Originally Posted by
bradpaul
This was what I found very interesting in the court decision:
In addition did anybody else notice that in the FAA document that cj posted : AC 91-57 which is an ADVISORY and not their own "Interpretative Rule" ????????????????????????????
The new AC asks ATC to report any RC aircraft that “…
deviate from normal practice areas/flight activities. . .” I interpret this to mean any RC aircraft that are not flying at an established flying field. I would therefore assume that any RC pilot who flies at an established field would not be a problem under the new AC, since RC aircraft at established flying fields is a “normal practice area” and a “normal flight activity.” RC fields that are close to an airport need to notify that airport, in accordance to AC 91-57. To be safe, it may be prudent to also get permission from the airport operator and tower (if applicable) in order to be in compliance with the recent interpretation as well, though there is some confusion and contention as to whether or not this interpretation is enforceable.
Also keep in mind that the AC only requires full scale pilots to notify the FAA of inappropriate RC activity. It does not specify what the FAA will do once they are informed. I think they are going to be hesitant to take legal action, since they just lost their second case against a pilot of a R/C pilot.