FAA propose new interpretation does not just effect FPV (and Funny Video on this)

[bitogre]

I understand that many here are primarily concerned with the impacts of the FAA's proposed new interpretation on FVP. However, I think it is important to point out that this will effect more than just FPV. The new interpretation make ALL commercial activities illegal. If you in some way are compensated for flying an RC aircraft (even by Line of Sight), you are in violation of the new interpretation. What does this now include?

• R&D - The process of test flying a RC aircraft that you intend to sell will no longer be legal in the US. So, if this goes into effect, no more new Flite Test plane designs.
• Instruction - When I got into the hobby, I paid some one to teach me how to fly an RC plane. I found this instruction very helpful as none of my friend flew at the time. This activity would become illegal.
• Reviews - Reviewing model aircraft for money would also be covered. Any reviewer would have to do so for free. This would significantly limit the quality of reviews as most people do not have the time to do well produced reviews for free.
• Demonstrations - At most RC events, there are noontime Demonstrations put on by companies that want to sell us planes. These same companies also help pay for the event. If this interpretation goes into effect, these demonstrations would be deemed illegal. Some may think this would be a good thing (more time to fly) but it will also mean that there will be a shift in who is paying for the event (high event attendance fees are likely).

Do not believe me, check out this funny video that addresses the wider effects to Model Aviation (start at 0:55 for the non-FPV impacts).

So every one should help fight these new FAA interpretations.

 

[Foam Addict]

Good grief.
Political rant for a moment:
What ever happened to land of the free and home of the brave? Now it looks and feels like land of the regulated and home of the "safe".

Rant off.

I hope this doesn't come about, but if it does, I think immigration is an appealing option...

 

[bicyclemonkey]

I hope this doesn't come about, but if it does, I think immigration is an appealing option...

My thoughts exactly!

 

[adamd]

is that the worst case scenario? kind of doomsday or would that actually be the ruling?
I'm wondering if Transport Canada would follow suit.
Am I going to have to start buying my rc stuff from a sketchy man in a trench coat?
all I can say is ":head for the hills boys!"

 

[Flynn]

Anyone heard about the AMA's involvement? I haven't heard anything. But I would think they would have some interest in all this.

 

[adamd]

Anyone heard about the AMA's involvement? I haven't heard anything. But I would think they would have some interest in all this.

very true!

 

[Burly]

Commercial use of RC planes has always been against the law.

We're talking about being paid for flying your RC.
Activities like getting paid for aerial photography or for things like photographing real estate and fields of crops in agriculture is banned.
TV stations can't use RC to take pictures.
Police and Sheriffs can't use RC.
Search and Rescue can't use RC.
The film industry can't use RC.

That doesn't mean they aren't used routinely in films and real estate.
The law is being broken every day when they are being used.

I think only one private company has gotten permission to use a drone in Alaska.

Some educational institutions have permission for using RC for research.

Of course the manufacturers of hobby RC can use RC planes in their business...
They are in the business of selling the darn things...aren't they?
I also think the professional fliers for companies like Fatuba and Hitec can be paid to fly the companies planes.
They are demonstrating the use as it relates to the hobby of RC.
Flite Test can design, test, demonstrate, and sell their aircraft.
Any YouTube channels that derive income by showing hobby flying is OK too.

The FAA isn't totally insane to ban these activities.
Otherwise we'd be in a great big catch 22.
That kind of idiocy would last about 2 seconds.

 

[bitogre]

Commercial use of RC planes has always been against the law.

Not as completely as this new interpretation. Previously, any Commercial use of RC planes that promoted the hobby was legal and allow. Uses such as R&D of planes to be sold to hobbyist, instruction of hobbyist, reviewing of planes to be sold to hobbyist, and demonstration planes to be sold to hobbyist use to be clearly allowed. The new interpretation explicitly states demonstrations are no longer allowed and implies that the other activities will also no longer be allowed.

 

[Burly]

Not as completely as this new interpretation. Previously, any Commercial use of RC planes that promoted the hobby was legal and allow. Uses such as R&D of planes to be sold to hobbyist, instruction of hobbyist, reviewing of planes to be sold to hobbyist, and demonstration planes to be sold to hobbyist use to be clearly allowed. The new interpretation explicitly states demonstrations are no longer allowed and implies that the other activities will also no longer be allowed.

