Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

time to stop the dromes..........NOW

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

time to stop the dromes..........NOW

Old 12-04-2014, 01:32 PM
  #226  
mike1974
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo, NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
There is a difference between regulatory action and complete prohibition. For instance full scale aviation is well regulated and as a result, accidents are far fewer than they were when the FAA was first created. Accidents that do occur are thoroughly investigated and corrective actions are taken. This is not the same as Prohibition in any sense. As far as restrictive gun regulations go, ours are woefully inadequate. In the UK, where guns are outlawed, very few outlaws have guns.




We can't all live way out there, some of us have to work for a living and it restricts where we can live.




I have arthritis and fat fingers, a problem with aging. I usually say that my brain knows how to spell but my fingers can't keep up. I depend on the spelling checker, but it doesn't catch everything. What's your excuse?
I know not everyone can live out in the middle of nowhere. That is why I said I truly feel bad for all you guys who have to deal with airports and populated areas. I was being sincere. Just for the record I do work for a living. I have had a full time job since I was 18 an joined the USAF. Lived in major cities my whole life until I moved here 13 years ago. Would never go back to city life unless I had no other option. When I say city life, I mean anywhere I cannot have a legal bonfire in my backyard. lol
Old 12-04-2014, 02:40 PM
  #227  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mike1974
It's amazing how the Human Race can be so mind boggling intelligent and at the same time so mind numbingly stupid. I'm actually very surprised we have not accidentally caused our own extinction yet.

How about we just ground all full scale aircraft? Problem solved. j/k lol

All the poeple that want very strict regulations or all out bans answer me this:

How did alcohol prohibition work out? Created a black market, loss of taxes, countless lives ruined and lots of deaths.
How has the illegality of prostitution worked out? More STD's, wasting enormous resources on non-violent victomless crimes, countless lives ruined.
How has the war on peo........drugs worked out? I could go on forever. 1 trillion spent, millions of lives ruined, families destroyed, 25% of this countries populous jailed and drugs are now easier to get and cheaper then ever before! Probably one of the Governments most epic of FAILS!
How are stricter gun laws working out? Other then helping to disarm law abiding citizens, i'd say it's going pretty well.
How well do you think banning FPV will work out? Good freakin' luck with that! See the war on peo.....drugs. If you spend over a trillion dollars, have an agency specifically set up for said task and after 40 years have a worse problem then what you started with, then I cannot wait to see how anyone is going to enforce drone, FPV, etc.

I truly feel bad for all you guys that live in populated areas. I can drive 8 minutes to the top of a 700' hill and take off from a dirt road. No houses for miles. Can see about 30 miles. Turbine wind farm is about 25-30 miles away and I can see it clearly. No air traffic. No airports. Clean air. Beautiful sunsets.

Just because I cannot resist: JohnShe, I caught more than one spelling error in a couple of your posts. Stay cool bro!

Good point, Also I don't any good in some clubs banning FPV and/ or muiltirotor operations.

Last edited by ira d; 12-04-2014 at 02:49 PM.
Old 12-04-2014, 04:03 PM
  #228  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Yeah those old dead white guys created a problem for Diane Fenstein and JohnShe with that 2nd Amendment. Fortunately I live in Florida where the state has issued 1,293,966 CCW permits. The club field I fly at also has a gun range and skeet shooting setup. Ranges at 25 yards, 50 yards and 100 yards. The field is rural for central Florida and the neighbors where there are any are no problem. Best of all it is more then 5 miles from any airfield.

Usual weekend morning is fly first and when the wind picks up go to the gun range.

As for banning or tightly regulating FVP, I missed the news stories about full scale falling from the skies after hitting drones, and the deaths and injuries by drones hitting innocent spectators........................ would somebody please point me to those stories?

Oh and yes we welcome FPV at the club field within AMA guidelines.
Old 12-04-2014, 04:44 PM
  #229  
NorfolkSouthern
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,588
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
Yeah those old dead white guys created a problem for Diane Fenstein and JohnShe with that 2nd Amendment. Fortunately I live in Florida where the state has issued 1,293,966 CCW permits. The club field I fly at also has a gun range and skeet shooting setup. Ranges at 25 yards, 50 yards and 100 yards. The field is rural for central Florida and the neighbors where there are any are no problem. Best of all it is more then 5 miles from any airfield.

Usual weekend morning is fly first and when the wind picks up go to the gun range.

As for banning or tightly regulating FVP, I missed the news stories about full scale falling from the skies after hitting drones, and the deaths and injuries by drones hitting innocent spectators........................ would somebody please point me to those stories?

