KidEpoxy

Not much to report,
quick meeting with info from Jim Rice, Pres Brown, and "Ms Seriously" from camp.

Of note,
PrezB made reference to the US legislature telling FAA to sit down and shutup,
by commenting on maybe the FAA doesnt grasp the english language well.
Also mentioned was the FAA roundabout bureaucracy,
delays, positive encounters, alternate avenues, and not-so-positive expectations.
When asked if the Nuclear Option - taking the FAA to court per public law 112-95-
had been taken off the table by muncie
he responded with a energetic negative, it has not been taken off the table

*energetic: not some vague hem-haw non-committal or dodge

PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

I missed the meeting-I wanted to attend the flyin but I was scared of the rain-thanks for the update

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

I'm afraid the AMA got a little too cute word-smithing the whole CBO definition :

"the term "nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions, government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members."

The AMAmight have a difficult timeproving it is a CBO.

KidEpoxy

uh, we went over this EXTENSIVELY
in that the legislature gave a very VERY permissive definition
(and that anybody trying to get that changed will make it less permissive)


you pondered that AMA might have a hard time
meeting the Public Law 112-95 CBO definition,
yet I showed just how easy it is for my bowling team to be a modeling CBO [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10943138/mpage_6/key_/tm.htm#]here[/link]
The flaw folks (some AMA members) find with congress' CBO definition
is that it it too open and permissive
by affording groups other than the AMA to be cbo protected by simply those attributes.
There is no count or success requirement on Liaisoning, one call and you Liaised.
Its not even the FAA that you have to talk to.. BLM or EPA or state offices work.
Did it say 200 schools must be worked with? No, no minimum number of schools.
It didnt say we have to work with the pilots union or the EEA?
No the other orgs we work with could be DIYD or Clem&CletusFlyinPosse

.... because it defines attributes a CBO must have
rather than quantities / specific actions / approvals

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

One key element in good negotiating skills is to know when your winning!


Always had a hard time understanding why some negotiators can't figure out when they are winning....seen it countless times... Some people should not even be allowed to negotiate a hamburger order at Burger King.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Kpoxy

I agree that the AMAcould theoretically comply with the law.

But specifically, how does the AMA comply with the law ?

As thorough as your explanations generally are, I am surprised that you chose to speak in generalities this time.

Name some of these programs,(plural). Name someof these educational institutions, (plural). Name some of the government agencies, (plural). Name some of the aviation associations, (plural). How does the AMA support theseentities? How do they support the AMA?

ira d

You are joking right? The only way the definition could be more clear the CBO is the AMA is to drop the CBO and just use AMA.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

They might as well have done that. The point of the definition isn't so much to let the AMA qualify. it's to make it hard to the point of impossibility for any other organization to qualify. While all sorts of organizations are free to propose dealing with government bodies like the FAA and FCC, establishing educational programs, etc., the AMA is, so far as I can tell, the only modeling organization to actually do all those things. This legislation is the non-profit sector's version of what's called crony capitalism in the business world. In the long run, it works out badly. We'll probably be OK for a few years, though.

KidEpoxy

At the meeting
we heard a a line about and a question on NOTAMs-
the tie in here being that while AMA is providing access to members to get the info
it is still up to the pilots to actually check for that info
and its generally regarded that the majority of AMA member pilots simply do NOT check.

So while congress used language like
"provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that "
we can say the info IS provided while admitting it is not generally retrieved by pilots.
Which is also what can be said about the safety guidelines over at DIYD
... if there is information there but is not enforced (cough cough SalesDemos cough) a group can still say its there

IMPORTANT:
AMA just said the Nuclear Option has not been taken off the table.
That means the leaders of THAT cbo are have not yet decided never to take FAA to court.
What that doesnt say
is what the OTHER cbos that will crop up will or wont do in regards to taking FAA to court.
When the new regs come down and impose FAA regulations unto CBO aeromodeling
(regulations like Only-FAAaccepted-CBOs-Are-Exempt, aka polltax/polltest)
who knows if the OTHER cbo will file suit against FAA for violating PublicLaw112-95
..... and will AMA join them in suit against FAA per
"mutually supportive programming with educational institutions, government entities and other aviation associations.."

