I doubt you'll get a response to your question Decay, but might happen. But if your in question of whether or not the AMA does cover you anywhere, look not further then the 3rd paragraph of this document. As you'll see the AMA will even cover you at airshows, as long as you do not benefit from a monetary standpoint. The AMA isn't in business to help those who need to profit from their inexpensive insurance program.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/500-J.pdf

I will provide these pending any documentation that certifies when you stopped molesting children in your neighborhood. Get real for crying out loud!

I think we can all determine that STL is an idiot from his stupid responses. Maybe I should hire you to be my promoter. lol I'll give you a $1 to set one up.

I was flying a public demonstration at a county fair a few years back and had the misfortune of hitting some guys pick up fender after he parked it on the edge of the runway. Not an AMA field. I sent the information off to the AMA with some pictures and they sent me back a nice letter telling me to let them know how much of a balance was left after my homepowners kicked it. They stated they would pay any and all of that balance. It was worked out without insurance so no further action was required.

As far as the FAA and regulating paid model flight instructors I have to agree that they don't have an interest...at this time. Have something go seriously wrong with a filed lawsuit and see how quickly they get brought into the picture. Then they will have an interest.

bkdavy is dead on with his discription of upcoming regulations and his statement of "so far" is accurate. The so far part is bothersome. The new AMA president does indeed have some work in front of him, mostly in playing catch up. However, he won't have much impact on the outcome. There's too much money at stake.

The FAA has never regulated models in all these years and doubt they will start now.
As far as UAV's thats a horse of a different color being that they tend to be larger
and fly higher than most of our models and also fly from point A to B but our models
generally fly in a big circle in full veiw of the pilot.

Pat-
were you flying at that Fair for any compensation?

One of the proposals on the table has restrictions of not more than 35 lbs. and no higher than 1200 feet, and must be operated line of sight. The definitions of UAVs so far proposed do not exempt models used for hobby purposes. A UAV is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Like it or not, our models will probably meet the definition unless the AMA can get specific exemptions included that would limit FAA regulations to commercial purposes. And thats going to take a lot of people and a lot of effort during the regulation review and approval process.

And you still won't be able to get paid to fly unless you meet the stricter FAA requirements.

Brad

I dont know what will happen in the future but right now the FAA does
not regulate models commerical or otherwise. But as for being paid
according to AMA policy you can as long as you call it reimbursement.

At the present there is no such thing as a commerical pilot license
for model planes so I dont see how the FAA rules could apply to
models.

You're selling you theory to the wrong crowd Ira. This isn't a courtroom. The guidelines are very specific and easy for a judge and jury to understand.

If you think you can insure yourself by loopholing the situation, go for it. Just remember when someone hires you for a job and you say it's just for compensation, be prepared to prove your costs with receipts in the courtroom. Also be prepared for the person that hired you to become a witness for the plaintiff. Unless of course you think he'll be willing to lie under oath and sit on your bench.

Usually it takes a lawsuit to shed the light on how the system really works for most individuals. But trying to convince yourself you got the system beat is certainly one way of learning how it all works.

I think the OP was looking for a legitimate and bullet proof way to make the system work for him. Obviously he understood the AMA's coverage does not carry over to his part time work. But at least he knew what he was talking about, he just wanted more from the AMA.

One other thing from the FAA for those who think commercial ops falls under AC-91-57, which is what we fly as hobbyists and aeromodelers.

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert...notice_uas.pdf

End of page 5 top of page 6. If doesn't make it more what clear, sorry but there is no hope to convince you likewise Ira.

The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.

Brad-

From what I have seen released by FAA, ira is right. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) policy released by FAA a couple years ago does exempt model aircraft from regulation, and defines model aircraft by its operating envelope (ref. AC 91-57) and purpose (recreation/sport). Look for AFS-400 UAS POLICY 05-01 of 9/16/2005 on the FAA web site.
What table is the "restrictions of not more than 35 lbs. and no higher than 1200 feet" on? FAA controls airspace down to 500' AGL and wants model aircraft under 400' allowing for a 100' buffer zone. Also, they represent the US in ICAO, which defines model aircraft in part as weighing less than 25 kg (~55 lb). Why would they consider raising the ceiling into controlled airspace and imposing a weight limit other than what has been set by international agreement?

Abel

You're right Abel up until the point you do so for money.

6.17.3. Pilots flying UA on other than instrument flight plans must pass the required knowledge test for a private pilot certificate as stated in 14 CFR 61.10510, Aeronautical Knowledge, (or military equivalent) for all operations beyond visual line-of-sight and for all operations conducted for compensation or hire regardless of visual proximity.

I'm wondering if the AMA is aware of this rule? This could very well be in conflct of the rule for training for compensation unless the AMA worked something out directly with the FAA.

I keep seeing these figures all around the forums, but I still think the height limit of 400 feet is just within the 3 mile limit of an airport.

If what you are saying is true, then the ama is wrong in their document #535-F page 2

http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/535-F.pdf

Somebody has to be wrong here, an I don't imagine it is probably the ama.


