FAA cancels its old 91-57 - Model Aircraft Operating Standards

[SnowRocker88]

3 month delay or not I've lost faith in writing to my representatives. The last 3 times I sent very clear messages encouraging them to not support something and explaining in clear plain language why they should oppose it....I got nice form letters back thanking me for my shared support of the things I was writing to oppose.

Yep, they sure listen well.

I have the honor of saying that Mr. Trey Gowdy is my district representative. Man is kicking ___ and taking names!

 

[Tritium]

3 month delay or not I've lost faith in writing to my representatives. The last 3 times I sent very clear messages encouraging them to not support something and explaining in clear plain language why they should oppose it....I got nice form letters back thanking me for my shared support of the things I was writing to oppose.

Yep, they sure listen well.

They listen but you were not sounding like the rustling of dollars so they were not spurred to action!

Only the Paper Man gets their attention any more.

One nation under Corporate Rule!

Thurmond

 

[flyingdreamz]

The FAA has now officially taken a cyanide pill. Good riddance to them...

The "interpretive rule" will not hold up in court. Given that the FAA has now gone to the point of erasing its only other regulatory standards regarding unmanned flight, we've got the Wild West going on now. Or do we...

The FAA has already had long standing standards for "unguided rockets". So Free Flight models will, for the purposes of litigation, get dumped into that category, which will serve actually to protect that discipline, since the low power rocketry regs are pretty minimalist (and no altitude restrictions).

For the R/C community, guess what? Your weight limit just went from 55 lbs to 254 lbs. You're flying an ultralight. Provided it's not for commercial activities, you need not registration, insurance, licensure, approval, whatever, and provided you practice see and avoid, you're effectively legal to go to touch and goes on the runway at the local airport (wouldn't recommend that, but the point remains).

Commercial UAS operation no longer requires a waiver under such a situation. It does require a 100 hr inspection by a licensed mechanic as well as a commercial pilot's license. Flights carrying cargo would have some greater degree of regulation, but whatever.

Bottom line: if we capitalize on this regulatory void, by the time the FAA figures out how big of a mistake they've made, there will be sufficient large scale UAV activity that a court would side with us and against them. So let's make it happen!

Commercial UAS does still require a COA, infact now you must have an N-number. The "interpretive rule" does hold up in court with the FAA. The FAA was given the authority to govern all airspace from the ground to 60,000 ft as part of the interstate commerce. AC 91-57 was never a rule or regulation. It was interpretive and in your best interest to follow like follow or we will fine you 10K. Advisory circulars are not rules, they are guidelines.

 

[Montiey]

Could someone clear this up for me?
Is this good or bad?
Is this the FAA saying "fine, well take it down" to the previous rubbish about fpv banning and stuff?

 

[SnowRocker88]

Could someone clear this up for me?
Is this good or bad?
Is this the FAA saying "fine, well take it down" to the previous rubbish about fpv banning and stuff?

Bad in the long run. This is the FAA showing their cards saying "okay, we will remove the old law and make room for new law". And with their recently revealed attitude towards things (suing quad pilots and trying to ban FPV) you can imagine how liberating the new law will be...

 

[FAI-F1D]

I have the honor of saying that Mr. Trey Gowdy is my district representative. Man is kicking ___ and taking names!

He is pretty awesome.

Commercial UAS does still require a COA, infact now you must have an N-number. The "interpretive rule" does hold up in court with the FAA. The FAA was given the authority to govern all airspace from the ground to 60,000 ft as part of the interstate commerce. AC 91-57 was never a rule or regulation. It was interpretive and in your best interest to follow like follow or we will fine you 10K. Advisory circulars are not rules, they are guidelines.

The FAA has always treated AC's as law. That's why they put them out there. If there's an incident and it's found that you didn't follow a relevant AC, you get smacked. It's a way eliminating the effort of making a real case against someone (since when have the FAA been anything other than lazy?).

The interpretive rule has not been court tested, so it's at best conjecture that it would stand up. Further we have a data point from the NTSB court that the FAA's new rules won't pass muster. That decision can and will be used as precedent when this issue makes it into a civil court.

The bit about the tailnumber is 100% correct, and there are other complications...

 

[CMS_1961]

Good observation FAI-F1D!!!
Take a look FAR Part 103 for Ultralights. It is on line.

If you read part 103 and substitute RC model everywhere it says Ultralight that Part 103 would work for us rc modeler types--I wanted to send it to the FAA just like that but figured they would just ignore it anyway.

There is currently a loophole as you pointed out. I am just afraid if the FAA wins they will close it and have total control from ground to infinity and I don't know how they are going to deal with us modelers. Best case we get left alone (don't believe that) and the worst case is some type of easy license that lets us operate just like the 91-57 guidance!!

I hope us RC modelers win!! I know I wrote the FAA and commented. I hope everyone else has as well.

 

[flyingdreamz]

The FAA has always treated AC's as law. That's why they put them out there. If there's an incident and it's found that you didn't follow a relevant AC, you get smacked. It's a way eliminating the effort of making a real case against someone (since when have the FAA been anything other than lazy?).

The interpretive rule has not been court tested, so it's at best conjecture that it would stand up. Further we have a data point from the NTSB court that the FAA's new rules won't pass muster. That decision can and will be used as precedent when this issue makes it into a civil court.

The bit about the tailnumber is 100% correct, and there are other complications...

Advisory Circulars are informational documents produced by the Federal Aviation Administration to inform and guide institutions, operations, and individuals within the aviation industry, as well as the general public. Advisory Circulars are intended to be informative in nature and not regulatory; however, many times they describe actions or advice that the FAA expects to be implemented or followed.

I will say that the both the new and old documents are flawed. But don't go thinking this is a big loop hole and you can now operate under ultralight rules. The way that the FAA sees it is that they just want separate all manned and unmanned (RC and UAS). They also being forced to allow commercial UAS to operate in the NAS starting 2015 without nexgen being in place. Nexgen being the part that will allow air traffic control to provide separation from UAV.

Ultralights do not pose a risk to manned aircraft because they are big enough to see from a mile or 2 away. However, most RC aircraft and UAVs for that matter are only the size of a large bird and let me tell you birds you can't see until your about to hit them.

The take way from this is act however you want, fly whatever you want. But if the FAA sees a problem with it they are going to hit you with a large fine even if it has no legal backing. You are then going to spend a lot of money fighting with the FAA and even if you win, the FAA has done what it needed to do. It prevented you from flying your aircraft and it has now made it no longer cost effective to do so.

 

[FAI-F1D]

The take way from this is act however you want, fly whatever you want. But if the FAA sees a problem with it they are going to hit you with a large fine even if it has no legal backing. You are then going to spend a lot of money fighting with the FAA and even if you win, the FAA has done what it needed to do. It prevented you from flying your aircraft and it has now made it no longer cost effective to do so.

Do bear in mind that as a CFI from a flying family, I've seen the worst the FAA has to offer. And as such, I utterly despise all things FAA. My current opinion is that ATC is the only worthwhile activity of the FAA. Don't even get me started on the boondoggle of part 135 and their crap about "holding out". I've yet to see how pt 135 even accomplishes a single thing.

Moving on...the new interpretive rule is going to end up dying in court at the hands of those who can afford the fees--multiple model aircraft companies and the AMA. That's when part 103 comes into being.

I honestly do not fear hitting a UAV nearly as much as I do a bald eagle--at least the guy flying the UAV is going to be trying to avoid me. Having flown with eagles, I find them to be the most arrogant creatures God ever created. They possess no fear instinct, they're big, and they do fly surprisingly fast.