Blogs

How the FAA defines "Commercial Use"

Posted by Duane Brocious on June 3, 2011 at 5:30pm

3689402082?profile=original

 

A major concern with sUAS is what does the FAA consider "Commercial Use".

Here is a comment from a law firm:

" The FAA has consistently defined commercial operation in terms of whether the operator receives direct or indirect payment for the operation. It is not necessary that the operation be conducted for profit or even that there be any intent or ability to make a profit. The compensation is not just limited to monetary payments but includes anything of value. This broad definition of compensation has been affirmed and adopted by both the NTSB and the federal courts. Administrator v. Roundtree, 2 NTSB 1712 (1975); Administrator v. Mims, NTSB Order No. EA-3284, review denied 988 F.2d 1380; Consolidated Flower Shipments, Inc., Bay Area, 16 C.A.B. 804 (1953), aff'd. 213 F.2d 814 (2nd Cir. 1954)."

 

This definition applies to sUAS.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –
Follow

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

  • Duane Brocious June 6, 2011 at 6:32am

    It is my guess that the FAA will handle this stuf the way the FCC does. No complaint = no problem.

    However, all you need is a single enemy and ...... BTDT.

  • T.D. Gonzales June 6, 2011 at 6:06am
    Tim: I feel the same way. Luckily as has been pointed out as long as nothing happens no one will really make an issue of your UAV.
  • Tim McMahan June 6, 2011 at 5:46am
    Ok, in the case of the guys "plane-pooling", is the pilot contributing his share by operating the craft?  It clearly states "anything of value".  I had considered trading farmers for foods they sell at the local farmers market, but DANG, Big Brother!  I just want to break even on the costs of operating the plane, batteries, fuel to drive to a field, etc.  I grew up on a farm, and AG AP work just makes sense for farmers.  Does anyone have suggestions on getting out from under the gov't's thumb on this?
  • Darren June 4, 2011 at 3:42pm

    So two Jr. pilots can sit there, while the Sr. pilot takes a dump... and quibble all the way to the ocean floor...

    But we discuss what may happen if a 2lb bird falls out of the sky... and how the faa will prevent that...

  • bGatti June 4, 2011 at 2:57pm
    Welcome to the land of everything is illegal.

    It's called freedom. (Salute)
    http://illegal.It/
  • Duane Brocious June 4, 2011 at 8:57am

    It is much easier to prove "commercial use" under the FAA definition than to prove carelessness or reckless.

    Think of an average car accident. Who is at fault or liable usually ends up in a court battle. Take the same accident but add to that a lack of drivers license/registration, not wearing seatbelts, not wearing glasses, out of inspection, bald tires and/or DUI. You now have a cut and dried "guilty" of more than just the liabilty for the accident. DUI in a fatal accident (even if it technically isn't your fault) will get you a negligent homicide charge in most states.

    So, how much do you have to lose if something goes wrong? Is what it comes down to.

  • Jeb Bailey June 4, 2011 at 8:31am
    The FAA has lots of "CYA" clauses.

    For instance, FAR 91.13 states "No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." This can cover pretty much any situation where someone gets hurt, or something gets broken.

    The real purpose behind these broad rules is to have something to plug ALL the loopholes in the event of an incident.

    And Duane is right, if your friends can pay their share of a flight. They just can't pay your share too.

    @T.D. - It would seem to me that any money being made off APM is only made on hardware developed as part of a hobby.  The flights themselves are not made to improve a product, but rather as an integral part of the hobby.
  • Duane Brocious June 4, 2011 at 8:22am

    Technically, companies can not do so outdoors (unless it is an educational 501c3 NPO).

    Indoor flight is not under FAA control though.

    The FAA is not running around tracking down people (just like the FCC).

    Rest assured that if anything bad happens the NTSB and the FAA will nail you to a cross.

    Also, if you have any enemies (or neighbors) that want to make a case against you, you will be giving them lots of ammunition. 

  • T.D. Gonzales June 4, 2011 at 7:43am
    So can this website fly and test it's components during development? It seems like any test flights to test the APM could be considered commercial when those components are sold to us. Just to be clear I'm not meaning to kick up any trouble for this site.

    This is such a broad definition of what is commercial my mind is blown.
  • Duane Brocious June 3, 2011 at 8:04pm

    "So a model company that is testing its newest design, is a commercial use???"

     

    I am not sure on this. Do manufacturers of other recreational aircraft get their prototypes classified as?

    I am fairly certain (my memory is hazy) but I think the military protptypes I worked on were considered commercial aircraft. It was not until the Govt gave us a contract that the production aircraft were public aircraft.

This reply was deleted.