Oh and yes we welcome FPV at the club field within AMA guidelines.
Oh man, if the RC clubs around here had a setup like yours, I would probably still be in the hobby.
Old 12-04-2014, 05:55 PM
  #230  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

http://youtu.be/UFFRkJjUsrA dronefortheholidays.org
Old 12-04-2014, 06:13 PM
  #231  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by NorfolkSouthern
Of course you don't want an outright ban on RC. But I see you understand the need for regulation. OK, how about this: If you want to fly an RC model plane, then get a license. No constitutional right exists to buy a small unmanned aircraft, regardless of the type. Sure, very few outlaws in the UK have guns, so I guess their gun ban worked. So a ban on RC flying without a license and medical certificate, I am sure, will work just fine at keeping near misses at a minimum.
How about this? We form a nationwide community based organization to manage safety for all forms recreational model aviation. Then, we have the organization to lobby congress to insert the following language into the next FAA funding act.

"SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
(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.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes."

That way, we don't get regulated, only commercial and public service UAS will be regulated. Anyone who cannot or will not abide by the CBO safety guidelines will be hunted down and punished as they well deserve.
Old 12-04-2014, 07:14 PM
  #232  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Anyone who cannot or will not abide by the CBO safety guidelines will be hunted down and punished as they well deserve.
You're right, that is not regulation. It is tyranny.

Will CBO forces do the hunting down and punishment of infidels or will police actions to enforce the will of the CBO executives be delegated to forces of the US government, as the rest of the world does?
Old 12-04-2014, 07:29 PM
  #233  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
You're right, that is not regulation. It is tyranny.

Will CBO forces do the hunting down and punishment of infidels or will police actions to enforce the will of the CBO executives be delegated to forces of the US government, as the rest of the world does?
When did the rule of law become tyranny? I was thinking that legitimate law enforcement would hunt down the suspected offenders and the courts would bring the matter to closure. You know, give 'em a fair trial then hang 'em.
Old 12-04-2014, 08:19 PM
  #234  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
I have never observed irresponsible behavior at my RC field. We have some pretty good people. I have seen hardware fail and I have seen the wind cause problems but these instances are rare and not an issue. I have made some mistakes while learning and so have other members, but these acts were not irresponsible behavior.
U don't really expect people here to belicve that unless there only 3 or 4 members in your whole club. Every club has the same people that keep having problems keeping their planes where they belong. Weather it's over the pits, Flying be hind the line or losing a plane cause the let it get too far out and it flew away, or how about the guy that crashes just about every other time he flies, even crashing in the pits, more then 3 times in one season. I could go on and on but anyone that says they never see this stuff I'd feel privilaged to belong to that club. I'm a member of 5 different clubs and every one has people that are dangerous. PERIOD.
Old 12-04-2014, 08:32 PM
  #235  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
U don't really expect people here to belicve that unless there only 3 or 4 members in your whole club. Every club has the same people that keep having problems keeping their planes where they belong. Weather it's over the pits, Flying be hind the line or losing a plane cause the let it get too far out and it flew away, or how about the guy that crashes just about every other time he flies, even crashing in the pits, more then 3 times in one season. I could go on and on but anyone that says they never see this stuff I'd feel privilaged to belong to that club. I'm a member of 5 different clubs and every one has people that are dangerous. PERIOD.
That's sad. In my club we have responsible members. I have seen people make mistakes, and I have made mistakes but never repeatedly or irresponsibly. You know, the AMA has suggested bylaws that would allow you to remove irresponsible members. I don't think that we have ever had to use it though.
Old 12-04-2014, 08:38 PM
  #236  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
When did the rule of law become tyranny? I was thinking that legitimate law enforcement would hunt down the suspected offenders and the courts would bring the matter to closure. You know, give 'em a fair trial then hang 'em.
How do tyrants rule without laws? Laws facilitate their business.....just why did you think the CBO pushed laws?