When DIYDcbo (with perhaps SportfliersCBO&USAmA) files suit for FAA violating pl112-95
will/should AMA join that suit to cough cough Protect All Aeromodelling


. . .

U.P.
Specific programs at AMA?

We know AMA interacts with at least city and fed gov with examples like FAA Sizemore and in low key terms stuff like the interaction with a city for the Giantscale-MiniRunway-by-Interstate fiasco up in yankee territory ( oklahoma). The legislature said government, and city government is indeed government (hence the ability to taxes and law)

We know the comprehensive set of guidelines as the SafetyCode and pdfs.

We know AMA clubs have been to school classes, as well as clubs with college relationships, and receive support in the form of access to recruit new duespayers... I mean access to get folks into the hobby, along with access to education property to fly at. We know that FAA Sizemore has become a household name from all the help(manhours) FAA has provided us in rewriting our docs, and we know just how easy it will be for other startup CBOs to get all those manhours of help from Sizemore just like we got (cough cough). And to answer the questions of why we suddenly got in bed with EEA after years/decades of standoffishness... well, now we say that we have a mutually supportive relationship with that other aviation org.

Have I missed any congress requirements,
cause this post is getting kinda long and I better cut it here.



The important part is,
that by saying the NukeOption has not been taken off the table
AMA has confirmed that there IS indeed a nuke option... something some naysayers here disputed

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

I never stopped to think about it that way.

Hossfly

United Pilot" even as a self-proclaimed true critic of AMA, I still have to disagree with what I think you are saying. [:-]

1. AMA does represent the aeromodeling community within the United States and even outside the U.S. in the international competition arena. AMA is the go-between the modeler and government at most levels especially in search of frequencies, the need for flying facilities and there are other areas all same. Without a national organization such as AMA is, organized competition and Club groups would not exist to any extent, and I seriously doubt that RC flying would exist outside some small groups of HAM radio operators.

2. AMA does provide a good Safety Code. If it is not followed at a place where modeling takes place, then that is the fault of the aeromodelers themselves. It seems that a significant number of modelers ignore the provided rules like far too many folks disregard red-light intersections while "texting" their BS. (OOPs I better stop here on that texting stuff. [:@] ) I have, and still do, protest some of the rules, do YOU? (One of the problems of not engaging in politics is that you will be governed by your inferiors. )

3. AMA does work with other organizations, namely the EAA and a couple others. I just completed working a 3 day show along with 2 others concerning the Commissioners and local Judges around TX. It was astounding how well we were accepted, while trying to plant seeds for who we are, what we do and why flying sites are so needed for our sport-hobby. AMA is just starting with this, but I am all for it. It is a definite outreach program that will do well making lots of important people recognize aeromodeling as a worthwhile SPORT.

It's about time AMA came out from under the porch and started beating its chest a bit.


Now one off-topic question United Pilot: When you guys going to quit yaking and start walking? I did it in '85. It's YOUR time now! [8D]

phlpsfrnk

http://www.modelaircraft.org/education/otherlinks.aspx

I believe there are others (I did not see the EAA on the links) but these are good for a start.

Regards
Frank

KidEpoxy

but
you are failing to consider cause and effect in regard to
other groups that never before had to be enough like AMA to be counted (or even needed to BE counted).

Consider if congress added another requirement that CBOs must wear blue hats.
Do we say
Oh No! AMA doesnt have that rule for its members/staff, so we can never be a CBO!
or do we say
No problemo: Next EC meeting we will add a Blue Hat order so our folks meet congress' hat rule.

It would be short sighted to say
that no other group has historically/currently met requirements that have no history or current effect.
In the near future there will be an effect for following the requirements ( you will get CBO protection)
but historically/currently there is no need to meet requirements to get that protection
because there hist/curr is nothing to be protected from.
(not even the proposal of what we get protected from has been released yet)

Just as AMA can simply add a BlueHat order if congress wants blue hats,
so can other orgs add a BlueHat+Liaison+TeamWithOtherCBO rule to their group
when they desire to meet the recent(pl112-95) definition of CBO.

