FAA Issues "Interpretation of the special rule for model aircraft"
#851
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cj, I did learn something from your post that being the AMA would like to insure rc flyers that would like to use their crafts for business. At this point
I am open to the idea since the current AMA insurance is kind of vague on what is covered when performing at airshows and such.
The reason I say the current insurance vague is because I remember seeing a post here on RCU where the question was asked what about
the person that performs at a airshow and receives payment. The AMA response was they could not say for sure and not to rely on the AMA
insurance in such circumstances.
I am open to the idea since the current AMA insurance is kind of vague on what is covered when performing at airshows and such.
The reason I say the current insurance vague is because I remember seeing a post here on RCU where the question was asked what about
the person that performs at a airshow and receives payment. The AMA response was they could not say for sure and not to rely on the AMA
insurance in such circumstances.
"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
#852
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.
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.
#853
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
#854
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.
#855
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
#856
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GA looks like it is thriving to me.
#857
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.
considered as operating under a CBO.
#858
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#859
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't matter, the FAA absolutely cannot force anyone to join a club. It would violate the first amendment.
#860
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well you are right about the AMA. Their association with commercial drones is playing with fire and I expect everybody will get burnt badly.
#861
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
"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!
#864
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is a CBO?
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.
(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.
Last edited by bradpaul; 08-23-2014 at 07:18 PM.
#865
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.
#866
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
(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.
"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
Last edited by cj_rumley; 08-23-2014 at 09:35 PM. Reason: format glitch
#867
My Feedback: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Riverview,
FL
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
#868
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#871
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOW! I do believe that someone made to the fact that AMA has not been the Community Based Organization (CBO) (item # 792 above) that so many have so thought and AMA management so liked for modelers to think AMA WAS such. That much publicized document in Jan. 2014 was simply an "....understanding.. which like any "undertanding" can be gone in minutes. My wife seems to be able to delete any "understanding" within a few minutes!
Now with this new "lawsuit" AMA demonstrates it being in force (partnership, bed, etc.) with the Drone businesses. Do you think FAA will ever be any friend of AMA after this all takes place? IMO, it confirms the needs for some new management on the AMA Executive Council. You AMA members have a choice. Do you have the desire to exercise that choice as much as you have the desire to 2nd guess everything now happening ?
Now with this new "lawsuit" AMA demonstrates it being in force (partnership, bed, etc.) with the Drone businesses. Do you think FAA will ever be any friend of AMA after this all takes place? IMO, it confirms the needs for some new management on the AMA Executive Council. You AMA members have a choice. Do you have the desire to exercise that choice as much as you have the desire to 2nd guess everything now happening ?
Let's take it one item at a time.
In their interpretation of section 336, the FAA, rather obliquely, recognizes the AMA as a CBO. The FAA has held many talks with the AMA which further indicate that they acknowledge the role of the AMA. If you read section 336 and the FAA interpretation carefully, you will realize that there is no language in the law that requires the FAA to formally recognize the AMA as a CBO.
In their interpretation of section 336, the FAA, rather obliquely, recognizes the AMA as a CBO. The FAA has held many talks with the AMA which further indicate that they acknowledge the role of the AMA. If you read section 336 and the FAA interpretation carefully, you will realize that there is no language in the law that requires the FAA to formally recognize the AMA as a CBO.
Not quite, read the safety code carefully and note the following quote from the safety code.
"Model aircraft pilots will:
(a) Yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft.
(b) See and avoid all aircraft and a spotter must be used when appropriate. (AMA Document #540-D.)
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
(d) Not interfere with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport or seaplane base except where there is a mixed use agreement."
Item (d) clearly expresses the need for agreements with airports.
"Model aircraft pilots will:
(a) Yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft.
(b) See and avoid all aircraft and a spotter must be used when appropriate. (AMA Document #540-D.)
(c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.
(d) Not interfere with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport or seaplane base except where there is a mixed use agreement."
Item (d) clearly expresses the need for agreements with airports.
True, though the FAA's recent interpretation states that several of the AMA 's guidelines are not acceptable.
#872
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
"Several" is a dangerous word. I only know of one objection, the FPV rule. Please list the others.
#873
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
Last edited by N410DC; 08-25-2014 at 07:58 AM.
#874
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#875
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
Last edited by N410DC; 08-25-2014 at 10:02 AM.