FAA Overreach on Applicability of Part 107 Rules

Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
142
Reaction score
66
Location
Escondido
Website
www.barkingdeerphotography.com
This one should get your blood boiling. If not, then I have not been clear enough.

You thought that Part 107 only applied to commercial work/business activity, right? NO SAYS THE FAA.

By now you are aware that there is a special rule for the Academy of Model Aeronautics, and other "nationwide community-based organizations." (the latter being termed a CBO; not sure there are any other than the AMA, however) The FAA intends Part 107 to apply to hobby and recreation flying that is not part of the programming of a CBO. That is a quote from Advisory Circular 107-2. Read all about it in my article, which you can find on SSRN What are the FAA Rules for Model Aircraft? by Robert J. Rose :: SSRN

Or, if that doesn't work for you, the article is attached to this message. (If it is all the same to you, I prefer that you view or download the article from SSRN, because they score views)

If it isn't already obvious what this means is that to be legal (that is what we all want, right?) you either have to join the AMA, pay dues, and only fly at an AMA sanctioned event, or get your remote pilot certification under Part 107.

My opinion on the matter is in the article. If you agree with me, or even if you don't, I urge you to make your views known to the FAA on the application of Part 107 to recreational flying. Part 107 is final and will be in force the end of this month, but AC 107-2 is still subject to comment. Just go to regulations.gov and search for FAA-2015-0150. Open the Document Folder and look for U.S. DOT/FAA - Advisory Circular 107-2. Click the Comment Now button and type your comment into the field, or cut and paste in a comment from another program.

Thanks for reading!
 

Attachments

  • Hobby_Flying_1.0.pdf
    213.7 KB · Views: 5
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
233
Reaction score
86
Age
61
Location
Dunedin, FL
This is interesting to say the least. I see your point - FAA is trying to make "modelers", or hobbiest's, fly ONLY under AMA rules and jurisdictions. To my understanding, this would allow non-commercial ONLY at AMA sanctioned sites.
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf

When flying RC back in the day, it made sense to fly your "plane" at a field. Today that makes less sense when flying a drone.

I was wondering how/why the FAA basically rolled over on the hobby stuff. They didn't roll over. Their end game was to limit drone flights to AMA fields/perview.

All the more reason to get your 107 license! But yes, this is an overreach.

Thanks for bring this to our attention.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
233
Reaction score
86
Age
61
Location
Dunedin, FL
The circular is a good read too. The point in question is located on part 4.1 which is on page 10 of the PDF.
  • The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
Instructions on how to get the circular is listed in OPs post.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
3,923
Reaction score
2,614
You do not need to fly at an AMA location to comply with AMA programming. You do not even need to join an AMA chartered club. And you do not need to participate in any of their stuff. All you need to do is be a member of the AMA, and follow their rules. The AMA allows to fly anywhere you want as long as it is safe and legal to do so. This is what I've done for two reasons... one, it makes me legal by the annoying letter of the law. And two, the AMA is basically the only lobbying organization on our side, even if it is rather self-serving.

That said, I have been saying exactly this since the day the special rule for model aircraft came out as part of the old FAA Modernization and Reform Act, what over year or so ago. It was written in a manner that required you to join the AMA and pay them money. It has ALWAYS said that. That verbiage is nothing new. So nobody should be terribly surprised by this. Most people simply ignored that little detail. They fly within the spirit of the law, without being an AMA member. Either on purpose or because they didn't think it means what it says. I think the FAA is probably ok with that, since they're hardly going around strong arming every non-commercial user into joining the AMA. In fact, they barely mention it in their own public stuff. But it is the letter of the law.

Edit: To clarify, the above is my interpretation of the vague letter of the law as it relates to "within the programming of...". I'm not aware of anyone in a position of authority saying "that means you have to join in the AMA. But I can't see any other logical interpretation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jubalr
Joined
Jun 29, 2016
Messages
190
Reaction score
69
Age
36
All you need to do is be a member of the AMA, and follow their rules.

