ira d

The fact is even if the gov completely shut down the hobby it would solve nothing. Those who are terrorist will still do what they feel they need to do to carry out their acts and
in fact there will likely be a lot of cheap rc equip on the market for them to use.

cj_rumley

Bob,

I think the highlighted part of your post is absolutely correct as to having income from hobbies "does alter the nature of the activity" for our hobby in particular. AMA has long excluded commercial use of model aircraft from operations over which they have influence. The major deterrent 'influence' they have used is to exclude coverage for operations they deemed to have commercial purpose in their use from the liability insurance they provide. Very reluctantly and over periods of decades, AMA has made some small concessions from a strict non-commercial use position, e.g., to permit paid instruction at chartered club sites. Further, since FAA announced their need/intent to regulate unmanned aircraft, they made clear their intent to exclude model aircraft from that objective, and documented that exclusion in at least two policy documents to provide interim guidance to developers and users of UAS (particularly sUAS). In defining model aircraft, the only attribute that could reasonably be used to distinguish them from other sUAS that would be for Public and Civil (includes commercial) use was the 'for hobby/recreational use only' restriction. So, AMA and FAA both have their own rational reasons for keeping model aircraft non-commercial, and from the 'public view' they appeared to be in harmony. What has changed?
What I see has changed significantly is that the determination of what constitutes commercial activity in modeldom (at least the part that AMA controlled) was formerly resolved internal to AMA, hashed out by the EC when hue and cry from members demanded some change, as regarding pilot sponsorship and aforementioned paid flight instruction. Now differences over what constitutes recreational/hobby use of model aircraft vs. commercial use can no longer be resolved within AMA at any level. It is a matter of Public Law, and as such AMA has no more control over what is to be permittted than you or I do.
Now a Q back to you: What has been gained by AMA's successful pursuit to elevate their regulatory policy (they call it self-regulation) to public statute. Did they not anticipate that it would result in putting it outside of their control?

franklin_m

Agree, IRS describes it in the context of taking deductions (http://www.irs.gov/uac/Is-Your-Hobby...it-Endeavor%3F).

But the fundamental point is the exchange of something of value - that case of $100 digital servos from the sponsor - for using the pilot's likeness or name in advertising or plastering their business name all over an aircraft.

That exchange is viewed by the IRS as compensation, income which must be reported. My point was that once a pilot is compensated, then that changes the nature of the flight. Were it a full size plane, it's no longer a private flight, it's not a commercial flight. FAA doesn't care about deductions, just giving a pilot something of value in exchange for flying.

This rule limits hobby flights to non-commercial. Interesting that the FAA chose that term, as it's strikingly similar to the term used to distinguish private licenses from others. I think that was their clear intent, namely to create a bright line test that preserves what the AMA said it wanted --- no regulation of hobby flying (persuant to some rules) -- and yet allows the FAA to easily determine what is hobby and what is not based on whether any compensation occurs.

Now, it is true that it is the responsibility of the receiver to report this income, however it's not if, but rather when the IRS & FAA start connecting the dots. If the IRS is smart, they'll start pressuring the companies sponsoring these pilots to report the compensation. Oh, and all those glossy magazine stories showing competitons and team pilots and such, and filled with advertising where their names and photos are used? That only helps draw attention to the "commercial" nature of these flights and invites further attention.

I think the AMA got completely blindsided by this. They poured all their effort into getting 336 and the "model aviation" language, but they ultimately failed to understand that the FAA retained the ability to interpret the definitions.

franklin_m

You hit the nail on the head with this question...I really want to see if & how the AMA responds. I suspect AMA saw this entire thing as a way to inject themselves in the policy making, thinking that it would be another way to turn around declining membership. But what they failed to do was think about the unintended consequences as you have so aptly pointed out. And how much of our dues did this cost us?

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I can't believe we are stuck having to defend these FPV guys while we are fighting this "5 mile airport approval" crisis . BTW, I have FPV gear , multirotor the whole thing. I know guys that are way into it. They aren't joining the AMA.

IMHO the AMAs efforts to court FPV have fallen on deaf ears, and have quite possibly alienated us from the FAA.......now when we have something_really_important to fight for (5 mile airport approval), we are stuck defending FPV.

