Welcome, Autel Pilots!
Join our free Autel drone community today!
Join Us

New FAA Guidance for Recreational Flyers

Kwok Wai

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
15
Reaction score
10
Age
63
The FAA has posted an updated version of the Recreational Flyer advisory circular (AC 91.57). The draft document is 91.57C (the current version is still 91.57B) and contains new guidelines from the FAA regarding CBO approval. A large portion of the document highlights the restrictions/guidelines that CBOs should include in their Safety Guidelines, which everyone will have to eventually follow in the upcoming months. The document is still a draft and the FAA has opened a comment period until August 9.
Pilot Institute made a detailed video that explains what those new guidelines are and how you can submit a comment to the FAA. This is a fairly important matter and many on this forum fly for recreational purposes, so be sure to voice your opinion. Here's a link to the video.

 
Thanks, very informative, more ??'s than answers though!

anyone got a link, info on CBO? like if there's a CBO that has no "rules" can I use that instead of one that has TOO many rules?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kwok Wai
It will be interesting to see on what basis CBOs are accepted or rejected if not on the adoption of these guidelines.
 
As I dozed off for the night;
If anyone is putting in comments;
NOT LETTING THE spotter have Tech is just DUMB! The FAA is "banning" the very same "TECH" they are regulating!!!
When a co-pilot get's in, they use TECH, when a Rally co-driver gets in, they use TECH
limiting TECH as an option for the spotter while flying FPV is a safely issue. My spotter NEEDS to be able to determine where and how they observe, so I can fly. To limit that ability is short sighted.
the "flying" TX/RX and the Comms TX/RX have the same "fail rate" near ZERO, human error WITHOUT tech brings that fail rate higher, WHY would you want that!
 
Just a guess on my part but someplace in the video he mentions the PIC still needs VLOS even with a spotter. So they might be trying to keep the aircraft close enough to the spotter and the PIC. If they allowed the spotter to be lets say 500 yards away with two way communication to the PIC some pilots might be venturing off much farther then they have VLOS . Kind of their way of reeling in all the pilots that like to do long distance flying.
 
Kind of their way of reeling in
Over-reaching is my word! TECH is so imbedded into everything, too limit it's use tells me safety is NOT the goal.
VLOS is a red herring, FPV tells me where I am in relation to my surrounding "potential" hazards, my spotter knows where the AC is in relation to the bigger surroundings, together we communicate to maintain safety, distance really has nothing to do with those factors. So at least be honest and state; 1.1.1.1 "In order to limit the pilots range of flight..............."
 
Just a guess on my part but someplace in the video he mentions the PIC still needs VLOS even with a spotter. So they might be trying to keep the aircraft close enough to the spotter and the PIC. If they allowed the spotter to be lets say 500 yards away with two way communication to the PIC some pilots might be venturing off much farther then they have VLOS . Kind of their way of reeling in all the pilots that like to do long distance flying.
That is my sense also. And I don't believe it is about safety but accountability. That's why lifting the VLOS restriction is contingent on integrated remote ID signalling. They don't want there to be anonymous drones, and they want to be sure that rec pilots are operating toys restricted to their immediate vicinity.

That's what I infer about FAA thinking.

The safety argument is a bit of a canard and ironic. I can obtain much better positional awareness via telemetry (video and GPS/altimeter data) than I can by looking at the drone. The FAA knows this - witness the rules and training associated with IFR flight in airplanes.
 
These are Recreational drone piloting recommendations. I don't think it unreasonable to require a spotter for FPV with no tech allowed. If you're going to have a glitch or failure in the license-free band for an FPV video link--e.g. sunspots, jamming, busy WiFi environment, whatever--one can assume a bluetooth headset or a walkie talkie in the unlicensed bands will be affected too. And, unlike drones that are self-stabilizing, FPV quads are not, and can be quite disorienting with the pilot locked onto the view ahead. Not having any peripheral vision applies to GPS drones hovering, too, if flown with goggles (especially with a locked gimbal that doesn't yaw with a turn of the head mounted display ie Evo II)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GeekOnTheWing
FPV quads are not,
I don't use anything but the RC's screen which I consider FPV since, well, i'm looking at the screen an NOT the AC. I have NO problem If a pilot/spotter doesn't want to use tech to communicate, just like I have no problem with the Amish using buggy's.
but I don't want to be Mandated to use a buggy when a Ferrari is available. so write the law honestly, not cloaked in some "it's for your good" statement
 
The FAA has posted an updated version of the Recreational Flyer advisory circular (AC 91.57). The draft document is 91.57C (the current version is still 91.57B) and contains new guidelines from the FAA regarding CBO approval. A large portion of the document highlights the restrictions/guidelines that CBOs should include in their Safety Guidelines, which everyone will have to eventually follow in the upcoming months. The document is still a draft and the FAA has opened a comment period until August 9.
Pilot Institute made a detailed video that explains what those new guidelines are and how you can submit a comment to the FAA. This is a fairly important matter and many on this forum fly for recreational purposes, so be sure to voice your opinion. Here's a link to the video.

Just saw this new update. Is there a way to get automatically updated via either Text or eMail when these types of updates are issued by the FAA. I have registered my drone a recreational pilot & taken the Trust Test, but never saw an option to receive important updates. Thanks for your help.
 
Pilot Institute gave a link for your comments. Complaining here is interesting but not as helpful as submitting an official comment to the FAA.
 
These are Recreational drone piloting recommendations. I don't think it unreasonable to require a spotter for FPV with no tech allowed. If you're going to have a glitch or failure in the license-free band for an FPV video link--e.g. sunspots, jamming, busy WiFi environment, whatever--one can assume a bluetooth headset or a walkie talkie in the unlicensed bands will be affected too. And, unlike drones that are self-stabilizing, FPV quads are not, and can be quite disorienting with the pilot locked onto the view ahead. Not having any peripheral vision applies to GPS drones hovering, too, if flown with goggles (especially with a locked gimbal that doesn't yaw with a turn of the head mounted display ie Evo II)
They are mandates, not recommendations. There are certainly circumstances where direct visual contact is desirable but I posit that quite often it is actually a distraction from observing more useful flight information. I am not addressing FPV drone flight here. While it is true that a hovering view can be limiting, it is for the same reason it is limiting to not have eyes in the back of one's head. And indeed, a drone at altitude can provide a superior view of the horizon and oncoming traffic conflicts as well as sensitive objects on the ground that should not be overflown than can be had by a ground-based observer. It's not the drone we need to see - we know where it is and where it is going. The critical information is provided by what the drone can see. With regard to radio failure, presumably this applies to control signals as well, so all bets are off in that regard.

A UAV pilot must consider the entirety of circumstances to determine where their attention is best spent. This might involving clearing turns, just as airplane pilots are accustomed to performing in practice. But it is most often spent watching the video and cross referencing against a map based on GPS data. Also, I believe that most airplane pilots will tell you than many if not most conflicts in busy airspace are seen only after being advised of direction and altitude by ATC. The sky is just big, as they say.

I find direct visual observation most useful when landing - particular in confined spaces. And yet even the cheapest toy grade drones I've flown will land themselves - which is likely one of the most important safety features.
 

Latest threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
11,229
Messages
102,660
Members
9,819
Latest member
sky3d