Regulation passed the House
03-12-2012, 06:56 AM
#751
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Sport,
could you edit that post and put in an attrib for that quote,
cause it looks like the FastReply monster got ya
and looks like you are replying to me
could you edit that post and put in an attrib for that quote,
cause it looks like the FastReply monster got ya
and looks like you are replying to me
03-12-2012, 08:37 AM
#752
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
@sport and @kid using the definition of a word in one law to define the same word in another law is fallacious. No law is defined by another law that is not connected explicitly with the law being considered. If it were connected, it would be an inferior document to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, since it was passed by Congress. Therefore no state or more local law can define terms used in it. No previous regulatory board language can define it. Definitions without explicit definitions must be defined within the document or explicitly defined later by the regulators enforcing it.
Therefore, Senate language from a year before had no force in law until that language was adopted by the Congressional Conference Committee and then became part of the bill that became this law. Speculation about what the Senate meant plus a dollar won't buy you a cup of coffee any more. What the FAA said before the law was passed means the same amount. Take that plus a dollar to Dennys and leave without being able to buy a cup of coffee. I can give up right now talking sense, say okay, KidEpoxy, you win. You're the expert. And they will still define the words the way they want and your opinions will still be as worthless as any speculation of mine. We just don't know what the regulators will do.
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 is the superior document to all 600 pages of hysterics, speculation, bullying, screaming and fighting here on RC Universe forum. That is all over, to be replaced by the 287 pages of the new law. The ones who will decide what it means are whatever regulators end up enforcing the law, and the law will spawn several thousand pages of regulatory law, just as the income tax laws passed by Congress get translated into tens of thousands of pages of completely incomprehensible gobbledy-gook by the Infernal Revenue Service. Hopefully it won't be that impossible to comply with or understand.
So the page is blank. What words meant before has been swept away by the tide of a new law, passed by Congress, signed by the President and superimposing all previous laws and regulatory positions. They are only of historical interest now.
The language of part 2 of item 2, (I'll insert preceding verbage for clarity) "the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if.....the aircraft is operated.....within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization." is very clear. Programming here does not mean some multi-media presentation program presented by the AMA. It does not mean some educational program of the AMA. It doesn't even mean a Mythbusters TV program. It does not mean something you want. It means what the framers intended to mean: activity directly sponsored and under the responsibility and control of the AMA. Any English speaking person can understand that. Quoting from other posts using the same word in another context is as effective as flapping your arms, expecting to fly. Words mean things relating to the context within which they are used, not as used within your imagination.
Then they go to the regulators, and THEY have license to use their imagination to determine what meaning they wish to assign to the words. Actually they can and have in the past, assigned meaning completely different from the intentions of the framers of the law. Freedom of religion becomes freedom from religion, for instance. It's useless to fight about that because the regulators haven't put their spin on it yet. When they do we can talk about it with some relevance.
[begin speculation section] I think the largest danger now is to the AMA itself, as it is set up as a takeover target by the feds if the AMA decides to stop concealing part two of item two and insist on its enforcement. They better be very careful what they ask for, because as a result they will almost certainly be assimilated by the Borg.
I see a road with a fork in it. Either the regulators will laugh at item 2 and act as if it does not exist, or they will enforce it, leading to a government takeover of the AMA. That will be the end of the NATS and all other events sponsored by the AMA as they will end up just as a regulatory agency without their present regime. I'm not a particular fan of the AMA's leadership, but I'd still rather see their present lousy leaders in place and all those priceless events preserved.
It will be fun to see what happens however it goes.
Hey, did you ever see the mathematical "proof" that Alexander the Great didn't exist? Goes a little like this. Everybody knows Alexander the Great rode a horse. Now we know that on the front a horse has fore (four) legs (it's a spoken parody) and on the back a horse has two legs. So Alexander the Great's horse had six legs. It's a given that a horse has an even number of legs. But six is an odd number for a horse. Since a number cannot be both even and odd at the same time, the legs on Alexander the Great's horse are imaginary. Therefore the horse was imaginary. If the horse is imaginary and we know he rode the horse that renders Alexander the Great an imaginary character.
Now in spoken English the words "fore" and "four" share the same pronunciation and must be correctly interpreted by the context within which you hear them. An imaginary number is a completely different concept from an imaginary horse. Your logic is like the "proof." The word "odd" can also have several meanings, even within the same paragraph, as above. Your reasoning ignores all common sense relating to our everyday use of language. It ignores all the rules of reason in order to arrive at your forced conclusion. But it shares the same lack of validity as my example above and for the exact same reasons.
