Does "purpose" determine the required regulations?
06-05-2011 | 12:28 PM
#77
Banned
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CT
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
Well, first it wasn't "Hollywood", it was the California Film Commission....
...I fail to see why people apparently are incapable of understanding that difference.
Well, first it wasn't "Hollywood", it was the California Film Commission....
...I fail to see why people apparently are incapable of understanding that difference.
Last comment is the nittygritty. Many here, including yourself can't understand the difference. I can't either, that is why I am siding with the only legal advice Ican find on it.
06-05-2011 | 12:50 PM
#78
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Apopka,
FL
RE: Does
So if a private pilot who owned a Cessna aircraft received a free Cessna shirt, he now would have to have a commercial rating to fly his Cessna?
Got to agree with Bill M n this ........ a free shirt means nothing to the FAA.
Brad
Got to agree with Bill M n this ........ a free shirt means nothing to the FAA.
Brad
06-05-2011 | 12:50 PM
#79
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: USA
RE: Does
Interesting exchanges.
Fortunately I am a non-contributor this time. Simply posting an 'aside' .
If you have ever had business/Corporate dealings examined in a court of law you quickly find out that
the "law" is whatever the judge says that it is. Likewise for definitions .
I have the distinct feeling that the FAA will provide all the definition required and that the "comment period"
will prove of little use to the modeler.
IOW it is going to be as they say it is.
BUT, .......... we shall see .
I seriously doubt that "commercial use" is going to begin to cover what we consider normal model flying activities
including Demo flights, sponsorship etc.
Bill Hempel's flying in "The Aviator" clearly was commercial .
Quique's noon Demo was not .
However, Government agencies are well known for being tone deaf so take your pick of positions and lets see what is posted by the FAA.
Because THAT is when the toes will be pressed by the 800lb gorilla .
Fortunately I am a non-contributor this time. Simply posting an 'aside' .
If you have ever had business/Corporate dealings examined in a court of law you quickly find out that
the "law" is whatever the judge says that it is. Likewise for definitions .
I have the distinct feeling that the FAA will provide all the definition required and that the "comment period"
will prove of little use to the modeler.
IOW it is going to be as they say it is.
BUT, .......... we shall see .
I seriously doubt that "commercial use" is going to begin to cover what we consider normal model flying activities
including Demo flights, sponsorship etc.
Bill Hempel's flying in "The Aviator" clearly was commercial .
Quique's noon Demo was not .
However, Government agencies are well known for being tone deaf so take your pick of positions and lets see what is posted by the FAA.
Because THAT is when the toes will be pressed by the 800lb gorilla .
06-05-2011 | 01:40 PM
#80
Banned
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CT
RE: Does
I didn't think the first post about "demo flights by manufactures/distributors", "airframe being flown by a sponsored team pilot" or "Paid flight instruction" had anything to do with logo emblazoned T-shirts.
What the poster asked about certainly does fall under what the FAA has ruled on already regarding "commercial operations".</p>
06-05-2011 | 02:00 PM
#81
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: San Antonio,
TX
RE: Does
Bill Hempel's flying in "The Aviator" clearly was commercial .
Quique's noon Demo was not .
Quique's noon Demo was not .
Thats right, when Billy shouted about Oxyclean it wasnt a business activity, it was just recreation/hobby.
oh wait
he want doing that just as recreation, he was doing it cause he was TRYING TO SELL THE STUFF.
speaking of folks demoing stuff they are trying to sell,
Silent, are you going to agree that shillilng Oxyclean at 200db was recreation and not business?
All the guys are doing is demoing product he is trying to increase sales of (Quique & Billy).
One is a business activity,
and the other is a business activity too[8D]
06-05-2011 | 02:58 PM
#82
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Apopka,
FL
RE: Does
So let's` see per Kidepoxy:
quote:
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
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
Free Cessna shirt......... problem or no problem?
Free Futaba shirt.......... problem or no problem?
