Be Worried Now. NTSB Says RC=aircraft
11-18-2014, 08:36 AM
#1
Be Worried Now. NTSB Says RC=aircraft
Maybe we should be worried now? AMA... your turn to bat now to save this sport/hobby/industry. The language here is pretty clear. Model aviation should be regulated by the FAA. Not my words... the NTSB.
From this morning. In the Pirker case.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141118.html
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf
C. Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” forpurposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We mustlook no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includesany aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and recklessoperation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than thosesubject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing todetermine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as toendanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Administrator’s appeal is granted;
2. The law judge’s decisional order is reversed; and
3. The case is remanded to the law judge for further proceedings consistent with this
Opinion and Order.
From this morning. In the Pirker case.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141118.html
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf
C. Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” forpurposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We mustlook no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includesany aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and recklessoperation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than thosesubject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing todetermine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as toendanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Administrator’s appeal is granted;
2. The law judge’s decisional order is reversed; and
3. The case is remanded to the law judge for further proceedings consistent with this
Opinion and Order.
11-18-2014, 09:09 AM
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we should be worried now? AMA... your turn to bat now to save this sport/hobby/industry. The language here is pretty clear. Model aviation should be regulated by the FAA. Not my words... the NTSB.
From this morning. In the Pirker case.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141118.html
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf
C. Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” forpurposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We mustlook no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includesany aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and recklessoperation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than thosesubject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing todetermine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as toendanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Administrator’s appeal is granted;
2. The law judge’s decisional order is reversed; and
3. The case is remanded to the law judge for further proceedings consistent with this
Opinion and Order.
From this morning. In the Pirker case.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141118.html
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf
C. Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” forpurposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We mustlook no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includesany aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and recklessoperation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than thosesubject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing todetermine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as toendanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Administrator’s appeal is granted;
2. The law judge’s decisional order is reversed; and
3. The case is remanded to the law judge for further proceedings consistent with this
Opinion and Order.
Frank
11-18-2014, 10:02 AM
#3
My Feedback: (209)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we should be worried now? AMA... your turn to bat now to save this sport/hobby/industry. The language here is pretty clear. Model aviation should be regulated by the FAA. Not my words... the NTSB.
From this morning. In the Pirker case.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141118.html
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf
C. Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” forpurposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We mustlook no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includesany aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and recklessoperation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than thosesubject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing todetermine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as toendanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Administrator’s appeal is granted;
2. The law judge’s decisional order is reversed; and
3. The case is remanded to the law judge for further proceedings consistent with this
Opinion and Order.
From this morning. In the Pirker case.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141118.html
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf
C. Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” forpurposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We mustlook no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includesany aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and recklessoperation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than thosesubject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing todetermine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as toendanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Administrator’s appeal is granted;
2. The law judge’s decisional order is reversed; and
3. The case is remanded to the law judge for further proceedings consistent with this
Opinion and Order.
Yes, we should all be worried because of the reckless manner which "SOME" Model Airplane Pilots fly their aircraft.
11-18-2014, 01:16 PM
#4
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I would presume any federal authority has far more power than the AMA. I believe the ruling also noted the authorities could regulate model aviation, not should, or will. And it's not final. I don't think the decision is any great surprise, nor should there be a sky is falling approach to dealing with it. The AMA is still the best entity to deal with this and work to getting exceptions carved out for this hobby. It will take time and money and persistence, the same that any group has to deal with when having their voice heard.
11-18-2014, 01:36 PM
#5
My Feedback: (209)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would presume any federal authority has far more power than the AMA. I believe the ruling also noted the authorities could regulate model aviation, not should, or will. And it's not final. I don't think the decision is any great surprise, nor should there be a sky is falling approach to dealing with it. The AMA is still the best entity to deal with this and work to getting exceptions carved out for this hobby. It will take time and money and persistence, the same that any group has to deal with when having their voice heard.
I agree. The AMA is our support for this hobby, and my opinion is the FAA has enough to deal with already. I certainly would not like the FAA to regulate Model Aircraft, but when SOME pilots in our hobby fly recklessly, either not knowing the rules or on purpose to create a hazard, like flying a drone real close or in a flight path to a full size aircraft, then the FAA will get involved because lives are at stake. Flying Quad Copters over a Football Stadium , as shown in videos is one example of careless pilots in our hobby.