Therefore, Senate language from a year before had no force in law until that language was adopted by the Congressional Conference Committee and then became part of the bill that became this law. Speculation about what the Senate meant plus a dollar won't buy you a cup of coffee any more. What the FAA said before the law was passed means the same amount. Take that plus a dollar to Dennys and leave without being able to buy a cup of coffee. I can give up right now talking sense, say okay, KidEpoxy, you win. You're the expert. And they will still define the words the way they want and your opinions will still be as worthless as any speculation of mine. We just don't know what the regulators will do.
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 is the superior document to all 600 pages of hysterics, speculation, bullying, screaming and fighting here on RC Universe forum. That is all over, to be replaced by the 287 pages of the new law. The ones who will decide what it means are whatever regulators end up enforcing the law, and the law will spawn several thousand pages of regulatory law, just as the income tax laws passed by Congress get translated into tens of thousands of pages of completely incomprehensible gobbledy-gook by the Infernal Revenue Service. Hopefully it won't be that impossible to comply with or understand.
So the page is blank. What words meant before has been swept away by the tide of a new law, passed by Congress, signed by the President and superimposing all previous laws and regulatory positions. They are only of historical interest now.
The language of part 2 of item 2, (I'll insert preceding verbage for clarity) "the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if.....the aircraft is operated.....within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization." is very clear. Programming here does not mean some multi-media presentation program presented by the AMA. It does not mean some educational program of the AMA. It doesn't even mean a Mythbusters TV program. It does not mean something you want. It means what the framers intended to mean: activity directly sponsored and under the responsibility and control of the AMA. Any English speaking person can understand that. Quoting from other posts using the same word in another context is as effective as flapping your arms, expecting to fly. Words mean things relating to the context within which they are used, not as used within your imagination.
Then they go to the regulators, and THEY have license to use their imagination to determine what meaning they wish to assign to the words. Actually they can and have in the past, assigned meaning completely different from the intentions of the framers of the law. Freedom of religion becomes freedom from religion, for instance. It's useless to fight about that because the regulators haven't put their spin on it yet. When they do we can talk about it with some relevance.
[begin speculation section] I think the largest danger now is to the AMA itself, as it is set up as a takeover target by the feds if the AMA decides to stop concealing part two of item two and insist on its enforcement. They better be very careful what they ask for, because as a result they will almost certainly be assimilated by the Borg.
I see a road with a fork in it. Either the regulators will laugh at item 2 and act as if it does not exist, or they will enforce it, leading to a government takeover of the AMA. That will be the end of the NATS and all other events sponsored by the AMA as they will end up just as a regulatory agency without their present regime. I'm not a particular fan of the AMA's leadership, but I'd still rather see their present lousy leaders in place and all those priceless events preserved.
It will be fun to see what happens however it goes.
Hey, did you ever see the mathematical "proof" that Alexander the Great didn't exist? Goes a little like this. Everybody knows Alexander the Great rode a horse. Now we know that on the front a horse has fore (four) legs (it's a spoken parody) and on the back a horse has two legs. So Alexander the Great's horse had six legs. It's a given that a horse has an even number of legs. But six is an odd number for a horse. Since a number cannot be both even and odd at the same time, the legs on Alexander the Great's horse are imaginary. Therefore the horse was imaginary. If the horse is imaginary and we know he rode the horse that renders Alexander the Great an imaginary character.
Now in spoken English the words "fore" and "four" share the same pronunciation and must be correctly interpreted by the context within which you hear them. An imaginary number is a completely different concept from an imaginary horse. Your logic is like the "proof." The word "odd" can also have several meanings, even within the same paragraph, as above. Your reasoning ignores all common sense relating to our everyday use of language. It ignores all the rules of reason in order to arrive at your forced conclusion. But it shares the same lack of validity as my example above and for the exact same reasons.
03-12-2012, 11:50 AM
#754
Banned
My Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Newberry, FL
Posts: 5,925
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
Actually I was kinda hoping you would not understand it well enough to make a lengthy reply.
Actually I was kinda hoping you would not understand it well enough to make a lengthy reply.