Where on Earth did you get that crazy interpretation.
Is that from the mouth of the FAA...or some loon...
Please post the link where you see this.

 

[Burly]

Ok... I think I see where the confusion lies.

In the proposed rule change there is a chart telling what is banned:
One of the items states:
You can't receive money for demonstrating aerobatics with a model airplane.

Let's say there's a school picnic and the school wants you put on an RC aerobatic show for money.
This would be specifically banned.
Even a sponsored pilot from Fatuba couldn't fly at the school picnic for money.

At an air show or fun fly, that is a totally different animal.
An employee or sponsored pilot is part of the company that is in the business of selling hobby aircraft.
Part of their job description is demonstrating airplanes at hobby events related to RC Planes.

That's a huge difference from having an amateur or even a sponsored Futuba pilot getting paid on the side for an RC aerobatic demonstration at a wedding.

Everything else as it relates to the hobby uses is legal.
Designing planes.
Selling planes.
Reviewing planes.

I even think giving flying lessons for money would be OK.
Someone who gives lessons to teach you to fly is teaching you the rules, how to use the radio, etc.
Most of the time you are buddy boxed.
The plane is being used in a hobby related way.

However if you charge for teaching someone to open their own commercial real estate aerial photography business...and you use your plane in doing so...that is illegal.

Good grief...how do people come up with these crazy scenarios!!!

 

[Flying Cirkus]

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf

Half way down on page 9.

In short they are saying.. If not used purely as hobby or recreational, its illegal.

 

[bitogre]

Where on Earth did you get that crazy interpretation.
Is that from the mouth of the FAA...or some loon...
Please post the link where you see this.

I think the new document is pretty clearly that definition of “hobby” is a “pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation.” (See middle of page 9). If you are paid to do it, it is no longer allowed.

The example they give is paid to put on a demonstration. But I do not see it as a "crazy interpretation" to include getting paid to test a new design that your employer intends to sell. Or getting paid to test fly a plane so that your employer can publish your review. Or getting paid to buddy box with a student that is learning to fly (when I start in the hobby, I paid some one to teach me).

Admittedly, the key part is you are getting paid to do the activity. But that is exactly what Josh, Alex, and others at Flite Test do for a living: they get paid to design, test, and/or review RC planes and that process involves flying the products they are testing and/or reviewing.

Yes, people that do these activities for free will still be able to do so legally. But the hobby is being supported by the people who are paid to do these jobs. Do we really want them to have to choose between loosing their jobs or being heavily fined for doing their jobs?

If you still think this is a "crazy interpretation", please explain and be sure to do it in the context of some one whose "regular occupation" involves testing, reviewing, and/or teaching of RC aircraft.

 

[Burly]

I think the new document is pretty clearly that definition of “hobby” is a “pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation.” (See middle of page 9). If you are paid to do it, it is no longer allowed.

The example they give is paid to put on a demonstration. But I do not see it as a "crazy interpretation" to include getting paid to test a new design that your employer intends to sell. Or getting paid to test fly a plane so that your employer can publish your review. Or getting paid to buddy box with a student that is learning to fly (when I start in the hobby, I paid some one to teach me).

Admittedly, the key part is you are getting paid to do the activity. But that is exactly what Josh, Alex, and others at Flite Test do for a living: they get paid to design, test, and/or review RC planes and that process involves flying the products they are testing and/or reviewing.

Yes, people that do these activities for free will still be able to do so legally. But the hobby is being supported by the people who are paid to do these jobs. Do we really want them to have to choose between loosing their jobs or being heavily fined for doing their jobs?

If you still think this is a "crazy interpretation", please explain and be sure to do it in the context of some one whose "regular occupation" involves testing, reviewing, and/or teaching of RC aircraft.

Oh my LORD!!!......YES, YES, YES........it's crazy!!!!!
It's a totally bogus interpretation!!!!!

