Does "purpose" determine the required regulations?
03-29-2011, 03:41 PM
#26
RE: Does
If they regulate SUAS then they could regulate instruction (especially paid instruction) in the same manner as full scale. It is all in how the regs are drafted and enforced. Full scale instruction can remain intrastate yet is still bound by the regs.
03-29-2011, 03:59 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Ozarks,
MO
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: cfircav8r
Yes they will not go to a remote field and nab guys giving paid model instruction to a couple locals, but if you start going around big cities advertising aerial photography for a hefty profit and attempt to fly under the model exemption they will find out and pursue action. The same holds true for full scale if you are not being stupid you can get away with quite a bit. The question each has to ask themselves is do I want to break regs or just stay legal, even if I am sure I wont get caught. Some do live by the philosophy ''it's only illegal if you get caught.''
Yes they will not go to a remote field and nab guys giving paid model instruction to a couple locals, but if you start going around big cities advertising aerial photography for a hefty profit and attempt to fly under the model exemption they will find out and pursue action. The same holds true for full scale if you are not being stupid you can get away with quite a bit. The question each has to ask themselves is do I want to break regs or just stay legal, even if I am sure I wont get caught. Some do live by the philosophy ''it's only illegal if you get caught.''
"you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?”
06-02-2011, 04:23 PM
#28
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
New UPDATE:
Here is an interesting and recent FAA notice:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../N7210.766.pdf
Please note under hobbyist it states that you must fly in compliance with FAA 91-57 or be subject to very restrictive requirements.
Now AC 91-57 has this provision:
The definition of "business purpose" is now a FAA issue.
I see no way that UNDER CURRENT FAA REGULATIONS, that BLOS FPV flight can comply with AC 91-57 and is therefore illegal per current regulation without a COA and other FAA requirements.
AC 91-57 also does not have the "infamous" comma....... is 400' AGL a hard cap, or not?
To be sure I have asked the AMA to clarify if my interpretation is correct.
Brad (changed to FAA from FCC, my typo)
Here is an interesting and recent FAA notice:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../N7210.766.pdf
Please note under hobbyist it states that you must fly in compliance with FAA 91-57 or be subject to very restrictive requirements.
Quote:
7. Operations.
a. Types and Authority. Current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the NAS without specific authority.
(1) Public.
(a) FAA policy restricts COAs to public operations as defined in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1, Definitions & Abbreviations.
(b) For UAS operating as public aircraft, the authority is the COA.
(2) Civil.
(a) Civil applicants must apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate–Experimental Category.
(b) For UAS operating as civil aircraft, the authority is special airworthiness certificates.
(3) Hobbyist.
(a) Hobbyists should follow the guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57.
(b) For model aircraft, the authority is AC 91-57.
NOTE
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken
understanding they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91–57. AC 91–57 only applies to modelers and
specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.
Now FAA AC 91-57 says voluntary...... but this NOTICE says either comply with AC 91-57 or be subject to stringent restrictions.
7. Operations.
a. Types and Authority. Current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the NAS without specific authority.
(1) Public.
(a) FAA policy restricts COAs to public operations as defined in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1, Definitions & Abbreviations.
(b) For UAS operating as public aircraft, the authority is the COA.
(2) Civil.
(a) Civil applicants must apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate–Experimental Category.
(b) For UAS operating as civil aircraft, the authority is special airworthiness certificates.
(3) Hobbyist.
(a) Hobbyists should follow the guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57.
(b) For model aircraft, the authority is AC 91-57.
NOTE
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken
understanding they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91–57. AC 91–57 only applies to modelers and
specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.
Now FAA AC 91-57 says voluntary...... but this NOTICE says either comply with AC 91-57 or be subject to stringent restrictions.
Quote:
3. Operating Standards
d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of, full-scale aircraft. Use observers to help if possible.
3. Operating Standards
d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of, full-scale aircraft. Use observers to help if possible.
I see no way that UNDER CURRENT FAA REGULATIONS, that BLOS FPV flight can comply with AC 91-57 and is therefore illegal per current regulation without a COA and other FAA requirements.
AC 91-57 also does not have the "infamous" comma....... is 400' AGL a hard cap, or not?
To be sure I have asked the AMA to clarify if my interpretation is correct.