03-12-2012, 01:17 PM
#755
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
To both of you! The fun begins now as we see how this new law pans out and how it is administered. I wouldn't worry about losing our hobby. The hobby is fine.
03-13-2012, 03:16 PM
#756
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
03-13-2012, 06:00 PM
#757
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: K-Bob
For those who don't care to read all 30 pages .......................
Summary:
The house and senate passed the bill and the prez. signed it.
Yay for us.
Additional 29 pages of Blah, blah, blah.
For those who don't care to read all 30 pages .......................
Summary:
The house and senate passed the bill and the prez. signed it.
Yay for us.
Additional 29 pages of Blah, blah, blah.
Some of this is pretty interesting reading, though, because it so well illustrates why non-English speaking persons have such a difficulty learning English. No words ever mean the same thing to two persons, and if either (or both) are politicians, then the number of possible meanings per word at least quadruples. What a hoot
03-13-2012, 10:09 PM
#759
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Worth a read:
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...odel-aircraft/
Rich Hanson, leader of the AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs:
There are a lot of unanswered question as to how the MA provisions in the reauthorization bill will be enacted, and we are still very much in the early stages of working through these issues. Shortly after President Obama signed the Bill we presented our position to the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office. The UAPO responded by advising they are waiting for clarification from FAA’s legal staff. It is clear to us that this Act reflects the view that aeromodeling is a relatively harmless activity and expresses Congress’ recognition of the level of safety the community has achieved through voluntary compliance with a community-based set of safety guidelines. As we move forward we will seek a viable means of enacting this legislative provision and establishing a mutually agreed upon set of criteria to ensure the continued safe operation of model aircraft in the national airspace.
Mr. McGraw’s mention of a 400’ ceiling is somewhat of a carryover from the guidelines established in AC 91-57 and has been FAA’s premise in terms of separating small UAS from the manned aircraft environment. During the crafting of the language in the MA amendment to the reauthorization bill the inclusion of a 400’ criteria was considered. However, AMA resisted this limitation with the belief that it is overreaching, unnecessary and potentially detrimental to the hobby. Ultimately the congressional leadership agreed with the AMA and elected not to include this restriction as part of the minimum safety criteria stated in the Bill.
AMA’s 75 years of experience tells us that MA operations above 400’ pose little to no risk to the manned aircraft community. The only time this activity is of concern is when model aircraft are operated in close proximity to airports. As such, AMA stands by its 3mi/400’ safety criteria established in the AMA National Safety Code. Though there are other mitigation measures that may need to be considered, AMA will continue to advocate to maintain the aeromodeling community’s access to the national airspace.
There are a lot of unanswered question as to how the MA provisions in the reauthorization bill will be enacted, and we are still very much in the early stages of working through these issues. Shortly after President Obama signed the Bill we presented our position to the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office. The UAPO responded by advising they are waiting for clarification from FAA’s legal staff. It is clear to us that this Act reflects the view that aeromodeling is a relatively harmless activity and expresses Congress’ recognition of the level of safety the community has achieved through voluntary compliance with a community-based set of safety guidelines. As we move forward we will seek a viable means of enacting this legislative provision and establishing a mutually agreed upon set of criteria to ensure the continued safe operation of model aircraft in the national airspace.
Mr. McGraw’s mention of a 400’ ceiling is somewhat of a carryover from the guidelines established in AC 91-57 and has been FAA’s premise in terms of separating small UAS from the manned aircraft environment. During the crafting of the language in the MA amendment to the reauthorization bill the inclusion of a 400’ criteria was considered. However, AMA resisted this limitation with the belief that it is overreaching, unnecessary and potentially detrimental to the hobby. Ultimately the congressional leadership agreed with the AMA and elected not to include this restriction as part of the minimum safety criteria stated in the Bill.
AMA’s 75 years of experience tells us that MA operations above 400’ pose little to no risk to the manned aircraft community. The only time this activity is of concern is when model aircraft are operated in close proximity to airports. As such, AMA stands by its 3mi/400’ safety criteria established in the AMA National Safety Code. Though there are other mitigation measures that may need to be considered, AMA will continue to advocate to maintain the aeromodeling community’s access to the national airspace.
03-14-2012, 04:28 AM
#761
My Feedback: (6)
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: Sport_Pilot
NO 400 FOOT RULE! YEAAAA!
NO 400 FOOT RULE! YEAAAA!
