Does "purpose" determine the required regulations?
06-04-2011 | 08:14 AM
#52
RE: Does
The FAA seems to have a flexible definition of "business purpose". They allow a non-commercial rated pilot to take potential customers on demo flight if the pilot is the salesman. That is a clearly commercial or "business purpose", yet they do not require a commercial license to do it. But if you want to charge someone $25 to take them in the same plane on a 20 minute sight seeing tour, then you must have a commercial rating. Same aircraft, same flight, different ratings required.
In both cases the pilot is being compensated and earning taxable income as a result of the flight.
In both cases the pilot is being compensated and earning taxable income as a result of the flight.
06-04-2011 | 12:12 PM
#53
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Does
BP
before we get into that guy,
lets talk about his brotherinlaw:
He owns SuperRCHeli.com, and also has a vendorbooth for his business at the event.
But THIS guy takes a break from his commercial booth to enjoy some hobby flying of a 3d Foamy Bipe.
I dont see that guy as commercial flying, because the bipe flying is unrelated to his commercial booth.
Now back to MrGreatbig, of GreatBig RC Hobbies-
If Mr Greatbig takes a break from his booth to fly unrelated to his business (maybe a fun Balloonpop round )
I dont see that as commercial flying.
But if MrGGreatbig puts on a sales demo flight of a product as an effort to sell more of that product,
that sure sounds like a business activity more than it does hobby.
Heres an idea for a metric:
If you catch even a little bit of flack from some 'boss' type business person
for just skipping an event you were ordered/directed/required to attend for stuff you get/got,
then that aint recreational hobby flying
Say you own "Great BIG RC Hobbies" and attend an event and also have a vendor booth at the event, does that make any flying at the event "business purpose"?
lets talk about his brotherinlaw:
He owns SuperRCHeli.com, and also has a vendorbooth for his business at the event.
But THIS guy takes a break from his commercial booth to enjoy some hobby flying of a 3d Foamy Bipe.
I dont see that guy as commercial flying, because the bipe flying is unrelated to his commercial booth.
Now back to MrGreatbig, of GreatBig RC Hobbies-
If Mr Greatbig takes a break from his booth to fly unrelated to his business (maybe a fun Balloonpop round )
I dont see that as commercial flying.
But if MrGGreatbig puts on a sales demo flight of a product as an effort to sell more of that product,
that sure sounds like a business activity more than it does hobby.
Heres an idea for a metric:
If you catch even a little bit of flack from some 'boss' type business person
for just skipping an event you were ordered/directed/required to attend for stuff you get/got,
then that aint recreational hobby flying
06-04-2011 | 04:55 PM
#55
RE: Does
It will be very interesting to see how and where the FAA draws the line on business purpose. I am certain that the whole idea of sponsored pilots has not entered their minds.
06-04-2011 | 07:13 PM
#57
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Aguanga,
CA
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
It will be very interesting to see how and where the FAA draws the line on business purpose. I am certain that the whole idea of sponsored pilots has not entered their minds.
It will be very interesting to see how and where the FAA draws the line on business purpose. I am certain that the whole idea of sponsored pilots has not entered their minds.
06-04-2011 | 07:26 PM
#58
RE: Does
I disagree. Since the line will determine who is, and is not, subject to the new rule I suspect that they will be very clear about it. The issue they have now is people "pretending" to be models airplanes while doing commercial activities. I doubt they will leave it up to the AMA, or anyone else, to draw the line.
06-04-2011 | 07:30 PM
#59
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Does
I doubt that FAA has much interest in where that line is drawn, as it doesn't appear to bear very much on their charter to maintain order in the airspace that is occupied by regulated aircraft.
from other craft/pilots that are not required to get them for their UAS:Model
Policy11 made it clear that line decides which way you are authorized to use the NAS, as a
2.Civil (certs&license req)
or
3.Hobby (no cert/license req)
kind of UAS
If you are commercial then you aint 3.Hobby
in the eyes of the FAA, and you dont get to ignore the UAS regs that Hobby gets to ignore
06-04-2011 | 07:34 PM
#60
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Does
The issue they have now is people "pretending" to be models airplanes while doing commercial activities
06-04-2011 | 09:52 PM
#61
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
could be they are talking about the business sponsored/compensated 'product sales demo' pilots pretending they are still Hobby
The issue they have now is people ''pretending'' to be models airplanes while doing commercial activities
I seriously doubt it. They are more concerned with the law enforcement agencies and other folks like commercial AP who were operating smaller "model" sized UAS and said, "Hey, we're just like models". One clear case happened out here in LA County with the Sheriff's department. They got some news coverage and shortly after that the FAA shut them down telling them that the were not, in fact, models and could not operate under AC 91-57.
This quote from the March 2011 Notice makes it pretty clear they are not talking about "sponsored" pilots:
NOTE: The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91–57. AC 91–57 only applies to modelers and specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.