Reality check: FAA has the all the law they need to prosecute modelers that endanger the safety of the NAS, see para (b) in what you posted from Sec 336 fo example. They will never prosecute anyone for being in violation of CBO safety guidelines. To operate under 336 means you must be an AMA member (ref Rich Hanson, Oct 11 EC meeting). Most modelers will continue to operate without buying AMA membership, in accord with a FAA advisory like AC 91-57.
Old 12-04-2014, 08:48 PM
  #237  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
That's sad. In my club we have responsible members. I have seen people make mistakes, and I have made mistakes but never repeatedly or irresponsibly. You know, the AMA has suggested bylaws that would allow you to remove irresponsible members. I don't think that we have ever had to use it though.
It's not IRRESPONSIBLE people it's just PISS POOR FLYERS U know the guy that can't keep a plane stright on take off, Crashes a lot, has trouble just flying a pattern with out some sort of out of control flying . And Like I said wither your club is real small or U are extreamly lucky. We've had discussions about the sanction but every time some one says Who has the right to make that determination and it goes no further.
Old 12-05-2014, 05:50 AM
  #238  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
It's not IRRESPONSIBLE people it's just PISS POOR FLYERS U know the guy that can't keep a plane stright on take off, Crashes a lot, has trouble just flying a pattern with out some sort of out of control flying . And Like I said wither your club is real small or U are extreamly lucky. We've had discussions about the sanction but every time some one says Who has the right to make that determination and it goes no further.
Doesn't any of your clubs have a pilot training and qualification program. In our club the rules require a buddy-box until the pilot passes a qualification test. Most of my mistakes were made during the buddy-box learning process.

As I read it, the sanction requires club officers to make that decision.
Old 12-05-2014, 05:57 AM
  #239  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
How do tyrants rule without laws? Laws facilitate their business.....just why did you think the CBO pushed laws?

Reality check: FAA has the all the law they need to prosecute modelers that endanger the safety of the NAS, see para (b) in what you posted from Sec 336 fo example. They will never prosecute anyone for being in violation of CBO safety guidelines. To operate under 336 means you must be an AMA member (ref Rich Hanson, Oct 11 EC meeting). Most modelers will continue to operate without buying AMA membership, in accord with a FAA advisory like AC 91-57.
Well, yes and no, as i recall, Pirker got away with his behavior because the court was confused about the definition of a model airplane. That has only recently been cleared up. And yes, as I said, local law enforcement will likely be responsible for locating and arresting miscreants, while the FAA can then take them to court. Of course the charges will be personal injury, property damage and reckless behavior. All of which can be avoided by abiding by reasonable safety guidelines. Who said that an AMA membership was required?
Old 12-05-2014, 06:30 AM
  #240  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Cbo?

This CBO thing is interesting......... just what/who is a CBO? We all assume that the AMA is a CBO but that DOES NOT MEAN that they will be the only CBO.

Now what if the CBO "programming" conflicts with the FAA's "Interpretation" of Sec 336?

The AMA says 400' within 5 miles of an airport. The FAA seems to say 400' everywhere.
The AMA says FPV using goggles with a spotter is OK. The FAA says the pilot controlling the model cannot be using FPV goggles/

Which takes precedent?

If it is the FAA "interpretation" how does not Sec 336 exclude additional rules or regulation?
Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft,
If it is the CBO "programming" what stops the creation of other CBO's (for example a FPV CBO) that would allow more permissive activities than the FAA Interpretation as long as:

regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).


Of course there is always the FAA fallback
(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.


BUT THE ABILITY TO PURSUE ENFORCEMENT ACTION REQUIRES A SPECIFIC ACTIVITY "PERSONS OPERATING MODEL AIRCRAFT WHO ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM", THAT DOES NOT IMHO INVALIDATE :

"SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft,

[
Old 12-05-2014, 07:48 AM
  #241  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,501
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

It's all BS 6 in months it will all be a MUTE point ... The FAA will see to that.
Old 12-05-2014, 08:27 AM
  #242  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,509
Received 173 Likes on 149 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog
It's not IRRESPONSIBLE people it's just PISS POOR FLYERS U know the guy that can't keep a plane stright on take off, Crashes a lot, has trouble just flying a pattern with out some sort of out of control flying . And Like I said wither your club is real small or U are extreamly lucky. We've had discussions about the sanction but every time some one says Who has the right to make that determination and it goes no further.
LOL This is hilarious. Just as there are no laws about being poor drivers there are no laws about being poor R/C pilots. I agree that the guy who wants to hover a 150cc airplane over the center of the runway while 4 other pilots are flying is an issue but the guy who never learned to modulate throttle and thinks that rudder should be used for boats is a whole another deal. Yes they are safety hazards but not irresponsible, they just lack skill.
Old 12-05-2014, 09:36 AM
  #243  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Well, yes and no, as i recall, Pirker got away with his behavior because the court was confused about the definition of a model airplane. That has only recently been cleared up. And yes, as I said, local law enforcement will likely be responsible for locating and arresting miscreants, while the FAA can then take them to court. Of course the charges will be personal injury, property damage and reckless behavior. All of which can be avoided by abiding by reasonable safety guidelines. Who said that an AMA membership was required?
I provided a citation in the post you are replying to. I didn't know that AMA had been recognized as a/the CBO (for purposes of 336) either, but that is a necessary condition for the statement by the AMA Government Relations guy to be true.
Old 12-05-2014, 10:09 AM
  #244  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
I provided a citation in the post you are replying to. I didn't know that AMA had been recognized as a/the CBO (for purposes of 336) either, but that is a necessary condition for the statement by the AMA Government Relations guy to be true.
Well they sorta have been recognized:

FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

page 8 footnote 2

2 The FAA is aware that at least one community-based organization permits “first person view” (FPV)operations
during which the hobbyist controls the aircraft while wearing goggles that display images
transmitted from a camera mounted in the front of the model aircraft. While the intent of FPV is to provide
a simulation of what a pilot would see from the flight deck of a manned aircraft, the goggles may obstruct an operator’s
vision, thereby preventing the operator from keeping the model aircraft within his or her visual line of sight at all times.
Old 12-05-2014, 10:28 AM
  #245  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
This CBO thing is interesting......... just what/who is a CBO? We all assume that the AMA is a CBO but that DOES NOT MEAN that they will be the only CBO.

Now what if the CBO "programming" conflicts with the FAA's "Interpretation" of Sec 336?

The FAA interprts "CBO" this way:

"Congress explained that it intended ‘‘nationwide community-based organization’’ to mean, in part, a ‘‘membership based association that
represents the aeromodeling community within the Unites States; [and] 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. . . .’’ U.S. House, FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Conference Report (to Accompany H.R. 658), 112 H. Rpt. 381 (Feb. 1, 2012) (discussion of special rule for model aircraft). Based on this language, which provides context to Congress’ use of the term ‘‘nationwide community-based organization,’’ the FAA expects that model aircraft operations conducted under section 336(a) will be operated according to those guidelines."

It seems reasonable to me. By this definition the AMA qualifies as CBO. i think that we can act as if it is a CBO and it will be the responsibility of the FAA to either accept or deny the qualification when or if the need arises.

Originally Posted by bradpaul
The AMA says 400' within 5 miles of an airport. The FAA seems to say 400' everywhere.
The AMA says FPV using goggles with a spotter is OK.
The FAA interpretation of section 336 says nothing about 400' from anything. If you are referring to AC 91-57, then you must be aware that it already has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. You must also be aware that the AMA interpretation of this guideline is somewhat different. In any event, the FAA has never said a word of objection to the AMA definition. Thus to me, at least, the entire issue is moot.

Originally Posted by bradpaul
The FAA says the pilot controlling the model cannot be using FPV goggles/

Which takes precedent?
That is a problem with the interpretation. There are many objections to that posted in the comments. Some of them are coherent and some aren't. In any event, we shall see what happens when the FAA completes the review of the comments and decides (in the colloquial sense, SP) what they are gonna do.


Originally Posted by bradpaul
If it is the FAA "interpretation" how does not Sec 336 exclude additional rules or regulation?
Well, it clearly excludes any new regulations for recreational model aircraft, and that is all that I care about.


Originally Posted by bradpaul
If it is the CBO "programming" what stops the creation of other CBO's (for example a FPV CBO) that would allow more permissive activities than the FAA Interpretation as long as:
Originally Posted by bradpaul


Why should that be a problem? If their safety guidelines are self serving and clearly intended to avoid FAA regulatory or punitive action without actually being safe, then the FAA may take action. Anyway, that is for the future to decide and of only slight amusement to me.

Originally Posted by bradpaul
Of course there is always the FAA fallback
Originally Posted by bradpaul


BUT THE ABILITY TO PURSUE ENFORCEMENT ACTION REQUIRES A SPECIFIC ACTIVITY "PERSONS OPERATING MODEL AIRCRAFT WHO ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM", THAT DOES NOT IMHO INVALIDATE :
I am not sure what your problem is with clause (b) is. We know from Pirker's experience that a court hearing is possible and a favorable decision can result if a good legal argument is presented.

As far as I am concerned, clause (a) is a victory for us.
Old 12-05-2014, 10:38 AM
  #246  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
This CBO thing is interesting......... just what/who is a CBO? We all assume that the AMA is a CBO but that DOES NOT MEAN that they will be the only CBO.
Hmm....ask AMA. See my reply to John She.