If you take a sectional chart covering fairly typical parts of the country and draw five-mile-radius circles around all the airports you'll find that those circles cover just about everything except downtown and the suburbs, where we can't fly anyway except for small electric planes. Celebrations are premature.
03-14-2012, 04:48 AM
#762
RE: Regulation passed the House
While the language of the act seems to me to be contrary to having a 400-foot rule, stranger things have happened. People who write regulations sometimes see their job as correcting legislative mistakes.
And to this I say, YEEAAAAA!
03-14-2012, 05:13 AM
#763
My Feedback: (6)
RE: Regulation passed the House
The Federal Register is chock full of regulations, many of which seem to be contrary to what the statutes authorizing them say. Once in a while, someone convinces a court that a regulation goes too far, but it's rare, and extremely expensive. I've worked with regs that are directly contrary to the language of the statute they implement, but which no one has even argued are invalid. Just a wild guess here: You've never worked with federal legislation and regulations, right? I've spent most of my adult life doing that.
If the FAA decides that a 400-foot rule is a good idea, either for everyone or for people within five miles of an airport (almost everyone), they will say so in the regs. Perhaps, in ten to twenty years, someone will try to convince a court that that regulation is invalid, but doing that would cost a few hundred thousand dollars in legal fees, so most of us would just pay the fine. Maybe someone will even succeed in having the regulation declared invalid, or maybe not. But even if they win, the FAA will have been enforcing a 400-foot rule for all that time, or at least trying to. Far too soon to celebrate. Our best hope is still that they won't have the resources or the inclination to enforce the rule.
As I said before, I agree with you that the sensible way to read the statute is to say "no 400-foot rule for models." But the FAA doesn't care what we think. What the AMA thinks means something. What the Deputy Director of the FAA thinks means a lot.
If the FAA decides that a 400-foot rule is a good idea, either for everyone or for people within five miles of an airport (almost everyone), they will say so in the regs. Perhaps, in ten to twenty years, someone will try to convince a court that that regulation is invalid, but doing that would cost a few hundred thousand dollars in legal fees, so most of us would just pay the fine. Maybe someone will even succeed in having the regulation declared invalid, or maybe not. But even if they win, the FAA will have been enforcing a 400-foot rule for all that time, or at least trying to. Far too soon to celebrate. Our best hope is still that they won't have the resources or the inclination to enforce the rule.
As I said before, I agree with you that the sensible way to read the statute is to say "no 400-foot rule for models." But the FAA doesn't care what we think. What the AMA thinks means something. What the Deputy Director of the FAA thinks means a lot.
03-14-2012, 06:08 AM
#764
RE: Regulation passed the House
The Federal Register is chock full of regulations, many of which seem to be contrary to what the statutes authorizing them say
If the FAA decides that a 400-foot rule is a good idea, either for everyone or for people within five miles of an airport (almost everyone), they will say so in the regs
Our best hope is still that they won't have the resources or the inclination to enforce the rule.
03-14-2012, 06:34 AM
#765
My Feedback: (6)
RE: Regulation passed the House
Federal courts don't issue advisory opinions about what the law is. So, if the FAA does adopt some sort of 400-foot rule, the AMA will probably not be able to begin legal action right away. In the event that the FAA does enact and try to enforce a 400-foot rule rule, somebody could try to get a court to invalidate it. The Supreme court would almost certainly not take a case on this until the courts of appeals had issued contrary rulings, at least one upholding the rule and another invalidating it. So it would likely be at least twenty years (and many hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions, in legal fees) before the Supreme Court ever got a crack at it.
As to the likely outcome in a court, I don't know. The language and history of the law are in our favor. But the federal courts like to show "deference" to agency rulemaking. Sure, sometimes the agencies lose, though saying "lots of agencies have had to back down" is misleading; the agencies win at least as often as they lose. I think the odds of our winning would be maybe 50-50. If the FAA adopts a rule of 400 feet within five miles of an airport, I'd bet against a court invalidating it. The AMA "watching this" may or may not influence what the FAA does. My impression from what the AMA has been saying is that the FAA isn't paying as much attention to what the AMA wants as the AMA would like.
Look, I'm on your side. I don't want a 400-foot rule and I think the best reading of the statute is that the FAA can't impose one. But the fact that the FAA's Deputy Director is still talking about that rule is bad news, not cause for celebration.
