We are writing to address some recent confusion as to whether the new federal commercial drone rules (Small Unmanned Aircraft Rule Part 107) impact AMA members and model aircraft enthusiasts who fly for recreational and educational purposes.
First, we would like to reaffirm that Part 107 does not change anything for AMA members. As an AMA member, you are exempt from the additional regulations in Part 107 as long as you are flying for recreational or educational purposes and fully complying with AMA’s safety guidelines. This is what Congress intended when it passed the Special Rule for Model Aircraft in the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, also known as Section 336. And, as stated in previous communications, this also means you do not need any additional certificate to fly.
Second, for those flying first-person view (FPV), we understand that a recent Forbes article has made the issue of regulatory compliance even more confusing. In that article, the FAA was quoted as saying that as of August 29th, anyone flying FPV needs to obtain a Remote Pilot certificate and follow the provisions of Part 107.
Although this is true for anyone who is not fully complying with Section 336, based on pending litigation with the FAA, we are advising AMA members that flying FPV with a spotter under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft remains acceptable as long as you continue to fly according to the AMA Safety Code and AMA’s safety guidelines for FPV operations in Document 550.
Please rest assured that we have been in ongoing conversations with the FAA about FPV flying and other areas of concern related to the Interpretive Rule. We anticipate that the FAA will clarify the Interpretative Rule by the end of the year, which will help resolve the FPV issue for good.
So, why can AMA members continue flying FPV the same way as before?
As you may also be aware, in August 2014 AMA filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals asking for a judiciary review of the FAA’s interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (the Interpretative Rule). As stated in our petition, we believe the FAA’s Interpretive Rule misinterprets the intent of Congress in several areas, including the requirement to remain within visual line of sight of the operator as it relates to the use of FPV goggles. Right now, the court proceedings are on hold as the FAA reviews over 33,000 public comments submitted in response to the Interpretive Rule.
With the court proceedings held in abeyance, enforcement actions based upon the provisions in the Interpretative Rule are also on hold. So, until the FAA completes its review of the public comments, publishes its conclusions and makes any further clarification/revision to the Interpretive Rule, the status quo remains in effect for AMA members. It should be noted, however, that this does not preclude the FAA from taking enforcement action against careless and reckless acts that truly endanger the national airspace.
In the meantime, we encourage all AMA members to continue flying and enjoying our hobby as you have before, following AMA’s safety guidelines and educational programming.
Thank you for your patience as we continue to advocate and protect our hobby of flying model aircraft.
I just checked with a senior military judge advocate, who is obviously well versed in the Federal court system. He said that an abeyance does not normally prevent an agency from acting. To be sure that I don’t do anything illegal, he said I should ask you these questions:
(1) Did the court order the FAA not to enforce based on the interpretation?
or
(2) Has the FAA issued something saying they are suspending enforcement action?
Frank,
Please rest assured that we have been in ongoing conversations with the FAA about FPV flying and other areas of concern related to the Interpretive Rule. In the meantime, we encourage all AMA members to continue flying and enjoying our hobby as you have before, following AMA’s safety guidelines and educational programming. If you do not feel comfortable taking our advice, you can fly FPV under part 107 after receiving your 107 certificate: https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_work_business/becoming_a_pilot/
You did not answer the first question. Members deserve to know just how much legal risk they assume if they fly, and whether or not the court ordered FAA not to enforce is critical to that personal risk decision.
On the second question, you mentioned discussions, but do you have anything in writing? This same Judge Advocate advised me that “if it’s not in writing, it doesn’t exist.”
I do not understand the reluctance to answer direct questions, especially when AMA members may be putting themselves in legal jeopardy based on the answer and what they do.
Frank
With the court proceedings held in abeyance, the court ordered that enforcement actions based upon the provisions in the Interpretative Rule are also on hold.
No they did not. I think it would be wise to be very cautious about saying there is a prohibition when in fact there is not.
I was just sent a copy of the order granting the abeyance (document #1523016 filed on 18 Nov 2014) as well a copy of the abeyance request (document #1514260 filed 26 Sep 2014).
“Upon consideration of the motion to hold petitions in abeyance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion to hold in abeyance be granted. The Federal Aviation Administration is directed to file status reports at 90-day intervals beginning 90 days from the date of this order. The parties are directed to file motions to govern further proceedings within 30 days of completion of agency proceedings in Docket No. FAA-2014-0396 (consideration of public comment).
In the event the agency starts enforcing the rule challenged in this proceeding – “Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft,” 79 FED. REG. 36,172 (June 25, 2014) – before considering and disposing of the comments it solicited, petitioners may request appropriate action.”
That does not prohibit FAA from enforcing based on the interpretation. Thus far they have not, but nothing in the order prevents it. In fact, the order even addresses what the parties may do if the FAA does enforce.
Frank its the usual run around by the AMA to its paying people. This is why I will not renew my AMA this year. I will fly where I please when I please on my private property. The AMA is nothing more than a political group now that will only sway not for its paying members but for which way the higher ups really want to go. Everyone up top is out of date and out of touch the AMA needs 30 yo olds running things not 60 year olds. But no matter I wash my hands of it all very soon.