RCU hasnt liaisoned with the gov yet, because they have not decided to be a CBO yet.
If at some point RCU chooses to become a CBO, (when being CBO has some actual effect)
then obviously they will start doing that
... and at that point they will meet congress' requirement for that attribute of cbo


If, at some point,
AMA were the only CBO and was choosing not to take the FAA to court,
other groups can simply CBO-up and take FAA to court for violations of pl112-95.
AMA has said that court was not off the table.
If other CBOs stand against FAA violating pl112-95, should AMA join in to Protect All Aeromodeling?

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Good stuff, bravo.But does that reallymean that the AMA is a CBO?Did youactually develop any programs withthis association of commissioners ?Do you even have the legal authority to enter the AMA into any agreements with outside organizations? It sounds as if you justmanned a booth ata professional association's convention. And does an association of commisionersconstitute an educationalinstitution, or an aviation association, or a government entity?It sounds more like a professional association and doesn't fit any of the3 required catagories. Again let me commend you on your efforts. I'm certain the hobby will gain from these new contacts. But this is not what the CBO definition requires.

As for this link:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/education/otherlinks.aspx

I'm not certain that sharing website links constitutes "programing".Plus, many of those links are dead. None of the links that did work went to sitesthat mention the AMA or any programing with the AMA.

I am rather shocked at the evidence, or should I say, the lack of evidence supporting the AMA's supposition that it qualifies as a CBO. Any attempttobringlegal action against the FAA might be thrown out rather easily unless we can prove we are a CBO and therefore exempt.

Hossfly

There was some information posted displaying that AMA met the requirements of the FAA as a Community Based Organization. Community being the United States and possessions, which AMA serves well along with recognizing various others - Canada - and individuals that come here for their own specific reasons. I am not taking the time to research that as if one differs, then let that one do the research. I am satisfied as it stands.

As far as what I did, well that is a new reach-out (my term) program being started by AMA. If getting to know the folks that initiate and sometimes make the basic rules for a community, a state, or a nation, does not constitute "community based" I don't know what does.

Now I have my old but goodie, The Reader's Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary and it offers these definitions as well as others: "3. The public; society in general. 4. Common ownership or participation. 5. Identity or Likeness: community of interests"

Simply being the organization that AMA is and can be, if its membership would take an interest in the organization, and use their ballots for other than trash, there is almost unlimited potential for a sport/hobby as model aviation.

Horrace Cain
One of the problems of not engaging in politics is that you will be governed by your inferiors.

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Great! Could you post a link, please ? By the way, I prefer your definition of CBO over the one Congress wrote !

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

According to the OP, Kidpoxy, the FAA does notact as if it recognisesthe AMAas a legalCBO. The OP suggest that we might need the courts to force the FAA to recognisethe AMAas a CBO. To do so, we must first convince the courts thatthe AMA meets the CBO requirements defined by Congress, (unfortunately, we are unable to use the definitions suggested by HF).

"Of note,
PrezB made reference to the US legislature telling FAA to sit down and shutup,
by commenting on maybe the FAA doesnt grasp the english language well.
Also mentioned was the FAA roundabout bureaucracy,
delays, positive encounters, alternate avenues, and not-so-positive expectations.
When asked if the Nuclear Option - taking the FAA to court per public law 112-95-
had been taken off the table by muncie
he responded with a energetic negative, it has not been taken off the table"


Mark me as "not satisfied".

