Another Drone Pilot does it Again
#976
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't imagine anyone dumb enough to pay for flight lessons when, for the small price of membership, he can receive all he help he needs for free, as often as he needs it. I think that this should require a license though.
#977
I am am unaware of any competition that awards cash. But, an award is not payment for effort or skill, it is a one time only prize. There is no mention of this issue in the FAA Interpretation of section 336.
5 Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of abusiness, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight.
#978
This is dispite some people belief that it soesn't pertain to our TOY airplanes when it most deffinatly will if inacted as written.
Every AMA member should of gotten this Notic from the AMA Read it Watch it And Comment on the NPRM before April 24th. It's Vital to our hoby with what the FAA wants and will do if we don't make objection to it ... For those that belive the NPRM as written and feature FAR's it will make DO NOT only pertain to Comerical Use of sUAS and TOY MODEL AIR PLANES. It (if inacted as written into FAR's it will out lay any thing over 55 lbs any thing over 87 MPH Max altitude 500' ext.
Please read and watch the video and then comment to the FAA before ther take yout TOY airplanes away or make tham Useless and worthless, if they can. Government will take anything U don't veitmently protect.
U should of recieved this today but check It out Here.
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe561...0575741372&r=0
[TABLE="class: link-enhancr-element, width: 450"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5, colspan: 8"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #000000"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="width: 1, bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Take Action to Help Preserve Model Aviation's Future. Comment on the FAA NPRM.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]View on view.exacttarget.com[/TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5, colspan: 8"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Every AMA member should of gotten this Notic from the AMA Read it Watch it And Comment on the NPRM before April 24th. It's Vital to our hoby with what the FAA wants and will do if we don't make objection to it ... For those that belive the NPRM as written and feature FAR's it will make DO NOT only pertain to Comerical Use of sUAS and TOY MODEL AIR PLANES. It (if inacted as written into FAR's it will out lay any thing over 55 lbs any thing over 87 MPH Max altitude 500' ext.
Please read and watch the video and then comment to the FAA before ther take yout TOY airplanes away or make tham Useless and worthless, if they can. Government will take anything U don't veitmently protect.
U should of recieved this today but check It out Here.
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe561...0575741372&r=0
[TABLE="class: link-enhancr-element, width: 450"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5, colspan: 8"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #000000"][/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="width: 1, bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Take Action to Help Preserve Model Aviation's Future. Comment on the FAA NPRM.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]View on view.exacttarget.com[/TD]
[TD]
Preview by Yahoo
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5, colspan: 8"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Can't wait for April 25th so doodydoggy will need to find a different subject to beat to death.
And yes I replied and not just by using the template.
#979
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are quite correct, there is a difference between amateur and professional competition. Tell me, how do you become a professional model airplane competitor? Is it like professional golf? Do they have a cable channel for it?
#980
For years there has been the rumor that certain pilots were paid appearance money from manufactures to appear at the big competitions.
#982
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#983
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this is being done with the intent of supporting recreational model aviation, it is arguably within the intent of Section 336. Albeit a little sleazy.
#984
#986
The FAA is way wrong on this one, They need to be concerned about safety not if a dime changed hands between modelers. I agree with Sport people just will do what they always
have or cease competition and advertising / promotional services.
have or cease competition and advertising / promotional services.
#987
Since the FAA's interpretation of Section 336 seems to be a topic of discussion, I think this is worth looking at:
Bottom line is that the FAA's "interpretation" is nothing more than what they think the law means and in and of itself is not a law or regulation. The courts have also held that when looking at laws that the idea of "plain language" needs to be used. In other words, don't go looking for hidden meanings, what it says is what it means.
Important update (March 9, 2015): In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association (March 9 2015), the Supreme Court held that agency interpretations of statutes and regulations are not legislative rules, and accordingly do not require agencies to follow the APA's notice and comment procedures. The Court further held that as non-legislative rules, agency interpretations do not have the force and effect of law, and only indicate to the public what an agency perceives the law to be.Courts must still give deference to agency interpretations, and those interpretations will stand unless a court finds them to be arbitrary and capricious. Exactly what effect, if any, the Perez decision has upon the June Interpretation is unknown. Since the FAA remains free to interpret aviation statutes and regulations as it sees fit, and since courts must defer to those interpretations unless they are determined to be arbitrary and capricious, the decision appears to have little practical effect on curbing the FAA's use of interpretations to modify existing law.
Close attention should be paid to Justices Scalia's and Thomas' concurrences. Both express strong concern for agencies being able to draft broad and ambiguous regulations intentionally, knowing they may "fill-in-the blanks" at a later date simply by interpretation, thereby changing the meaning of regulations with relative impunity due to the deference requirement.
http://dronelawjournal.com/?hc_location=ufi
Close attention should be paid to Justices Scalia's and Thomas' concurrences. Both express strong concern for agencies being able to draft broad and ambiguous regulations intentionally, knowing they may "fill-in-the blanks" at a later date simply by interpretation, thereby changing the meaning of regulations with relative impunity due to the deference requirement.
http://dronelawjournal.com/?hc_location=ufi
Bottom line is that the FAA's "interpretation" is nothing more than what they think the law means and in and of itself is not a law or regulation. The courts have also held that when looking at laws that the idea of "plain language" needs to be used. In other words, don't go looking for hidden meanings, what it says is what it means.
#988
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (209)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutam...esponse.aspx#3
Silent, please read this, I am not sure what it means exactly and the AMA avoids it??
I think the FAA will outrule the AMA on this subject, could be wrong?
