Question re effectuality of PL 112-95 Sec 336
09-06-2014, 01:10 PM
#26
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the AMA's only friend in Congress is Senator Inhofe, who has a personal feud with the FAA. Having a "friend" like that was, I think, a big mistake on the AMA's part. They must have known about the dispute. Until section 336 got passed, the AMA and the FAA seemed to be getting along pretty well, at least as far as we outsiders can tell. Since then, the FAA seems to take great delight in sticking it to the AMA.
They created their own "Catch 22" when they stated that they did not have the authority to name the AMA as a CBO. Can't have it both ways.
09-06-2014, 01:26 PM
#27
My g-d, some of you will come up with the stupidest ways of complaining about following the simple safety rules of the AMA. You brought all this crap down on yourselves, and you hurt the rest of us who do follow the rules with you were "having fun".
09-07-2014, 08:34 AM
#28
I think the AMA's only friend in Congress is Senator Inhofe, who has a personal feud with the FAA. Having a "friend" like that was, I think, a big mistake on the AMA's part. They must have known about the dispute. Until section 336 got passed, the AMA and the FAA seemed to be getting along pretty well, at least as far as we outsiders can tell. Since then, the FAA seems to take great delight in sticking it to the AMA.
09-07-2014, 08:42 AM
#29
http://www.ultralighthomepage.com/FAR.part103.html
09-07-2014, 10:18 AM
#30
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that contribution to the discussion. I started this thread with a question that basically seeks to put some value on joining/following/being programmed by AMA for 'protection' from onerous FAA regulations. I have been thinking about g-d as a possible alternative for comparison to what AMA offers. I'm thinking a plastic Jesus with fastening hardware to attach it to one's RC transmitter would provide comparable protection, and be more cost-effective. If I decide to go to production with this product, I'll be offering an iron clad guarantee: If you ever get busted by an FAA pig, your full purchase price and shipping will be cheerfully refunded. There's nothing to lose, and no annual renewal fee. What do you think about that?
09-15-2014, 08:48 AM
#31
I don' think they recognize a CBO for ultralights nor regulations over their construction, yet they inspect ultralights. whose rules do you suppose they use as to airworthy construction?
http://www.ultralighthomepage.com/FAR.part103.html
http://www.ultralighthomepage.com/FAR.part103.html
Umm...bit of a bait and switch there Sport. Yes, as in paragraph the FAA can 'inspect it' but inspect it for what:
Sec. 103.3 Inspection requirements. (a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle to determine the applicability of this part. (b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of the Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is subject only to the provisions of this part.
