FAA 2014-0396- interpretation of new rule for Model Aircraft

[AKfreak]

No. I'm just saying that Section 336 was intended to keep certain core elements of the hobby off limits from FAA regulations. FAA interpreted the section in a very extreme way and basically used the language in that paragraph to make a very narrow interpretation of the language legal, while effectively making everything else illegal. That was never the intent of the law. However, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that AMA and Congress could have done a better job crafting legislation that wasn't open for abusive interpretations. The "line of sight" requirement, in hindsight, is a pretty obvious bulls-eye just waiting to be aimed at.

Yep this is where the legal system gets real expensive to individuals. The FAA interpretation doesn't make it law, however when the FAA enforces it's interpretation it's up to the people facing charges to get good lawyers who can win against the wrong doing. It's all about money and control in the end, these interpretations get exspesive for those who play in the grey areas.

I think there needs to be regulation for the safety aspect, however I think as long as people are truly enjoying their toys as a hobby the FAA should just go away. When people try to make a living playing with toys, there in lies the problem for me. A professional hobbyist just doesn't sound right to me. If you want to be paid for pilot skills, become a pilot. If you want to win trophies, and get free stuff, compete and become sponsored.

There is a distinct line for me, there is a hobby, then there is a profession. With respect to operating model aircraft, it shouldn't be a profession. I do see the hobby as an industry when it comes to product development, marketing, and promotion. I just don't think it's right for people to receive compensation to fly aircraft in a commercial application without following regs exactly the same way others have to, who do it legally.

In your opinion is it right for people to get paid to fly aircraft illegally?

 

[njswede]

In your opinion is it right for people to get paid to fly aircraft illegally?

Nope. But the definition of "illegal" is too strict in this case, IMHO. Let's consider the following scenario: I do some 3D with my friends at my local field. That flight is perfectly legal. The marketing guy for the maker of that plane shows up and asks me if he can shoot some video of me flying. I fly the exact same routine again. The airplane vendor tells me he wants to use the footage in a marketing campaign and gives me a $100 gift card as a token of his gratitude. Now the second flight just became illegal. Makes sense? I don't think it does.

 

[njswede]

...furthermore, there's no way to make that flight legal. Let's say the vendor really wants that video and really wants to play by the book. Currently, there is no certification, no exception, no license, NOTHING a vendor can do to legally pay someone to demo a plane. That makes no sense to me. Let's say there was a way I could take some class, pass a test and get a certificate to do aerobatic routines for money. I wouldn't have an issue with that.

(Of course none of this would never happen. I fly like crap, so no vendor will ever want a video of me flying. But still... )

 

[AKfreak]

Actually when a person shoots video, they own the copyright. They are not paying you for it, they own it the moment its created. The use of it might be in question depending on many factors. If they want to compensate you for your time that is legal. It could be fee for consulting. You just happened to fly an airplane and he just happened to capture footage.



This forum uses many of my images, they are mine. Kim, Andrew, and the rest of the people's planes I captured have no rights to any of the images or footage. I can sell them to who I wish. If I bad used a camera on a aircraft I could not sell them legally. I could give them away, just not make money


Now if the vendor wants to make a contract and pay you to fly his aircraft, this is where you, not he, could run into trouble. If the sole purpose of the flight is for money it is illegal. You see the grey area. Flying a multirotor to capture footage of a piece of land for compensation is illegal.

Paying a commercal heli pilot to take you up and make imagey is not.

Sorry on a cell, sorry for typos and such. I just want to make a point. Being paid specificlly to fly a model aircraft is illegal. There are creative ways to do stuff, this is called a grey area or a loophole

 

[alawson999]

Can we persuade both regulators and legislators that they NEED responsible hobbyists who abide by AMA rules as the positive example for all the crazies who do dumb things? We are the community the that is the SOLUTION , not the problem. They need us to avoid being in the impossible enforcement position of saying NO with no constructive outlet

No matter what we think of these folks, they are not stupid...

 

[AKfreak]

Lets say as a vendor I want to pay you for your time to disuss my new prototype. This is legal. Then I invite you to an airfield and set up a camera, set up a plane, and handed you the radio. You have broken no laws.

Now I record your flight, and ask you for a model release to protect myself when I use that video for my bussines. I got what I want. The rc pilot got what he wanted for consulting. They actual flight was a rc pilot playing with a toy.

 

[njswede]

That's all fine and dandy until you have an accident. Then the court will look at what your intent was and will follow the money and you'll have a heck of a time explaining why you got a payment for "consulting" every time the vendor posted a video featuring you. The problem isn't what happens when everything is fine. It's about what can happen if things go really wrong.

 

[njswede]

And even if you may get off the hook in a criminal case, you're exposed to huge liabilities in a civil case. Your insurance company will probably refuse to help because they say you weren't following he rules. In my opinion, there has to be an exemption for minor jobs and a route to do it legally for those who do it on a larger scale.

 

[AKfreak]

I don't see how an exemption to fly model aircraft for compensation will every happen. It hasn't ever been legal, and I don't how the AMA has any chance of making that happen.

If it was me, I would only do demo flights at closed fields where risk is limited. I think the spirit hobby flying should remain just that a hobby. I don't think is ok to be paying kids money to fly unproven aircraft for compensation.

If companies want to give gifts to people and call them sponsored, that walks a fine line and each company will have walk. It's a choice, is the risk is worth it? The FAA seems they are getting to the point where they might be cracking down.

 

[3Daddict]

What i do not get is if you are not allowed to make money off rc planes than how will any company be able to sell them in the USA?