phlpsfrnk

Don't know of any clubs being banned however I am aware of airports requesting changes in operating procedures and operations continuing after the changes were made.

Frank

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by 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?


There was one club a year or two that was shut down in California near LA if I remember right.
Two clubs the AMPS and Sun Vally Flyers in Phoenix have been absolutely limited to 400' max altitude because of an indecent of a 40% just missing a full Scale with an examiner on board at the time. It wasn't the airport or the FAA it was the county because someone went to them and reported the incident and they took the action. These two Fields are on either side of Deer Vally airport in line with the runway at 3 miles and there are 2 flight schools operating out of there and there is quite a bit of traffic.

cj_rumley

RCU meets that description. It is representative of an aeromodeling community much broader and more inclusive than AMA and provides vastly more educational services to individuals in that community.

I declare that RCU is a CBO for my purposes.....didn't see any requirement for RCU to self declare to make it so, it just is by reason of what it does.

Man, I could warm up up to the notion of multiple CBOs; whole different ball game than THE CBO.

cj

Silent-AV8R

Unfortunately for you the Congress actually took the time to define what a CBO meant with regard to the FMRA section 336:

I'm not sure RCU meets any of those criteria. But nice try.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

it meets the first one.
2nd can be covered by simply changing a word or 3 in the ama safety code, and issuing it
3rd one is rather vague, and therefore easy to comply" with.
4th, have dinner with a different FAA guy each month.

cj_rumley

[QUOTE=Silent-AV8R;11868003]Unfortunately for you the Congress actually took the time to define what a CBO meant with regard to the FMRA section 336:



I'm not sure RCU meets any of those criteria. But nice try.[/QUOTE]

I think it does. I'd like to find out what the authoritative position on this is, but I appreciate hearing your opinion unsure though it may be. I think either determination would be useful, whether AMA is is the only possible CBO, or not.

bradpaul

Interesting......... I went back and re read Public Law 112-95-Feb. 14, 2012 which is the actual FAA Reauthorization Act

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...l95[1].pdf

and did not find the decinition of CBO you posted. Could you provide a link ???

WRM

I was told that the AMA had filed a lawsuit against the FFA . Has anybody else heard this?

cj_rumley

Oh, it exists, Brad. Search for "U.S. House, FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Conference Report (to Accompany H.R. 658), 112 H. Rpt. 381 (Feb. 1, 2012)" I don't have link handy.

cj_rumley

See post #827 and #833 above and follow the links.

ira d

Currently a airport can not stop RC flying in their vicinity without a valid reason and I suspect in most cases the airport would have to go to court to even try to do so. Why
would the FAA propose a rule change that would allow any airport to stop RC flying without a reason if they could already do so?

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Hmmm...the government warning us modelers of the adverse relationship and the need for advocacy??? LOL

What a bunch concocted BS AMA hooey put forward to validate itself in 336...For those that may have ever wondered, despite tons of other evidence, what the AMA's true agenda is, it can be garnered in those few self-serving words that most AMAish will proudly buy in to and ever so blindly follow.

One things crystal clear about some people...they truly love being defined... by their idiotic and ever so clueless Con-gress...as they never miss an opportunity to cite some government goofiness to validate their own goofiness...LOL

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Apparently that's going down as a fact....now for a little misdirection...We'll see the smoke soon...

phlpsfrnk

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...rpretive-rule/

Frank

bradpaul

OK, If it is not in the final bill that became law and was eliminated in conference.

JohnShe

It's not in the law. According to the FAA interpretation of 336 the FAA found the definition in a conference report and are using that to explain the intent of congress.

bradpaul

One problem is that that definition is contrary to the tradition of "community" meaning "local" and sure you could try to stretch "community" into "RC Modelers" but then the slippery slope of just about any group can claim to be a "CBO" for the activity they represent. Nationwide CBO is at it's best an oxymoron.

So we have the FAA "interpreting" the "intent" of congress? Real confidence builder........................

cj_rumley

In this context I have to agree with AMA in regard to this stated concern: " FAA takes great latitude in determining Congress’ intentions and in
placing tightly worded restrictions through its “plain-language” interpretation of the text."

JohnShe

Depends on what you mean by community. I thing that we on the RCU forums represent a community of like minded individuals. And we aren't exactly local by any means. However, we don't have an agreed upon safety code so we don't fit the CBO concept for section 336.

The concept of us borrowing the AMA safety code and adopting it for us is about the dumbest thing I ever heard of. Why bother, just let the AMA do all the work for us.

cj_rumley

Who is in agreement with anybody's safety code, and who is required to be in agreement, by whom? I think you know that AMA and FAA are not in agreement, so how does AMA fit the CBO concept of your choosing? For me my desktop PC and iPad are local enough.....the internet alters many old-school definitions and most of us take that in stride.

No need to take anything from AMA SC........it's for authoritarian minded folks (those that need to be told what to do and those compelled to do the telling) anyway. It's easy enough to construct a SC in a peer group...much harder in a committee answerable to an oligarchy:

*Avoid interfering with navigation of manned aircraft
*Don't fly over people or their things
*Comply with FAA directives restricting flight and/or flight envelopes of your model aircraft as may be promulgated, both standing and temporary

What else does the AMA SC have to do with avoiding conflicts within the spaces FAA is charged with maintaining the safety of navigating in and protecting people on the ground?

Any safety issues particular to a given modeling discipline should be handled within their respective SIGs. That is the way it is done in RCU.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

just about every independent gun club in the country does the "borrow" and adopt thing for safety.
and some of us, are not overly satisfied with the results of ama's "work", at least, so far.

cj_rumley

Makes more sense to me than developing safety-related material and protecting it as intellectual property, denying use by non-members for its presumed monetary and anti-competition value (copyrights, hiding it even from their own members). I have little but disgust for the basic moral issues that raises.

JohnShe

Strange, who does that?

cj_rumley

AFAIK only the ethically-challenged executives of a certain small 501(3)(c) corporation

phlpsfrnk

The AMA is a 501 (c)(3) and some clubs are 501 (c) (7). Could you be more specific in your accusation?

Frank