Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

I agree totally. Why would the AMA be involved in anything dealing with commercial use? We can go back to the old argument , "If it were not for the insurance most would not even join the AMA and would save the membership dues." I fit that later group to some degree, although not totally.

Somehow we get locked into the AMA controlling RC and this almost reminds me of our US governing body. It has been asked why the AMA is the sole governing body for RC, yet not often addressed. I agree that if we as RC modelers believe that AMA speaks for us then no issue at all.

I mean no disrepect to the AMA, just pointing out some other lines of thought. Is the United Way the ONLY non-profit charity ORG and an absolute authority on how you should give? I think I will go to the closet and get my flame suit out now

crash99

My Feedback: (3)

How can you call FPV non hobby related activity? It's flying RC right?

Crash99

crash99

My Feedback: (3)

BradPaul,

so are you now open to tier membership? Could we go by the type of claim paid out? Would you reduce the dues to the guys that fly only Profile 3D due to no claims were paid out for 2000 - 2012? I don't know about 2013 yet. Increase glider only pilot due to that claim?

I'm with you on this. I think I should pay for insurance for a normal risk. The high risk group should have to pay higher cost.

Crash99

crash99

My Feedback: (3)

Look my Brother, I was born in 1963 so I understand you have been flying since I was born. The hobby is more than spending a winter building a nice looking plane. I know change is hard but if you love the whole building think that's great. That is the slice of the hobby pie you take part in.

Many of us love many slices of pie. If someone loves other slices of pie, they are not destroying the hobby at all. I have built from plains but I rather spend my time flying. I love it all! I have to admit I have never done FF, Control line or turbines and I don't think I will ever want to but I accept that is part of the same hobby I love.

Crash99

bradpaul

No tiered membership would be required......... just an extra cost commercial ryder for those that need it. However I would expect that anyone flying commercially does not expect their homeowners to cover commercial activity, just like the AMA should not cover that without paying more.

Brad

chuckk2

All the infighting aside, UAV's, FPV, etc. does impact the AMA and it's members, and is a matter of concern to all.
The real question is to take a "head in sand" approach or be proactive.
Failing to be proactive allows those who have axes to grind to prevail.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Actually, I think the vast majority of FPV folks these days have never been AMA members and operate on their own. If you read the FPV discussion area over at the "other" RC site, this comes across loud and clear.

Back when there were perhaps 100 folks doing FPV as a hobby here in the states, I would agree that most if not all were AMA members.

I agree that FPVers have no real incentive at this time to join the AMA.

Hossfly

Crash, I don't think you and I are brothers however OTOH well my dad was a "mover" which did cause some problems, but that does not apply to our common topic.

You have your desires and stand up for someone else to support your way. Well we all seem to do such. That is the way things come into our world. I believe that those that support something should be ready to finance that item. Look at www.jetero.com. That facility on 50 acres of land would not exist had I not purchased 100 acres using my cash almost 18 years ago. Am I boasting? Probably SO!
It is time for the model aviation community to stand up and be counted and SUPPORT FINANCES while demanding leadership use their positions to assure that AMA does not simply become a GROUP that distributes advertising and does NOT simply become the footpath for those that wish to use AMA only for the advertisers' gain within the market place.
Just you wait and see where AMA winds up when this new parent company becomes active, and who will be running it ?????

Again I agree with Brad Paul. Insurance can be adjusted for those that have the most to loose. My Homeowner's lakeside cabin in Michigan costs a whole lot less for insurance than where I am sitting now. I do not care to finance your more hazardous activity.

crash99

My Feedback: (3)

More Hazardous Activity - Lets look at this. Can you please tell me how many AMA clams have been paid out involving multi rotor aircraft? I just want to know if you were talking facts or just talking an option with nothing to back up your option.

After you find the true facts should the AMA raise the rates on those that fly that type of aircraft?

Crash99

bruceal

I don't think it's about the type of aircraft, but where it's flown.

bradpaul

Crash your opinion, my opinion, Hoss's opinion are worthless for a discussion of liability insurance premiums. The only opinion that matters is the underwriter at Weschester Surplus Lines Insurance Company, if the AMA asks to have the exclusion for commercial enterprise or business pursuit removed and that results in a rate increase I would be in favor of passing the increase on TO THOSE THAT OPERATE A MODEL AIRCRAFT FOR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE OR BUSINESS PURSUIT. Some may want to pass the cost to the total open membership, Why should the membership pay more because some want to have an aerial photography business?

JohnShe

OK guys, I have a problem with the way this discussion seems to be going.