You and everyone else are dancing around the elephant in the room. Namely, are spotters required for FPV? The answer is of course “YES” for both Part 107 and AMA operations. Yet this is rarely followed and never enforced, including at virtually every race and AMA sanctioned field. Both the FAA and AMA are just looking the other way. It is shameful to enact regulations and rules that are knowingly ignored and unenforced. They exist just as a “feel good” in case something ever does go horribly wrong.
What the AMA needs to do, is get in alignment with their users needs, and come up with some new FPV guidelines allowing FPV without spotters when in safe or controlled space. Perhaps a single “safety officer” at fields and races, etc… This is not rocket science folks. Get your heads out of the sand and address the issues directly.
At least twice now I have seen the AMA state that AMA members are “exempt from Part 107 regulations” and then follow that with “as long as you are flying for recreation”. The AMA could also say that AMA members are exempt from getting a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) as long as you don’t drive a big rig or that AMA members are exempt from getting a real estate license as long as you are not selling houses while flying for recreation.
Bottom line is that the AMA needs to stay out of the Part 107 discussions and maintain a clear simple statement like “The AMA supports hobbyists and r/c flying for non-commercial purposes and whatever the commercial people are doing is none of our business”.
As long as the AMA keeps one foot in the door of commercial regulations by continue to engage with the FAA on these subjects then it will continue to attract less than legitimate commercial operators to justify themselves flying under the AMA umbrella.
The AMA was asked by membership to specifically address the contents of a Forbes article that quoted an FAA official saying all fpv flyers needed part 107 certification (rec or commercial). That is why this blog entry has been posted: specific concerns of the membership regarding part 107 requirements for our hobby/recreational uses. AMA should have stayed silent or issued a perfunctory statement unresponsive to the concerns?
Good on them for digging into it and giving us a direct response.
AMA staff,
Based on John A. Taylor’s pending litigation with the FAA (USCA Case #15-1495), why does the AMA not also advise its members that not registering with the FAA and flying with only their AMA number on their model aircraft under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft remains acceptable as long as you continue to fly according to the AMA Safety Code and AMA’s safety guidelines?
Jesse,
We are still working with the FAA towards a solution in regards to registration.
How do the new regs apply to a hobbyist who is not an AMA member? It appears that AMA membership (or an equivalent organization, which does not exist) is a requirement. Otherwise, the commercial license is required. AMA membership usually requires membership in a local flying club & field. Quad flyers are usually more interested in filming or taking pics of unusual places. So why should I be required to join the AMA and a flying club?
Hi John,
Hobbyists may operate under Part 107 as an alternative to being an AMA member and complying with Section 336.
You do not have to be an AMA member period to fly RC you only need to be one if you want to join some PC club and fly at the site under there rules. Dont worry about part 107 just fly responsibly and forget the rest.
You said “Hobbyists may operate under Part 107 as an ALTERNATIVE to BEING an AMA member AND complying with Section 336 [emphasis added].”
FAA says this about flying for fun (no membership requirement): https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/
Know Before You Fly says only to “follow” guidelines, again no membership requirement: https://knowbeforeyoufly.org/for-recreational-users/
Are you saying that if you’re not an AMA member, the law requires you fly Part 107?
Yes, we remain steadfast that to operate within the programming of our community based organization you need to be a member.
You can keep repeating that but it doesn’t make it so. Why doesn’t the AMA ask for the FAA to clarify it. After all it’t there interpretation that counts.
AMA membership does not require membership in a chartered club, nor does it require flying only at a chartered club flying site. In fact there are many members who do not belong to any club and many clubs which do not have their own flying site.
John, this may be of interest to you:
10 July 2016 email from me to FAA UAS Integration Office:
“Yes or no, does the FAA interpret PL112-95 Section 336 paragraph (a)(2), ‘the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;’ to mean that to be considered a ‘model aircraft’ under the law, the operator must be a member of a community-based organization?”
12 July 2016 email from FAA UAS Integration Office to me:
“The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO, nor does the FAA list any CBOs. You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO.”
Good job Frank! Now why couldn’t the AMA have done that?
I do not see a requirement to have a membership in the AMA; just operation within guidelines and programming, such as the AMA Document 550.
Section 336 states: “the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;”
Hi Jeff.
To operate “within” the programming of our nationwide community-based organization, we require membership.
You can learn more at https://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/govfederal.aspx#cbo
Well you just don’t get it. The FAA determines what fulfills the requirement of the regulations, not the AMA. What is the AMAs recourse if I drop my membership and keep flying under its rules? You coming to get me and take my planes away?
Please show me the FAA regulation that states membership is a requirement. I’m referring to what the FAA requires and not what the AMA desires when I say “I do not see a requirement to have a membership in the AMA; just operation within guidelines and programming, such as the AMA Document 550.
Section 336 states: “the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;”
To operate “within” the programming of our nationwide community-based organization, we require membership.