Brad (changed to FAA from FCC, my typo)
06-02-2011, 04:37 PM
#29
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
I think you mean FAA and not the FCC!
Also, FWIW, the EC has voted to change the wording of the infamous comma sentence. Here is the new wording:
With regard to AC 91-57, recognize what the legal definition in the sense they are using it os "authority". AC 91-57 is still a Guidance and they say as much. They say follow the guidence of AC 91-57. They do not say "comply" with it. Careful legalese to be sure. They know that the AC carries no force of law.
But they are clearly drawing the line with regard to commercial non-hobbyist uses.
Also, FWIW, the EC has voted to change the wording of the infamous comma sentence. Here is the new wording:
To clarify the actual intent, GENERAL, item 2.(c) was rewritten to read: When within three (3) miles of an airport, notify the airport authority and air traffic control (ATC) where applicable, and will not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level unless otherwise agreed upon by the airport authority and/or ATC (where applicable).
But they are clearly drawing the line with regard to commercial non-hobbyist uses.
06-02-2011, 06:16 PM
#30
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
I think you mean FAA and not the FCC!
Also, FWIW, the EC has voted to change the wording of the infamous comma sentence. Here is the new wording:
With regard to AC 91-57, recognize what the legal definition in the sense they are using it os ''authority''. AC 91-57 is still a Guidance and they say as much. They say follow the guidence of AC 91-57. They do not say ''comply'' with it. Careful legalese to be sure. They know that the AC carries no force of law.
But they are clearly drawing the line with regard to commercial non-hobbyist uses.
I think you mean FAA and not the FCC!
Also, FWIW, the EC has voted to change the wording of the infamous comma sentence. Here is the new wording:
To clarify the actual intent, GENERAL, item 2.(c) was rewritten to read: When within three (3) miles of an airport, notify the airport authority and air traffic control (ATC) where applicable, and will not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level unless otherwise agreed upon by the airport authority and/or ATC (where applicable).
But they are clearly drawing the line with regard to commercial non-hobbyist uses.
7. Operations.
a. Types and Authority. Current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the NAS without specific authority.
(3) Hobbyist.
(a) Hobbyists should follow the guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57.
(b) For model aircraft, the authority is AC 91-57.
NOTE
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken
understanding they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91–57. AC 91–57 only applies to modelers and
specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.
a. Types and Authority. Current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the NAS without specific authority.
(3) Hobbyist.
(a) Hobbyists should follow the guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57.
(b) For model aircraft, the authority is AC 91-57.
NOTE
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken
understanding they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91–57. AC 91–57 only applies to modelers and
specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.
As the authority for UAS Hobbyist operations (see above) is FAA AC 91-57, please explain how you can fly without complying with AC 91-57. If you willfully do not follow the guidance that the FAA states that you "should follow" what is your authority?....... the opinion of the AMA? Not sure the AMA gains any credibility by playing semantics with the FAA.
Brad
06-02-2011, 06:49 PM
#31
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
No semantics. AC 91-57 is the operating authority for hobbyists. But that does not change the nature of what an AC is. It is, by definition, an advisory. The real point of the document you linked to is that commercial, non-hobbyist operation are held to a higher standard. And you cannot slip under the radar by pretending to be a hobbyist.
Notice that the AC also mentions choosing an operating location away from "parks, schools, hospitals, and churches." Which if you want to be as technical as you are being that no more park flying, or flying at schools.
But the key is to focus on the FIRST sentence of the AC:
"This advisory circular outlines, and encourages, voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft".
Again, there is no force of law, despite the latest document noting that the AC is the operating authority for models.
Notice that the AC also mentions choosing an operating location away from "parks, schools, hospitals, and churches." Which if you want to be as technical as you are being that no more park flying, or flying at schools.
But the key is to focus on the FIRST sentence of the AC:
"This advisory circular outlines, and encourages, voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft".
Again, there is no force of law, despite the latest document noting that the AC is the operating authority for models.
06-02-2011, 07:27 PM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
a. Types and Authority. Current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the NAS without specific authority.
(1) Public.
(a) FAA policy restricts COAs to public operations as defined in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1, Definitions & Abbreviations.
(b) For UAS operating as public aircraft, the authority is the COA.
(2) Civil.
(a) Civil applicants must apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate–Experimental Category.
