HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

The 400 ft rule has been around for years
AC No. 91-57A Is Just that an Advisory Circular i.e.Advisory in nature only.
IT is NOT a Rule.

Subject: Model Aircraft OperatingStandardsDate: September 2, 2015Initiated by: AJV-115AC No. 91-57A1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance to persons operating UnmannedAircraft (UA) for hobby or recreation purposes meeting the statutory definition of “modelaircraft” contained in Section 336 of Public Law 112-95, the FAA Modernization and Reform Actof 2012. This AC describes means by which model aircraft may be operated safely in theNational Airspace System (NAS). Nothing in this AC changes the requirement to comply withthe statute or any applicable regulations.2. APPLICABILITY. This AC provides information for any person who engages in modelaircraft operations using model aircraft as defined by statute. (See paragraph 6.)3. REFERENCES. Title 49 U.S.C. § 40101; P.L. 112-95 (126 Stat. 77 et seq.).4. RELATED MATERIAL (current editions). Subtitle VII of Title 49, United States Code (49 USC) Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Subtitle B of Public Law 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012) Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) listing: http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html Aeronautical Navigation Products (Charts):http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Concerning AC No. 91-57a Sub paragraph c.(4)
So Long as The aircraft operates in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, any manned aircraft; I'd Say This means that if an R/C pilot gives way to a manned aircraft it is ok the share the same air space i.e. when not with in 5 miles of an airport may fly at any altitude so long as they give way to maned aircraft.

c. Determination of “Model Aircraft” Status. Whether a given unmanned aircraft operationmay be considered a “model aircraft operation” is determined with reference to section 336of Public Law 112-95:
(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(2) The aircraft operates in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelinesand within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization(CBO);

(3) The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds, unless otherwise certifiedthrough a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safetyprogram administered by a CBO;

(4) The aircraft operates in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, anymanned aircraft; and

(5) When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the model aircraft providesthe airport operator or the airport air traffic control tower (when an air trafficfacility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation. Model aircraftoperators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport shouldestablish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator andthe airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at theairport).d. Public Law 112-95

ira d

I Know AC- 97 -57 was a advisory I said as much but I also said now the FAA wants to make it binding.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Then it no longer is an AC Advisory Circular. If U look at AC No. 95-57a
Section 6. MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS.
Sub Paragraph c (4)
(4) The aircraft operates in a manner that does not interfere with, and gives way to, anymanned aircraft;

Means to me that so long as you do not interfere with, and gives way to, any manned aircraft; U may operate at any reasonable altitude while sharing the NAS.
See below
AC No. 95-57a
Section 6. MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS.
Sub Paragraph b

b. Model Aircraft Hazards in the NAS. While aero-modelers generally are concerned aboutsafety and exercise good judgment when flying model aircraft for the hobby and recreationalpurposes for which they are intended, they may share the airspace in which manned aircraftare operating. Unmanned aircraft, including model aircraft, may pose a hazard to mannedaircraft in flight and to persons and property on the surface if not operated safely. Modelaircraft operations that endanger the safety of the National Airspace System, particularlycareless or reckless operations or those that interfere with or fail to give way to any mannedaircraft may be subject to FAA enforcement action.

Sport_Pilot

If they want to make it binding ,why did they say just the opposite in the sUAV NPRM?

ira d

I don't have a answer to your question all I know is you have to Agree to stay below 400ft when you register with the FAA.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by ira d
I Know AC- 97 -57 was a advisory I said as much but I also said now the FAA wants to make it binding.

If they want to make it binding why is it still an Adversary circular and not an FAR?


It is now AC No AC-97-57a the previous AC with out the a is suspended.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../AC_91-57A.pdf
This is the line fron AC-97-57a reverancing 400'
Again it's is an Advisory Circular and so is Advisory in nature

e. Model aircraft operators should follow best practices including limiting operations to 400 feetabove ground level (AGL).

