cj_rumley

Glad it was helpful to you, Ira. That what these forums are about, modelers learning from each other. I learned something from pulling up that info for you, another item from the same section of the minutes:

"Shortly after the Interpretive Rule came out AMA asked for a meeting with the FAA senior management. R. Hanson, D. Mathewson, B. Brown and M. Rose met with their 10-12 representatives that included Peggy Gilligan the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, public information people and the lawyers.................
There was much discussion about why they haven’t moved forward in recognizing AMA as a community based organization. The lawyers said they did not see where they had the authority to do that. Hanson received an email today from Jim Williams about the CBO issue and he seemed to indicate they are going to go back to the Advisory Circular approach, and address CBO in a revision to AC 91 57."

Not firsthand from the source, but for a number reasons I really want to believe it.

cj

ira d

This CBO thing I have never totally felt it was a good idea and the reason why is I think the same rules should apply no matter if you are
a member of a certain organization or not. As far this commercial vs hobby thing the emphasis should be where a model is operated
and is it being done safely.

cj_rumley

Roger that, Ira. We are much in agreement on those points.

cj

Sport_Pilot

I think it started with Howard Hughes. I am not just refering to the tax's and landing fees paid by the airliners and manufactures, but that is a big part of it. GA is almost dead thanks to the FAA.

JohnShe

You do not have to join a CBO. You merely have to follow the safety guidelines. The FAA cannot make you join one no matter what benefits the club offers or does not offer. The CBO concept is an alternate to FAA regulation. Believe me you want a CBO. And you would be smart to support a CBO by joining it, but it is not necessary for you to do so.

JohnShe

Silly question I guess. How would an airport pay for the costs of maintenance and operation without landing fees?

GA looks like it is thriving to me.

ira d

John the rules are not finalized yet so neither you or anyone else knows how this CBO thing will play out or if the FAA will want people to join the AMA to be
considered as operating under a CBO.

cj_rumley

Believe me I don't. I want the CBO concept at the bottom of the deepest hole in the country and the earth above it scorched and salted. AMA is making good progress toward that end.

JohnShe

Doesn't matter, the FAA absolutely cannot force anyone to join a club. It would violate the first amendment.

JohnShe

Well you are right about the AMA. Their association with commercial drones is playing with fire and I expect everybody will get burnt badly.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Originally Posted by ira d
"This CBO thing I have never totally felt it was a good idea and the reason why is I think the same rules should apply no matter if you are
a member of a certain organization or not. As far this commercial vs hobby thing the emphasis should be where a model is operated
and is it being done safely."


Makes two of us...well said Ira!

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Why don't all U AMA haters just forget to renew this year. See where that get's U.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Why don't all U AMA lovers buy a lifetime membership this year. See where that gets's U

LOL

bradpaul

According to 20 USCS § 7801(6), the term “community-based organization” means “a public or private nonprofit organization of demonstrated effectiveness that--

(A) is representative of a community or significant segments of a community; and

(B) provides educational or related services to individuals in the community.”


So per 20 USCS § 7801(6), the AMA is a CBO................ I would speculate that as mentioned in a previous post that the FAA lawyers are correct in that they have no statutory authority to approve a CBO. The AMA can self declare itself to be a CBO under US Code and it would be up to the FAA to prove that it is not for the purposes of section 336.

ira d

Without getting into the first amendment argument that's a whole discussion of it's own, But the FAA does not have to force anyone to join
anything in that you are right. But what they can do is tell you if you want to fly your models you either join the the AMA or you will have to
jump through a bunch of hoops that most people will not want to or be able to do.

It's just like car insurance the gov tells you if you want drive your car you have to purchase insurance even though they don't regulate
the insurance companies as they should.

cj_rumley

The FAA can comply with direction from Congress to them in PL 112-95 with a period, ironically as in AMA's edit of AC 91-57.

"The FAA may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft of aircraft being developed as a model aircraft". period. Simply diss the rest of sentence "..if the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based blah, blah

With that minor edit the rule is as Congress intended for all modelers, CBO 'programmed' or not.

I doubt they are very motivated to create new regulation for model aircraft operators anyway, especially when it would apply to non-CBO acolytes only. PL 112-95 sec. 336 does not require them to.

That's my prognostication of the state of MA regulatory affairs after the dust settles and a lot of money has been transferred to lawyer's pockets.

cj

crasher1

My Feedback: (31)

I like the one where the pilot was 38 stories up in Manhattan and had just updated his firmware and it reset the max altitude to 300 feet, allowing him to fly out the window and hover at 300feet, but he couldn't climb back to the 38th story, LOL....Now Can You Hear Me......No Upgrades Allowed....