AMA saw FPV as the future, CBO and all of that and membership swelling by hundreds of thousands. People in the AMA now as paid employees were volunteers and unpaid officials when this all started. I think the AMA got stars in their eyes.

I bet a VERY large percentage of AMA charted club sites are within 5 miles of an airport border.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

Apparently not.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

The FAA does allow some interesting exceptions for commerically related Private pilot operations. Two that come to mind are private pilots giving demonstration flights of aircraft to prospective customers in the course of their employment and the fact that the FAA allows Private pilots meeting certain requirments to be compensated for aero tow operations.

Seems that the FAA is overreaching in limiting and controlling manufacturers demo flights, based on the existing exceptions for full scale private pilot vs. commercial operations.....

The above and more exemptions to FAA Private pilot compensation rules:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx....5.1.8&idno=14

franklin_m

The AMA has completely lost the initiative on this issue. This attempt at engaging in public policy is a debacle. FPV is all but done; if AMA isn't careful the definition of "non-commercial" will be the next nail in the coffin of our hobby.

wvrick

Sad thing about this story is the drone was doing pictures of construction below and not peeping in windows, even the image taken of it showed the camera facing down and away from the building. As for her.... I think she would have broke the camera is she was seen nude.

franklin_m

Ok, in the interest of simplicity I didn't mention the exceptions because I viewed them as so limited they're not germane. But since the topic is open, if you simply apply these to model operations, IMO the days of sponsored pilots are numbered. 91.146 (charity events) is very tightly defined. Only the demo flights, 61.113(f), are likely to survive. But then again, the planes being demonstrated under that provision are production examples and the buyer is flying in the plane. The reason is simple, the prospective buyer is not current nor proficient in the plane, thus the safety trumpets the compensation aspect. One simply can't make that same arguement with model aircraft so easily. Maybe, just maybe, if the sponsored pilot is demonstrating something another pilot can go buy off the shelf, it'll be close enough. However, the further something gets from production representative, the less likely it becomes justification for sponsorship / compensation. Also, note that 61.113(f) only allows for compensation for flight of aircraft as a whole for demonstration, not flights demonstrating transponders, radios, weather radars, nav equipment, etc. So it'll be hard to argue that a sponsored pilot is demonstrating servos, receivers, and motors - all of which can quite safely be fully and completely demonstrated on the ground.

As for the rest, if some RC pilot wants to get paid for aerial tow, charity work (compliant with 91.146), or the other provisions, then they're probably on reasonable ground. But IMO, these will be few and far between and certainly not vague enough to justify the growning number of sponsored pilots who are receiving compensation in some form from companies engaged in a business.

paulsf86

My Feedback: (52)

Section 336 clearly states that the rule applies to model aircraft and models being developed for hobby use. It can be argued that manufacurers developing products for hobby use should be allowed to fly products used for hobby use. Presenting model aircraft in demonstrations by the manufacturer or sponsored pilots are all part of the development process of a model aircraft.

Paul S

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I agree Paul I think this focus on sponsored pilots is much ado about nothing. I think some people are using this to take a free shot at sponsored pilots.

Will never be enforced and I doubt we will ever hear much about it.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

And we only need a couple of limited exceptions ourselves to get to where we want to be in this area.

The key point to take away (and one that will certainly be useful for a legal argument) is that the FAA has chosen to more tightly define "commercial" activities involving product demos of model aircraft and similar operations than the FAA sees fit to do for product demos of full scale aircraft.

A good lawyer could work with that.

cj_rumley

Oh goody! more billing hours for the lawyers. I don't have enough interest vested in this activity to want to pay for an uncertain shot at getting it permitted. Do you? We haven't yet begun to see the fallout from the misadventure in amateur lawmaking that got us Sec 336; there will be higher priority issues to address.

cj

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

1. The EC either A) didn't anticipate FAA would regulate activities that "they" (the AMA EC) deemed was "theirs" or B) were unbelievably clever and strategically-thinking to manipulate the process so that the "regulation" would come from OUTSIDE "them" (the AMA EC), so that they (the AMA EC) could wash their collective hands and say "we didn't do it" [Pick either or both, your option]