(b) For UAS operating as civil aircraft, the authority is special airworthiness certificates.
(3) Hobbyist.
(a) Hobbyists should follow the guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57.
(b) For model aircraft, the authority is AC 91-57.
(1) Public.
(a) FAA policy restricts COAs to public operations as defined in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1, Definitions & Abbreviations.
(b) For UAS operating as public aircraft, the authority is the COA.
(2) Civil.
(a) Civil applicants must apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate–Experimental Category.
(b) For UAS operating as civil aircraft, the authority is special airworthiness certificates.
(3) Hobbyist.
(a) Hobbyists should follow the guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57.
(b) For model aircraft, the authority is AC 91-57.
Oh thank god Policy11 finally cleared up the whole confusing mess in Policy07 that we have been discussing for years:
Policy Statement
The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in
the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public
aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special
airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57.
The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in
the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public
aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special
airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57.
Silent,
Perhaps you could use this lil gem at the bottom of the new Policy11 faa doc to show your point:
13. Word usage.
a. May (need not be followed by a verb) means a procedure is optional.
b. Must (followed by a verb or the use of an appropriate action verb in the imperative sense) means
a procedure is mandatory.
c. Should (followed by a verb) means a procedure is recommended.
d. Will (followed by a verb) indicates futurity; not a requirement for application of a procedure.
e. Singular words include the plural and plural words include the singular.
a. May (need not be followed by a verb) means a procedure is optional.
b. Must (followed by a verb or the use of an appropriate action verb in the imperative sense) means
a procedure is mandatory.
c. Should (followed by a verb) means a procedure is recommended.
d. Will (followed by a verb) indicates futurity; not a requirement for application of a procedure.
e. Singular words include the plural and plural words include the singular.
06-02-2011, 07:36 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
Policy11 in a nutshell:
7. Operations.
a. Types and Authority. Current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a
UAS in the NAS without specific authority.
(3) Hobbyist.
(a) Hobbyists should follow the guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57.
(b) For model aircraft, the authority is AC 91-57.
a. Types and Authority. Current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a
UAS in the NAS without specific authority.
(3) Hobbyist.
(a) Hobbyists should follow the guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57.
(b) For model aircraft, the authority is AC 91-57.
12. Definitions.
n. Hobby – model aircraft used for sport and recreation only.
n. Hobby – model aircraft used for sport and recreation only.
13. Word usage.
a. May (need not be followed by a verb) means a procedure is optional.
b. Must (followed by a verb or the use of an appropriate action verb in the imperative sense) means
a procedure is mandatory.
c. Should (followed by a verb) means a procedure is recommended.
a. May (need not be followed by a verb) means a procedure is optional.
b. Must (followed by a verb or the use of an appropriate action verb in the imperative sense) means
a procedure is mandatory.
c. Should (followed by a verb) means a procedure is recommended.
06-02-2011, 08:42 PM
#34
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: bradpaul
New UPDATE:
Here is an interesting and recent FAA notice:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../N7210.766.pdf
Please note under hobbyist it states that you must fly in compliance with FAA 91-57 or be subject to very restrictive requirements.
Now AC 91-57 has this provision:
The definition of ''business purpose'' is now a FAA issue.
I see no way that UNDER CURRENT FAA REGULATIONS, that BLOS FPV flight can comply with AC 91-57 and is therefore illegal per current regulation without a COA and other FAA requirements.
AC 91-57 also does not have the ''infamous'' comma....... is 400' AGL a hard cap, or not?
To be sure I have asked the AMA to clarify if my interpretation is correct.
Brad (changed to FAA from FCC, my typo)
New UPDATE:
Here is an interesting and recent FAA notice:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../N7210.766.pdf
Please note under hobbyist it states that you must fly in compliance with FAA 91-57 or be subject to very restrictive requirements.
Quote:
7. Operations.
a. Types and Authority. Current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the NAS without specific authority.
(1) Public.
(a) FAA policy restricts COAs to public operations as defined in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1, Definitions & Abbreviations.
(b) For UAS operating as public aircraft, the authority is the COA.
(2) Civil.
(a) Civil applicants must apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate–Experimental Category.
(b) For UAS operating as civil aircraft, the authority is special airworthiness certificates.
(3) Hobbyist.
