You know it's funny that there is a Sheriff in LA that shared your insight on how the FAA deals with what someone might think a small RC MODEL is a UAV or not. Obviously this Sheriff was a tad shocked to find out that because he was a sheriff and providing a public service that he could fly his 2lb aircraft less then 400 ft agl remotely. Well he didn't know UAS policy either, but was bright enough to show the world his new toy on the news, not knowing an FAA representative maybe watching.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/26...-la-sheri.html

So the FAA doesn't regulate small models? You've got to be kidding me. The UAS policy's are in place now and soon they will be part of the FAR, officially. The FAA has been doing quite a bit to set the standards for regulating RC aircraft, which includes any commercial ops of RC aircraft.

I seriously think you need to hop into the UAV forums and have the light shined on yourself. Also flying commercially or compensation is flying outside of walls of AC 91-57, the FAA specifically states this policy. This is the point of the discussion.

Oh you and I both know the difference between what's on the books, getting caught and not getting caught. Last nite I went to the market, I did 70 in a 55. I didn't get caught, but I know what would happen and would accept what would happen if I did get caught.

One other thing, if you want to be an RCU mod, apply for the job. I hear there is a waiting list, even thought they get $0. They like to flex their muscles too every now and again.

About half the pilots that fly in the Tuscon Aerobatic Shootout. Also you might want to talk to Bill Hempel, he flys for the movie studios.

Funny not one person has come here and said anything about the FAA
regulating their models I will belive it when I see it. Anyway to much
of my time is being wasted in this thread it has become just so much
fruitless banter. As it stands now STL's planes are regulated by the
FAA and he likes it that way, but for the rest of us that the FAA is not
bothering I say lets enjoy it.

As usual, you revved up your keyboard before reading and comprehending what I wrote, or you are purposely twisting what I said to keep another diversion from the thread topic going.

Would AMA void a member's liability insurance coverage if member accepted compensation for air show performances on a casual basis? I am quite convinced that FAA would take no action against the pilot, whether or not pilot is technically in violation of an FAA regulation, so leave FAA out of it. What would AMA do?

Abel

Go into the new UAV forums, happy reading.


Void? No, they just won't pay for damages if something happens. Unless you're trying to put me in some kind of spin with your question??

Abel their policy is clearly written, you're asking me a question you already know.

I'm saving this post, commemorating the occasion when Dion gave a straight answer that is on topic!

Now then, the following two sentences appear one after the other in AMA PDF Doc 500-H:

"1. As a benefit of membership, AMA’s insurance protection will extend to those members
who provide flight instruction for a fee on a casual basis.
2. This coverage does not extend to any commercial operation or business pursuit."

Apparently AMA knows the difference between being paid for a service on a casual basis and a commercial operation or business pursuit. What leads you believe they would not make that same distinction when the service provided is performing in an air show? Can you cite a policy statement from AMA, or recount any precedent?

Abel

Sorry, Able, I was not meaning that the show teams were not relevent. I just played EC and ran off on a tangent. Now the subject is a thread in the forum as you know because you've been there.

While this thread was concerning AMA insurance while getting paid for services, it has become a topic of FAA authority. I side with ira d on this subject. Since I have a background dealing with FAA I feel qualified to have an opinion. [>:]

It is very easy to get caught up in the differences betwee LAW and administrative regulations. FAA can certainly get confused there, themselves. For example, the age 60 retirement for FAR 121 Airline Pilots was LAW as passed by the Congress of the United States. Now that has been raised to 65, by congress and signed by the president. FAA monitors that.
OTOH many of the regulations concerning airspace, pilots, and all the stuff thereof are simply regulations. FAA has congressional authority to revoke one's license within the discipline in which one may be violating some regulation. Other than that, FAA administrative regulations are of little concern to any other person/s.
Even in the users of various aviation licenses, pilots, dispatchers, etc., the FAA has little authority in criminal actions. While the US Surpreme Court has judged that an airline pilot can be charged with criminal action should he be suspected of doing something wrong that hurts person or property, other than revoking a license for one year for failure of a drug test, I know of only one criminal action taken against FAA licensed personel, but I would reason there are others.
That criminal action was against the Captain and myself -- when I was still a co-pilot -- which resulted in a quick "Not Guilty" and the FAA then tried to get the case into Federal District Court where it was thrown out and not allowed on the document. [8D] It was only "Regulations" that were in question, not LAW, and even the FAA could not figure that out.

So if I violate an FAA regulation with my toy airplane, what are they going to do? Take my "license" away from me?
Besides FAA has too much golf to play to get bothered with toy airplanes.

Now if you're close to a golf course and an errant golf ball hits you on the noggin', well it just may be an FAA Flight Examiner trying to get you.

Is your subject being compensated more then his/her expenses?

Edit to add: Nevermind, don't answer that. I'll just go off the subject of the first post to keep things in a perfect straight line as you've been moderating.

NO. The AMA will not cover the OP even if he does it 1 time.

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

7th bullet item down. That's the other place the AMA had to put it just in case you didn't understand it the first time. They made it a little bit more clear on this document instead. Next you can sift through their insurance premium and policy if you feel advantageous.

And come Feb 13, 2008 the FAA has informed us that they will make it even more clear for you, the OP, Ira and Hoss so you'll all understand their stance as well. This way the FAA won't have to slap every Sherrif's department in the USA for thinking they own 1" above ground level in their own counties. The FAA is WELL aware of the fact that people have been flying on AC 91-57 not knowing they were well beyond the limits for quite sometime. If the OP ever had done one of his for profit airshows, he was one of them.