Brad
06-05-2011 | 03:09 PM
#83
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Anytown
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: bradpaul
So let's` see per Kidepoxy:
Free Cessna shirt......... problem or no problem?
Free Futaba shirt.......... problem or no problem?
Brad
So let's` see per Kidepoxy:
quote:
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
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
Free Cessna shirt......... problem or no problem?
Free Futaba shirt.......... problem or no problem?
Brad
Welcome back DBCISCO.
06-05-2011 | 03:47 PM
#86
Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , MD
RE: Does
Complaint driven.
do you drive 55 in a 55?
As a gray area,"before the ruling" no action will take place without a complaint. if or after "Ruling" If a violation takes place and a complaint is noted,the authorities must take action . also complaint or incident driven.
The gray area is now over.
Profit will be "prove you are not doing it for profit" if a Violation complaint is registered with the authorities.
Just my point of view.
do you drive 55 in a 55?
As a gray area,"before the ruling" no action will take place without a complaint. if or after "Ruling" If a violation takes place and a complaint is noted,the authorities must take action . also complaint or incident driven.
The gray area is now over.
Profit will be "prove you are not doing it for profit" if a Violation complaint is registered with the authorities.
Just my point of view.
06-05-2011 | 03:53 PM
#87
Banned
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CT
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: ctrout
... Profit will be "prove you are not doing it for profit" if a Violation complaint is registered with the authorities.
... Profit will be "prove you are not doing it for profit" if a Violation complaint is registered with the authorities.
"It is not necessary that the operation be conducted for profit or even that there be any intent or ability to make a profit"
06-05-2011 | 04:04 PM
#89
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: JennyJN4
So you think the FAA, NTSB and Federal Courts will move from their ''consistently defined commercial operation'' in the case of sUAS?
So you think the FAA, NTSB and Federal Courts will move from their ''consistently defined commercial operation'' in the case of sUAS?
I am not sure how you get that from what I have been saying. But given that I have actually looked at the cases that have been cited as setting the precedent and apparently no one else has, I will maintain that the FAA is not going to view "Team" (non-paid, non-employee) or the actual employees of companies like Horizon or Hobbico as being subject to the non-hobby portions of the sUAS rule.
06-05-2011 | 04:08 PM
#91
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
ahhh, so your theory is that Ilona at AMA just dont know what she is talking about
ahhh, so your theory is that Ilona at AMA just dont know what she is talking about
06-05-2011 | 04:37 PM
#92
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Apopka,
FL
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
ahhh, so your theory is that Ilona at AMA just dont know what she is talking about
ok, you are free to have any opinion you want,
thanx for sharing
ahhh, so your theory is that Ilona at AMA just dont know what she is talking about
ok, you are free to have any opinion you want,
thanx for sharing
Yes, I believe that while Ilona IS A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE on the AMA Insurance, I do not believe she in any way that she claims to be an expert on the FAA definition of "business purpose".
But hey Kid I fully expect you to continue to not understand the difference between AMA Insurance and FAA regulations.
Brad
06-05-2011 | 04:38 PM
#93
Banned
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CT
RE: Does
The FAA, NTSB and Federal Courts did not refer to "business purposes". They "consistently defined commercial operation ".
What part of "consistently" indicates only three cases ?
What part of "consistently" indicates only three cases ?
06-05-2011 | 04:41 PM
#94
Banned
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CT
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
I will maintain that the FAA is not going to view "Team" (non-paid, non-employee) or the actual employees of companies like Horizon or Hobbico as being subject to the non-hobby portions of the sUAS rule.
I will maintain that the FAA is not going to view "Team" (non-paid, non-employee) or the actual employees of companies like Horizon or Hobbico as being subject to the non-hobby portions of the sUAS rule.
06-05-2011 | 04:48 PM
#95
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Apopka,
FL
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: JennyJN4
The FAA, NTSB and Federal Courts did not refer to ''business purposes''. They ''consistently defined commercial operation ''.
What part of ''consistently'' indicates only three cases ?