But then this
AC 91-57A September 2, 20152
(2) Public Law 112-95 defines unmanned aircraft as an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
(3) Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 defines a model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft that is capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft, and flown only for hobby or recreational purposes.
b. Model Aircraft Hazards in the NAS. While aero-modelers generally are concerned about safety and exercise good judgment when flying model aircraft for the hobby and recreational purposes for which they are intended, they may share the airspace in which manned aircraft are operating. Unmanned aircraft, including model aircraft, may pose a hazard to manned aircraft in flight and to persons and property on the surface if not operated safely. Model Aircraft operations that endanger the safety of the National Airspace System, particularly careless or reckless operations or those that interfere with or fail to give way to any manned aircraft may be subject to FAA enforcement action.

To me this says we may share the NAS with Maned AC if we operated safely and we give way to maned AC.

So if we can share the NAS above 400' and if we can operate safely and give way to maned AC when above 400' we may fly above 400'. jmho.

Sporty Please reference the URL for the sUAV NPRM

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

Friend of mine just posted on Facebook a picture of him with his brand-new-in-box-from-Santa quad-copter, grinning from ear to ear.

Nice guy, but no rc experience, no knowledge of the AMA, no clue about FAA registration.

Yeah, refusing to register, AMA lawsuits, civil disobedience...a tempest in a teapot. These self-flying contraptions (as we all know) are exploding all over the place. IMO, no way I see the FAA easing off. If anything, this may just be the beginning. Let a few more airliners get dusted off, a few more "cool" YouTube fly-by videos pop up, etc. etc., and it's Katy-bar-the-door.

BobH

My Feedback: (2)

Please understand that your Govt. often make competing statements. One Department may completely contradict another. This is nothing new.
What is being discussed here is the FAA and their recent decree regarding the rc community, period.
All the other BS simply obfuscates the issue.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Sluggo that is why we must endorse the FAA's Registration of pilots policy 100% if for any other reason but to show we are one solid CBO behind the Safety of the NAS and we believe the FAA is doing every thing possible to keep us with the least legislation as possible.

The only way out of this dilemma is to convince the FAA there is With in the Definition of AirCraft, as the FAA DOES NOT sees it, a distinct division between Traditional R/C TOYS and the DRONES i.e. Quads etc that are 99.999% the reason for the turmoil and should be treated as such when flown any place BUT a Registered Flying Site be it Federal, State, City park or Private Property away from areas where all R/C TOY flying is prohibited by Rule Safety Code of a CBO or FAR.

Any one agree or do U have a better plan?

VF84sluggo

My Feedback: (55)

^^^^^ Hound, yessir, I did indeed let him know of the FAA's new requirement. Even sent him the FAA registration link.

Felt like I was raining on his Christmas parade, but so it goes. We can thank all the pinheads in the last few years, and their love to post on-line their idiotic antics, for this whole crapstorm...

Sluggo

benjack71

That is game playing. That is how bureaucracies. get away with writing law. Having a requirement of the pilot of a model airplane is absolutely regulating the hobby. The intent of Congress was clear. Everyone knows it. Even the FAA. This will end up in court. They will be forced to define a model aircraft and a "drone". That has been the key to this the whole time. No one wanted to step up and define the difference. All of us in the hobby absolutely know the difference between a scale fixed wing or fixed wing model and a multi rotor. Without listing all the differences, its next to impossible for a person, who has no model flying experience to grab up a fixed wing trainer slap it together and run out and fly it over the stadium. Everyone knows that. The multi-rotor on the other hand a moron can go and buy one and fly it around. Yes i did go ahead and register, but I fully expect the AMA to get a provision out of this. The FAA, in my opinion, would not want this to go to court. I think, that the model aircraft will be allowed to fly as before at AMA designated fields without a registration process. I also suspect that the 55 pound giant scale will be able to as well without registering. The FAA has no data to support fixed wing or even giant scale model aircraft as being a threat to the public good. All the FAA has, is a bunch of reports of near misses with multi rotor drones. News media coverage of multi rotors etc. etc. To be honest, the majority of the close call drone reports are bunk.The following excerpt from the AMA is a Elephant in the room. But it stands to reason. This is how fear mongering from the Government gives them more control. Create or expand a problem, create a sense of fear, then jump into regulate the problem you have created or exasperated. Bureaucracy 101.
https://www.modelaircraft.org/gov/do...ata_091415.pdf

n1169g

My Feedback: (1)

