r_adical

My Feedback: (19)

While I sincerely respect your opinion I hope you are wrong

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Believe me, ** I ** sincerely hope that I am wrong, and would be THRILLED to be wrong.

My pessimism is due, in part, to the fact that we ( the RC model world in the US ) have the AMA to do battle with "Big Brother". How's that gonna go, ya think?

acerc

Like the Titanic merging with ice!!! Especially if they don't separate the modeling aspect from the FPV/ UAV aspect.

cj_rumley

You have the option to make your case in comments directly to FAA for a another week or two. It doesn't take thousands of replies that say "'you guys suck" or the frequent armchair lawyering. One concise and well thought out request for considering the unwanted side effects of their interpretation as stated would probably be more likely to get results. They may not even have considered the impact on vendors to our hobby it would have. I didn't until you replied to my query, and I'm no stranger to the hobby, but don't often attend events where sponsored pilots do their thing. FAA needs to be able to distinguish between our RC models and civil or public sUAS that may be physically identical in all respects, even the same aircraft taken from the recreational flying role into a commercial pursuit like AP for a realtor, and back again to recreational use. The same model in commercial pursuit probably will break the most basic safety guidance "don't fly over people or their property" that is accepted standard for recreational use that probably doesn't get violated very often. If you can provide any answers to as to how commercial activities you want to happen can remain clearly separable from those that pose more of a safety hazard and so should be regulated, you might have a winner. I used 'you' in the collective sense, and expect that vendors with special interest in this issue probably already have.
AMA bigshots may be doing battle with 'Big Brother' but I don't believe FAA considers model airplane operators and suppliers as adversaries. They haven't acted like they do................yet.

cj

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

I sent my comment several days ago, and did include suggestions about how they could carve out exemptions for the incorrectly labeled commercial ops. So have others: we all must wait.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

And Happy Friday....another saga of multiple issues from New York City. Interestingly, the writer has the regs and status of current operations correct. Go figure.
BAD press, because it highlights misuse....GOOD press because they aren't even mentioned or referred to at all as "models"....Enjoy!

http://news.yahoo.com/york-police-se...l?soc_src=copy

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

[h=1]Amazon seeks US permission for drone tests:[/h]
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon...134852775.html

JohnShe

Bezos just wants publicity. If he were serious, he could go to any of the official test areas with a proposal and start testing. The jerk doesn't have a clue.

bradpaul

But he is a mega Democratic donor/fund raiser and a friend of POTUS................. wonder how that will figure into getting an exception from the FAA?????

JohnShe

He doesn't need and exception, 4 of the 6 test areas are open. He just has to takes his toys there and start playing.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorym...limit-flights/

Not many responses

JohnShe

The idiot who wrote that post can't be playing with a full deck. He conflates drone with model aircraft incorrectly in several different ways. He assumes that there are an incredible number of drone users effected by a recreational model aircraft ruling, when only model aircraft users are effected. He doesn't have a clue what the FAA modernization act actually says. Should I go on?

Maybe he is right about one thing. Only 3200 people have responded to the FAA interpretation of section 336. Considering the number of AMA members, that is pretty pathetic. All yo guys have been complaining about the FAA where are you? Now is your Chance to have a voice.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Over 3200, now.

Not nearly enough, even though the comments are unlikely to change anything. We still need to express ourselves and get on the record.

This will get litigated at some point and we will have to hope for the best.

Thomas B

My Feedback: (4)

Given that the FAA carved out over time a number of interesting exceptions for Private pilots being compenstated for their flying activities, there will be some precedent to challenge the FAA on this topic and to carve out some exceptions for modelers as well.

I posted elsewhere about some of these. The exceptions include:

Pivate pilots can tow gliders and banners and get paid to do it.
Private pilots can give aircraft demo rides for sales and publicity purposes.
Private pilots can participate in various competitions such as air races and precision flying competitions while having paid sponsors and the ability to win cash prizes.

I think the FAA will not be able to successfully defend their position on their interpretation of model related commercial activities in court.

I agree that we need to focus on the R/C demo pilots and prize area and work for action from the FAA on this. The other items in the letter will ahve to be whittled at over time.

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

I am starting to think this way as well.