06-04-2011 | 11:43 PM
#62
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Does
This quote from the March 2011 Notice makes it pretty clear they are not talking about "sponsored" pilots:
They did specifically mention that folks are MISTAKENLY thinking they are allowed to fly as hobby when they actually cant.
How can you say that by you believing you can fly as hobby
proves you are not the one mistaken about it.
For example: Flying a RC helicopter with a camera for fun is fine. Flying an RC helicopter in order to be paid by someone for taking photos is not.
Flying a RC Helicopter with a camera for fun is fine. Flying an RC Helicopter in a demo in order to sell product is not.
If what you believe to be a clear open and shut case that is obvious that Demos Are Hobby,
can you explain whay Ilona at AMA completely didnt say that,
to the point that she recomends getting non-AMA insurance because the commercialness of demos is too much for even AMA to accept?
But it seems its not too much for you, you decree SponsoredDemo has some yet unseen specific FAA acceptance.
Should folks listen to AMA or you?
06-05-2011 | 07:23 AM
#63
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Flying a RC Helicopter with a camera for fun is fine. Flying an RC Helicopter in a demo in order to sell product is not.
Flying a RC Helicopter with a camera for fun is fine. Flying an RC Helicopter in a demo in order to sell product is not.
If what you believe to be a clear open and shut case that is obvious that Demos Are Hobby,
can you explain whay Ilona at AMA completely didnt say that,
to the point that she recomends getting non-AMA insurance because the commercialness of demos is too much for even AMA to accept?
But it seems its not too much for you, you decree SponsoredDemo has some yet unseen specific FAA acceptance.
can you explain whay Ilona at AMA completely didnt say that,
to the point that she recomends getting non-AMA insurance because the commercialness of demos is too much for even AMA to accept?
But it seems its not too much for you, you decree SponsoredDemo has some yet unseen specific FAA acceptance.
Should folks listen to AMA or you?
06-05-2011 | 07:53 AM
#64
Banned
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CT
RE: Does
The FAA is quite clear on what is commercial use:
" The FAA has consistently defined commercial operation in terms of whether the operator receives direct or indirect payment for the operation. It is not necessary that the operation be conducted for profit or even that there be any intent or ability to make a profit. The compensation is not just limited to monetary payments but includes anything of value. This broad definition of compensation has been affirmed and adopted by both the NTSB and the federal courts. Administrator v. Roundtree, 2 NTSB 1712 (1975); Administrator v. Mims, NTSB Order No. EA-3284, review denied 988 F.2d 1380; Consolidated Flower Shipments, Inc., Bay Area, 16 C.A.B. 804 (1953), aff'd. 213 F.2d 814 (2nd Cir. 1954)."
This is from a law firm!
" The FAA has consistently defined commercial operation in terms of whether the operator receives direct or indirect payment for the operation. It is not necessary that the operation be conducted for profit or even that there be any intent or ability to make a profit. The compensation is not just limited to monetary payments but includes anything of value. This broad definition of compensation has been affirmed and adopted by both the NTSB and the federal courts. Administrator v. Roundtree, 2 NTSB 1712 (1975); Administrator v. Mims, NTSB Order No. EA-3284, review denied 988 F.2d 1380; Consolidated Flower Shipments, Inc., Bay Area, 16 C.A.B. 804 (1953), aff'd. 213 F.2d 814 (2nd Cir. 1954)."
This is from a law firm!
06-05-2011 | 08:42 AM
#65
RE: Does
I see you are a fan DYI Drones! 
Our ex-good friend posted this exact post yesterday:
http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/...ource=activity
Our ex-good friend posted this exact post yesterday:http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/...ource=activity
06-05-2011 | 08:50 AM
#66
RE: Does
Here are the actual cases cited. You decide if you think this is similar to a guy wearing a "Team XXX" shirt or not.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...13/814/262809/
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...8/1280/141442/
http://www.calairlaw.com/recentdevelop.htm
The quote used in the previous post citing the case law is followed by this:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...13/814/262809/
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...8/1280/141442/
http://www.calairlaw.com/recentdevelop.htm
The quote used in the previous post citing the case law is followed by this:
On this basis, the FAA has consistently held that where the government entity receives compensation for a flight carrying persons or property, the aircraft cannot be considered a "public aircraft". This seems fairly clear in those instances where the aircraft service is carrying private persons or property. But what about the situation where the aircraft is carrying the persons or property of another governmental entity? This type of carriage has become much more prevalent with the increase in the number and use of government owned and operated aircraft and the utilization of agreements between government entities for joint use of these aircraft. The majority of these agreements provide for at least the reimbursement of direct and, in many cases, some indirect expenses to the operator of the aircraft. While the FAA had consistently considered these type of operations to fall within the commercial prohibition of the definition, the issue did not officially arise until the early 1990's. In 1992 and 1993, the FAA administratively interpreted the commercial operation exclusion to apply to those situations where one government entity was carrying persons and property of another government entity and was receiving compensation for those flights. As one such opinion indicated, it is the FAA's "long standing position that intergovernmental reimbursement for aircraft services constitutes compensation and operations conducted pursuant to such reimbursement arrangements are, therefore, civil aircraft operations". FAA opinion to U.S. Forest Service dated June 23, 1995.
