Silent-AV8R

Some fun info about that:

http://home.pcisys.net/~aghorash/SharingExpenses2.pdf

So the passenger cannot pay for the gas, the pilot must share ½ of all costs.

ira d

I stand corrected.

cj_rumley

You are correct, ira. Some folks seem to think AMArules are FARs. They aren't, and (hopefully) never will be. There are AMA rules that ban some commercial ops. AMA's interpretation of Guidance 08 is that since AC 91-57, which is referenced as authorization for operation of MA is just advisory, so compliance is voluntary.
BTW, how many AMAsanctioned sailplane and pattern events do you know of that have been cancelled because of FAA rules?

CJ

H5487

Auger, the FAA defines this as the ability to collect pay while in travel status for your employer. For example, if your employer asks you to drive to visit a remote customer, you would be paid for the time that you're on the road. And if you take your airplane instead, then the FAA allows you to still be paid while you're travelling. Note that you're not being paid to fly the plane - You're being paid to travel.

Harvey

AugerDawger

or they can hire you and you can fly for them however you want provided it is incidental to the employment and your not taking passengers or property for hire

THERCAV8R

My Feedback: (283)

Oh Get over it! they are only electric. looks cool to me.

H5487

Why do people continue to say that compliance with an AC is optional? Advisory Circulars are written into Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14CFR). While the AC lacks the legal clout of a regulation, it is often cited as supporting documentation for a charge against a pilot. Call your local FSDO and ask one of the inspectors if ACs are optional.

Harvey

takevin

Original poster is a wet blanket No harm was done so what the heck is the beef?

H5487

Give me some examples.

Harvey

cj_rumley

I'll defer to Silent to answer that Q, Harvey. He has said it more often than anyone else.

CJ

H5487

The beef is that three r/c pilots (AMA members who supposedly knew better) illegally used their models for commercial purposes during a time when the FAA has all radio controlled aircraft under their microscope. Those three pilots didn't do us any favors.

Harvey

cj_rumley

Cite the part of FAAregulatory material that pertains to model airplane operation that says that it is illegal. Are modelers expected to read every word of FARs, ACs, policy statements, guidance documents, etc. to ferret out rules they must follow?

H5487

No, of course not. One of the purposes of the AMA is to be the buffer between modelers and the FARs. As Silent has pointed out several times, the three pilots flew their models for commercial purposes during a time when the FAA has put a hold on all commercial UAV operations until the NPRM becomes law. While the FAA has said that some limited exceptions to the moritorium will be approved, some of us doubt that they had a waiver because the write-up for the YouTube video includes a few curious statements that have us wondering about the legality of their flights.

While we're not against positive media exposure for model airplane use, we're not for it if the flying was done illegally; especially during a time when the FAA is watching us closely.

Harvey

Silent-AV8R

I have already cited several FAA documents. Northrup-Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed, AeroVironment, and a whole host of other UAV companies and users, along with every police and public use agency (and all their lawyers) in the United States understands the regulatory nature of these documents and policies, but you, and several others refuse to do so.


Everything you need to know is right here:

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/

Pretending that it does not exist or refusing to believe it is real is to simply deny reality.

Let me add this:

That came from this document: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...dance08-01.pdf

Which starts off with this paragraph:

cj_rumley

You still have not shown they did anything illegal.  Cite the law that applies to model airplane operations.  I understand the law to be AC 91-57, because that is what FAA says. 
FAA has told the civil UA operators they cannot masquerade their aircraft as model airplanes.  They are different from model airplanes because they fly over people and their things, and that is why FAA needs to control them.   The notion that FAA has safety concerns over the model flights being discussed here is just silly.   Seizing on words like 'commercial' to make this a safety incident, which is FAA concern, is nuts.  As for being a buffer between modelers and FAA, AMA is not buffering, it is screening for rules that meet their own purpose.   FAA rules that correspond to AMA rules like the commercial no-no (AMA doesn't allow it because it is seen as increasing their insurance risk) are a big deal, but mixing it up with the regulated aircraft in the same airspace, an actual safety issue, is something to be swept under the rug.   FAA is watching, but not for what you think.

H5487

Silent, you've handed him what he asked for on a platter and he still refuses to acknowledge it. Give it up. Some people learned from Bill Clinton's example that regardless of being presented with overwhelming evidence, continue to deny it.