(a) Hobbyists should follow the guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57.
(b) For model aircraft, the authority is AC 91-57.
NOTE
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken
understanding they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91–57. AC 91–57 only applies to modelers and
specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.
Now FAA AC 91-57 says voluntary...... but this NOTICE says either comply with AC 91-57 or be subject to stringent restrictions.
7. Operations.
a. Types and Authority. Current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the NAS without specific authority.
(1) Public.
(a) FAA policy restricts COAs to public operations as defined in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1, Definitions & Abbreviations.
(b) For UAS operating as public aircraft, the authority is the COA.
(2) Civil.
(a) Civil applicants must apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate–Experimental Category.
(b) For UAS operating as civil aircraft, the authority is special airworthiness certificates.
(3) Hobbyist.
(a) Hobbyists should follow the guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57.
(b) For model aircraft, the authority is AC 91-57.
NOTE
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken
understanding they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91–57. AC 91–57 only applies to modelers and
specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.
Now FAA AC 91-57 says voluntary...... but this NOTICE says either comply with AC 91-57 or be subject to stringent restrictions.
Quote:
3. Operating Standards
d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of, full-scale aircraft. Use observers to help if possible.
3. Operating Standards
d. Give right of way to, and avoid flying in the proximity of, full-scale aircraft. Use observers to help if possible.
I see no way that UNDER CURRENT FAA REGULATIONS, that BLOS FPV flight can comply with AC 91-57 and is therefore illegal per current regulation without a COA and other FAA requirements.
AC 91-57 also does not have the ''infamous'' comma....... is 400' AGL a hard cap, or not?
To be sure I have asked the AMA to clarify if my interpretation is correct.
Brad (changed to FAA from FCC, my typo)
hmmm...Now FAA AC 91-57 says voluntary...... but this NOTICE says either comply with AC 91-57 or be subject to stringent restrictions
Putting the above sentence (apparently your interpretation) in your post's quote box is very bad form IMO and your interpretation is certainly confusing.
06-02-2011, 09:26 PM
#35
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
I'm with KE on this one. The latest letter clearly says "should" and then they clearly define "should" as meaning "recommended." Nowhere in that is anything that changes the force of what AC 91-57 is, and that is a voluntary guidance document.
06-03-2011, 06:23 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
Silent,
unfortunately, I still maintain my personal views and desires
as to interpreting the deal the way BP views it.
... but I do recognize and accept that the most recent FAA text (policy11) now very clearly does point to what you have been saying.
I may want them to have said something else, I believe they ought to have said something else, but they didnt.
In the past, the argument was that since AC9157 was not a mandate/enforceable
that folks can exceed the very clear limits recommended in the AC- that NO regs apply to models,
which had the unintended consequence of allowing folks to do ANYTHING they want under then banner of Hobby
... I used to use the example of doing all kinds of forbidden activities and getting it excused/allowed
by just writing Recreational Model on the side of the craft with a marker.
Now, we can very clearly read in Policy11 that the case is just that- SHOULD follow AC9157, not Must Comply.
So, folks can now confidently say there is no Fed mandated limit on SoaringAlt/FPV/Armed/Autonomous/400lb hobby crafts,
because the only rules that apply to models is the AC, and the AC has no mandates in it and declares itself Voluntary.
unfortunately, I still maintain my personal views and desires
as to interpreting the deal the way BP views it.
... but I do recognize and accept that the most recent FAA text (policy11) now very clearly does point to what you have been saying.
I may want them to have said something else, I believe they ought to have said something else, but they didnt.
In the past, the argument was that since AC9157 was not a mandate/enforceable
that folks can exceed the very clear limits recommended in the AC- that NO regs apply to models,
which had the unintended consequence of allowing folks to do ANYTHING they want under then banner of Hobby
... I used to use the example of doing all kinds of forbidden activities and getting it excused/allowed
by just writing Recreational Model on the side of the craft with a marker.
Now, we can very clearly read in Policy11 that the case is just that- SHOULD follow AC9157, not Must Comply.
So, folks can now confidently say there is no Fed mandated limit on SoaringAlt/FPV/Armed/Autonomous/400lb hobby crafts,
because the only rules that apply to models is the AC, and the AC has no mandates in it and declares itself Voluntary.
