- Joined
- Jul 25, 2015
- Messages
- 113
- Reaction score
- 34
- Age
- 61
Criminal charges on 2 pilots
- Thread starter Jorgejim90
- Start date
Late to the thread - sorry.
What I'm about to say is from memory from research done months earlier.
If you study the details of AC91-57A, and then look at Public Law 112-95, you can see that the former is pretty much a cut and paste from the latter - specifically, Section 336 which addresses hobby/recreational UAS. And you can't help but ask yourself why FAA didn't use the word "helipad" in the AC document. After all, this was a wonderful opportunity for the FAA. Using the word helipad in the AC document would have removed all doubt as to how we should regard heliports. Maybe FAA felt their hands were tied and couldn't use "heliport" in the AC document since it wasn't used in Section 336.
On the other hand, maybe using the word "heliport" in Section 336 was regarded as redundant since FAA already has a definition for airport which seems to include heliports.
But then look at Section 332 which addresses public UAS. In 332, the word "heliport" is used. Why is it used in Section 332, but not in section 336?
I don't think it matters. What matters is it is not used. It's omitted from Public Law 112-95 Section 336, and it is omitted from AC 91-57A. And it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the airport rule doesn't apply to heliports if you are a hobby UAS pilot.
airmap.io, which is in the business of showing UAS pilots where they can and cannot fly, seems to embrace this.
That doesn't mean we get to disregard heliports, of course. At the very least, we consider them "emergency services" as stated in AC 91-57A.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57A_Ch_1.pdf
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ95/pdf/PLAW-112publ95.pdf
What I'm about to say is from memory from research done months earlier.
If you study the details of AC91-57A, and then look at Public Law 112-95, you can see that the former is pretty much a cut and paste from the latter - specifically, Section 336 which addresses hobby/recreational UAS. And you can't help but ask yourself why FAA didn't use the word "helipad" in the AC document. After all, this was a wonderful opportunity for the FAA. Using the word helipad in the AC document would have removed all doubt as to how we should regard heliports. Maybe FAA felt their hands were tied and couldn't use "heliport" in the AC document since it wasn't used in Section 336.
On the other hand, maybe using the word "heliport" in Section 336 was regarded as redundant since FAA already has a definition for airport which seems to include heliports.
But then look at Section 332 which addresses public UAS. In 332, the word "heliport" is used. Why is it used in Section 332, but not in section 336?
I don't think it matters. What matters is it is not used. It's omitted from Public Law 112-95 Section 336, and it is omitted from AC 91-57A. And it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the airport rule doesn't apply to heliports if you are a hobby UAS pilot.
airmap.io, which is in the business of showing UAS pilots where they can and cannot fly, seems to embrace this.
That doesn't mean we get to disregard heliports, of course. At the very least, we consider them "emergency services" as stated in AC 91-57A.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57A_Ch_1.pdf
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ95/pdf/PLAW-112publ95.pdf
Similar threads
- Sticky