06-05-2011 | 10:26 AM
#67
Banned
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CT
RE: Does
The lawyers said: "The FAA has consistently defined commercial operation"
I think I'll take the lawyers word for it until I see something from the FAA or another lawyer contradicting this lawyer.
You may now continue your arguing
I think I'll take the lawyers word for it until I see something from the FAA or another lawyer contradicting this lawyer.
You may now continue your arguing
06-05-2011 | 10:48 AM
#68
Banned
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CT
RE: Does
Since this "The FAA has consistently defined commercial operation.. " is from a law firm, I will believe them until something from the FAA or another law firm proves otherwise.
06-05-2011 | 11:33 AM
#70
RE: Does
If you actually read the cases summaries of the cases cited you can gain a greater insight. One was a pilot who flew some people while she was on a "training flight" and then accepted a considerable gratuity for doing so. Another was a flower cooperative in San Francisco (where else?) that was trying to get around the rules for commercial pilots by claiming they were not actually under hire since they were only flying the product of the members of the cooperative.
I can see no way that these cases can be construed into saying that some guy flying a noon time demo of a hobby RC plane is involved in a "business purpose." That is of course up to the FAA to determine, but simply saying that what you posted was what an attorney said is really kind of meaningless with regard to our situation.
I can see no way that these cases can be construed into saying that some guy flying a noon time demo of a hobby RC plane is involved in a "business purpose." That is of course up to the FAA to determine, but simply saying that what you posted was what an attorney said is really kind of meaningless with regard to our situation.
06-05-2011 | 11:34 AM
#71
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Does
The compensation is not just limited to monetary payments but includes anything of value. This broad definition of compensation has been affirmed and adopted by both the NTSB and the federal courts.
but not by Silent
but not by Silent
06-05-2011 | 11:36 AM
#72
Banned
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CT
RE: Does
What the AMA insurance covers has nothing to do with the FAA.
The AMA can even provide insure liabilty resulting from illegal illegal activities if they want, just like automobile insurance does. DUI is illegal but insurance may cover liability in an accident where the insured driver was intoxicated.
Apples and Oranges.
The AMA can even provide insure liabilty resulting from illegal illegal activities if they want, just like automobile insurance does. DUI is illegal but insurance may cover liability in an accident where the insured driver was intoxicated.
Apples and Oranges.
06-05-2011 | 11:53 AM
#73
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
The compensation is not just limited to monetary payments but includes anything of value. This broad definition of compensation has been affirmed and adopted by both the NTSB and the federal courts.
but not by Silent
The compensation is not just limited to monetary payments but includes anything of value. This broad definition of compensation has been affirmed and adopted by both the NTSB and the federal courts.
but not by Silent
Once again you have spectacularly missed the point in an attempt to keep the argument going. I'll tell you what, if the FAA defines being a member of Team Futaba and getting a free T-shirt as a business purpose I will pay for a AMA Life membership for you. How's that? In fact, I'll expand that. If they deem an employee of a company like Horizon or Hobbico who demonstrate the hobby products at hobby events as being engaged in a non-exmept business purpose and thus under the restrictions of the sUAS rules, the same offer stands.
And again, what the AMA covers under their liability insurance has nothing to do with what the FAA will deem a business purpose.
06-05-2011 | 12:18 PM
#75
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: JennyJN4
You might want to investigate why Hollywood has banned the use of sUAS in the film industry. Hint: FAA.
You might want to investigate why Hollywood has banned the use of sUAS in the film industry. Hint: FAA.
Here is the text of the CFC notice:
California Film Commission Permit Policy on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
After a thorough investigation researching Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policies and advisories regarding the commercial use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) the CFC will no longer issue any film or still photography permits that intend to use such UAS as part of the filming equipment. Any remote controlled airborne devices either carrying photographic equipment of any kind used for commercial purposes or flying to be photographed for still or film commercial purposes is not yet regulated and therefore not authorized by the FAA.
After a thorough investigation researching Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policies and advisories regarding the commercial use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) the CFC will no longer issue any film or still photography permits that intend to use such UAS as part of the filming equipment. Any remote controlled airborne devices either carrying photographic equipment of any kind used for commercial purposes or flying to be photographed for still or film commercial purposes is not yet regulated and therefore not authorized by the FAA.