KidEpoxy

United
Its not that the FAA doesnt see AMA as a CBO and thereby out from under the FAA's heel,
but that the FAA doesnt seems to accept that any CBO could be out from under their heel just because of some pesky federal law getting cbos out from under FAA's heel

Did you guys see the text in the definition that said the EPA decides who is/isnt a CBO?
Did you guys see the text in the definition that said the BLM decides who is/isnt a CBO?
Did you guys see the text in the definition that said the FAA decides who is/isnt a CBO?

no, I didnt see any of that either

Mainly cause there was no agency decision/acceptance/confirmation required by congress.
The FAA is not the ones that get to decide who is and aint a pl112-95 CBO and protected by congress from FAA duress. And it sounds like the FAA aint ready to just roll over and yield carte blanc to uncertified CBOs as that pesky pl112-95 mandates FAA to do

Someone coined the phrase Inconvenient Truth,
this is more like an Inconvenient Federal Law telling FAA to sit down and shut up,
and the FAA would rather not sit down and shut up for ANY cbo

What would your reaction be
if a government man (say... a Fed Park Ranger or USChamberCommerce clerk or FCC flunky or etc)
certified AMA as meeting pl112-95 CBO requirements
by writing on a napkin with a crayon "AMA is a pl112-95 cbo" ?

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Lets stick to the actual definition :

"the term "nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions, government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members."

I think we all agree that the AMA meets some of the requirements in the definition of a CBO, for example the safety guidlines and acting as an advocate, (at least in some circumstances). But the AMA falls very short on the rest of the definition.
You and I see the AMA as the CBO. I think the FAA evens sees/saw the AMA as the CBO. But the definition, (written by AMA representatives), was so extremely poorly written that the AMA cannot meet the bench markthe AMAhasdefined as the CBO. Now the FAAhas the power to say, "play ball with us or we will not recognise you". "Go to court and you will loose." The AMA has stumbled badly. Our choices right now are; Play ball with the FAA, or take it to the courts and have our hats handed to us, and then play ball with the FAA.
Some here on RCU see the AMA as legally meeting the requirements of a national CBO, others do not. In court, the burden will be on the people trying to prove it is a CBO. So get ready, its coming. Hyperbola is a loser in court. Facts are all that matter.

cj_rumley

The cbo, wildly fantasizing that one gains meaningful recognition/respect from FAA, will face this Inconvenient Truth:

PL112-95 Sec336(b) "STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who
endanger the safety of the national airspace system."

Does anyone really think the cbo will have any recourse when FAA decides someone operating MA "within the programming of the cbo" is endangering the safety of the NAS?

Who will sit down and shut up then.................

TexasAirBoss

My Feedback: (22)

Hyperbola and Jazz Hands !!!! haha !!

All new laws are challenged. It was naive to think this law would bedifferent. I hope the negotiations are not as bad as they have been portrayed in the original post. Perhaps things can still be resolved on friendlier terms and without the benefit of the courts. I hope, I hope.

ira d

I can remember reading in Model Avationsometime back but less than a year ago that it was the FAA that wanted the CBO systemto goveren models I wonder what changed.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

we, in our ever so prescient wisdom, leapfrogged over the FAA with our lobbying for the model aircraft exemption through congress. nothing gets bureaucrats panties in a wad faster than trying end-arounds on em. well, we got our law exempting us from the evil FAA, now we gotta live with the results of our actions. can't do business with angry lifetimer bureaucrats.

KidEpoxy

That is really up to the FAA, and if they will obey the law that stops them from regulating us.
If they choose to kick that law to the curb and write regulated mandates/limits/requirements on CBOs
(like maybe a regulation mandating CBOs be inspected/accepted/recognized by FAA- thats writing a reg on cbos)
.... then what?


We are the ones doing nothing wrong.
If the FAA chooses to violate fed law and write regulations on CBOs (something we expect will happen in some form or another)
THEN WHAT?
Well, per the q&a at the meeting, the Nuke Option is not off the table
and it will be the FAA defending itself for its regs in violation of pl112-95
rather than AMA needing to defend itself for some hypothetical violation of those illegal regs after those regs get put on the books. Just by putting the regs on the books is the initiator for FAA being dragged into court by CBOs, no need to wait for someone to break the regs. PL112-95 says the regs cant be made by FAA.


You probably can have that hope realized or dashed by shooting a email off to PresB.
He cannot divulge everything,
but you can ask if what was said in post1 is close to right or way off base.

KidEpoxy

Please itemize which attributes you believe AMA is not meeting,
so we can pick those off with examples of it happening.