Sport_Pilot

This will not be decided by the AMA or the FAA but by the courts. IMO a manufacture building model planes and building them strictly to be used as a hobby is meeting the requirements of being used strictly for hobby use. A demo or paid competitor is competing in the hobby and is strictly for hobby use. Or at least is the case if it is not his day job.

franklin_m

I look forward to seeing that interpretation - as it will provide the much needed clarity. However, I fear that the courts will build on existing case law on compensation for flying (bad for us), look for logical consistency among full scale and model (bad for us), and when in doubt defer to FAA to determine what's safe in NAS (again, bad for us).

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

That argument will not pass the muster. If you are getting paid for it, or comepnesated ins ome fashion it will be considered business, ie commercial. if that case were to be found in the fashion that SP interprets it, then every business owner in the country could claim they are doing business as a hobby. "I am a baker and I make donuts for a hobby", says the owner of Krispey Kreme,"and therefore, since I am a baker, and sell my product to fund my operation, it is considered free from your leagl ramifications!"....the government lawyers wil have a field day with that.
Fortunately most of the pilots who wear the blue and orange shirts at these meets and are considered "corporate" pilots are not being compensated. They agree to fly a brand of equipment, and in return get those items for a reduced price, however they still pay for them. if not the companies would likely have to generate a form 1099.
The FAA is going after people who plan to use these drones for commercial ventures, in other words, they plan to get their cut which they will lose when you take the money out of the pockets of the commercial pilots. They don't give a rat's patooey, I imagine, about demo pilots and guys flying planes for a company, as long as that company does not have them on the payroll. Go out and charge a farmer to survery his field, or have a realtor pay you for making a video of a property they have for sale, and that is a whole altogether different thing.

ira d

I was just thinking, When you look at the list of do's and don't's put out by the FAA they say nothing about having to get permission from a airport but just to notify the airport when
you want fly. Also the list does not say anything about FPV. I wonder how many flyers will see the do's and don't list and not read the whole rule in full.

Sport_Pilot

The IRS will not allow you to claim deductions on a hobby if it is your primary income. They have precise requirements for hobby loss or income.

IMO the courts will not allow any regulation of model airplane commerce because the travel from point A to point A and thus is intrastate commerce and the federal government can only regulate interstate commerce.

While I believe the same applies for drones flying from point A to point A and not flying through navigable airspace, this discussion was about model airplanes. There are interesting requirements in the law that make my case weaker for drones.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Yes, exactly. We all must remember that the primary issue with the Interpretive Rule is that once a model is operated outside the CBO guidelines, it is no longer a model (by definition), so it then falls under the FARs. THAT will be how the FAA will gain the oversight of the whole shebang. Mark my dismal prophetic words...

ira d

Another thought comes to mind that being I think airports will be somewhat afraid to give permission to modelers fly inside the five mile zone because of potential liability. If that
was to happen that could account for the lost of at least 50% of the flying sites in the usa.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Actually, ira d, I'm a little more optimistic about that, simply because I believe that those who CURRENTLY have good relationships, communications, and a SAFE track record who have been "under the radar" (no pun intended), will simply be allowed to continue on without issue. That's my Pollyanna perspective.

My other "Tin foil hat" perspective says - "sell your stuff...NOW"

ira d

I'm not ready yet start selling things and hopefully the clause that allows airports to deny permission for modelers to fly will be overturned.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

About all that's really changed is that more Johns will have FAA on speed dial to report those they perceive are flying under the radar (pun intended)...LOL

Happy 4th everyone...

bradpaul

You drone flyers that have posted to youtube videos of your exploits may want to take them down. The FAA is looking....................

