cj_rumley

May need someone to write that on a 2X4 and smack him up 'side the head with it.

Back on p. 1 of this thread you said this wasn't an important case. I agree.....some don't.

willig10

All:
OK we get it. The case was dismissed. Can we talk about something else? Hmmmm maybe a P-51 build or somebody's engine won't tune properly, or maybe even a crash and burn etc etc etc.

Just sayin.

Thanks
Glenn

Sport_Pilot

Item 5 did not say that 112-95 applied, it says the opposite!

Sport_Pilot

That was the argument put forth by the defendant, AND repeated by the judge in his verbal explanation of his decision. Though he did not use sports equipment but toys and small balsa models.

Sport_Pilot

Actually the FAA's authority was questioned by the defendant and not disputed by the judge. So that makes it a consideration for future cases.

Sport_Pilot

Thats now in the dustbin of history as the judge said that the FAA had no regulation so this policy does not apply.

JohnShe

Are you trolling like LCS? The finding clearly states that the FAA had not written the necessary regulations that would apply to Trappy's use of a model airplane as a commercial drone. That is the substance of the entire decision.

Another interesting point that fouled up the FAA and may destroy any opportunity appeal. The actual incident occurred on Oct 17, 2011 and 112-95 was signed into law on Feb 14, 2012. Post ipso facto as they say.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

All this has done is to enlighten the FAA into being more thorough next time around be it with this idiot or the next one. I'm certain future cases will be explored with the intent of making examples of those the FAA decides to go after. Is this the result wanted? The sad part is the FAA knows the true commercial operation will have the resources to conform to the expectations of the FAA. They will do it willingly just to get that certificate that will allow them to proceed. That will leave the ones that are between hobbyists and full bore commercial operations holding the bag so to speak. The AMA will not defend you and the true commercial companies will gladly throw you under the bus getting rid of extra competition at the same time. Now two recognized entities, the hobby and professional crowd disown you, the FAA will feast on your bony butt. This is the well deserved reward for the seeds you sow today instead of being proactive and working with the FAA. About as sharp as a bag full of ball-peen hammers if you ask me.

Dennis

cj_rumley

All quite sensible, but not prophetic as far as AMA is concerned. AMA is in bed with exactly the interests you have identified (as Brad Paul pointed out earlier). There is a thin line separating unregulated models from civil UAS. AMA calls it a gray area and thinks there is $$$$ to be extracted from those that want such a class of model cum UAS to be recognized (and be represented, regulated, sold insurance, and such), and is willing to risk our freedom to fly model aircraft unregulated by intentionally blurring that line. FAA doesn't have a 'gray area' in distinguishing between private aircraft operations and commercial. The line is very distinct and every pilot knows the terms.

JohnShe

I found this outfit so intriguing that I posed a question to the AMA about their apparent sponsorship.

I received the following reply.





[TABLE="class: main_table"]
[TR]
[TD="class: table_header_cell, align: center"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #F8F8F8, colspan: 2, align: left"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: main_table"]
[TR]
[TD="class: table_header_cell, align: left"] Tue Apr 01 2014 10:02PM by [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: left"] Are you aware of an outfit called FLYSAFE
@ http://flysafetraining.org/ is using your logo as an indicator of your sponsorship?
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[TABLE="class: main_table"]
[TR]
[TD="class: table_header_cell, align: left"] Wed Apr 02 2014 4:15PM by Richard Hanson[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #F8F8F8, align: left"] Hi John,

Yes, we are very much aware of FlySafe...

We have reviewed their program and found it to be a well developed and thought out training program for learning to conduct aerial photography using single and multi-rotor UAS platforms.

We do believe their program helps hobbyists learn to operate these platforms in a safe and responsible manner, and though we support the program, we are not a sponsor.

Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


I replied rather briefly as follows:

Wed Apr 02 2014 7:41PM by
I read their webpage, and except for one use of the word "professional" they were very careful to avoid any implication that this was a training for commercial operators. The problem that I have is this, who in their right mind would pay $699 to learn how to operate a toy?

My second question is far simpler. Do we want our name associated with what is essentially a scam?

Are you going to do something about this?


I will keep the thread informed.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

What is so dang funny is all the caterwauling you present here ends up in exactly same place...guys like Trappy not doing what he done...lol ....circle logic at its very best!

bradpaul

From the July AMA EC meeting minutes:

Yes the AMA is following the money.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

I don’t agree. I am not an AMA member so I cannot speak with any authority on behalf of their position on this issue. What I can tell you is I am very familiar with what is going on in Canada between MAAC and Transport Canada. I can also tell you as a mater of fact that the AMA and MAAC mirror each other more closely than you might believe. Often time’s goals that have been achieved in one country or the other have been held up as an example of what could work in the other. In Canada MAAC only wants to make sure its members and their endeavors are viewed by Transport Canada as a hobby and as such the organization is cognizant enough to regulate itself. Transport Canada has defined a hobby as not for profit, the modeler always gives way to full size aircraft, will not endanger the general public. How we do that is through the rules/guidelines of the recognized model aviation body known as MAAC. If you follow the guidelines and rules as stipulated by MAAC and are a member in good standing you enjoy first party insurance coverage of 7.5 million liability as part of your $75 yearly membership.

To accomplish this co-operation between MAAC and Transport Canada MAAC has a member as a representative sit in on Transport Canada meetings to advise on things that affect its members. I would bet dollars to donuts the AMA and the FAA share the same relationship. If this is what you call getting in bed with the FAA it’s a good thing they even allow us to sit at that table and have some input.

