FAA Released Advisory Circular 91-57B - Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft

[kadras]

AC 91-57B - Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft – Document Information

From the introduction:
This AC provides interim safety guidance to individuals operating unmanned aircraft, often referred to as drones, for recreational purposes under the statutory exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft (Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) § 44809). This AC restates the statutory conditions to operate under the exception and provides additional guidance on adhering to those conditions. Per 49 U.S.C. § 44809, recreational flyers may only operate under the statutory exception if they adhere to all of the conditions listed in the statute.

Provides some explanation/clarification, but nothing earth-shaking. No dates or goals for when LAANC and the test will be ready.

 

[kensteele]

my reading comprehension is not that good but based on 7.1.1 i don't see how a part 107 operator can choose to fly recreationally under these rules. but that's just me and i'm new here; not trying to pick a fight.

 

[msinger]

based on 7.1.1 i don't see how a part 107 operator can choose to fly recreationally under these rules

7.1.1 is simply stating you cannot fly under these rules if you're going to fly for commercial purposes. The fact that you have a remote pilot license does not mean you must always fly for commercial purposes.

 

[dronerdave]

Are they saying I can't fly alone as a rec flier? It says "generally optional" but I spend way more time looking at my video screen and the stats than the quad itself.

4.1.3 The Aircraft is Flown Within the Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) of the Person Operating the Aircraft or a Visual Observer Co-Located and in Direct Communication With the Operator. This means that either the recreational flyer or the visual observer must have eyes on the aircraft at all times to ensure it is not a collision hazard to other aircraft or people on the ground. The assistance of a visual observer is generally optional but is helpful in ensuring the recreational flyer is able to check instruments for extended periods. The assistance of a visual observer is necessary if the recreational flyer wants to use first person view (FPV) devices that allow a limited view of the surrounding area from the perspective of a camera aboard the aircraft.

 

[kensteele]

7.1.1 is simply stating you cannot fly under these rules if you're going to fly for commercial purposes. The fact that you have a remote pilot license does not mean you must always fly for commercial purposes.

is there a difference between:
The Aircraft is Flown Strictly for Recreational Purposes, and
The Aircraft is Flown for Recreational Purposes

 

[kensteele]

Are they saying I can't fly alone as a rec flier? It says "generally optional" but I spend way more time looking at my video screen and the stats than the quad itself.

4.1.3 The Aircraft is Flown Within the Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) of the Person Operating the Aircraft or a Visual Observer Co-Located and in Direct Communication With the Operator. This means that either the recreational flyer or the visual observer must have eyes on the aircraft at all times to ensure it is not a collision hazard to other aircraft or people on the ground. The assistance of a visual observer is generally optional but is helpful in ensuring the recreational flyer is able to check instruments for extended periods. The assistance of a visual observer is necessary if the recreational flyer wants to use first person view (FPV) devices that allow a limited view of the surrounding area from the perspective of a camera aboard the aircraft.

you can fly alone, you just can't look away for extended periods and you are expected to have eyes on the the aircraft "at all times"...whatever that means. these rules are not really enforceable.

 

[Thomas B]

is there a difference between:
The Aircraft is Flown Strictly for Recreational Purposes, and
The Aircraft is Flown for Recreational Purposes

You’re correct, but a properly registered drone,
under 107 can be flown for “work” or “fun”. As pointed out by @msinger above you can’t use the recreational flying rules when flying as a job, and that just because a pilot holds a 107, that does not prohibit him/her from flying for fun. The applicable rules are different.

However, I’m sure that a mixed flight would fall under 107.

 

[kensteele]

^how convenient. you guys are bending the rules and that's fine, i'm not going to argue...but that's not what the document says.

 

[Thomas B]

^how convenient. you guys are bending the rules and that's fine, i'm not going to argue...but that's not what the document says.

OK

 

[msinger]

is there a difference between:
The Aircraft is Flown Strictly for Recreational Purposes, and
The Aircraft is Flown for Recreational Purposes

They mean you must fly strictly for recreational purposes for the entire flight. And if you want to fly strictly for commercial purposes during the next flight, then you cannot fly under these rules (during the next flight).

But, I guess you could really read into that one if you want to be pedantic...