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/07/...ng-at-airport/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbaLyY58T7g

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Amen, bradpaul, amen. Like many, I've been doing a lot of reading about this phenomenon. I think this is important.
The AMA and forums like these won't get any info to the buyers/users of this stuff who aren't here to begin with. The only effective (and even questionable) method will be some requirement levied to the manufacturers to publish and include all the regulations/rules about permitted and banned use of their products. Even that won't make sure that buyers pay any attention to the rules; but I am one who absolutely believes that local clubs and the AMA are not the means to communicate to these hordes of $$$ rich and sense-poor buyers who are in the play-it-by-my-own-rules mode.
There are likely WAY more of "them" than there are of "us".
And since we hang out at proper "rc sites" or "approved locations", they ain't there.
Helluva mess coming our way.

cj_rumley

Bob,

Good points expressed by you and bradpaul. I am replying in particular to the thought "...are not the means to communicate....." in your post. I totally agree with that. It begs the Q "what are the sensible means to communicate" the message? AMA could help send the message, but has not in response to the most public case of stupid actions that put a blot on our hobby/sport, i.e. the Pirker case. AMA said they were considering what it means, and apparently not yet come to an answer as there has been no word of it pro or con in any release from them. Compare the PR 'damage control' response from AMA's counterpart in Canada to an incident gleaned from video posted on YouTube showing an “unmanned air vehicle” flying near Vancouver International Airport (less than 1.5 miles from the approach) with an immediately issued clear and strongly worded condemnation of the misdeed.

cj

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

You need to go back and read the FAA letter more closely. The FAA clearly states that they expect modelers to get permission/agreement with the airport or ATC.

The verbiage in the letter that states that the OPERATOR of a model aircraft must have unaided visual line of since contact with their model are the words that effectively prohibit FPV. If you are looking through goggles or at a screen, you do not meet that requirement.

page 8 of the link below discusses how FPV is not allowed to be used by the person operating the aircraft and page 13-14 discusses how the FAA wants you to get permission and not simply notify when within 5 miles of an airport.

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives..._spec_rule.pdf

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Here is a link to the AMA's detailed response to the recent FAA letter. They cover the issues fairly well.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/A...iveRule614.pdf

bradpaul

Gotta ask the question. "Would the popularity of FPV be what it is without the ability to record video?". If you could still fly from a cockpit view, but not record the flight would it be as popular? Somehow I think not. We live in a world where to some the most important features of a mobile phone are the camera and texting!! With people consumed with selfies, youtube, facebook and twitter should we be surprised that to multirotors with video cameras are popular?

Now if only the FAA would go after the evidence of the videos posted online and leave our flying fields alone........ the message might get through to who it needs to.

cj_rumley

Interesting ideas pop up when Q is considered from a POV biased by an objective to minimize bad press for our hobby. AMA might go for it, FAA wouldn't.

Agreed that FAA needs to go after the 'Hey, watch this!' yokels if their control of safety in the NAS via threat of prosecuting for non-compliance with their rules is to be taken seriously.

ira d

I have read the entire letter but I was not talking about the letter I was talking about the flyer the FAA put out with a list of do's and don't's.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Actually, p. 13-14 of the Rule notice states very clearly about NOTIFYING the tower of operations, then *IF NOT AUTHORIZED, the operations must be halted. I don't interpret that as asking "Do we have permission?".... What I foresee is a scenario where the model operator advises the tower, and the tower/traffic control says "not right now, we have traffic (or whatever). Check back later. (or gives a time when the model operations MAY proceed."

I could certainly be wrong about this, but reading the last paragraph on p. 13 and first couple lines of p. 14, it seems to me more of a "we notify and go on and play, UNLESS the tower or traffic controller says not to". I really see that as different than asking "Mother, may I?"

Sport_Pilot

The discussion is not about the letter nor the do's and don'ts, but the rule interpretation from the FAA. Look at the bottom of the letter and click to see the actual rule interpretation.

Sport_Pilot

I don't see much difference. You already have airports banning clubs from flying, and they do not yet have any rule to do so. This is for clubs well away from the pattern and have been operating for years with no issues. To put something like that in the rules is inviting airports from flying altogether.

ira d

I don't get what you are trying to say why don't you post the interpretation that makes your point.

Sport_Pilot

This is what we are talking about, it is not a letter.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

I assume you mean this letter of dos and don'ts?

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...aft_operators/

if so, what do you think will actually be used as a guideline? The detailed letter, or the overly simplistic flyer that is vague?
it is not going to be the do and don't flyer they haul out if you are found to be in violation.

ira d

That is the flyer that I am talking about. That is why I said I wonder how many people will see the flyer and not read the full rule or as some
say the interpretation.