As to the likely outcome in a court, I don't know. The language and history of the law are in our favor. But the federal courts like to show "deference" to agency rulemaking. Sure, sometimes the agencies lose, though saying "lots of agencies have had to back down" is misleading; the agencies win at least as often as they lose. I think the odds of our winning would be maybe 50-50. If the FAA adopts a rule of 400 feet within five miles of an airport, I'd bet against a court invalidating it. The AMA "watching this" may or may not influence what the FAA does. My impression from what the AMA has been saying is that the FAA isn't paying as much attention to what the AMA wants as the AMA would like.
Look, I'm on your side. I don't want a 400-foot rule and I think the best reading of the statute is that the FAA can't impose one. But the fact that the FAA's Deputy Director is still talking about that rule is bad news, not cause for celebration.
03-14-2012, 06:59 AM
#766
RE: Regulation passed the House
Federal courts don't issue advisory opinions about what the law is. So, if the FAA does adopt some sort of 400-foot rule, the AMA will probably not be able to begin legal action right away. In the event that the FAA does enact and try to enforce a 400-foot rule rule, somebody could try to get a court to invalidate it. The Supreme court would almost certainly not take a case on this until the courts of appeals had issued contrary rulings, at least one upholding the rule and another invalidating it. So it would likely be at least twenty years (and many hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions, in legal fees) before the Supreme Court ever got a crack at it.
03-14-2012, 07:27 AM
#767
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Top_Gunn, you're dead right! Regulatory agencies consist of unelected people who serve plenty of congressmen. They feel like THEY are the permanent government and everything would fall apart if it weren't for their selfless actions. They are the aristocracy of US government.
Therefore, feeling superior to the legislative process that originated the law, and being handed a very indistinct law, they will use great latitude in writing the operating regulations for that law. If they decide that a "nationwide community-based organization" relates to the AMA and only the AMA they will at that time explicitly say so. Perhaps they won't. The call is theirs and they WILL make the call.
It's the same with the almost clearly indicated requirement to join the AMA in order to legally fly. They will call it one way or the other, disregarding, if necessary, the intent of the law, to produce their particular desired result. Although the law clearly requires membership, the FAA will do whatever they want.
After that is done the court follies begin. Top Gunn hit it dead on. It is a ghastly expansive and long process with the burden of proof on the one doing the suing. All things being equal or even slightly not equal, the regulatory agency gets the decision.
Whenever you enter a courtroom, you are admitting defeat. If you were part of a solution, the instant you get in front of the judge, you are no longer in control of your destiny. You have relinquished your position of negotiation and have consented that the judge will decide the question. In a courtroom ANYTHING can happen. Bad things happen as often as good things and justice has little to do with any of it.
Ceding control of the hobby to a governmental agency whether congressional, executive or judicial is losing. From then on you have only the rights they feel compelled to grant. Compelling them takes too much time and is too expensive.
Therefore, feeling superior to the legislative process that originated the law, and being handed a very indistinct law, they will use great latitude in writing the operating regulations for that law. If they decide that a "nationwide community-based organization" relates to the AMA and only the AMA they will at that time explicitly say so. Perhaps they won't. The call is theirs and they WILL make the call.
It's the same with the almost clearly indicated requirement to join the AMA in order to legally fly. They will call it one way or the other, disregarding, if necessary, the intent of the law, to produce their particular desired result. Although the law clearly requires membership, the FAA will do whatever they want.
After that is done the court follies begin. Top Gunn hit it dead on. It is a ghastly expansive and long process with the burden of proof on the one doing the suing. All things being equal or even slightly not equal, the regulatory agency gets the decision.
Whenever you enter a courtroom, you are admitting defeat. If you were part of a solution, the instant you get in front of the judge, you are no longer in control of your destiny. You have relinquished your position of negotiation and have consented that the judge will decide the question. In a courtroom ANYTHING can happen. Bad things happen as often as good things and justice has little to do with any of it.
Ceding control of the hobby to a governmental agency whether congressional, executive or judicial is losing. From then on you have only the rights they feel compelled to grant. Compelling them takes too much time and is too expensive.
03-14-2012, 08:04 AM
#768
My Feedback: (6)
RE: Regulation passed the House
The court ruled against the ballonists and the FAA
And, as RR points out, this stuff is expensive. The balloonists won in the end, but they didn't get their $337,000 in legal fees (you seldom do get these, even if you win the case). And that was just for the trial court.
