I'm not a big fan of the current AMA president, but it sounds like he's working the right angles on these issues...

http://www.modelaircraft.org/insider/05_9/pres.html

Bob

Thanks Bob. [8D]

For anyone concerned about statements I may have made. These are simply questions that have been raised not regulations in proposal.

Fly safe

Bryce

Thank you Bob
Semper fi
Joe

Sounds like we may get use of these runways again. [sm=cool.gif] I am glad Dave is doing something about it. -Patrick

Very interesting letter. Should make a lot of people finally stop biting the hand that feeds us. I've know Dave for years. Flew pattern with and against him. I couldn't ask for a better person and friend.

The General

But you do see my point about how they got misinterpreted? That stuff gets out of hand FAST.

I think Dave Brown is great. Not perfect...nobody is...but a great guy. And he knows politics. We NEED a politician to keep the EC working...people talk about the "old boy network in Muncie"...you have to LAUGH at that, because a lot of the EC guys...they HATE each other! You need a leader to keep them working together. Dave does not really DECIDE diddly. He can only influence, to a limited degree, the EC's votes. People blame him for everything.
But...whether or not you like him or not...we NEED him.
I read his column linked at the top...it's great, just great.


You guys still think the sky is falling?

I think things will work themsleves out, and when all of this is said and done we will be better for it. I think the problem is that DB catches hell for the inadequacies of the system. It is inherent in every system, but alas the "captain" of the ship is always going to be blamed. He is certainly a stronger president for it, and appears to gain more respect from me each term he serves. His is a tough job and one I would not necessarily want, and right now his actions may be very instrumental in getting us out of the quantry we are in and determining where this hobby goes in the future.
Tommy

As I suspected, the FAA is leaning toward stated purpose and not on-board equipment/capabilities in their segregation of UAs and model airplanes:

\
If they were willing to accept commercial versus non-commercial as the dividing line(which was what YOU supported in that other thread) then I would be as happy as a little girl. Remains to be seen.

Dan,

That's exactly how the AMA views it - any model used for a commercial purpose is no longer an AMA sanctioned model, and the FAA's view is that if its not covered under the AMA, its regulated by them. As I've said before, technically, any commercial model operation needs a CoA. I'd bet that the FAA is taking their que from the AMA on this one...

Bob

And I agree with both the AMA and FAA on this. Very logical and reasonable interpretation of our situation.

That's exactly how the AMA views it - any model used for a commercial purpose is no longer an AMA sanctioned model, and the FAA's view is that if its not covered under the AMA, its regulated by them.


Does this mean no more flight demos by manufactures or their reps at AMA sanctioned events ? Think about it, and tell me these demos do not constitute a commercial purpose. Any manufacturer promoting a new aircraft would inherently fall under the heading " commercial purpose" just by the fact that they are promoting a product that would be sold for financial gain.

Look's too me like the term (Commercial Purpose) could cover a broad spectrum when you get right down to the bottom line. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the phrase "Commercial Purpose", but in my understanding of the terminology....this is the way I see it.

So, if an RC kit manufacturer demos his plane at a meet, is it going to be a UAV?[:-]

WOW posted at almost exactly the same time[X(]

Same goes for anyone charging for RC flight instruction

I may be wrong, but I believe that AMA insurance does not cover manufacturers when they fly their aircraft at AMA events (for example someone like BV) although I do believe that it would cover the site owner at a sanctioned field or event.

That having been said, I don't think that a manufacturer flying a model at an RC event is an example that makes sense. Whether or not that individual is covered under AMA insurance, the activity is clearly AMA, recreational (that is the key word) model airplane related and the FAA appears as of right now, to be willing to let the AMA regulate that activity.

A much better example is the aerial photography industry. That activity is clearly NOT recreational, NOT covered by the AMA, and thus is subject to the FAA regulation process. The information I have gotten is that those activities, to be perfectly legal right now, should have a CoA. However, I don't think the FAA is ready to process that many CoA applications right now, nor is the application process in its final form (it seems to be changing from year-to-year and who you talk to in the FAA), so that seems to be a "gray area" at this time. Note that this is true even though most aerial photography vehicles do not have autonomous flight capability. They are clearly commercial though and thus are UAS's according to the FAA.

The paid RC flight instruction is a different issue. I do not believe that paid flight instruction would be covered by AMA insurance, either for the instructor or site owner, so it might be considered a "commercial activity" and thus fall under FAA regulation. An interesting question... I'm sure I could tell you what the FAA's answer would be if it was a company like BAI or Lockheed teaching its pilots to fly even an RC trainer on the way to being UAS pilots, but I'm not sure what their answer would be if it was a small company offering true RC pilots paid flight instruction for THEIR recreational flying.

Bob

There are always going to be SOME loopholes and some people trying to sneak through them, that's how rules and laws work...eventually, almost all loopholes get ruled upon...and then you have a rule book sixty-two pages thick.
I doubt if the FAA could give a whoop about someone demoing models at an AMA sanctioned event. Why would they care?