2. I don't think anyone in the executive levels of AMA has the stroke to change a thing right now; their drafted response (which unfortunately is being copied/pasted FAR too much as a response to the FAA) is far too weak to warrant much attention. In fact, I would go way out on a small limb and say "the party's over, the fat lady has sung, they had their say", and now they (the AMA EC) will be another toothless tiger that the FAA will be able to discount as ineffective in controlling behaviors/actions of their members, thus discrediting any future leverage they (the AMA EC) may have had.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

+1, for sure!!!!!!!! I believe you have hit the bullseye with your assessment. The AMA EC probably never dreamed they would need to draft language to submit to the FAA that would be on a par with what the FAA would expect. Had no idea, would be my guess.

r_adical

My Feedback: (19)

It is however worth noting the FAA does own the airspace from GROUND LEVEL to infinity. They do have jurisdiction

308jockey

The FAA as with all other government agencies will never allow anyone to draft a rule for adoption that takes anything out of their purview. If it flies in any way they say they have control over its use. End of story. They may have strung the AMA along and that isn't the first organization to get suckered by a clever federal agency. At the end of the day the FAA will never ever give up any control over anything no matter what Congress tells them to do. It's the nature of bureacracy. Rules concerning commercial activities are a smoke screen put in place to add confusion to an issue. While I doubt the FAA will spend much time trying to regulate us you can bet they will have regulations in place to use against anyone who they feel needs to be made an example of. I've had a theory for some time now that everything is illegal. No matter what anyone does at all, there is a law of some kind against it. Two examples I'm reminded of are that when the Feds can't make a case on someone or lose a case, they pull out either RICO or civil rights statutes. If they can't get you for comitting a crime they get you for denying civil rights and so on. There are so many open ended laws in this country that any prosecutor can charge any person with something. In fact we're are all probably open to a RICO charge for having this conversation. We're conspiring against the government you see.

Rick H.

r_adical

My Feedback: (19)

As a full size flight Instructor CFI-I i can tell you the FAA does in fact own the airspace. Navigable is not an argument that would "fly". All Airspace is considered navigable as Helicopters can go wherever they want.

All that said please find on this chart the unclassified airspace as defined by the FAA



And even though CLASS G airspace is "Uncontrolled" there are rules for operating in that airspace

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

eindecker 3

I am trying to understand this issue as I find it confusing. By the way what does 'CPO' mean.

r_adical

My Feedback: (19)

I believe you are referring to CBO which is Community Based ORganization in this case the AMA

Sport_Pilot

The fundamental point is that Section 336 says nothing about commercial use, it says if it is for hobby use, regardless of whether money is taken. The IRS proves that it can be a hobby. I bowl and we have money prizes, and I consider bowling a hobby because I do not compete in any real sense, just that the league pays us winnings at the end of the season. It is still a hobby. If a manufacture is testing or demonstrating planes with a paid employee, or you win a servo, it is still for hobby use.

Sport_Pilot

I can see that if the buyer is not rated for that type of plane, but if he is then I see no problem. This from experience with shopping for planes. It will still allowed to demonstrate your own personal plane I believe. And even if it does, nobody will follow that rule. Just as they often don't bother with a bill of sale to sale a junk plane, thus thousands of planes unaccounted for.

But all of the machinations the FAA has for full scale commercial operations doesn't amount to spit in this case. The special rule said if for hobby use, paid or unpaid.

Sport_Pilot

I apparently said full scale when I meant models. I meant to say Part 91 is for models. And as for as helicopters the navigable airspace changes when they fly, and they cannot fly where they want despite what the FAA may say. There have been property rights issues and helicopters are warned not to fly over certain areas. There is also such a thing as helicopter air routes. At any rate the mandate I posted earlier says that the FAA is responsible for navigable airspace. That is from the USC which is a higher authority than the FAR's. And yes they can simply change the minimum altitude requirements to ground level as they basically have with helicopters (at least when flown with permission from the landowner or for emergencies), but of course that would have consequences of its own.

Also the special limits for helicopters are not used when obstructions to air space in part 73 is considered. Rather the lower limits for fixed wing aircraft are or were used to define those limits.