11-18-2014, 02:39 PM
#6
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
as much as I'm against the govt being involved in everything we do, and the reckless use of any type of model aircraft, I think the FAA was going to be involved in some type of oversight purely because of the advances in technology. Also, and most importantly (imo), this has really come to light because of the commercial and military use of sUAVs, not because of the one off dumb decisions made by a few folks with DJI's. I think we have unfairly and unfortunately been tangled in the net. I don't see this being a devastating blow to the hobby, like a ballathon (tangled fishing lines), it's going to take some time to work through. Will the average AMA member be affected here if they continue operating the way they always have, safely, probably not. As Mr T once said "I pity the fool" who goes out and does something really stupid with any aircraft and causes damages or injury though. It's going to make the Trappy case seem very insignificant.
11-18-2014, 02:47 PM
#7
The elephant in the room is that the next step is requiring all of us to get a pilot license to participate in the hobby. If you are a regulator and you can't monitor and audit each and every flying activity, then you license each and every pilot. So, if you want to fly a Vapor in your living room... tada... you need a piece of paper to prove that you are safe. Unless AMA starts to lobby this issue aggressively we lose the hobby. What we need to do:
Lobby for new language in the FAA reauthorization bill protecting modeling activity. (First hearing for FAA reauth was today)
Organize local clubs to go into to their local Congress and Senate offices and show what the hobby is about.
Organize Washington office visits for hobbyists with Congressional members and staff
Create a lobbying association made of other associations, modelers, manufacturers, suppliers, and hobby shops to fight for this hobby. ++edit-I don't mean create a new association and replace AMA.... I mean create a special interest lobbying group specifically on this issue. AMA is certainly part but we can add other groups as well.)++++
These can be cost effective ways of protecting our hobby.....
Lobby for new language in the FAA reauthorization bill protecting modeling activity. (First hearing for FAA reauth was today)
Organize local clubs to go into to their local Congress and Senate offices and show what the hobby is about.
Organize Washington office visits for hobbyists with Congressional members and staff
Create a lobbying association made of other associations, modelers, manufacturers, suppliers, and hobby shops to fight for this hobby. ++edit-I don't mean create a new association and replace AMA.... I mean create a special interest lobbying group specifically on this issue. AMA is certainly part but we can add other groups as well.)++++
These can be cost effective ways of protecting our hobby.....
Last edited by kdunlap; 11-18-2014 at 05:39 PM. Reason: added note in +++ ++++
11-18-2014, 05:13 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we should be worried now? AMA... your turn to bat now to save this sport/hobby/industry. The language here is pretty clear. Model aviation should be regulated by the FAA. Not my words... the NTSB.
From this morning. In the Pirker case.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141118.html
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf
C. Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” forpurposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We mustlook no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includesany aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and recklessoperation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than thosesubject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing todetermine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as toendanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Administrator’s appeal is granted;
2. The law judge’s decisional order is reversed; and
3. The case is remanded to the law judge for further proceedings consistent with this
Opinion and Order.
From this morning. In the Pirker case.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2014/141118.html
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf
C. Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” forpurposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We mustlook no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includesany aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and recklessoperation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than thosesubject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing todetermine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as toendanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Administrator’s appeal is granted;
2. The law judge’s decisional order is reversed; and
3. The case is remanded to the law judge for further proceedings consistent with this
Opinion and Order.
There. Now we are even and everyone can relax now.
11-18-2014, 05:34 PM
#9
Pirker got paid to fly, Did NOT follow AMA rules, ten grand is nothing as to what could have happend. when you get paid to fly, thats commercial. Now your in the FAA's back-yard.
11-18-2014, 06:07 PM
#10
My Feedback: (14)
Way too much over reach, don't think it'll stand on appeal. According to a strict interpretation of the rule, if I get a paper cut folding a paper airplane then NTSB has to do a full investigation. I'm sure they've accounted for this in their budget (Humm, we need a sarcasm imoji)
11-19-2014, 02:09 AM
#12
While I have no concern about passing a flight test to acquire a license, I do object to the government controlling our hobby. I believe the growing number of people flying anywhere they want to, and in any fashion they desire is the source of the problem. Now, with the ability to fly beyond line-of-sight with no accountability for their choices of how and where they fly will bring about this regulation. I think the promotion and sale of the suav's is the final straw. Greed of the retailers who sell them and a lack of discipline to the few who fly them irresponsibly (and then post the videos in a contest of outrageousness) is taking it's toll.
It's going to be interesting!
It's going to be interesting!
