Joined Sep 2003
1,945 Posts
I haven't seen the word {recommendation} in AC 91-57 But the word Compliance.
Dictionary.com
1. the act of conforming, acquiescing, or yielding.
2. a tendency to yield readily to others, esp. in a weak and subservient way.
3. conformity; accordance: in compliance with orders.
4. cooperation or obedience: Compliance with the law is expected of all.

So how are you going to give the right of way to full scale planes coming in from the sides or rear, If your flying beyond VLOS?
To fly beyond VLOS, you'll have to fly above the 400ft mark, To have control of the plane and video equipment.
But who here in the US has talk with anyone from the FAA about AC 91-57?
Is it a law or just recommendation?
And if its not a law, why did the FAA even write anything about RC flying?
The AMA already cover RC flying.
Dennis H. is offline Find More Posts by Dennis H.
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Jan 08, 2010, 05:19 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,405 Posts
The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may
operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific
authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the
COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special
airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC
91-57.
AC91-57 is an FAA advisory not a rule or regulation. AMA rules were written to comply with that advisory (kind of). AMA is the tail in this not the dog. AC91-57 was written way before the current state of affairs existed but worry not new regulations are on the way.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Last edited by Gary Evans; Jan 08, 2010 at 05:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 08, 2010, 05:29 PM
Missileer Extraordinaire
Mel Duval's Avatar
Joined Jun 2001
2,046 Posts
Gary is right on the button. A read through these documents might be in order....

http://www.modelaircraft.org/news/ama-faa.aspx
Mel Duval is offline Find More Posts by Mel Duval
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2010, 02:41 PM
billpa's Avatar
Joined Nov 2003
4,926 Posts
Hello!

I've been marginally following this thread and the proposed FAA regulations, in a half-asleep fashion. Applause to the few folks who are really paying attention to this!

After re-reading the FAA committee proposed rules (link below), I have a few questions/comments:

a) There are a few posts here that suggest model aircraft (FPV or otherwise) would not be legal to fly outside of AMA fields. But, the proposed rules do not seem state such a limitation? As I read the proposal, the AMA (and/or other model airplane community organizations) would be relied upon to set the guidelines for operation. In section 2, the proposed rules do state that the community organizations would be relied upon to establish guidelines for dedicated flying sites (2.2.8), but I see nothing in section 2 suggesting that model flying outside dedicated flying sites (as long as the requirements of section 3 are not violated) would be illegal. The guidelines of a community based organization certainly do not have the force of law, and regardless I doubt that the AMA would adopt guidelines that prohibit modeling activity on private property. Comments?

b) Section 3 does indeed impose some stringent limitations for model flying. I believe that only section 3 will have the force of law with respect to model airplane operation? The hard 400' limit in section 3.3.5 seems to me to be the one to be most concerned about? It's good to see that the AMA, and probably the other hobby folks on the committee, are opposed to it.

c) Regarding the VLOS rule in section 3.2.5, as written this seems somewhat ambiguous. The "Pilot in Command" (PIC) is rigorously defined in the document as the person holding the radio. But, section 3.2.5 refers to the "pilot" rather than the PIC, whereas the rest of the document refers to the PIC. Perhaps those in our hobby, during the comment period (see below) should push to clarify this rule to allow a shared responsibility between the PIC and the spotter to maintain VLOS, just as the document requires "the PIC and/or qualified visual observer" to be within VLOS contact, in the non-hobby sections of the rule?

I also have a general comment/question: I assume that, once the FAA makes an initial decision on the various points of contention in the proposal, a proposed final rule will be published, with a comment period. If so, and the proposed rules are counter to common sense and to enjoyment of our hobby, individually contacting your US representative would be a good idea. Politicians respond to issues that involve significant numbers of voters. Maybe it would be best if the proposed rule is published in an even numbered year, when US representatives are most sensitive to voter concerns.

Here's the document that I'm referring to above:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...S_ARC_Recs.pdf

Regards,

Bill, for Eagle Tree
billpa is offline Find More Posts by billpa
Site Sponsor
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 11, 2010, 03:35 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,405 Posts
Welcome to the thread Bill!
Quote:
Originally Posted by billpa View Post
Hello!

I've been marginally following this thread and the proposed FAA regulations, in a half-asleep fashion. Applause to the few folks who are really paying attention to this!

After re-reading the FAA committee proposed rules (link below), I have a few questions/comments:

a) There are a few posts here that suggest model aircraft (FPV or otherwise) would not be legal to fly outside of AMA fields. But, the proposed rules do not seem state such a limitation? As I read the proposal, the AMA (and/or other model airplane community organizations) would be relied upon to set the guidelines for operation. In section 2, the proposed rules do state that the community organizations would be relied upon to establish guidelines for dedicated flying sites (2.2.8), but I see nothing in section 2 suggesting that model flying outside dedicated flying sites (as long as the requirements of section 3 are not violated) would be illegal. The guidelines of a community based organization certainly do not have the force of law, and regardless I doubt that the AMA would adopt guidelines that prohibit modeling activity on private property. Comments?

What has been recommended is that AMA would be given the authority to write rules for amateur model airplanes but it doesn't limit flying to AMA fields. That and the AMA's current FPV rules are obviously subject to change.

b) Section 3 does indeed impose some stringent limitations for model flying. I believe that only section 3 will have the force of law with respect to model airplane operation? The hard 400' limit in section 3.3.5 seems to me to be the one to be most concerned about? It's good to see that the AMA, and probably the other hobby folks on the committee, are opposed to it.

c) Regarding the VLOS rule in section 3.2.5, as written this seems somewhat ambiguous. The "Pilot in Command" (PIC) is rigorously defined in the document as the person holding the radio. But, section 3.2.5 refers to the "pilot" rather than the PIC, whereas the rest of the document refers to the PIC. Perhaps those in our hobby, during the comment period (see below) should push to clarify this rule to allow a shared responsibility between the PIC and the spotter to maintain VLOS, just as the document requires "the PIC and/or qualified visual observer" to be within VLOS contact, in the non-hobby sections of the rule?