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

If it ends up like other FAA precedents developed from case findings....it means poor schmucks will have to get "tagged", violated, fined, and prosecuted and it will be THOSE INDIVIDUALS' BURDENS to handle the litigation per case. I'm betting there won't be an AMA attorney within a zillion miles of those as they arise, but as you all know by now, I'm pretty pessimistic about "AMA Activism and Advocacy".

What I foresee are nolo contendere pleas bargained for reduced fines by individuals alleged to have violated something-or-other because average Joe Schmuck (me, absolutely) couldn't raise capital for extended us-v.s.-them legal battles.

(For additional insight, see my signature )

N410DC

I agree that the FAA is highly unlikely to give up their crusade based on these comments. However, as Mr. Bury says, the FAA may make small changes to avoid "unintended consequences." These changes could mean a lot. I have a hard time believing that the FAA wants to prohibit MA manufacturers from paying their staff to flight test and demonstrate their products for hire. I think the intent of the interpretation is to prevent people or companies from flying model aircraft as a means of directly generating revenue in a commercial endeavor (e.g. commercial aerial photography, or a news station using a drone to provide live video coverage of a news story.) the If enough people comment that the current interpretation is too broad, perhaps they will modify the interpretation to something a little more reasonable (e.g. "individuals who are employed by or sponsored companies that develop and manufacture model aircraft [or accessories for model aircraft] may be compensated for flying model aircraft, provided that (1) the aircraft is being developed solely for hobby and recreational use, and (2) provided that the flight is conducted solely for research and development or demonstration purposes.") Furthermore, comments may help the FAA realize that asking R/C pilots to call a busy FAA control tower every time they want to take off and land could lead to a high call volume, which may have an adverse effect on control tower operations.

cj_rumley

Perhaps you're right about the need to take FAA to court to fight the travesty of FAA interpretation of 336 as it affects the demo pilots and contest prizes. What else are the AMA lawyers to do now?

I note a deafening silence in this thread about the specter of the NPRM and the all its evils FAA would unleash on modeldom, and what AMA lobbied Congress to protect us from, proactively. I take it that nobody here gives a tinker's dam about that anymore, since 336 prevents FAA from regulating MA when the operators are in accordance with AMA safety guidelines and programming. That preempts any oppressive FAA regulation AMA envisioned was in store for us via sUAS rulemaking, no?

AMA WON! I don't understand why all the mewling from the peanut gallery after the dragon has been slain. There ought to be jubilation! What Ingrates we are....tsk....bunch of guys that can't take 'Yes' for an answer.

cj

bradpaul

interesting comment from another web forum.......

skylark-flier

Ye gads! Not to start anything but, to me, that sounds like another example of "what is the meaning of 'is'"? To me, and I may be wrong, VLOS means I'm standing there - watching my aircraft. To me, it's quite simple. But, I may be wrong.

Dick T.

My Feedback: (243)

Thanks Bradpaul for re-posting. Personally I think that is the dumbest interpretation I have ever read!

Met with a couple of full scale commercial pilots today (also R/C'ers) and they agree with the FAA interpretation concerning FPV.Your re-post would make them laugh!

An FPV pilot CANNOT see the full sky surrounding their model aircraft, period! Full scale pilots need their head on a swivel to see & avoid other aircraft. Looking through FPV goggles does not provide that capability no matter how one wants to defend FPV flying.

They also thought the compensation part was overreaching for modelers, however they noted if a full scale pilot with a private ticket accepts any form of compensation they are violating FAA rules. You must have a commercial ticket to legally do that. Not saying it does not happen but FAA will pull your ticket if reported or caught.

Based on their years of dealing with FAA rules they think (and agree) the FPV interpretation will stick. The compensation part may find some wiggle room.

radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

Not exactly true. A private pilot is allowed to be compensated by a passenger for the passenger's fair share of expenses....half the fuel cost, for example.

N410DC

True. Private Pilots can also get reimbursed expenses in many other situations as well.

The AMA made a good point: when it comes to compensation for pilots, the FAA is trying to put more restrictions on modelers that they impose on private pilots.

Sport_Pilot

Actually he seems to have it correct. Those rules against model aircraft would likely apply to sUAV as well, So the drone fans should be commenting as well. I think many have resigned to the fact that this will have to be done in court. But the court fees will mean higher AMA fee's.

Sport_Pilot

.

VLOS is not an aviation term but is borrowed from the electronics industry. A GPS satellite is VLOS but you will not be able to see it without a telescope.