 

[sar104]

They mean you must fly strictly for recreational purposes for the entire flight. And if you want to fly strictly for commercial purposes during the next flight, then you cannot fly under these rules (during the next flight).

But, I guess you could really read into that one if you want to be pedantic...

Yes - the key point is that the statement "the aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes" applies to the flight in question in that it defines a recreational flight, and does not mean the same as "the aircraft is flown only for recreational purposes". To try to argue otherwise is not being pedantic - it would be a misinterpretation of the word "strictly". And the FAA has clarified that in the past anyway, so it's a bit of a pointless argument.

 

[RCdancer]

This is why I hate lawyers - legal jargon. Sometimes I think they make their legalese so difficult to understand just so that common folk will have to pay them (even more) to interpret what they wrote.

Every lawyer needs to have "K.I.S.S." tattooed on their hands to constantly remind them to keep it simple. Speaking as a theologian and an engineer, it takes far more skill to be concise and simplify complex concepts so that anyone can easily understand than it does to show your mastery of jargon.

 

[sar104]

This is why I hate lawyers - legal jargon. Sometimes I think they make their legalese so difficult to understand just so that common folk will have to pay them (even more) to interpret what they wrote.

Every lawyer needs to have "K.I.S.S." tattooed on their hands to constantly remind them to keep it simple. Speaking as a theologian, it takes far more skill to simplify complex concepts so that anyone can easily understand than it does to show your mastery of jargon.

What jargon are you referring to? It's an advisory circular, not a legal document - I thought it was written quite plainly.

 

[RCdancer]

What jargon are you referring to? It's an advisory circular, not a legal document - I thought it was written quite plainly.

Granted. There may not be much jargon in this particular circular (but it's certainly present in the regs.) But the discussion on here indicates that it's not well-written given that there are differing interpretations. And that's true for many things pertaining to 107 and recreational flying. Look at all the discussion/questions/confusion since 107 came into existence. Even the Harvard Business Review admits it's time to kill legalese.

 

[sar104]

Granted. There may not be much jargon in this particular circular (but it's certainly present in the regs.) But the discussion on here indicates that it's not well-written given that there are differing interpretations. And that's true for many things pertaining to 107 and recreational flying. Look at all the discussion/questions/confusion since 107 came into existence. Even the Harvard Business Review admits it's time to kill legalese.

In this case I don't think the different "interpretations" have anything to do with the document not being clear. It's argumentative posting.

 

[dawgpilot]

I found this part interesting, regarding the upcoming test for recreational users (that the FAA is still developing):

"The FAA is developing the test in consultation with stakeholders. Recreational flyers would have to pass the test, which could be administered electronically, and would be responsible for providing proof of passage upon request from FAA personnel or law enforcement. The FAA will provide additional guidance and notice when the test is available and the date on which adherence to this condition would be required."


If they choose that route, the test will be far less of a burden than what Part 107 pilots have had to go through.

 

[Deleted member 94307]

They should make everyone pass part 107 and prove they took a course..

I might always have a pic that I try to sell.. therefore I’m always flying part 107.

This is all crazy because there is no enforcement . I’ll be happy if a police officer or anyone asks for my license and registration!

I think it’s ridiculous that rec. pilots can’t fly within 5 miles of a class G airport that has a plane taking off once every hour or so.. in NJ there are so many that will limit too many areas.

Again no enforcement.. something horrible is still bound to happen and our hobby/passion/profession will be limited even more.

I guess they never really planned for Amazon to deliver by drone?

 

[dawgpilot]

I think it’s ridiculous that rec. pilots can’t fly within 5 miles of a class G airport that has a plane taking off once every hour or so.. in NJ there are so many that will limit too many areas.

Rec pilots can fly in Class G without restriction now. The 5 mile rule doesn't exist anymore. Rec pilots just need to stay out of controlled airspace (until LAANC launches for recreational use later this summer).

 

[Deleted member 94307]

I’m not sure about that. From what I read there will be no flights within 5 miles of class G for recreation. . You can only fly recreationally in designated areas if you are with 5 miles of class G.

 

[Deleted member 94307]

And the designated areas are air fields where fixed wing take priority, you have to pay to register, you have to member of AMA, and only three can fly at a time for 20 minutes..