P2P,

May I kindly ask that you please elaborate on why you believe one must not only fly according to the AMA Safety Code, but also pay annual dues to be an AMA member. Do you interpret operating "in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" to mean just that?

I was an AMA member for several years when I got into RC. The free magazines and TFR notices are great, but I felt their lackluster support for their diverse member base when the Man came down on the hobby was not worth the amount I paid in dues, so I bailed. I have since been a "rogue flyer," operating independently of the AMA, but always under their Safety Code (well, for the most part) because it would be stupid to do anything else, as the AMA Safety Code is all very common sense stuff that all pilots should heed.

Isn't the above "within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization"? Or are the community and those attempting to govern it of the mind that I need to pay these guys to be within that programming?
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
3,923
Reaction score
2,614
I interpret "within the programming of..." to mean, in the case of the AMA, being a member. They can't write the law in a manner that is AMA specific, so my understanding is that's the general wording to cover both the AMA and any other national organization (should one ever exist). I can't cite anyone in a position of authority saying "yes, that is what it means, and therefore you must be a member of the AMA." It's just my interpretation of the vague letter of the law. If anyone else has something that says otherwise, I'd happily change my thought.

That said, I agree entirely with everything you said. I used to be a member, and left for the same reasons. Most of the clubs are just grumpy old men flying in circles around a field. They're literally hostile towards multirotors or any other advanced sUAS. And some in fact prohibit them all together. It's rather pathetic. I only rejoined the AMA (not a charter club) when the most recent task force was established to come up with final rules on commercial and hobby use. It was apparent that the AMA was the only national organization with influence. So I begrudgingly joined. My money can be helpful there, and it would put in compliance with my interpretation of the letter of the law. Again, begrudgingly.
 
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
3,923
Reaction score
2,614
And that BS right there is why I use the word begrudgingly. He exemplifies everything that is wrong with the AMA. And that attitude will be the death of the organization. Literally. A lot of their membership is rather elderly and rather grumpy. The attitude pushes away new members. And when the current bulk of membership dies of old age, they'll be left with nothing. No offence intended towards old people :). That's just reality. Old people eventually die, and if your organization is all old people that don't embrace young members, it's self defeating.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
342
Reaction score
38
Age
70
This one should get your blood boiling. If not, then I have not been clear enough.

You thought that Part 107 only applied to commercial work/business activity, right? NO SAYS THE FAA.

By now you are aware that there is a special rule for the Academy of Model Aeronautics, and other "nationwide community-based organizations." (the latter being termed a CBO; not sure there are any other than the AMA, however) The FAA intends Part 107 to apply to hobby and recreation flying that is not part of the programming of a CBO. That is a quote from Advisory Circular 107-2. Read all about it in my article, which you can find on SSRN What are the FAA Rules for Model Aircraft? by Robert J. Rose :: SSRN

Or, if that doesn't work for you, the article is attached to this message. (If it is all the same to you, I prefer that you view or download the article from SSRN, because they score views)

If it isn't already obvious what this means is that to be legal (that is what we all want, right?) you either have to join the AMA, pay dues, and only fly at an AMA sanctioned event, or get your remote pilot certification under Part 107.

My opinion on the matter is in the article. If you agree with me, or even if you don't, I urge you to make your views known to the FAA on the application of Part 107 to recreational flying. Part 107 is final and will be in force the end of this month, but AC 107-2 is still subject to comment. Just go to regulations.gov and search for FAA-2015-0150. Open the Document Folder and look for U.S. DOT/FAA - Advisory Circular 107-2. Click the Comment Now button and type your comment into the field, or cut and paste in a comment from another program.

Thanks for reading!

You should direct your anger to AMA, they want to protect their interest, forcing people join the club.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
12,676
Messages
145,393
Members
14,870
Latest member
3.dr.mcleod