06-03-2011, 06:33 AM
#37
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
Taken to the extreme, which is your specialty, you are essentially right. Which is why the FAA is doing what they are doing, they know that in fact there is nothing preventing a hobbyist from doing pretty much anything they please as long as it does not violate any other laws, rules, or regulations.
06-03-2011, 07:22 AM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
Dont blame me if you say Anything Goes, and I point out that includes a lot of stuff you dont like.
Extreme?
Sure, ok, I can see how you look at going above 400' anywhere at anytime as an extreme violation of AC9157 recommendations.
however, as we bring this back to the thread start,
Policy11 looks to put the kibosh on activities that are sooo comercial
that AMA wont insure them just due to the commerciality of the activity.
Do the math for me,
FAA says you cant do commercial UAS-MA stuff under the Policy11 #7 NAS use authority type 3 'Hobby'.
AMA declares an activity as sometimes too commercial to be insured by them.
Put the two together.
Do you come up with
When a UAS(MA) operation is too commercial to be insured by AMA
it no longer can claim authorization to use the NAS as 3.Hobby
and must follow 2.Civil FAA requirements for UAS.
The FAA prohibits commercial activities claiming 3.Hobby authorization that coincidently AMA wont inusre as hobby,
so there is no need to bring outside insurance to cover commercialized-'hobby' activities at clubs that
i) AAM dont insure &
ii) FAA prohibits
Who says the activity is not a Hobby use of the craft?
Uh, actually, we / AMA are saying that by saying we wont insure it because its commercial use.
We cant point at 1 guy doing 1 thing and tell the insurance its Commerce while telling the Fed its Hobby
Extreme?
Sure, ok, I can see how you look at going above 400' anywhere at anytime as an extreme violation of AC9157 recommendations.
however, as we bring this back to the thread start,
Policy11 looks to put the kibosh on activities that are sooo comercial
that AMA wont insure them just due to the commerciality of the activity.
Do the math for me,
FAA says you cant do commercial UAS-MA stuff under the Policy11 #7 NAS use authority type 3 'Hobby'.
AMA declares an activity as sometimes too commercial to be insured by them.
Put the two together.
Do you come up with
When a UAS(MA) operation is too commercial to be insured by AMA
it no longer can claim authorization to use the NAS as 3.Hobby
and must follow 2.Civil FAA requirements for UAS.
The FAA prohibits commercial activities claiming 3.Hobby authorization that coincidently AMA wont inusre as hobby,
so there is no need to bring outside insurance to cover commercialized-'hobby' activities at clubs that
i) AAM dont insure &
ii) FAA prohibits
Who says the activity is not a Hobby use of the craft?
Uh, actually, we / AMA are saying that by saying we wont insure it because its commercial use.
We cant point at 1 guy doing 1 thing and tell the insurance its Commerce while telling the Fed its Hobby
06-03-2011, 08:54 AM
#40
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Dont blame me if you say Anything Goes, and I point out that includes a lot of stuff you dont like.
Extreme?
Sure, ok, I can see how you look at going above 400' anywhere at anytime as an extreme violation of AC9157 recommendations.
Dont blame me if you say Anything Goes, and I point out that includes a lot of stuff you dont like.
Extreme?
Sure, ok, I can see how you look at going above 400' anywhere at anytime as an extreme violation of AC9157 recommendations.
Do the math for me,
FAA says you cant do commercial UAS-MA stuff under the Policy11 #7 NAS use authority type 3 'Hobby'.
AMA declares an activity as sometimes too commercial to be insured by them.
Put the two together.
FAA says you cant do commercial UAS-MA stuff under the Policy11 #7 NAS use authority type 3 'Hobby'.
AMA declares an activity as sometimes too commercial to be insured by them.
Put the two together.
06-03-2011, 10:04 AM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
well YEAH a fullsize F86 would be extreme,
thats why I use to talk about a FreeFlight 1/3 scale b24 model at FL181... you know, something reasonable
as an example of having no laws is equating to lawlessness
When a group wants to say We can do XXX cause there are not ANY laws on models,
then why would folks be surprised that others will say We can also do YYY if there are not any laws on models.
We cant point at 1 guy doing 1 thing and tell the insurance its Commerce while telling the Fed its Hobby.
Which one are we lieing to?