It's funny you say that Hoss, because a Sheriff of his own county in LA thought he was untouchable too. Of course the FAA isn't going to hunt you down and look for someone flying their aircraft beyond AC 91-75, but if start boasting about your activity to media, they will come knocking. The comments the Sheriff made in LA are exactly what you are claiming ... what will the FAA do? Well he found out the hard way. Read his comments ... they are classic.

Hoss-
As much as I am not a fan of playing the semantics card,
folks have put forth that the FAA doesnt REGULATE model aircraft activity, they didnt use the term POLICE for what the FAA does. So in regards to your post showing the lack of legal recourse when in viloation of their regulations, they do Regulate, they just dont have teeth in the regs against clowns with toy planes.

The FAA does control what we can do with our toys.
They have clearly spelled out things we cannot do with them
(whether it is a Model rule about 400' or general ClassA rule about anything at all being high),
have issued Waivers to some SoCal boys & their toys,
and have gone so far as to revoke said waivers for 9-11 (& reinstated them later).


Paid?
Sometimes I did construction/electrical work with some pals for friends/neighbors, and take cash under the table.
Sometimes it was a grand or two, which was over the $500 contractor license dealybob.
I surely didnt report that income from the 2 or 3 under the table jobs I did a year.
Just because I broke laws occasionally,
and on those occasions I broke laws without getting caught,
doesnt mean it aint illegal.

I don't think he said one way or the other. In fact from what he said, it doesn't appear that he has yet accepted any compensation at all. He is trying to gather information re potential adverse consequences before he does it. Seems very sensible to me.

You're on a roll here, Dion. More info that is on-topic and relevant. I'll post the info from that link, as I think it presents facts very pertinent this discussion:

"The policy does NOT cover business pursuits; that is any activity that generates income for a member beyond reimbursement of expenses, except this business pursuit exclusion does not apply to individual members providing modeling instructions for pay to AMA members."

So, OP can be compensated for expenses w/o risk of losing his liability protection afforded by AMA insurance. I suspect that is a large part of the answer he was looking for. If he keeps a proper log of his expenses, there should be no problem with accepting reimbursement up to that amount.

It took 150 posts to get OP some useful, though partial, answer to his query. It may be sufficient for him, but if he is intent on collecting fees for his performance over and above expenses, we ought to let him tell us that before it goes on for another 150 posts.

Abel

Is it possible for you to just shut the **** up for awhile????? I'd be willing to bet that a lot of others on here besides me are about sick of your B.S. an know it all bragging.
As far as I'm concerned, you are an absolute waste of perfectly good oxygen.

Why don't you go back over to the (lets see your club) thread an brag some more about flying your profile plane in the schools playground.
I'm sure that you are so good that you wouldn't hit anything or anybody on school property now, would ya? I bet we could probably twist some reg or law around to make it illegal for you to do that too. You said the principal ok'ed it, but did the school board or city or state ok it? I bet you didn't bother asking any of those others.


MODS--If ya wanna take this down fine, but ya know I'm right.......


Ronnie

I think we did tell him that Abel, many times over.

But his major concern was this:

So the AMA will not cover him, even up to expenses.

Rafael23cc et al said they were doing it, but the cite from the AMA PDF was the first thing I saw that was a clear and authoritative statement of AMA's position on the issue.
How does what you quoted him as saying change anything?

Abel

Removed by Hoss Fly. Contained social comments.

Not trying to start a war or anthing but I ran across some info that confirms that I
war right along about the FAA and models. http://aplanding.com/smf/index.php/topic,128.0.html

Did you read all 6 pages of the thread? Did you also goto RCAPA website and browse through their forums? Read some of the threads there, you'll quickly realize that all "for hire" RC heli-photography has been grounded by the FAA, along with any commercial ops of RC aircraft.

http://www.rcapa.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1282

Same offer still applies Ira.

The link you posted just says what we already know and is talking
about aircraft operated as UAV's although from what I gather the
rules may not even be enforced yet.

Anyway to going to discuss this farther is pointless I just wanted to
post the link so everyone could see for themselfs and also I have
already checked with the FAA concearning models and they also
confirmed they dont regulate them.

Ira,
I didnt go thru the entire thread on that other board, but the lawyer opinion letter is just that, a lawyers opinion. Some lawyers have some crazy opinions, resulting in suits for millions of dollars for spilled coffe. I would love to see the FAA response to his opinion, did he ever get a FAA ThumbsUp, or is it just another ambulance chaser putting some wacky spin on an unclear legal text.

However, I did see that lawyer clearly spell out that he didnt see any comercial limits in flying models under AC91-57, as well as clearly say the FAA does control flying models- such control like giving them just a little area and restrictions on the types of control.

I was not happy with that lawyers interpretation of the G & E airspace, as well as his application of implied D, as to the effect on AC91-57 400'. Just because class G (Go for it) is under class E (Everywhere) doesnt mean you can do anything you want, say with a 260lb ultralight because it is in G. Even in G the part103 weight caps still count, unregulated is not really so, it is not Lawless


Anyhoo,
in respect to the OP, he should get insurance & do it legit
rather than under the table

Kid

The main thing is that you read it for yourself and of course are
free to interpret the facts as you may like. That being said im
sure if the FAA desides to regulate models we who are AMA
members will be some of the first to know. As for me untill
im contacted by the FAA im not going to worry about it.

Like you said,
no need to start a war over it,
but it does make an interesting read for folks into this topic.

WOW, a lot of nonsense talk from a question about Getting Paid to fly at an airshow.

I think they are worried about commercial use of airspace. IMO I think the FAA is winding up for this in the wrong direction. There should not be the same concern about commercial use as there should be about interstate transportation for hire.