I doubt MAAC or the AMA gives a sh$t about those who choose to fly by their own rules or non members for that mater. I cannot see either organization welcoming with open arms the same crowd it’s trying to distance themselves from.

Dennis

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Well you're entitled to your opinion but you seem incapable of adding anything new or of further value to the discussion so lets agree to disagree please feel free to to tell it to another I have lost interest in kicking dust on each others shoes.

Dennis

cj_rumley

Not sure what I said that you disagree with, then. Does MAAC support commercial sUAS, as AMA does or seeks to?

cj

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Not at this time from your earlier post I gather the AMA its investigating its options. In the end it may not be allowed to participate. In Canada for example, MAAC, for tax purposes is a not for profit corporation and by tax law they cannot engage in anything that would be for the express purpose of making a profit. This is addressed in our constitution where it states no member while under the MAAC umbrella may operate a for profit venture or charge a fee for instruction etc. I am not sure if the AMA is a not for profit corporation and if they are what they are allowed to do in that instance tax laws being what they are. This is the problem with press releases and things of that nature we as member may not be aware of all the subtle things that are in play in the background. Things the average member may not know or have privy too.

I am sorry in the first sentence I credited you with an earlier post I am wrong it is Bradpaul in post 562 that explains the AMA is investigating participation. If the information is correct in this post that is what made me disagree with your post.

Dennis

cj_rumley

As a declared non-profit AMA gets to have the general population of US taxpayers pay its share of the tax burden. And yes, there are many things the average member is not privy too. Minutes of quarterly Executive Council meetings often report action taken on issues that are unknown (and undisclosed) to members except for some cryptic title of some activity they have approved 'going forward with.' Most of the business apparently takes place in Executive Session where there is no transparency whatever.

JohnShe

Non profits do not have a tax burden since they are only allowed to collect enough money for expenses. Anything collected over and above expenses must be plowed into the club or used to benefit paid employees. And, in any business, expenses are used to adjust net profit for tax purposes. Therefore the club net profit is always zero and the taxes are zero.

But, I do agree that the club does a poor job of informing members and engaging us in the decision making processes. MA seems more like a propaganda machine than a true journal of record.

cj_rumley

Yep, including former unpaid volunteer officers that 'step down' to six-figure salaries.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

In Canada I am told that not for profit corporations are allowed to retain an amount equivalent to a proposed one year operating cost. The only paid employees are the 3 girls on the office staff all others are volunteers. The AMA is much bigger I can see a need for a full time executive which would be a bit much to ask from volunteers so it does not surprise me they are paid. How much they are paid I would suspect would be dependent on approval of the board and the amount of responsibility. I have no idea what would be considered appropriate. I would look to other corporations of the same size and see what their executives are paid.

Dennis

bigfoot3387

My Feedback: (48)

my opinion on this, when you start caring other pay loads you increase risk, i biult mine to fly up look around and enjoy the view, there should be limits on what i can do,,yes,, but it would be nice if i could make a few bucks, if my nabor comes and asks can you fly up and take a vid of my place, ill give you 20.00, water tower inspection,or i would like to know whats up there how much will you charge me to go see, just a few, but if there is a risk my quad could hert me some one else or destroy property thats not mine,, why yes shut me down,, fine me,,and make sure i know the risk of what i did wrong, notice i said quad,, above, to me i dount have a drone,uav , i have a quad rotor helicopter, that has very limited flight time, and will drop like a rock,if something goes wrong,,if i was the ffa,, what i would fine for is flying over peoples head,or using my quad in a manner that is just stupid,a pay load other than a camera,its unsafe, and should not be allowed to fly, it comes down to common sense

Sport_Pilot

You said that they found that they found that they agreed that this was under 112-95. They did not, instead they found there was no regulation covering this.

What part of not having written any regulation at the time this occurred do you not understand?

bogbeagle

[h=5]Let me relate a tale from the full-sized world. There is a guy called Eddie Todd, who ran a Jet Provost. He held a Private Pilot's Licence ... but, he used to sell pleasure flights in his plane.

Now, "pleasure flights" are commercial enterprises, but he found a way around the law.

What he did was to form a Jet Provost Club. You paid £200 to join the Club and your joining fee entitled you to a T-shirt and a FREE flight in the aeroplane. Since the flight was FREE, he could conduct it using only his Private Licence.

He ran that operation for years ... he might still be doing it from Sandtoft, for all I know.

Anyway, the CAA tried to nail him, but couldn't make it stick.

Worth thinking about.[/h]

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

MORE BULL FROM OVER THE POND EH!!!!!! Private ticket my butt.

Owner Instructor Eddie Todd an CAA QFI Day or Night USA CFII Pilot with more than 5000+, both in Rotorcraft and Fixed-wing,Commercial Multi-Engine Jet Instrument Pilot. He also endeavored on a cross-country flight from UK to America and UK to Spain and Italy has displayed his Jet Provost at over 300 Airshows all around the world Eddie has trained students since 1985, with impeccable results! on staff ground and flight Examiner and Instructors available for saftey pilot or advanced instruction.

bigfoot3387

My Feedback: (48)

ok ?, as i can find out there is no law that would stop me from using my quad to make money, i live in oklahoma, if im wrong were is it,and what is the law,