AC 91-57 MUST be followed per this FAA document

In this FAA UAS risk analysis they state unambiguosly that AC 91-57 MUST be complied with for model aircraft (recreational UAVs). So much for all that "it is a request not a law" arguement. Apparently the AMA rules have been telling people to break the law for the last 30 years.

Read page 115 of this 2008 FAA document.

"Unmanned aircraft flown for hobby purposes or

recreation. Model aircraft must comply with

Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft

Operating Standards, published in 1981"

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • Just to clarify, the term "layman" has nothing to do with being a lawyer. It is more of a generic term for an individual with an "average" education. As an over educted person in several disciplines, I am more than qualified to interpret technical language and industry standards as well as the realities of dealing with Government documents and officials that do indeed carry the "force of law" without being "laws" in and of themselves themselves. I do that every day in my current occupation. Esp. when the FAA documents are regulatory and technical standards that are beyond the realm of most lawyer's scope of expertise and training.

    "A "layman" is a person who is a non-expert in a given field of knowledge. The term originally meant a member of the laity, i.e. a non-clergymen, but over the centuries shifted in definition.

    The concept of describing something in layman’s terms has come into wide use in the English speaking world. To put something in layman’s terms is to describe a complex or technical issue using words and terms that the average individual (someone without professional training in the subject area) can understand, so that they may comprehend the issue to some degree."
  • 3D Robotics
    Duane: As an admin, I can't close comments in the thread--only you can, as the thread originator. But please feel free to do so at this point. Our policy here is not to censor, but instead to moderate and enforce site policies to maintain a civil discourse. Sometimes, it is the best policy to simply close the thread, rather than ask the moderators to go from comment to comment trying to decide which is too personal or uncivil and should be deleted.
  • @Duane--"Why delete or lock threads because you don't like them? Sounds more like a another forum. I thought this was a place for free open discussion?"

    I have to agree with you here, my friend. I don't get it either. I stopped posting, even deleted a post, on my own when I realized I was getting personal.
  • Chris. I actually think this has been long enough and will just turn into flame wars from here on out.
    I post stuff in my blogs as I find them and I am sure this stuff will resurface.... and much more.
    You can close this for me now Chris. Thanks.
  • Why delete or lock threads because you don't like them? Sounds more like a another forum. I thought this was a place for free open discussion?
  • I agree with Chris. Duane, I think you've made your point, please close comments on this thread.
  • I preferr to stay out of the courts in the first place, but tempt fate all you want and make the lawyers rich. Your choice. Do what ever you want, just remember I told you so when you get caught and can't get the lawyers to wiggle your way out of it. Fly that 50 lb. sUAV right into the windshield of a Cessna at 1500' and tell the judge that the law said you could be up that high. Bet you can even find a lawyer to defend you too. Bet the Cessna owner's lawyer will use the AC to prove that you had no right to be up that high too.
  • 3D Robotics
    I suggest we close this thread, which has hit diminishing returns. As an admin, I can only delete it, which I don't want to do because there has been a lot of valuable discussion. Duane, this is your thread and only you can close comments. But my recommendation is that this would be a good time to do that.
  • @Duane - Unless you hold a Juris Doctor (law) degree, your qualifications to interpret legal rules and regulations are that of a layman. Similarly, my involvement in software engineering does not make me an expert on computer and intellectual property law. The fact that you contend you are not a layman when it comes to matters involving the interpretation of aviation law only serves to show how disjointed your logic is. At this juncture, I'm leaving this thread alone until a qualified legal opinion is forthcoming. To participate further would only serve to fuel your misguided ego.
  • Lew, some of my qualifications are as follows:
    B.S. in History, Anthropogy and Workforce Development from Penn State.
    Former Avionics Inspector and R&D Technician for Sikorsky Aircraft.
    Cisco, Oracle and CompTIA Certified Instructor.
    PA Dept of Ed. certified teacher for Computer System Servicing, Network and Telecommunications Technologies and Electromechanical Technologies.

    I am not a lawyer but I am no "layman".
This reply was deleted.