Here's the story:
http://temecula.patch.com/articles/a...l-this-weekend
03-14-2012, 09:24 AM
#769
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Sport
???????
For 30 pages we have known there was no 400' limit in s336 from congress,
how are you just now realizing this?
What gave you the impression (for the past 30 pages)
that there was some unprinted Stealth Text in 336 that excluded 400' ops?
NO 400 FOOT RULE! YEAAAA!
For 30 pages we have known there was no 400' limit in s336 from congress,
how are you just now realizing this?
What gave you the impression (for the past 30 pages)
that there was some unprinted Stealth Text in 336 that excluded 400' ops?
03-14-2012, 10:03 AM
#770
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
TG
You guys are still mixing apples and oranges.
The FAA loves that 400' cap for the DefaultPath, this is nothing new, and
the FAA has already made it perfectly clear that modelers may follow Alternate Standards (submitted by cbos),
CONGRESS has offered protection to modelers (that meet their 5 requirements) from FAA regs/rules.
Hearing you guys say its up to the FAA to do what it wants regardless of what congress dictates in fedlaw, is
1) no big deal; we already have a FAA free pass from FAA regs in the works
2) a silly notion to believe congress is powerless to tell the FAA what to do/not do.
(heck, congress even tells FAA how union votes are to be held, and who gets FAA airport money)
The only 400' we have in the works we have been knowing about for a LONG time,
is from the FAA for the Default Path,
and the FAA is going to let folks out of that by following accepted Alternate Standards
If you guys want to talk about waiting till the FAA oversteps its authority before we court them,
please refer to the FAA inspection of a model field that IRA posted earlier ([link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10983651]645[/link]) :
By the FAA inspecting and issuing a decision that AMA field passed,
implies there we the possibility of failing,
and consequences of failing,
which sure sounds like FAA ruling over modeling ops very EXPLICITLY within one of the CBOs programing (the only cbo atm)
If you want to wait till the FAA misbehaves before dragging them into court
to force them to cease that unlawful action (per congress)
.... what are we waiting for? Boom, there it is-
The FAA is doing Pass/Fail 'inspections' of modeling that meets congress' requirements for protection from that.
Look, I'm on your side. I don't want a 400-foot rule and I think the best reading of the statute is that the FAA can't impose one. But the fact that the FAA's Deputy Director is still talking about that rule is bad news, not cause for celebration.
The FAA loves that 400' cap for the DefaultPath, this is nothing new, and
the FAA has already made it perfectly clear that modelers may follow Alternate Standards (submitted by cbos),
CONGRESS has offered protection to modelers (that meet their 5 requirements) from FAA regs/rules.
Hearing you guys say its up to the FAA to do what it wants regardless of what congress dictates in fedlaw, is
1) no big deal; we already have a FAA free pass from FAA regs in the works
2) a silly notion to believe congress is powerless to tell the FAA what to do/not do.
(heck, congress even tells FAA how union votes are to be held, and who gets FAA airport money)
The only 400' we have in the works we have been knowing about for a LONG time,
is from the FAA for the Default Path,
and the FAA is going to let folks out of that by following accepted Alternate Standards
If you guys want to talk about waiting till the FAA oversteps its authority before we court them,
please refer to the FAA inspection of a model field that IRA posted earlier ([link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10983651]645[/link]) :
By the FAA inspecting and issuing a decision that AMA field passed,
implies there we the possibility of failing,
and consequences of failing,
which sure sounds like FAA ruling over modeling ops very EXPLICITLY within one of the CBOs programing (the only cbo atm)
If you want to wait till the FAA misbehaves before dragging them into court
to force them to cease that unlawful action (per congress)
.... what are we waiting for? Boom, there it is-
The FAA is doing Pass/Fail 'inspections' of modeling that meets congress' requirements for protection from that.
03-14-2012, 10:19 AM
#771
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
Sport
the problem is not with the FAA trying to take away modeling freedoms,
it is with folks voluntarily surrendering modeling freedoms that are actually protected.
Take a gander at the phrase we (ama) used-
viable means of enacting?
Mutually agreed upon? [X(]
The Viable Means is that FAA Is Prohibited By Law from pestering us.