I find it hard to believe that AMA is going to convince the FAA that it's 500K members should be exempt from the other 2M others.
The government like to lump groups together to hold control and impress the public that they are right on the problem.
I have all ready registered to my surprise the number came as 10 caricatures and only one is a number.
But I did find one flaw so far. The is no rule on how big the numbers/letters have to be.
I can make it read FAA regestration #
XXXXXXXXXX
so small it is only .75" X .25"
on a big plane it will be hard to see

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Might wanna double check the requirements on the numbers. Also, where did you get that there are 500k members in the AMA. I'm sure they would be thrilled with even half of that. AMA last released numbers and noted 180,000 members, about 30k of those are "youth" memberships ie non voting and non dues paying.
Might wann

n1169g

My Feedback: (1)

So with less members the chances are even less of AMA able to change FAA mind
Have you seen size required for the numbers? Copy and paste it here please.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Q49. How do I mark my unmanned aircraft with the unique registration number?
A. You may use any method to affix the number, such as permanent marker, label, engraving, or other means, as long as the number is readily accessible and maintained in a condition that is readable and legible upon close visual inspection. If your unmanned aircraft has an easily accessible battery compartment you may affix the number in that compartment.

While it doesn't have font and size specs, the numbers have to be readable and legible. If it's inside the unit, it's o/k as well, just needs to be clear.

SunDevilPilot

This is what I did. The registration # is just below the rudder servo. Stamped into a tiny aluminum plate. Letters are 1/16".

SunDevilPilot

Rob2160

I think 50% of the Toy "drones" acquired over Christmas won't even survive a week. I see it all the time at the park I fly. Dad (or Mum) and son arrive with their new toy. Obviously with no experience.

They either can't get it off the ground and give up or it flies for a few minutes drifting in the wind and crashing into trees bordering the park. This happens almost on a monthly basis. I'd say many of these Christmas presents are already in the trash can.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Of course U are absolutely right about That is how bureaucracies. get away with writing law. Having a requirement of the pilot of a model airplane is absolutely regulating the hobby. The intent of Congress was clear. Guess What It doesn't really mater or Congress would have stepped in by now. Congress enacted #336 because they had No Idea that the FAA would Interpert (TWIST Congress intent) of a simple amendment (To protect R/C Toy airplanes) would be Interpreted as the FAA has. Furthermore Congress will wash their hands of the whole thing And with the way the FAA interprets anything that flys in the NAS as an airplane and so is subject to any rules/FAR's they make for Full Scale maned air planes.

FAA.s Interpretation of the special rule for Model aircraft

Discussion of the InterpretationI. Background of FAA Oversight of Model Aircraft OperationsHistorically, the FAA has considered model aircraft to be aircraft that fall within thestatutory and regulatory definitions of an aircraft, as they are contrivances or devices thatare “invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.” See 49 USC 40102 and 14CFR 1.1. As aircraft, these devices generally are subject to FAA oversight andenforcement. However, consistent with FAA’s enforcement philosophy, FAA’soversight of model aircraft has been guided by the risk that these operations present. TheFAA first recognized in 1981 that “model aircraft can at times pose a hazard to full-scaleaircraft in flight and to persons and property on the surface,” and recommended a set ofvoluntary operating standards for model aircraft operators to follow to mitigate thesesafety risks. See Advisory Circular 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards (June 9,1981). These operating standards included restricting operations over populated areas,limiting use of the devices around spectators until after the devices had been flight testedand proven airworthy; restricting operations to 400 feet above the surface; requiring thatthe devices give right of way to, and avoid flying near manned aircraft, and usingobservers to assist in operations.These guidelines were further clarified in 2007, when the FAA issued a policystatement regarding unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operations in the NAS. See 72Fed. Reg. 6689 (Feb. 13, 2007). In this policy statement, the FAA also recognized thatUAS fall within the statutory and regulatory definition of “aircraft” as they are devicesthat are “used or [are] intended to be used for flight in the air with no onboard pilot.” Id.;see also 49 U.S.C. 40102; 14 CFR 1.1. The FAA noted that they can be “as simple as

