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


  • Lew, click the links. Most of my cites are linked to docs.
  • I don't believe that the FAA is going to enforce a policy which is voluntary. If they were planning on it they would have made this more clear to all whether they have changed the voluntary part. The new upcoming regulations will be a different story though. I believe the community is aware of the upcoming changes we face.
  • Peter, my previous comment actually answers your question. I'm a Private Pilot, and am currently taking courses at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University on UAV systems and operations. Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01 makes it very clear that hobbyists (only) are expected to follow AC 91-57, and everyone else must be in restricted airspace or have a COA or SAW. Since this is FAA policy, it can be enforced as FAA's existing regulations under part 91, since flying in defiance of FAA policy would be by definition reckless. There's a lot of case law to back this assertion up. You could fight such an FAA citation, but that fight would be expensive and you'd probably lose.

    Also as I said above, FAA is not interested in policing everyone's backyard. They reserve their resources for high-profile cases or accidents. You can expect, though, that in those cases they will be out to make an example of whoever came to their attention.
  • Duane, no disrespect here but GROW UP! Your assumptions are too funny, really :) As John, Joel and myself have said, please CITE EVIDENCE. Or be a man and close this out. Enough paranoia, cite fact or take it offline.
  • Pete, by your logic we shouldn't have traffic laws. How can we control millions of people speeding and running red lights? Since there are so many people using drugs and we are having such a hard time enforcing it should we legalize heroin and cocaine?
    Sorry, your arguement seems to be against US law making reasons for the last 100 years.
  • CITE THE EVIDENCE/CITATION Duane!!!!. It would help all of us to discuss this further if you could provide it!
    Glad about your suggestions when the NPRM comes out, but to stay on topic of this initial thread please cite the EVIDENCE!
  • I fear that the next few months are going to be wrought with people inciting general paranoia around here.

    The simple fact is this:

    Regulations are coming, get used to that fact.

    Here at DIYDrones I have seen a basic feeling that everyone should operate their vessels in a manner that cause no harm to people or property. We are all aware that bad press will bring tighter regulation.

    Right now, the advisory is just that, some simple rules to operate by to keep your butt outta the sling.

    As for trying to turn people toward or away from the AMA, let it rest. While some here may not agree with everything the AMA does, there is no reason to sit around here and bash them, that will accomplish nothing!

    So lets all go have our fun, stop worrying, and look at what we can do to improve the community and various projects associated with it!
  • My suggestion is that when the NPRM comes out people respond with reasonable recommendations. My self I am proposing no flying within 3 miles of airpots with the exception of very small private airfields and heliports I also will suggest a 400' alt. limit execpt in FAA designated areas, support the ban of turbines and a weight limit of 50# and oppose the use of CBO's as regulatory or oversight entities, but reccomend using CBO's recommendations to consider their inclusion into regulations for everyone (IE: single tier for everyone).
  • A very simple question...

    Duane, please cite evidence which supports your various contentions. I have purposely hyperlinked the word "evidence" so there can be no confusion as to what constitutes it (see def. 3). Similarly, a "citation" should consist of quotes from and/or a link to the original document supporting your contention.

    With that said, please cite your evidence and source documents in support of your contention.
  • Duane, it is an advisory. If you want to assume LAW then go for it. As for the comment about me being a "I can do whatever I want type". Be careful in your assumptions duane, I happen to be a member of AUVSI and I am involved in the UAS industry, I am well aware of rules and regulations duane, I follow them to the "T", however when it comes to DIY UAS/UAV and RC aircraft in general, I think the likely hood that the FAA or any gov't body could enforce on said regulations on such a BROAD and EXPANSIVE USER BASE is IMPOSSIBLE. End of story. If they want to go after hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people - then they will need one heck of a BIG ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE BASE TO DO SO - simply put they would need a DHS times 10000 in headcount. If the AMA gets the contract to oversight, GREAT. As a 30+ year RC veteran, I think it's great for the RC industry if more people join AMA, making it a requirement to fly RC however I think goes against many principles that make America AMERICA! Joel is correct Duane, end the thread!!!
This reply was deleted.