11-19-2014, 05:44 AM
#13
While I have no concern about passing a flight test to acquire a license, I do object to the government controlling our hobby. I believe the growing number of people flying anywhere they want to, and in any fashion they desire is the source of the problem. Now, with the ability to fly beyond line-of-sight with no accountability for their choices of how and where they fly will bring about this regulation. I think the promotion and sale of the suav's is the final straw. Greed of the retailers who sell them and a lack of discipline to the few who fly them irresponsibly (and then post the videos in a contest of outrageousness) is taking it's toll.
It's going to be interesting!
It's going to be interesting!
It only takes a few idiots to ruin the punch for the rest of us. There is one way we can fight back, just remember who is in office and vote them out. Find candidates who will support our hobby, and stand behind them. This goes not only for our hobby, but for everything else the gestapo, er, government is doing now to try to control all aspects of our lives.
I am in favor of fining idiots like this, but, not for added regulations for a hobby such as ours. A few rules regarding UAV's, yes, keep them line of sight, or face fines, dont fly them close to people or buildings, unless it is being done under a permitted purpose such as movie making, or some sort of commercial enterprise, and done under strict guidance pertaining to the issued permit. Other than that, leave us alone to enjoy our hobby.
11-19-2014, 06:34 AM
#14
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lockport,
NY
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^This^
It only takes a few idiots to ruin the punch for the rest of us. There is one way we can fight back, just remember who is in office and vote them out. Find candidates who will support our hobby, and stand behind them. This goes not only for our hobby, but for everything else the gestapo, er, government is doing now to try to control all aspects of our lives.
I am in favor of fining idiots like this, but, not for added regulations for a hobby such as ours. A few rules regarding UAV's, yes, keep them line of sight, or face fines, dont fly them close to people or buildings, unless it is being done under a permitted purpose such as movie making, or some sort of commercial enterprise, and done under strict guidance pertaining to the issued permit. Other than that, leave us alone to enjoy our hobby.
It only takes a few idiots to ruin the punch for the rest of us. There is one way we can fight back, just remember who is in office and vote them out. Find candidates who will support our hobby, and stand behind them. This goes not only for our hobby, but for everything else the gestapo, er, government is doing now to try to control all aspects of our lives.
I am in favor of fining idiots like this, but, not for added regulations for a hobby such as ours. A few rules regarding UAV's, yes, keep them line of sight, or face fines, dont fly them close to people or buildings, unless it is being done under a permitted purpose such as movie making, or some sort of commercial enterprise, and done under strict guidance pertaining to the issued permit. Other than that, leave us alone to enjoy our hobby.
11-19-2014, 06:37 AM
#15
as much as I'm against the govt being involved in everything we do, and the reckless use of any type of model aircraft, I think the FAA was going to be involved in some type of oversight purely because of the advances in technology. Also, and most importantly (imo), this has really come to light because of the commercial and military use of sUAVs, not because of the one off dumb decisions made by a few folks with DJI's. I think we have unfairly and unfortunately been tangled in the net. I don't see this being a devastating blow to the hobby, like a ballathon (tangled fishing lines), it's going to take some time to work through. Will the average AMA member be affected here if they continue operating the way they always have, safely, probably not. As Mr T once said "I pity the fool" who goes out and does something really stupid with any aircraft and causes damages or injury though. It's going to make the Trappy case seem very insignificant.
11-19-2014, 06:44 AM
#16
11-19-2014, 07:17 AM
#17
My Feedback: (86)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mayhill, New Mexico TX
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it really necessary for the AMA to expend a lot of their time and our resources to defend the technology and the people that are hell-bent on "doing their own thing"? It seems to me that we are entangling ourselves in this quagmire when possibly the more defensible approach would be to distance ourselves from those who insist upon flying devices other than traditional line-of-sight aircraft. In my opinion, you're known by the company that you keep, and if we continue to try to embrace these folks and bring them into our community, then we will become known as those who recklessly and carelessly operate aircraft. I, for one, do not want to be associated with the drone pilots. They're like a lightening rod and sooner or later, they are going to get struck. From what I've seen and heard it's going to be sooner rather than later and I don't want to be there when it happens. Just last night there was an episode of Chicago Fire, where a drone, piloted by kids struck the tail rotor of a full-scale helicopter. The entire show was about the carnage and destruction caused by this incident. Gentlemen, this is an indefensible situation when Hollywood is making dramatic slash and crash entertainment out of it. My oldest son is a high school football coach in central Texas. 2 weeks ago, a game with championship implications had to be suspended because some dumb ass was flying a drone over the field and players. I guarantee that had I been there I would have done everything I could to help law enforcement track this fool down and have him arrested for reckless endangerment. The person who was doing this is not one of us. Nor should we want him or his drone. One bad apple spoils the entire barrel, one thief in a group of honest men makes the entire group suspect. If modelers are regulated it's going to be our own fault.