Silent, please read this, I am not sure what it means exactly and the AMA avoids it??
I think the FAA will outrule the AMA on this subject, could be wrong?
Last edited by FLAPHappy; 04-11-2015 at 02:17 PM. Reason: optional
#989
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the FAA's interpretation of Section 336 seems to be a topic of discussion, I think this is worth looking at:
Bottom line is that the FAA's "interpretation" is nothing more than what they think the law means and in and of itself is not a law or regulation. The courts have also held that when looking at laws that the idea of "plain language" needs to be used. In other words, don't go looking for hidden meanings, what it says is what it means.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
Bottom line is that the FAA's "interpretation" is nothing more than what they think the law means and in and of itself is not a law or regulation. The courts have also held that when looking at laws that the idea of "plain language" needs to be used. In other words, don't go looking for hidden meanings, what it says is what it means.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
I understand that to say FAA's interpretation is the law de facto, until challenged in court and a decision is reached that the interpretations are arbitrary and capricious. IOW an umpteenth reiteration of the Chevron decision, and perhaps advice to his AMA client to "live with it" as any challange will most probably prove fruitless.
#990
Sadly, it seems to be true that one of these case will likely need to end up in court to be settled. On the other hand, I will be surprised if the FAA pursues anything less than a absolute case of endangering a manned aircraft.
BTW - I believe that Brendan Schulman is the AMA's attorney. Peter Sachs is representing another group in a similar suit against the FAA.
http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upl...A_Petition.pdf
Peter Sachs is a plaintiff with Brendan as attorney of record:
http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upl...caPetition.pdf
BTW - I believe that Brendan Schulman is the AMA's attorney. Peter Sachs is representing another group in a similar suit against the FAA.
http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upl...A_Petition.pdf
Peter Sachs is a plaintiff with Brendan as attorney of record:
http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upl...caPetition.pdf
#991
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...taba&FORM=IGRE
#992
I think the FAA will outrule the AMA on this subject, could be wrong?
#993
AMA's lawyer made a different point in " Since the FAA remains free to interpret aviation statutes and regulations as it sees fit, and since courts must defer to those interpretations unless they are determined to be arbitrary and capricious, the decision appears to have little practical effect on curbing the FAA's use of interpretations to modify existing law."
I understand that to say FAA's interpretation is the law de facto, until challenged in court and a decision is reached that the interpretations are arbitrary and capricious. IOW an umpteenth reiteration of the Chevron decision, and perhaps advice to his AMA client to "live with it" as any challange will most probably prove fruitless.
I understand that to say FAA's interpretation is the law de facto, until challenged in court and a decision is reached that the interpretations are arbitrary and capricious. IOW an umpteenth reiteration of the Chevron decision, and perhaps advice to his AMA client to "live with it" as any challange will most probably prove fruitless.
This is true for regulations, but not so much as to law. However, I believe a case could be made that this is arbitrary and capricious.
#995
My Feedback: (49)
I am am unaware of any competition that awards cash. But, an award is not payment for effort or skill, it is a one time only prize. There is no mention of this issue in the FAA Interpretation of section 336.
This is a problem, the current unofficial version of the interpretation seems to place this activity as an unallowed commercial activity even though it is being performed in support of recreational model aviation. I hope that the FAA has read my comment on this issue and recognized their error.
I can't imagine anyone dumb enough to pay for flight lessons when, for the small price of membership, he can receive all he help he needs for free, as often as he needs it. I think that this should require a license though.
This is a problem, the current unofficial version of the interpretation seems to place this activity as an unallowed commercial activity even though it is being performed in support of recreational model aviation. I hope that the FAA has read my comment on this issue and recognized their error.
I can't imagine anyone dumb enough to pay for flight lessons when, for the small price of membership, he can receive all he help he needs for free, as often as he needs it. I think that this should require a license though.
There's a flight school in Shanwo Wisconsin and I thought it was stupid but after seing the results it does make a differance. Especially over most club teaching and deffinatly self taught ... Look at UR own club (IF u actually fly at a Chartered club) and there in every club smoe people that are down right DANGERIOUS but for some reason the club put's up with them and their antics cause they are part of the IN CROWD.
#996
My Feedback: (49)
[QUOTE=JohnShe;12020562]I am am unaware of any competition that awards cash. But, an award is not payment for effort or skill, it is a one time only prize. There is no mention of this issue in the FAA Interpretation of section 336.
Our club in Mesa awards Money form the entry fee for 1st 2nd & 3rd place in our monthly Pylon Races as do other clubs in the PHX Valley.
Our club in Mesa awards Money form the entry fee for 1st 2nd & 3rd place in our monthly Pylon Races as do other clubs in the PHX Valley.
#997
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutam...esponse.aspx#3
Silent, please read this, I am not sure what it means exactly and the AMA avoids it??
I think the FAA will outrule the AMA on this subject, could be wrong?
Silent, please read this, I am not sure what it means exactly and the AMA avoids it??
I think the FAA will outrule the AMA on this subject, could be wrong?
#998
#999
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points. Maybe just me, but I can never understand the mentality that would want to short circuit any enterprise based on whether or not it was a money making venture... I can understand certain standards to insure consumer or even spectator safety but to prevent income based purely on license is against everything I understand America to be.
#1000
IMO i think AMA may have Constitutional grounds for this. The FAA was given the skies to rule because of interstate commerce from the commerce clause in the Constitution. Full scale aircraft and even large UAV's are capable of interstate commerce, model airplane contests and manufacture flight testing is clearly not interstate commerce. That is they do not cross state lines to accomplish their commerce.