More than one of you have interpreted the AMA's current actions as maybe considering permitting the commercial use of hobby aircraft under the sponsorship of the AMA. Now, as I read the survey that several of you have cited, it appears that the AMA is trying to understand our views about the recreational and commercial uses of FPV and any other new technology.

I don't know very much about FPV. I don't own or operate any FPV equipment and I do not have any short term or long term plans to play with FPV. However, I have no intention of standing in the way of those who want to use it and I will actively support the safe use of FPV within the hobby.

I know that we are all aware of the "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 " it has a section that allows us to operate within the scope of safety rules developed and maintained by a community based organization. What the law tells us is that we cannot allow the commercial use of our aircraft within the hobby. The instant that the AMA or any other CBO tries to do this, the FAA will fall on us like a ton of bricks.

Forget the insurance issues or anything else and remember that we do not want FAA oversight. That means commercial activities, other than model aviation vendors, within the hobby are out of the question.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Overall a good post...but we never need to lose sight that the FAA is already on us like a "ton of bricks"... A bone has been thrown to the AMA in the reform act but mainly symbolic IMO. People will continue to fly without CBO oversight...The FAA will continue to control the airspace.

bradpaul

The problem is defining "commercial activities" seems simple BUT........ If an employee of a model manufacturer/distributor is compensated to demo his employers product at AMA events, is that "commercial activity"? What if the person is not an employee but a sponsored pilot that receives free products? Just two quick examples......

The emerging technology of FPV/multirotors has so much social benefit potential (scientific research, search and rescue, agricultural use, aerial photography, and many more) with so many social problems (see and avoid, line of sight, flying over people/buildings, privacy and many more) that there are no simple answers to what the AMA should/should not do.

And always remember "follow the money" ...................... FPV/multirotors ARE where the big new money is for manufactures and distributors.

JohnShe

Brad: In this case, specifically, "commercial activity" refers to the use of your model aircraft to provide services for other people. You are not allowed, as a hobbyist, to take aerial photos for money or to even perform a demonstration of your aircraft for money.

A model aviation vendor is not a hobbyist, he is acting with the permission of the club operating the field to demonstrate products for hobbyists to buy. His income only comes when a product is purchased.

An employee of a company or a temporary consultant can be paid by any means including barter. As such his activity is commercial, but is allowable as long as it is exclusively for the purpose of selling model aviation products to hobbyists.

I agree with you that any type of sUAS has great commercial and social benefit. And, as a hobby they could be great fun to fly.

JohnShe

Well. the FAA has always owned the airspace. The law just gives us permission to use a small part of it under specified conditions. I myself do not consider the AMA safety rules so onerous that I can't have fun. As for those who don't want to obey the rules. Well they can just take their chances and pay the price if they get caught. And if the FAA catches them, it can get very expensive.

crash99

My Feedback: (3)

I liked the past 2 post from BradPaul. Here is a question

An AMA member takes his multi rotor and films a house for sale. Edits the video and sales the edit labor cost to the agent selling the house. He did not include the labor for flying or recording. He was given permission to fly over the land and house. The only person on site was the FPV pilot and spotter.

Is there an issue there?

Crash99

JohnShe

I am pretty sure that the FAA recently announced approval to use model aircraft to fly over personal private property, with permission, for commercial type use as long as reasonable safety rules are followed. If the operator wants to, he could charge for all expenses and time involved to make a profit. Which I think is perfectly sensible.

As for liability should an accident occur, the operator must provide his own insurance. Since this is not a recreational activity, the AMA insurance cannot be used.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Things may work out where the FAA does not get involved in the smallest tier of suAVs, roughly equivalent to parkflyer type models, that are flown line of sight for aerial photography uses.

bradpaul

Correct the AMA policy with Westchester Surplus Lines specifically excludes "commercial enterprise or business pursuit" nowhere does it say that the enterprise or pursuit must be profitable.

So if you are flying FPV for commercial enterprise or business pursuit then you will not be able to look to the AMA for coverage and unless your homeowners has a commercial use ryder you will have no coverage there either.
The question to consider is how much risk exposure are you comfortable with if you fly FPV commercially and fly over persons and buildings? Having permission will mean nothing if an accident happens. But I like that today it is the individual choice of the operator as to what insurance coverage they need, I see no need for the AMA to blanket cover FPV beyond traditional hobby use.