The mutual agreement should be
"FAA you no bother AMAee, AMA no take you to courtee"
Congress put us in the drivers seat, and we are trying real hard to surrender our high ground position,
by having FAA tell us what to put in OUR cbo programming (mutually agreed upon
)
because congress prevents them from putting that CBO limiting junk in their regs
Congress dont require cbo standards to be Mutually Agreed, nor approved, nor even submitted.
Our standards just have to exist.
If FAA tries to involve itself into our ~congress protected cbo programming~,
its court time.
When they seem to be contrary to the law, someone usually sues and the courts decide if it is contrary to the law. Lots of agencies have had to back down.
it is with folks voluntarily surrendering modeling freedoms that are actually protected.
Take a gander at the phrase we (ama) used-
As we move forward we will seek a viable means of enacting this legislative provision and establishing a mutually agreed upon set of criteria to ensure the continued safe operation of model aircraft in the national airspace.
Mutually agreed upon? [X(]
The Viable Means is that FAA Is Prohibited By Law from pestering us.
The mutual agreement should be
"FAA you no bother AMAee, AMA no take you to courtee"
Congress put us in the drivers seat, and we are trying real hard to surrender our high ground position,
by having FAA tell us what to put in OUR cbo programming (mutually agreed upon
)because congress prevents them from putting that CBO limiting junk in their regs
Congress dont require cbo standards to be Mutually Agreed, nor approved, nor even submitted.
Our standards just have to exist.
If FAA tries to involve itself into our ~congress protected cbo programming~,
its court time.
03-14-2012, 11:53 AM
#772
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Sport
???????
For 30 pages we have known there was no 400' limit in s336 from congress,
how are you just now realizing this?
What gave you the impression (for the past 30 pages)
that there was some unprinted Stealth Text in 336 that excluded 400' ops?
Sport
NO 400 FOOT RULE! YEAAAA!
For 30 pages we have known there was no 400' limit in s336 from congress,
how are you just now realizing this?
What gave you the impression (for the past 30 pages)
that there was some unprinted Stealth Text in 336 that excluded 400' ops?
Do you comment on everything? You got to have blisters on your fingertips.
No Iunderstood that right away. Too busy reading your posts to celebrate.
03-14-2012, 12:14 PM
#773
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Regulation passed the House
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
Congress dont require cbo standards to be Mutually Agreed, nor approved, nor even submitted.
Our standards just have to exist.
If FAA tries to involve itself into our ~congress protected cbo programming~,
its court time.
Congress dont require cbo standards to be Mutually Agreed, nor approved, nor even submitted.
Our standards just have to exist.
If FAA tries to involve itself into our ~congress protected cbo programming~,
its court time.
Suppose they say to the AMA, "Uhhhhh. You don't have a good enough liaison going with congress and governmental agencies. We find you unqualified to act as the community-based organization under the law." As you say, it's court time. That sound really macho, but the truth of the matter is that it is just plain expensive and probably will produce no results for ten to twenty years. During that time the AMA is out of business outside of running contests and polishing their website.
Then the AMA, newly defanged, comes to you and says, "Mr Epoxy, in addition to your normal dues, we'll require $1000 from you this year for legal expenses relating to the SNAFU." I'm sure you'll be glad to hand over the thou. After all, you're kicking butt in court, right? Heck, yes, it's COURT TIME!!!
Courts have a nasty record of doing things that neither plaintiff nor defendant would imagine, things that BOTH sides absolutely hate. They put people out of business in situations that would have just cost them some sorry money. I worked for a newspaper who could have given the plaintiff a million dollars to go fish. Instead they went to court (COURT TIME!!!!), ended up owing $183 million and lost everything. Court time is not where you kick butt. It's where you are told the facts of life and have no choice in the matter at all. Epoxy fumes sometimes lie really bad.
03-14-2012, 12:28 PM
#774
RE: Regulation passed the House
The last case on this that I know about was one in which the farmers dropped their case after the balloonists got it publicized.
I cannot find the article but it was posted here sometime ago, perhaps as part of this very thread.
03-14-2012, 12:32 PM
#775
RE: Regulation passed the House
Wow, over 100 million for legal fee's? LOL the extra would be more like $10 (if that)not $1,000. This isn't the type ofthing that the AMA would have to pay damages over, this would be onlythe legal fee's. The FAA knows we can easily raise the money, no worry about that. Now if you are talking about a local club then yes it would be impossible to pay legal fees to go all the way to SCOTUS.