JohnShe

What hoops? There are no restrictions mentioned in 336 or in the FAA interpretation. All you have to do is demonstrate that you followed the safety guidelines of a CBO. And that only if you screw up and get into trouble. Ideally, following the guidelines will avoid any trouble.

radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

I think you're right. You don't have to belong to the AMA...just follow the safety guidelines that they publish.

koastrc

Are we fighting in a burning house?

N410DC

I do agree that he AMA is a CBO, for all intents and purposes. My point was that the FAA has made no formal recognition, despite numerouis inferences that they do consider the AMA to be a CBO.

True, but only when the model aircraft are flying really, really close to the airport. Traffic patterns that would interfere with model aircraft only extend a couple of miles, or less, from the airport (unless the model aircraft field happens to be on or very close to an instrument approach path.) The AMA does not, and never has, required permission from the airport operator for all model aircraft operations within 5 miles of an airport.

True, though the FAA's recent interpretation states that several of the AMA 's guidelines are not acceptable.

JohnShe

Like I said, there does not appear to be a requirement for formal recognition. And I as I have said, the FAA acknowledges the existence of, at least one, CBO. They specifically allude to AMA policy allowing FPV under certain circumstances with very strict rules.

Three miles is the rule, it comes from an FAA advisory allowing for model aviation operations. Now it is five miles and the same rule will apply.


"Several" is a dangerous word. I only know of one objection, the FPV rule. Please list the others.

N410DC

AC 91-57 only requires model aircraft pilots to notify the airport operator an/or ATC. It does not require permission from the airport operator or ATC. Under AC 91-57, the airport operator and ATC have no authority issue a blanket ban on model aircraft near an airport. If a model aircraft were to jeopardize the safety of the airspace, they could report the individual incident to the FAA and/or law enforcement, but they could only do so on a case-by-case basis. The FAA's recent interpretation allows any airport operator, or ATC to completely and permanently ban all model aircraft, at all altitudes, within 5 miles of any airport. This includes a lot of land area, especially if you consider the thousands of private airfields out there, plus and all rivers, lakes, ponds, and ocean shorelines that allow seaplane operations. In its interpretation, The FAA far exceeded its own Advisory Circular.

"Several" was perhaps an inappropriate word. That said, the AMA Safety Code and the FAA's recent interpretation do differ in regards to the aforementioned notification vs. permission issue when flying near airports. Aside from direct discrepancies, the FAA's interpretation prohibits demonstrating aerobatics for compensation or hire, whereas the AMA's safety code does not.

JohnShe

Well, you are technically correct. But, if an airport does not want you to operate in their vicinity for any reason, they can and will stop you from operating. Therefore, you need permission. I think that permission is implied by the notification requirement. How else could you know that the right person received the notification and that they are truly aware of your operations?


Again, you are technically correct, but only in a narrow hair splitting sense. The concept of commercial operation was not an issue until the FAA modernization act became law. And was therefore not an AMA policy issue either. Now that it is law, commercial becomes and issue. In my own humble opinion, which I have commented on to the FAA, is that the interpretation is too narrow and may inhibit commercial hobby product development, testing and marketing. Therefore it will have a negative impact on my own enjoyment of the hobby.

N410DC

I think this is a good point, from a practical standpoint. If an airport operator really wanted to press the issue and ban nearby model aircraft operations, I am sure the FAA would take the airport's side, rather than siding with an AMA club. Granted, this could lead to a legal battle, and there is no way to tell what a Court would ultimately decide. Is anyone aware of any instances where and airport has successfully banned model aircraft operations?

QUOTE=JohnShe;11867681]Again, you are technically correct, but only in a narrow hair splitting sense. The concept of commercial operation was not an issue until the FAA modernization act became law. And was therefore not an AMA policy issue either. Now that it is law, commercial becomes and issue. In my own humble opinion, which I have commented on to the FAA, is that the interpretation is too narrow and may inhibit commercial hobby product development, testing and marketing. Therefore it will have a negative impact on my own enjoyment of the hobby.[/QUOTE]

I agree that the FAA is focusing too hard on the model aviation aircraft industry. I think if they exempt all model aircraft manufactures, their employees, and their sponsored pilots, the AMA may back off a bit regarding the FAA's attempts to ban unlicensed commercial operations. Then again, the AMA is partnering with commercial UAV organizations/companies in the lawsuit that was filed a few days ago, and may want to avoid alienating their fellow plaintiffs.