Pilot and PIC are interchangeable terms to me. AMA's rule #550 defines the requirements if it follows their rules.

http://tinyurl.com/cu6zx7


I also have a general comment/question: I assume that, once the FAA makes an initial decision on the various points of contention in the proposal, a proposed final rule will be published, with a comment period. If so, and the proposed rules are counter to common sense and to enjoyment of our hobby, individually contacting your US representative would be a good idea. Politicians respond to issues that involve significant numbers of voters. Maybe it would be best if the proposed rule is published in an even numbered year, when US representatives are most sensitive to voter concerns.

Here's the document that I'm referring to above:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...S_ARC_Recs.pdf

Regards,

Bill, for Eagle Tree
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2010, 12:10 AM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,379 Posts
I just don't see the ambiguity in 3.2.5 that you do Bill.
To me that rule flat out disallows non-visual operation of a model aircraft anywhere in the wild.
We've seen that very same language used before in the AMA code itself (rule 9) and
until the FPV exemption was specifically added (and referenced in the updated rule 9),
that language prevented FPV operations entirely.

The absence of a similar rule in section 2 is now what makes FPV possible in
AMA (or other recognized community organization) controlled airspace, as long
as there is an FPV exemption.

ian
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Feb 05, 2010, 12:16 PM
Registered User
Joined Aug 2007
764 Posts
Is anything happening w/this?

I've looked briefly at the "Set of Recommendations for Regulatory Development". Could someone kindly point me to a schedule of proceedings, or any other information as to the status of regulations or of the "Development" process?

I'd be all about getting involved in this and helping out the good guys, if that would be a possibility. I am a retired lawyer, 20 yrs. in private practice, worked on regulatory/legislative stuff (not F.A.A), licensed private pilot since 1979, last 10 yrs. operating private outdoor recreation area. I always prefer to fight for the cause of Liberty wherever possible.

If there's a point person or somebody I should talk to, please drop me a PM and point me in the right direction. Thanks!

Stu
misfire is offline Find More Posts by misfire
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2010, 12:38 PM
Registered User
Dennis H.'s Avatar
Denton Tx.
Joined Sep 2003
1,945 Posts
I don't know, But my guess would be contact the AMA?
Dennis H. is offline Find More Posts by Dennis H.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 05, 2010, 01:44 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,405 Posts
The process is now in the hands of FAA who are developing proposed rules that when complete would be published for comment.

I don't know exactly who to contact for more information as to procedings but you could start with one of the people listed as contacts on this information release.

http://tinyurl.com/yct3q4u
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 04, 2010, 12:56 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,405 Posts
AMA is anticipating that the new FAA proposed sUAV regulations will be published for comment in the second quarter of 2010 with rules being implemented in 2011.

http://tinyurl.com/yeaxn67

This is the latest from AMA's President Dave Mathewson on the subject. Clearly they are trying to back away from any association with sUAV's. He also explains that the final AMA rules for submission to FAA are not finalized.

http://tinyurl.com/y8hj7er
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 04, 2010, 01:44 PM
Registered User
Dennis H.'s Avatar
Denton Tx.
Joined Sep 2003
1,945 Posts
Well I don't think the FAA would get involved but look now, At all the video now Posted all over the net,Way above the set 400ft level that the FAA has set as the max Alt. that a model can fly.AMA post that no model to be flown beyond visual range. They fly with no regard to the safety of full scale aircraft etc.. Its been posted here on RCG and other RC forum,People have said, I don't care, At how high or how far.
So IF the FAA past some type of law that hurts RC flyer, You can blame the I don't care people.
Dennis H. is offline Find More Posts by Dennis H.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 08, 2010, 02:43 AM
Mums the word.
man2000me's Avatar
St.Augustine, FL
Joined Sep 2009
2,061 Posts
I'm not starting anything... But what is the difference of a non-fpv glider thermaling above 400ft and a FPV glider thermaling above 400ft?
man2000me is offline Find More Posts by man2000me
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2010, 03:21 PM
Registered User
g00bd0g's Avatar
USA, CA, Watsonville
Joined Jul 2001
465 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by man2000me View Post
I'm not starting anything... But what is the difference of a non-fpv glider thermaling above 400ft and a FPV glider thermaling above 400ft?
Arguably the ability to better perceive other aircraft (or other dangers) in the vicinity. Arguably
g00bd0g is offline Find More Posts by g00bd0g
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 06, 2010, 05:50 PM
E-Gliders
outngo's Avatar
South Carolina
Joined May 2009
1,305 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Evans View Post
The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may
operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific
authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the
COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special
airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC
91-57.
AC91-57 is an FAA advisory not a rule or regulation. AMA rules were written to comply with that advisory (kind of). AMA is the tail in this not the dog. AC91-57 was written way before the current state of affairs existed but worry not new regulations are on the way.
ama is always the tail in everything they do.. remember that.
outngo is offline Find More Posts by outngo
Reply With Quote
Old Jul 14, 2010, 09:09 AM
Registered User
Taipei Sung Shan, Taiwan
Joined Feb 2004
683 Posts
I am wondering if the Autopilot would be more helpful than the bodybox or spoter. When the RC or AV radio signal is lost the bodybox will not help from crash the model. When flying further away like half miles very few people can really see the airplane model.

Feed back are welcome!
charlie2020 is offline Find More Posts by charlie2020
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