JohnShe

Don't count on it. If it is outside the hobby, the FAA will be all over it. The only way to avoid FAA oversight is personal use on personal property or fly strictly recreational.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

The jury is still out until the rules are published. The Tier 1 very small sUAS had fairly minimal rules in the early proposals and the FAA might decide that oversight and enforcement on this class might be untenable.

No one knows for sure until the real rules are published. Until then, it is all hypothetical.

Hossfly

Excellent advice, BP, however, IMO, I can see a number of deep holes in any way, method, addition, etc., etc. that AMA could blanket cover members of any kind of insurance, yet leave any member in a deep hole should some incident - accident arise. I still have some items as directed to me a few years ago. How many of you folks have any concern that AMA can throw a member out of the AMA without the Bylaws requirement of said member being allowed a hearing before the EC? It is so easy to do. When I wish to find out if said Run-Around-the-Bylaws can be done, I simply look in the mirror and see the face of one that has..." been there, done that!"
If you remember the forum that AMA set up for a while, yet closed it because the fires got rather warm, well the AMA can still make it very warm for any current member.
How about a member being threatened with a simple bypass of By Laws: "You can keep your membership, but you will be restricted from flying at any Chartered Club facility, not allowed to belong to any AMA Chartered Club, or attend any AMA Sanctioned event." The AMA EC has that power and it was pointed to at least 1 member that had supported AMA for over 50 years, never asking AMA for a penny while doing much volunteer work for AMA.

Now I have attempted to bring to attention of members that when this new Foundation comes into play, things are going to change big time. While I am in favor of the Foundation, there are many-many ways to skin cats there. In addition the officers will be working to stay in good standing as the Foundation Officers. Unlike AMA Officers, Foundation Officers can be paid for their services. Will that increase the political functions? With just how these forums display that so many AMA members - there for the required memberships - will find within a few years, very little of aero-modeling will be the old-time FUN!!!

I dare predict that certain Foundation functions will become paid positions, and those good-ol'-boys will do as told to maintain their position/s. If AMA is (and will be) the CBO (Community Based Organization) just think of the traffic that can be prescribed between FAA and AMA. Insurance will be sorely needed for most fliers especially when things happen. Can anyone be so naive as to think that various Attorney - Agents will be sitting on their behinders when a TOY Flying Machine creates damage in the public neighborhoods? As Brad Paul says, "follow the money" which will be the name of the day. Simple things like Westchester blames AMA, FAA blames AMA, AMA blames the pilot who blames the club and AMA and so on and so on. Young attorneys will be jumping into the "Easy One".

If the pilot survives financially, it will simply be because of DEEP POCKETS. Sorry but I won't be there to help in that one. Neither will AMA, which should NOT be there in the first place.

Think of this good story: I was a juror on a seemingly small case. A Young Contractor was suing for money owed to him by a mid-size business in Houston. (Defendant) The judge wanted jurors to pass note to him should questions arise. It was to me very clear that the whole thing was rigged to screw the young contractor out of money owed. It seemed that both the contractor's attorney and the defendant's attorney were in it together. The other jurors did not seem concerned. I passed a number of note some showing that the Defendant was violating several major business laws, using illegal terms and the contractor's attorney was letting such pass.
Then on the 3rd morning we found that the night before the Defendant had agreed to pay the contractor all of his price plus all court fees including the contractor's expenses.

Who will help YOU? All those young lawyer's will be there reaching for the flowing $$s.

JohnShe

Tier 1? I have no knowledge of this Tier 1 concept, could you fill me in?

As far as I know, the FAA has yet to publish their rules for public comment and I have heard noting of "Tier 1".

804

My Feedback: (1)

JohnShe,
maybe you missed my earlier post, where I pointed an item from the new MA,
concerning the minutes of a recent AMA EC meeting. I'll paste it here:

In the January issue of MA, p. 150 under AMA EC meeting,
there is Motion III, where it was moved and seconded to "move forward with developing a program to support the personal use and light
commercial sUAS communities."

Now, I suppose that the word "support" there could be construed many ways,
but in light of the questions on the recent AMA survey,
the amount of time AMA has spent meeting with different UAV companies (as described by various authors in MA and on-line),
AMA's meetings with FAA concerning same,
the new "tech" columns in MA, etc.,
I think it is possible that some big changes are in the wind.

Another tidbit from the recent survey.
There was a question that went something like,
"How much training would you be willing to do in order to use your
"drone" for commercial purposes?" (all paraphrased by me).
The choices went from none, all the way to full commercial pilots training, and several in-between.

Earlier, someone said something about AMA trying to do an "end around" the FAA.
Personally, my opinion would be that they would be doing more of an "in cooperation with".