The FAA interprets 336 as not providing them with the authority to mandate membership to a CBO, but you can learn about Congress’ and AMA’s definition of operating within the programming of a CBO at https://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/govfederal.aspx#cbo
AMA’s definition of operating within the programming of a CBO at https://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/govfederal.aspx#cbo
Again, which means nothing. Like a lot of your members, I dealt with government agencies for decades. Almost always the only things that can change there administration of a regulation is a court order or direct intervention from congress. It ain’t the AMA.
Jeff, I asked the question directly of the FAA:
10 July 2016 email from me to FAA UAS Integration Office:
“Yes or no, does the FAA interpret PL112-95 Section 336 paragraph (a)(2), ‘the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;’ to mean that to be considered a ‘model aircraft’ under the law, the operator must be a member of a community-based organization?”
12 July 2016 email from FAA UAS Integration Office to me:
“The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO, nor does the FAA list any CBOs. You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO.”
Jeff the AMA is giving bs talk here. You don’t need the AMA period unless you want a magazine and to fly at a club site. Go fly your rc planes safe and responsible at the location of your choosing and don’t worry about this political garbage.
We all know that but it’s really starting to tick us off. Sometime I wonder if these guys know who they work for. I can get this kind of nonsense down at city hall.
Does the insurance that comes with an AMA membership cover FPV flying?
So now I have to pay a lobbying organization (AMA) to fly the same way I had been flying for years before now? The same organization who’s clubs are openly hostile to anything that doesn’t fit into their definition of ‘true’ model aviation?
Does the AMA not recognize how this looks to those that have been chased away from joining? Because from my position, it looks like a club trying to set them up as a regulatory agency over those that don’t pay dues. What’s the minimum bar to be considered a member of the AMA? Paying dues? Is this the same bar being used as the threshold between safe flyers and troublemakers?
I think everyone needs to read what is being said and not what they think is being said. From everything I read above, it does not sound like the FAA requires any membership within a club. They only require that a person who is flying recreationally or educationally follow some CBO guidelines. And yes, it is likely that those guidelines will be those of AMA (since I am not aware of any others). The AMA is the only one saying that in order to follow them, one must be a member. However, they have no authority to require you to join to follow them. So, to me, it seams that as long as you are flying non-commercially, and are only flying recreationally or educationally and do follow some proven established guidelines, you should be okay.
The main reason I have remained a member of AMA is to receive the supplemental insurance. I also do feel that what they are doing by working with the FAA is benificil to the hobby. These efforts do cost money, and I feel that using a portion of the yearly dues I pay to fund these efforts is reasonable. Without there input, I do fear that the FAA would place restrictions which would include the hobbiest that would be detrimental to the hobby. This could be seen in the previous version that was put out for review a few months ago.
Whether or not you believe this, I believe things would be much worse without them. I do agree that their standing on FVP must be clarified. To me, it appears that flying FPV with the googles would be in violation with or without a spotter, but using a screen that still allows a line of sight is acceptable.
Anyway, that is my two cents.
Rick, Section 336 not only requires you to follow the guidelines of a CBO (such as AMA), it also requires you to operate “within the programming” of said CBO.
AMA can’t stop you from following its safety guidelines, but it certainly has the right to determine whether or not you are “within” its programming.
John, You are absolutely correct. And it means nothing because the FAA has already said it means nothing.
As much as i HATE that any R/C org would agree to any Federal regulation of a hobby, are you sure they aren’t just saying that
if you are a Member and follow the rules they give you, you will be in compliance?
You can’t expect a layperson to decipher the bureaucrats legalese, so the hobby org helps do it for you to a certain extent.
I think the FTC would have something to say about any company claiming a consumer needed to use THIER product to be in compliance with another bureaucracy’s “rules”.
Read Ricks comments again. He is absolutely right. I fly only multi rotors and know most of the AMA members have no use for me but I will pay my dues because there is no one else out there working to protect hobbyist rights and I am a hobbyist like it or not.
Probably nothing personal. We gas car guys were in cliques, as were the batteryheads, the boat guys had their own crowd, and the airplane guys had their own thing.
Everyone is into their own thing.
Anyone without a law degree really understand this legalese?
Lawyers are great in court, but hobbyists need a translator.
The problem here is when groups start making deals with the devil.
Alarm bells should have gone off and reps and senators phones should have been jammed
the second the words or idea “from above the blade of (even your) grass” left any
District of Criminal bureaucrat’s lips.
I thought the Feds were ruining R/C after being out of wheeled sport for many years
then discovering new restrictions on fuel mixing, something hobbyists had been doing
probably since they discovered dragster fuel works great in 2 cycle model engines.
So now modelers can become Federal Criminals if they even make $1 from their hobby.
Please don’t say that’s not true, it isn’t YOU that decides what the definition of “work” or “hobby”
is, it is now the DC Bureaucrats since Congress has ceded it’s authority to them.
Next thing you know you’ll need an SCCA Racing license to drive an r/c car in a parking lot.