This is what makes the FAA say that model airplanes and Drones are tha same by definition and are subject to the FAR's.

FAA has considered model aircraft to be aircraft that fall within the statutory and regulatory definitions of an aircraft, as they are contrivances or devices that are “invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.”

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by VF84sluggo
Friend of mine just posted on Facebook a picture of him with his brand-new-in-box-from-Santa quad-copter, grinning from ear to ear.

Nice guy, but no rc experience, no knowledge of the AMA, no clue about FAA registration.

Yeah, refusing to register, AMA lawsuits, civil disobedience...a tempest in a teapot. These self-flying contraptions (as we all know) are exploding all over the place. IMO, no way I see the FAA easing off. If anything, this may just be the beginning. Let a few more airliners get dusted off, a few more "cool" YouTube fly-by videos pop up, etc. etc., and it's Katy-bar-the-door.
All the more reason to comply with the Registration and appease the FAA an the responsible flyers.



I fear the other 50% they can only cause trouble for the traditional R/C TOY airplane flyer.

SunDevilPilot

Law enforcement guide.

The FAA blatantly says they will not have Federal Drone Police out and about. Just dumping it on local police who have no power to enforce Federal Law. There isn't even a mention of altitude in the LE guide.

Basically, fly safe and "Below the Radar" and it is life as usual.

This info directs the officer to use local ordinances, which the FAA banned to prevent a patchwork of rules governing aircraft.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/law_enforcem...dance_card.pdf

and

https://www.faa.gov/uas/law_enforcem...ement-FAQs.pdf

skylark-flier

TWICE!!!!!!!!!!! When will you get it into your head that not all of us fly at one of your sacred REGISTERED FLYING SITES??????

Once again I state the fact - I've been flying models since 1955 and not one incident. And I DO NOT FLY AT YOUR SACRED REGISTERED FLYING SITE but you would still bar me from flying?

Truly, good luck with that.

skylark-flier

Two options here - educate him, or call FAA with his location. Either would work. First option would be best, but 2nd would be more interesting.

CanDo

RCKen, you are right, the AMA has made another bad call. When the AMA embraced multi-rotors with autonomous navigation and FPV capability, they added UAS capability to model aircraft. When the FAA decided to use model aircraft weight instead of their capabilities to define a UAV, they also made R/C pilots UAS pilots. The last time I checked, all UAS pilots must pass a FAA written test and a 2nd class physical. Anyone with diabetes, anyone who doesn't have 20/20 corrected vision, etc., will not pass the physical. The FAA's data base (with your name, address, etc.) is public information. Also, anyone could use your registration number on their aircraft and break the law. We are on a slippery slope.

Checklst

Hay guys maybe someone has answered the question already I just cant find it in all these Drone threads...........WHY IN THE HECK..........would the FAA make the addresses of registered Model planes a PUBLIC RECORD. Theirsgood reasons the DMV does not allow a search of a Plate on you car to the public. YOU know if the guy cuts you off in traffic run his number and you show up at his house for a spot of tea and crumpets.

Last scenario a drone pilot(not registered) is looking in your neighbor window and Mr upset looks on a date base and finds my address 3 doors down(registered) and decides to do a little street justice. Looks like my 1911 45 might come in handy if things should get out of hand. What do you guys think the reasoning for public search.........I don't mined law enforcement or FAA search but your neighbor......come-on FAA.