Unclassified airspace has nothing to do with this, that is for full scale flying under part 91. Part 91 says it is applicable to all on board the aircraft, which means it does not apply to models or sUAV. Also last March a NTSB judge ruled that there are no regulations for models so anything from part 91 does not apply here.

franklin_m

I get your point. But regardless of how we want to define hobby, the result of this will be how the FAA choses to define hobby. Section 336 created five specific critera for model aircraft: (1)the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use; (2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community based organization; (3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community based organization; (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower ... with prior notice of the operation....

Note that (1) contains the word "strictly," as in "...flown stictly for hobby or recreational use." Then the definition of hobby or recreational becomes important. On page 9 of the rule, the FAA goes to great length, even quoting the dictionary on the definition. On page 10 they discuss, at length, what "stictly" and "hobby" do NOT mean. "Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of a business, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight. Flights conducted incidental to, and within the scope of, a business where no common carriage is involved, generally may operate under FAA’s general operating rules of part 91. See Legal Interpretation to Scott C. Burgess, from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Nov. 25, 2008). Although they are not commercial operations conducted for compensation or hire, such operations do not qualify as a hobby or recreation flight because of the nexus between the operator’s business and the operation of the aircraft."

Note how they point to the nexus between business and flying for full size aircraft as the standard for nexus between business and flying of model aircraft. It would be logical to assume that the exceptions provided for full scale aircraft pilots to accept compensation (91.146) would be applicable. But that may not be true, for the FAA clearly went further with demonstrations (see below). Others have advocated that because the FAA has exceptions for full scale, we can negotiate or get get FAA to create exceptions for models. That may be possible, but I'd point to the AMA's recent effort on the larger issue of model aircraft ops and ask "How's that working out so far?"

So then it comes to who defines compensation? Us? AMA? Unfortunately no to both, as FAA has already handled that issue for full scale aircraft, and had that tested in the courts. Other federal code defines compensation, and FAA defines what sort of licensure is required for a pilot to accept compensation. Again, it doesn't matter how we define hobby and compensation, but rather how FAA and IRS define it. Some have pointed to deductions, and that's true, but FAA doesn't care about that, only the compensation side. As for demo pilots, it appears the FAA is being more restrictive, the table on page 11 clearly states that demonstration of aircraft IS NOT hobby flight if you receive money for it. While that indicates currency exchange, I don't know that you can count on that, as in the other column, when describing delivery of packages, the FAA uses other terminology "..without ANY [emphsis added] kind of compensation." But even more troubling is that the use of a model aircraft for "Determining whether crops need to be watered that are grown as part of commercial farming operation" is NOT hobby use. So again I ask, how could use of a model aircraft to help sell products for a multi-million dollar company be considered hobby flight? Each can form their own opinion, but my read indicates the clear intent to call it NON HOBBY if there cash, compensation, or in furtherance of a business interest.

Some have said that the sponsored pilots are small fish and not worth the FAA's time. If we want to rest our future on that, fine. But I argue we're one public accident away from getting more attention than we want. We're already fighting a losing battle on the risk our models pose to full size aircraft due to mass media coverage and a public that is largely less comfortable with flying than we are. Imagine a sponsored pilot having a nasty accident at at an AMA sponsored airshow and the media getting a hold of it. Imagine a 200mph / 50lb turbine (or worse, one of the larger waivered jets) going into a crowd and causing injuries. Or a 90 sized helicopter hitting the crowd. I submit that we'll be getting lots of attention at that point and those FAA & IRS regulators will find plenty of time to go after small fish to make a point -- a point demanded by public outcry fed by a mass media.

As for the media, the public sees local and national news coverage, which one could argue is one force driving FAA rule making / interpretations. By contrast, AMA is appearing on hobby radio. I don't now how we'll get our message out to counter the mass media when our CBMO is playing small ball.

So, where it goes from here is largely conjecture. Everyone has their opinion, and certainly intelligent people can disagree. However, I humbly submit that one only needs to look at the massive effort of the AMA, the months and months of rosy status reports on the progress of their efforts only to see that go a completely different direction with this FAA interpretation. As I've stated elsewhere, AMA has completely lost the initiative despite months of effort. It's clear they mis-read the regulatory environment, did not understand how to do public policy making, and are clearly not ready to play in the big leagues of the federal regulatory structure. Unfortunately, we're all going to pay the price for it (literally and figuratively).