That little extra sentence starting the paragraph at the end of page 9 is trying to clarify the terms used in the previous two paragraphs concerning "Model Aircraft", "Line of Site", and "Person Flying the Aircraft".

The first two paragraphs are basically trying to explain why "FPV GOGGLES" are not consistent with the "LINE OF SIGHT" requirements of a "MODEL AIRCRAFT". Thus if you are not within "LINE OF SIGHT"...you are under the more stringent rules of a "REAL AIRCRAFT".

Then in the third paragraph further defines "MODEL AIRCRAFT":
"The statute requires model aircraft to be flown strictly for hobby or recreational purposes."
This STAND ALONE SENTENCE is being used to define MODEL AIRCRAFT as it relates to the discussion of FPV GOOGLES and LINE OF SIGHT in the PREVIOUS TWO PARAGRAPHS.

This sentence IS NOT BEING USED IN A WHOLESALE WRECKING BALL MANNER.
IT IS NOT DESCRIBING ANYTHING ABOUT:
1. Designing planes.
2. Selling planes.
3. Reviewing planes on the Internet which leads to YouTube money.
4. Giving flying lessons for money.
5. Demonstrating planes at an RC event and getting paid as an employee of the RC Company or a Sponsored Flyer.

Please Flying Cirkus and bitogre...read all three paragraphs in their entirety...and see if what I contend makes any sense.

That single sentence is being used in a specific context.
You cannot just can't carve it out, and use it in your worst case doomsday scenerio.

And again I say "getting paid for a flying demonstration" is like getting paid to fly at someone's birthday party.
A flying demonstration at a birthday party is illegal.

Using the "flying demonstration" as something that was illegal, needed much more clarification on the part of the FAA.
The FAA really muddied the waters by putting that into the table without further explanation.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

Let's say there's a school picnic and the school wants you put on an RC aerobatic show for money.
This would be specifically banned.
Even a sponsored pilot from Fatuba couldn't fly at the school picnic for money.

At an air show or fun fly, that is a totally different animal.

I do not think that the FAA sees a difference. They are "interpreting" it as any time you receive income as a direct result of flying a model aircraft, it is a commercial venture. It's not just a few people on the internet coming up with "crazy scenarios", the AMA itself has taken note of that one item.

The FAA said "demonstrating aerobatics", they do not add an exemption for air shows or other events.

Burly, you seem rather passionate about this topic, but in a very different way than most modelers. May I ask what is your background in the hobby?

 

[Balu]

Not being in the US I wonder if it is ok to fly and film from the air as a hobby...

... and then get paid to cut and upload content? Those are two different activities, aren't they? =)

 

[FlyingMonkey]

The way they're interpreting it, any financial compensation resulting from piloting an unmanned aircraft is against the regulations.

 

[Craftydan]

Not being in the US I wonder if it is ok to fly and film from the air as a hobby...

... and then get paid to cut and upload content? Those are two different activities, aren't they? =)

Several people will claim that, but according to their note to dig against Amazon, even if it's "free", if the activity is construed as a "furtherance of a business purpose", it's a target for a fine. After that, it's pay $10k and close up shop, or pay $???k to a lawyer to *try* to defend yourself, and posibly still pay $10k if you didn't get a good enough lawer.

I don't say we should have no rules -- we should -- but this interpretation is intentionally written to negate the lawmakers intent to leave the model pilots to self police, slicing on hairs to define who's exempted and who's not, and cuts too deep.

"Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of a business, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight."

It's clear they expect to circumvent the modeler's exemption by slicing hairs between commercial and recreational, not for safety's sake, but to skirt the exemption. Unfortunatly that means no one can hide behind the exemption and get any consideration for flying . . . including model airframe designers, sponsered pilots (which would include "here, fly this plane for me, tell others what you think of it, and you can keep it"), reviewers and entertainers, like FT.

Worst of all, they do not seek to work with the community to come up with workable, enforcable regulation. While it's under public review, it's clear this is effective immediatly. It may not stand a court challenge, but there's nothing stopping them from issuing fines for something you do *today* based on this interpretaion. The public review is required by law, but releasing this mess on the public before working with the major representitives shows a clear disregard for those the regs were meant to govern.