You are correct, it dont matter a hill of beans what some posters accountant or some CBO wanna believe Commercial means,
the ONLY opinion that matters is the FAA's.
Hmm, do we have any examples of Commercial vs noncommercial from the FAA we can forecast from?
Sure, they get REALLY uptight and regulatey over pilots getting compensated without a Commercial license
thats why I use to talk about a FreeFlight 1/3 scale b24 model at FL181... you know, something reasonable
as an example of having no laws is equating to lawlessness
When a group wants to say We can do XXX cause there are not ANY laws on models,
then why would folks be surprised that others will say We can also do YYY if there are not any laws on models.
AMA insurance coverage and the FAA definition of "business purposes" are not related. One is not dependent upon the other.
Which one are we lieing to?
You are correct, it dont matter a hill of beans what some posters accountant or some CBO wanna believe Commercial means,
the ONLY opinion that matters is the FAA's.
Hmm, do we have any examples of Commercial vs noncommercial from the FAA we can forecast from?
Sure, they get REALLY uptight and regulatey over pilots getting compensated without a Commercial license
06-03-2011, 10:43 AM
#42
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
Once again, the two are not related. What the FAA decides to characterize as a "business purpose" has nothing to do with whether or not the AMA views it as a covered insurance activity. A good analogy would be the situation with aircraft salesmen. They do not need a commercial pilot's license to take a customer for a demo flight. Yet I am fairly certain that their employer has them covered under their insurance policy. So a guy could be flying a non-time demo that the AMA might view as a commercial activity and simultaneously the FAA could view that as still being a hobbyist activity.
This is all supposition since the actual definition of what the FAA decides is a business purpose remains unclear as does the exact times when a non-paid, non-employee sponsored pilot's AMA insurance may not cover him.
This is all supposition since the actual definition of what the FAA decides is a business purpose remains unclear as does the exact times when a non-paid, non-employee sponsored pilot's AMA insurance may not cover him.
06-03-2011, 10:54 AM
#43
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
Here is one example of a commission reaction to the FAA UAS policy...... it has nothing to do with what is insured or not insured by the AMA:
http://www.suasnews.com/2011/06/5696...orized-by-faa/
So if I had a business that produced videos of events, like Joe Nall, Top Gun, SEFF, etc. and had used sUAS or UAS for airborne video, it looks like that very likely is an issue with the FAA.
Brad
P.S. you guys need to thank me for activating a thread other then H.C.'s election hopes....
http://www.suasnews.com/2011/06/5696...orized-by-faa/
So if I had a business that produced videos of events, like Joe Nall, Top Gun, SEFF, etc. and had used sUAS or UAS for airborne video, it looks like that very likely is an issue with the FAA.
Brad
P.S. you guys need to thank me for activating a thread other then H.C.'s election hopes....
06-03-2011, 11:01 AM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
from BPs link
uh-oh
Who gave them the WormCan opener?
BP said
the really troubling part is how just FLYING as a hobby, but the craft filmed as a commercial venture,
is commercial operation of the hobby craft to these guys,
thereby making that 'hobby flying' become commercial flying???? [:@]
Any remote controlled airborne devices either carrying photographic equipment of any kind used for commercial purposes or flying to be photographed for still or film commercial purposes is not yet regulated and therefore not authorized by the FAA.
Who gave them the WormCan opener?
BP said
and had used sUAS or UAS for airborne video, it looks like that very likely is an issue with the FAA.
is commercial operation of the hobby craft to these guys,
thereby making that 'hobby flying' become commercial flying???? [:@]
06-03-2011, 11:48 AM
#46
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
from BPs link
uh-oh
Who gave them the WormCan opener?
BP said
the really troubling part is how just FLYING as a hobby, but the craft filmed as a commercial venture,
is commercial operation of the hobby craft to these guys,
thereby making that 'hobby flying' become commercial flying???? [:@]
from BPs link
Any remote controlled airborne devices either carrying photographic equipment of any kind used for commercial purposes or flying to be photographed for still or film commercial purposes is not yet regulated and therefore not authorized by the FAA.
Who gave them the WormCan opener?
BP said
and had used sUAS or UAS for airborne video, it looks like that very likely is an issue with the FAA.
is commercial operation of the hobby craft to these guys,
thereby making that 'hobby flying' become commercial flying???? [:@]
but as it is California........... who knows?
