Appowner

I have this question in to the FAA but no response as yet. Basically, if one is sponsored and flies in a contest, does that pilot need to be part 107 certified? After all, isn't the sponsorship a form of compensation?

But here's a twist I got from another forum. If the contest has sponsors, local hobby shop donates prizes, gate receipts or any other form of compensation. The event itself now becomes commercial and EVERYONE flying is now required to be part 107 certified. Ow! Could pose problems should the FAA pay a visit.

And if that's the case, shouldn't the club/AMA start policing these things to avoid problems?

Not my words. I got that from another forum. But it's an interesting twist. Don't you think?

No grade school responses please!

ira d

IMO until the FAA spells out specific requirements in writing I would not worry about it.

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

NO. Those are FAA rules, not AMA rules.
Should the AMA check drivers' licenses of those that show up to the field to fly, too?

Astro

Appowner

There is that but what if the FAA believes they have already spelled out the requirements?

Appowner

I see your point but.....................imagine an AMA sanctioned event. Pattern contest (so Speedy can enter). Being sponsored by a club, collecting contestant fees, site camping fees and basic entrance fees. Also concession stands selling whatever that the club gets a small take from.

Trophies, cash, a kit and a radio are up for prizes. Half the entrants have sponsors ranging from their local hobby shop to Horizon, Spektrum, Futaba, and a few others.

AMA happily watches from the side line.

FAA shows up for what ever reason (AMA suddenly vanishes for whatever reason). And after watching the contest and getting a lay of the land so to speak. They ask for whomever is in charge. CD is presented and the FAA asks if ALL the pilots are part 107 certified. Ah? Well? I'll have to check!

YOU MEAN YOU DON'T KNOW? As it hits the fan!

To start with, the CD could very well be held responsible for the lack of 107 certs. Certainly for not knowing who has them prior to flying. And it could go downhill from there.

The thing is I'm trying to point out what could happen. There have been a few occasions where I was that government A...Hole. Just in a different venue. Hows a TS government computer network with a connection to the internet grab you? I raised hell and to my knowledge they still haven't fixed it.

You never know what mood that guy from DC is in!!!

Appowner

Since you obviously don't know the difference between a sanctioned event and a club flying site, I'd say you have no idea what you're talking about. Don't be stupid! At least, not any more than normal.

And the difference between profit and non profit in this matter is negligible. The fact remains, pilots were sponsored. The event was sponsored. That's called compensation which make the whole affair COMMERCIAL. i.e.part 107

Better start studying Speedy! And for Propworn, there's an additional step he'll need to take before his next venture.

You guys really should check out the drone crowd. They have their act together. Traditional RC to include the AMA is in the 60's. As in 1960's. The drone crowd is on top of things. You guys might want to get to know them.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

As you and I both know, when it comes to our Government, anything is POSSIBLE!
I don't really see that happening though. I can see the FAA prosecuting, fining, whatever, the individuals, but there just isn't any precedence for the AMA (or any other similar organization) to be policing FAA rules, laws.
Another instance: a church outreach program for homeless/addicted folks. Cops stop by (for whatever reason) and find illicit drugs on a few people. I don't think they are going to prosecute/punish the church.

Depending on how this all shakes out (IF the AMA and its members are granted exemptions, IF the AMA is named an "official" CBO, etc., etc.), I can see the AMA adding some rules for its members to include being in compliance with ALL FAA and federal drone laws. In fact, I can see that happening no matter what, once the FAA irons everything out.

Astro

Astro

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Hydro Junkie

Why?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Appowner

I think the AMA should possibly police such things as the part 107 cert at contests and such simply to avoid potential problems. Easier to say, "Hey! We tried!" than to say "Opps! Sorry!" Being proactive has IMHO been far better than offering an apology. Especially when dealing with the federal government.

Appowner

You think I'll pick myself up off the ground? You're welcome to come and try! Of course,hiding out in CA and WA, you'll no doubt offer excuses. You can even bring Propworn as a second. Provided they let him cross the border. After I sent the pics he posted of his rig to my friends in Homeland. Life can be a *****!