 

[Burly]

I do not think that the FAA sees a difference. They are "interpreting" it as any time you receive income as a direct result of flying a model aircraft, it is a commercial venture. It's not just a few people on the internet coming up with "crazy scenarios", the AMA itself has taken note of that one item.

The FAA said "demonstrating aerobatics", they do not add an exemption for air shows or other events.

Burly, you seem rather passionate about this topic, but in a very different way than most modelers. May I ask what is your background in the hobby?

I'm just a hobbyist...

I think in this new interpretation of the rules, the FAA is only trying to carve away the use of FPV Goggles.
The FAA isn't trying to destroy the whole RC industry.

But in framing this document, the FAA was careless in a number of areas
In a couple of snippets the FAA specifically cited that:
"Demonstrating aerobatics for money" is not legal.
"Making money" from flying RC is not legal.

Of course everyone took these "generalized" statements and came up with all these nightmare scenarios that ultimately leads to the death of the organized RC industry as pertains to selling fully assembled planes.
No more complete RC planes could be sold, because at some point the plane must have "test flights", and employees are getting paid for doing these "test flights".
And these "test flights" are being done as part of a commercial business (selling RC Planes)...and not a hobby.

So I guess the ultimate end state would be that:
The RC hobbyist can buy the pieces and parts of a plane that have never been tested as a whole...assemble them...and hope for the best.
Or he can start from scratch with raw foam or balsa...design, build, test, and fly his own creations.
Hey, maybe not so bad an end state...lol.

Of course this whole scenario is ridiculous.
The AMA knows that the FAA is only to attempting to carve away the FPV goggles.
But it's concerned that if this goes through...then there's nothing stopping the FAA from taking more and more bites out of AMA's authority over model aviation.
So the AMA is in no hurry to tamp down the illogical hysteria.

I guess the AMA is even adding to the fear if it now contends that under the new rule "demonstrating aerobatics at airshows for pay is illegal".
That's just an AMA defensive move by using the FAA's sloppy crafting of the document.

If push comes to shove on this issue of flying at airshows, then the "vendor demonstration flights" now become "vendor test flights...an important component of the vendors ongoing quality control program across the entire product line."
After all, vendors are allowed to do test flights as part of bringing to market their complete airplanes and insuring ongoing quality control...aren't they?

Of course the test flights at the airshow have to include lots of fun to watch extreme aerobatics to fully test the structure...lol.

It's all a matter of wordsmithing...

 

[RoyBro]

But in framing this document, the FAA was careless in a number of areas
In a couple of snippets the FAA specifically cited that:
"Demonstrating aerobatics for money" is not legal.
"Making money" from flying RC is not legal.

Of course everyone took these "generalized" statements and came up with all these nightmare scenarios...

The "generalized statements" ARE the nightmare. This is a legal document. By not being specific about what is and isn't allowed, they've given themselves the ability to levy fines for just about anything they choose.

You're probably right in that they are not trying to destroy our hobby in it's entirety, but they are trying to usurp the role of the AMA, the "Community Based Organization" in administering a safety program for our hobby. As the video shows, their actions are in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

So in my opinion, it doesn't matter what you or I think the FAA's new interpretation means to the hobby because we're both probably wrong. But it needs to be squashed because they are illegally trying to wrest control of the hobby from the community.

 

[Burly]

Totally agree RoyBro...it's a power grab.

Back to Demonstration Flying at Airshows....
From this point on there is no such thing as a "sponsored pilot".
The terminology is now "test pilot".

"Test pilots" will carry out "test flights".
Test pilots can be "full time employees" of the RC manufacturer...or "contractors" who are employed as test pilots.
Flight Testing is done within an ongoing program of quality control of new and/or existing products.
The location of where the flight testing is performed under the manufactures control.

At the end of each Fight Test, the following Flight Test Report will be filed:

Flight Test Report
1. Airplane model number:_________.
2. Did it fly good? Yes:__ No:__ Crashed:___.
3. Give it a rating from 1 to 10:_____.
4. Final Grade. Pass:___ Fail:___.
Test Pilot Signature:__________________________.