Harvey

FlyboysSA

My Feedback: (194)

do my kids or i need permits, licences. security clearance, insurance, 911 on standby , a 1st aid kit in a back-pack , a note from mom, etc .... if they want to fly a kite in the local park and want to take a picture to send to granny ?

all of the above discussions are really over the top...and being thrown out of a park by a guy with a power trip , a big badge and a bigger ego ......is just crazy...............

YES there are considerations because of 9-11, and these are NOT being ignored or taken lightly....but surely common sense will prevail and people will (should) realize that "people" cannot fly through the air.....
i am sure that most Americans are wise enough, savvy enough , to have figured out what was going on and whether or not there was a threat and would have simply enjoyed the spectacle or event.

the message we need to get out is that its a good , clean , sport or hobby and can be enjoyed by fathers and sons....in fact anyone. We have to stop the panic and takng our hobby underground and to where its not seen or heard will be the death of it.

i am sure that any reputable business or person would have ensured they complied with regulations

perhaps the complainers should be the ones to apply for licences and permits to limit the noise and trouble they cause

H5487

Hey look, a NEW GUY who doesn't have the foggiest idea of what this discussion is all about!

Harvey

lopflyers

My Feedback: (12)

Hey folks, enlight me. Last week I saw a documentary on Discovery Channel. This guy was flying a RC heli from a ship fliming whales!!
It was on National TV.
Dont tell me he wasnt paid. Dont tell me they are showing something ilegal on Discovery Channel

BobbyMcGee

Oh boy!A bunch of "aviation non-lawyers" quoting and interpreting FAA Rules and Regulations!
Doesn't anyone have something better to do than play aviation attorney on their keyboard?

A couple of kids/guys flying their inventions at a park in Manhattan and some people here decide to call them UAV's and actually think this involves the FAA??? ANDwants to throw around the word, illegal?
Doesn't anyone have something better to do than play aviation attorney on their keyboard?

NRBP
NBPR
NBRP
BURP
FAA
EFAER
BOTOX
NTSB
NTBS
NYPD
NYFD
TAXI
FBI
NYCTA
EMS
EEOC
ACBD
ACME
PHAT
PA
PHD
MD
WTH
NRW
NOW
BPF
NATF
NASA
NSA
ICE
CBP
AARP
AA
BUD
NCIS
ETA
NTGH
NFGABA
AMA
ABA
ABC
NBC
CBS
ALIBABA
1-800 GRANDMA

BobbyMcGee

I forgot this last one ...

1-800 HOOTERS

nute12

My Feedback: (14)

hmmmm 1-800-hooters sounds pretty good!
as far as this thread goes..... what to say......., i know, JUST DROP IT nothin wrong with that vid! only problem is a bunch of old hens thinkin there is a problem. you know.... kinda like club meetings. If it aint a issue we sure as hell can make it one! type of mentality.

cj_rumley

Hand me this a platter, Harvey (and Silent). You seem fervent in upholding law'n order when comes to applying one descriptor of civil UASthat separates them from model airplanes. How about answering this QIposted previously that actually has something to do with FAA's charter of safety in the NAS:

How many AMAsanctioned sailplane and pattern events do you know of that have been cancelled because of FAA rules?

Let's see how AMAis supporting compliance with FAArules that actually address issues of safety in the NAS. I don't think FAAwill ever enforce rules that have no safety implications; YMMV........and apparently does.

Silent-AV8R

CJ/Abel. I've given you all the document references. Your refusal to read and understand them appears to serve no useful purpose other than to continue this argument. We are not talking about the AMA, how the AMA "enforces" FAA rules or anything of the like. My one and only focus in this thread has been to focus on the FAA's recognized operating authority for sUAS in the NAS. I simply am at a loss as to what else can be said or quoted.

I am in no way trying to uphold law-n-order or whatever. I am simply stating facts. Facts you, and a few others, seem completely unwilling to accept. That is fine, it does not change the truthfulness of the facts.

cj_rumley

Silent-

You have said many times that compliance with current FAA rules, in particular the 400' ceiling for MA operations, is voluntary and clearly support modelers ignoring it.  Yet when it comes to some instance like the subject of this thread that is completely innocuous and unlikely to be of any concern whatever to FAA, you're Mr Lawandorder.   How in 'ell do you rationalize that?   I am concerned because AMA appears to apply similar rationalization that is nonsensical to me. 

CJ