On second thought, you think a threat like that does any good? Maybe you should try to change my mind rather that offer baseless threats. After all, your threat was a shadow of a real threat. You have no intention of trying to knock me down. I suspect because you can't. Of course, my AR might have something to say about it. Should you be foolish,....... no make that stupid enough to try.

Appowner

Why not? He's an F.I. What more do you need?

Appowner

Well, I can see it happening at least once. And maybe the govy responsible will be way out of line. But the bottom line is it will happen. And it will be recorded. And there will be record of it at the federal level for all to see. Right or wrong, it will be there. And it will influence the opinions of the LAW MAKERS (hint, Congress).




Go* Dam* friggin drones. We need to abolish them! Harumph! Harumph!

Appowner

The really funny thing is, I'm just offering up possibilities for consideration/discussion. And the real idiots are treating them as potential hard core facts.

F.I . Think about it.

ira d

As others have said you can never say for sure what will or won't happen when dealing with gov, but I think we all know nothing has been specifically spelled out because if it had
we would not be having this discussion. IMO a person flying for recreation and whining a prize is not the same situation as everyone at a event being paid to fly as part of their
employment or business.

Hydro Junkie

I can see you don't know me at all then. Several years ago, I was at a club meeting where the (at the time) president called my ethics, professionalism and character into question IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE CLUB!!!!!!
Did I want to rip the guys' head off and feed it to the local wildlife? HELL YES!!!!!!!
Did I want to beat him and his wife into bloody pulp? HELL YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did I do either one? HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!
Now the question, once again, is why?
Because his attack was baseless, self serving and didn't do anything to me, other than just tick me off. It just wasn't worth going to jail over and, since then, he's done nothing but ruin his own reputation further by almost destroying another club

Appowner

I agree to a point. I don't think the FAA is out to ground us. But at the same time, we need to at least show an attempt to adhere to whatever the FAA believes are the rules of the day. Blatant divergence from that may result in strict FAA oversight. Now if that is what you want???

Of course there are those who will disagree regardless what is said.

Appowner

I myself am not concerned. I have my own 160 or so acres I am developing into an RC field. AMA not allowed! I am coordinating with the local airport, 2.5 miles away. They are happy with my plan. For now we're limited to 400 feet (damn, we're in class 'G' of all things!) But the possibility of going higher is open for discussion.

The problem is the glider club. Top 10 areas in the U.S. They like to go a mile or so north of us, the airport is south, for their release from the tow. Working on a compromise.'

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Hydro Junkie

I have to agree with you in this case, you only see what the person on the other end wants you to see. While this isn't all bad, it does tend to give others the wrong impression. I think this applies to the the other person you are referring to in that the two of you have differing opinions. At the same time, we also have differing opinions on some topics. It's unfortunate that typing into a window doesn't always give the true meaning about what is being said. I guess that's life in the internet age
BTW, I'm not a beer or coffee drinker. Most other things are fair game

scottrc

May I interject here.......
In regards to who's responsible for being 107, it's not the AMA, the CD, the Club, or anyone BUT the pilot who is in control the of aircraft. The FAA will only be involved if THAT pilot is flying for compensation in the event and will deal directly with that pilot.
So if I go and fly at a event that I paid to be in, and although the sponsors are making money at it, as long as I'm flying for recreation, then there is no problem. Now if I get called and asked to fly at the event, and get paid, and what I do this for a living is travel the country demonstrating flying and models, well, that is where the FAA really needs to clarify their stance better, for as of now, it looks like the pilot would need Part 107.

fliers1

So if the owner of a company or his employee that manufactures or distributes aeromodeling products does the demo to help sell his products, will he be labeled as a compensated demonstrator?

scottrc

Your scenario could be a gray area. If I own a hobby store, and I fly a plane at the field or in the contest, I could claim I am doing it for pleasure, but some bureaucrat could challenge me in that I am influencing my business, therefore am flying for a commercial endeavor.

If I am an employee, and asked to fly by the boss and am on the clock or being compensated, then I would be flying commercially under 107. But then again, I could claim I'm on my lunch break and flying for fun.

Typical government policy of testing how honest we should be in following a rule and practically forcing us to be dishonest.