11-19-2014, 07:41 AM
#18
With the ability to fly a drone from miles away, there will be little motivation to obey any rules. Too many people only obey the law because there is a chance of being caught and having to face the consequences. The drone pilots will do what they will with impunity.
How much weight do these things carry? Could a big one haul a load of plastic explosives to a destination a few miles away? This has got to be the concerns of Congress and the FAA. We are not their concern, but federal regulations tend to paint with a very broad brush. And, I don't think any of this has to do with the current, or past administration. When the C.A.B. came into existence, it had to do with risk to human beings. For perspective, go watch The Great Waldo Pepper for a history lesson.
How much weight do these things carry? Could a big one haul a load of plastic explosives to a destination a few miles away? This has got to be the concerns of Congress and the FAA. We are not their concern, but federal regulations tend to paint with a very broad brush. And, I don't think any of this has to do with the current, or past administration. When the C.A.B. came into existence, it had to do with risk to human beings. For perspective, go watch The Great Waldo Pepper for a history lesson.
11-19-2014, 08:26 AM
#19
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes the wonderful logic of the NTSB in defining rc models as aircraft:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/faa...ls-court-rules
And that's the devastating part of this decision for drone enthusiasts: The FAA's existing aircraft regulations cannot be reconciled with its guidelines for model aircraft flights.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/faa...ls-court-rules
And that's the devastating part of this decision for drone enthusiasts: The FAA's existing aircraft regulations cannot be reconciled with its guidelines for model aircraft flights.
The statute that the FAA used to fine Pirker suggests that any flight by an "aircraft" below 500 feet can be considered reckless. The FAA's model aircraft guidelines, meanwhile, suggest that any flight over 400 feet by a drone is unsafe and potentially illegal.
11-19-2014, 08:54 AM
#20
My Feedback: (6)
. We are not their concern, but federal regulations tend to paint with a very broad brush. And, I don't think any of this has to do with the current, or past administration.
So: make a toy for your kid in your workshop and you've committed a felony. Will they arrest you? No. But it's easier to ban everything than to try to distinguish between what's really dangerous and what isn't. So if they do outlaw us, good luck trying to buy airplanes, radios, or engines. Or to get and keep a club field. Just like trying to buy a kid's dirt bike. Of course, they won't just pass a law saying "no model airplanes." But they could pass a law (or adopt a regulation) saying "no model airplanes within five miles of an airport," which would outlaw most present RC fields. (Remember: there are probably more than ten airports in just about every US county. Draw a five-mile circle around each of them and there's not much left.)
11-19-2014, 09:01 AM
#22
I am in favor of fining idiots like this, but, not for added regulations for a hobby such as ours. A few rules regarding UAV's, yes, keep them line of sight, or face fines, dont fly them close to people or buildings, unless it is being done under a permitted purpose such as movie making, or some sort of commercial enterprise, and done under strict guidance pertaining to the issued permit. Other than that, leave us alone to enjoy our hobby.
11-19-2014, 09:41 AM
#24
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NewentGloucestershire, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^This^
I am in favor of fining idiots like this, but, not for added regulations for a hobby such as ours. A few rules regarding UAV's, yes, keep them line of sight, or face fines, dont fly them close to people or buildings, unless it is being done under a permitted purpose such as movie making, or some sort of commercial enterprise, and done under strict guidance pertaining to the issued permit. Other than that, leave us alone to enjoy our hobby.
I am in favor of fining idiots like this, but, not for added regulations for a hobby such as ours. A few rules regarding UAV's, yes, keep them line of sight, or face fines, dont fly them close to people or buildings, unless it is being done under a permitted purpose such as movie making, or some sort of commercial enterprise, and done under strict guidance pertaining to the issued permit. Other than that, leave us alone to enjoy our hobby.
11-19-2014, 11:48 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am reading the paperwork, there is a lot of it. There is quite a stack of amicus briefs and of course the decision itself. But, all in all I see no reason to worry. Truth be told when I first heard it I went in to full ROTFLMAO mode. It seems to be a good thing for us hobbyists, because now the miscreants can be used to pay off the national debt. As for us, we only have to abide by the AMA safety code and we are in the clear.