Ronnie

That's why I was conscious of including purpose of recreation/sport in citing the FAA policy restrictions. In fact FAA has cracked down on commercial use of model aircraft, most notably the heli AP enthusiasts that sell their photos to RE agents and such. They have been grounded by current FAA policy, though FAA has said they are considering changes to accommodate them and similar activities under a new class of UA with less stringent a/c and pilot certification standards than the general requirements in the initial UAS policy release.

IANAL, but it seems to me that some commercial activities of an incidental nature are allowed by AMA. Example would be demonstration flights by model manufacturers, employees, and sponsored personalities, which I understand does not exclude them from coverage under the AMA insurance. OP's situation seems similar - I doubt that he contemplates flying at air shows for earning a significant part of his income.

Anybody know if the AMA sanctioned Air Show Teams are allowed to be compensated in any way?

Abel

They are allowed if the fee is based on contest winnings. I have a couple aerobatic pilot friends that are not commercial but have taken home winnings for competition flight.

There is always a "soft money" way of getting paid. It's just based on how it's documented. Documents hold up in court better then witnesses or guesses.

Have a look at PDF Doc 540-C. This is FAA's version of AC 91-57, verbatim. Notice that there is a period ending the sentence 3.c "Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface."

Somebody is wrong (comparing that to what is stated in the AMA Safety Code), but I don't imagine it is the maker of the policy that was copied almost verbatim.

Abel

STL
I went to FAA link and didnt find the statment as you have it worded.
Im done with this thread and will just say the FAA does not regulate
my models if they have been regulating yours then great.

I will also say if someone was to ask me fly at an airshow im not going
to call the FAA and ask if its ok either, and any money I received would
be done in such a way that it would not cause any problems for anyone
that was involved.

Abel, an advisory circular does not create law, it is only an opinion that has been circulated. If it was law, I believe it would be listed as a regulation or statue (sp?)

From Blacks Law dictionary



Advisory Opinion Law & Legal Definition

An advisory opinion is a formal opinion rendered by a judge, court, or law officer in response to a request for guidance from a legislative body, government official, or other party. It differs from a decision handed down in an adversarial proceeding in that is carries no binding effect under the law. An advisory opinion is given as a matter of courtesy, often by a state attorney general at the request of government officials. A private citizen cannot get an advisory ruling from a court and can only get rulings in an actual lawsuit. Advisory opinions may be cited as the correct interpretation of a law which is subject to ambiguous or untested application in a given situation.




I'm not trying to argue, just trying to get at the actual truth of this matter


Ronnie

Bottom of page 8 top of page 9.

http://www.eoss.org/faa/AFS_400_UAS_POLICY_05_01.pdf

Also this is not an advisory circular, this is FAA interim policy.

I don't believe Policy is law any more than an AC either.


Besides, on page 6 of this document you referenced, explain paragraph 6.13. It seems that model aircraft are not included in this.


Ronnie



Edit I guess you was hoping nobody would read the rest of this info.

Ronnie-

I didn't take your post to be argumentative, just seeking the bottom line. AMA could help clear this up, just by correcting a transcription error that's been hanging around for more than a quarter of a century.

An AC in FAA's realm is pretty much in line with what you cited from the legal arena. When AC 91-57 stood alone as 'the word' from FAA, compliance was clearly voluntary. The potential consequences of non-complying voluntarily are hinted at in the text of that document: FAA might find a reason to regulate model aircraft if people don't voluntarily comply.

In a sense one could argue that compliance with AC 91-57 is still voluntary, but the way it is invoked in UAS_Policy_05_01 means that there are different consequences for non-compliance. The definition of model aircraft in the UAS Policy includes operation in conformance with the AC. IOW, if you aren't conforming to the restrictions in the AC, you are operating a UA that is not a model aircraft as they defined it, and so are not exempted from the general regulations of UA delineated in the UAS Policy.

As for whether FAA policy has the power of Fed law behind it, I'm not going there except to suggest that you not come to a final conclusion before doing further research. FWIW, I won't be operating an uncertificated UA in the National Airspace. At least I will endeavor not to get caught at it........

Abel

Thanks for the link STL but you must realize that in order for one part of that policy
to apply to models all of it would have to. That would mean that all model plane
operators would have to follow all of the rules listed and we both know that is
not the case. As far as im concered that policy is for uav aircraft and not what
is condidered model air craft.

Let me sum it up I have been flying models for some 14 years and have yet to be
contacted by the FAA have yet to see any FAA inspectors at any flying fields or
at any fly in's or airshows as far as the models were concerned.

That tells me plane and simple the FAA does not regulate models as far day to day
operations are concerned, as long as a model does not conflict with a full scale
aircraft you dont have to worry about the FAA.

Ira I might agree with you if the FAA didn't post this information directly. They not only posted the info in the policy document they even went so far as to clarify it for us and some still don't believe it.

------

The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.

Your are right they did make it clear, to me in that statment they are talking about
UAS otherwise known as UAV's not us in the model community in any case we can argue
this till next year my advice to all who read this is if you want to be regulated
by the FAA then contact them and set it up. As for me im not going to worry about
the FAA.

Sounds like a plan to me!