The FAA, NTSB and Federal Courts did not refer to ''business purposes''. They ''consistently defined commercial operation ''.
What part of ''consistently'' indicates only three cases ?
WRONG...... WRONG.........WRONG
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../N7210.766.pdf
Quote:
7. Operations.
a. Types and Authority. Current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the NAS without specific authority.
(1) Public.
(a) FAA policy restricts COAs to public operations as defined in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1, Definitions & Abbreviations.
(b) For UAS operating as public aircraft, the authority is the COA.
(2) Civil.
(a) Civil applicants must apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate–Experimental Category.
(b) For UAS operating as civil aircraft, the authority is special airworthiness certificates.
(3) Hobbyist.
(a) Hobbyists should follow the guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57.
(b) For model aircraft, the authority is AC 91-57.
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.
7. Operations.
a. Types and Authority. Current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the NAS without specific authority.
(1) Public.
(a) FAA policy restricts COAs to public operations as defined in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 1, Definitions & Abbreviations.
(b) For UAS operating as public aircraft, the authority is the COA.
(2) Civil.
(a) Civil applicants must apply for a Special Airworthiness Certificate–Experimental Category.
(b) For UAS operating as civil aircraft, the authority is special airworthiness certificates.
(3) Hobbyist.
(a) Hobbyists should follow the guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57.
(b) For model aircraft, the authority is AC 91-57.
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.
Brad
06-05-2011 | 04:48 PM
#96
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: JennyJN4
The FAA, NTSB and Federal Courts did not refer to ''business purposes''. They ''consistently defined commercial operation ''.
What part of ''consistently'' indicates only three cases ?
The FAA, NTSB and Federal Courts did not refer to ''business purposes''. They ''consistently defined commercial operation ''.
What part of ''consistently'' indicates only three cases ?
Look, I do not know what to tell you. But we are just chasing our tails here. I am willing to wager you whatever you might choose to wager that the FAA is not going to determine that people engaged in the design, marketing, sales, or distribution of hobby related aircraft and equipment are subject to the non-hobby sections of the coming SFAR Part 107. At this point we need to wait until the need of the year to see what the FAA actually publishes in their NPRM.
But my offer stands to KE. If the FAA does require hobby related people or their non-paid sponsored pilots to comply with the non-hobby portions of the SFAR I will pay for his AMA Life Membership. If it turns out that I am right then I expect him to donate that amount of money to the AMA or to buy his own Life Membership.
06-05-2011 | 05:08 PM
#97
Banned
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: , CT
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: bradpaul
WRONG...... WRONG.........WRONG
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../N7210.766.pdf
WRONG...... WRONG.........WRONG
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../N7210.766.pdf
No, I am not wrong. You just disagree with me and those lawyers. Iwould be happy to read any legal or Govt documents that provide a different definition by the FAA, NTSB, Federal Courts or lawyers.
06-05-2011 | 05:48 PM
#99
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R
If it turns out that I am right then I expect him to donate that amount of money to the AMA or to buy his own Life Membership.
If it turns out that I am right then I expect him to donate that amount of money to the AMA or to buy his own Life Membership.
06-05-2011 | 06:13 PM
#100
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Apopka,
FL
RE: Does
ORIGINAL: JennyJN4
Well, if you will concede that ''business purpose'' is the same as ''commercial operation'' it does not change the consistent definition as already stated.
No, I am not wrong. You just disagree with me and those lawyers. I would be happy to read any legal or Govt documents that provide a different definition by the FAA, NTSB, Federal Courts or lawyers.
ORIGINAL: bradpaul
WRONG...... WRONG.........WRONG
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../N7210.766.pdf
WRONG...... WRONG.........WRONG
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m.../N7210.766.pdf
No, I am not wrong. You just disagree with me and those lawyers. I would be happy to read any legal or Govt documents that provide a different definition by the FAA, NTSB, Federal Courts or lawyers.
RC-Ken would you please check the I.P. for JennyJN4 to see if it is the I.P. of a certain other ex user?
Brad