Brad
06-03-2011, 12:21 PM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
I agree with your Flyboys reference and point, that THOSE commercial models are indeed commercial.
However,
lets examine the automotive television advertizement
that had a model plane hit its panel to demonstrate the panels dent resistance.
Someone was piloting that RC plane for the purpose of getting filmed, and that filming was Commercial in respect to selling cars. So I believe we agree that the RC plane flying was not hobby.
But you ask that some line be envisioned
separating that example of a pilot demonstrating for sales (a likely compensated pilot)
from other pilots compensated for demoing for sales.
Because "film" got used the CA film guys invited themselves to make a decree,
and they didnt side with the RC plane pilots
If Clem&Cletus want to sell DVDs of their L337 Ski11z at hovering,
so they film themselves at the club to be sold as DVDs on Ebay,
is that a commercial activity? CA film guys appear to say it is.
If they want to sell their special 22x2w Silk props by filming an ad of a UAV (98"yak model) demoing the prop hovering... how is that different than selling cars with a UAV demoing hitting the car
However,
lets examine the automotive television advertizement
that had a model plane hit its panel to demonstrate the panels dent resistance.
Someone was piloting that RC plane for the purpose of getting filmed, and that filming was Commercial in respect to selling cars. So I believe we agree that the RC plane flying was not hobby.
But you ask that some line be envisioned
separating that example of a pilot demonstrating for sales (a likely compensated pilot)
from other pilots compensated for demoing for sales.
Because "film" got used the CA film guys invited themselves to make a decree,
and they didnt side with the RC plane pilots
If Clem&Cletus want to sell DVDs of their L337 Ski11z at hovering,
so they film themselves at the club to be sold as DVDs on Ebay,
is that a commercial activity? CA film guys appear to say it is.
If they want to sell their special 22x2w Silk props by filming an ad of a UAV (98"yak model) demoing the prop hovering... how is that different than selling cars with a UAV demoing hitting the car
06-03-2011, 12:59 PM
#48
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
RC helis are not uncommonly used by Hollywood for filming. I know at least 3 people who have made money doing so. Each was required to secure a commercial liability insurance policy by the studio. Clearly these guys will be out of business for a while!!
06-04-2011, 01:57 AM
#49
RE: Does
Ya know guys,,
Don't take this "the sky is falling" talk to lightly. Kid size ATVs and Motorcycles were slated to be banned, and many dealerships stopped selling them because of a poorly written "Lead Ban" bill that passed and was signed,, This took the Sport/Industry by suprise and took two years and a lot of foot work to get an exclusion for motorsports in place. Never discount the unintended consequences of something our oh so wise Gov. does [:@]
Don't take this "the sky is falling" talk to lightly. Kid size ATVs and Motorcycles were slated to be banned, and many dealerships stopped selling them because of a poorly written "Lead Ban" bill that passed and was signed,, This took the Sport/Industry by suprise and took two years and a lot of foot work to get an exclusion for motorsports in place. Never discount the unintended consequences of something our oh so wise Gov. does [:@]
06-04-2011, 07:27 AM
#50
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Does
It all comes down to what the`FAA defines as "business purpose"........
The only references I could find were references to the US IRS rules as to "business purpose"....... IF that is the definition then if the activity of the pilot either generates taxable income or tax deductible expenses then it is a "business purpose".
So I would think one measure would be using the example of attending a RC event:
If as the pilot you receive income or other remuneration for attending he event it is "business purpose"
If as the pilot you expense some of the cost for taxes you have declared "business purpose"
Say you own "Great BIG RC Hobbies" and attend an event and also have a vendor booth at the event, does that make any flying at the event "business purpose"?
Gets very interesting and complicated.
Brad
The only references I could find were references to the US IRS rules as to "business purpose"....... IF that is the definition then if the activity of the pilot either generates taxable income or tax deductible expenses then it is a "business purpose".
So I would think one measure would be using the example of attending a RC event:
If as the pilot you receive income or other remuneration for attending he event it is "business purpose"
If as the pilot you expense some of the cost for taxes you have declared "business purpose"
Say you own "Great BIG RC Hobbies" and attend an event and also have a vendor booth at the event, does that make any flying at the event "business purpose"?
Gets very interesting and complicated.
Brad