Now what if the CBO "programming" conflicts with the FAA's "Interpretation" of Sec 336?

The AMA says 400' within 5 miles of an airport. The FAA seems to say 400' everywhere.
The AMA says FPV using goggles with a spotter is OK. The FAA says the pilot controlling the model cannot be using FPV goggles/

Which takes precedent?
You know the answer to that It is stated in 336 para (b)

If it is the FAA "interpretation" how does not Sec 336 exclude additional rules or regulation?
It was intended by those that drafted it that it would not exclude additional rules or regulation for the hoi polloi modelers that did not buy protection from the CBO. It doesn't require FAA to make any such rules though and there doesn't appear to be anything to motivate them to do so.

If it is the CBO "programming" what stops the creation of other CBO's (for example a FPV CBO) that would allow more permissive activities than the FAA Interpretation as long as:
You answered that Q:

Of course there is always the FAA fallback

I consider that to be FAA's primary option, not a fallback. Another CBO could be more permissive than AMA, but to what effect? If FAA deems a person's operation of a model aircraft endangers safety, they will take enforcement action without regard to protestations that it was operating within the rules of AMA, another CBO, or God.

BUT THE ABILITY TO PURSUE ENFORCEMENT ACTION REQUIRES A SPECIFIC ACTIVITY "PERSONS OPERATING MODEL AIRCRAFT WHO ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM", THAT DOES NOT IMHO INVALIDATE :

I guess.....if one were to argue that rendering it toothless does not equate to invalidating it.

Old 12-05-2014, 10:43 AM
  #247  
flapwad
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cape coral, fl
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mike1974
It's amazing how the Human Race can be so mind boggling intelligent and at the same time so mind numbingly stupid. I'm actually very surprised we have not accidentally caused our own extinction yet.

How about we just ground all full scale aircraft? Problem solved. j/k lol

All the poeple that want very strict regulations or all out bans answer me this:

How did alcohol prohibition work out? Created a black market, loss of taxes, countless lives ruined and lots of deaths.
How has the illegality of prostitution worked out? More STD's, wasting enormous resources on non-violent victomless crimes, countless lives ruined.
How has the war on peo........drugs worked out? I could go on forever. 1 trillion spent, millions of lives ruined, families destroyed, 25% of this countries populous jailed and drugs are now easier to get and cheaper then ever before! Probably one of the Governments most epic of FAILS!!
That 25% statistic might be off just a bit:

Current US population= 317 million
Total US persons incarcerated = 2.3 million
= 0.73%
Even if you add in all those on probation and parole, the rate is "only" 2.2%
Other countries jail at a higher rate, but because the average US sentence is MUCH longer than other developed nations, we house the highest percentage of our population in jail at any given time.

So we're bad, but not THAT bad.

The US does house about 25% of the world's total prisoners, maybe that's what you were thinking of?
Old 12-05-2014, 10:45 AM
  #248  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
I provided a citation in the post you are replying to. I didn't know that AMA had been recognized as a/the CBO (for purposes of 336) either, but that is a necessary condition for the statement by the AMA Government Relations guy to be true.
Your citation says "To operate under 336 means you must be an AMA member (ref Rich Hanson, Oct 11 EC meeting)" That is so untrue that my mind blanked out when I saw it. The FAA cannot force anyone to join any organization that is a guaranteed right under the 1st amendment. Who is "Rich Hanson" and are you sure that you quoted him correctly?
Old 12-05-2014, 11:11 AM
  #249  
bradpaul
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe

Well, it clearly excludes any new regulations for recreational model aircraft, and that is all that I care about.
However the FAA Interpretation states that nothing stops the FAA from making rules and regulations that apply to all "aircraft". They just can't make a new rule or regulation that only applies only to "model aircraft".

However, the prohibition against future rulemaking is not a complete bar onrulemaking that may have an effect on model aircraft. As noted above, the rulemaking
limitation applies only to rulemaking actions specifically “regarding a model aircraft or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(a). Thus, the
rulemaking prohibition would not apply in the case of general rules that the FAA may issue or modify that apply to all aircraft, such as rules addressing the use of airspace (e.g.,
the 2008 rule governing VFR operations in the Washington, DC area) for safety or security reasons. See 73 FR 46803. The statute does not require FAA to exempt model
aircraft from those rules because those rules are not specifically regarding model aircraft
So under their existing authority to regulate the usage of airspace they can limit "model aircraft: to 400' and if they decide that all pilots of aircraft need a license and medical they can require that for "model aircraft" pilots.

Remember the TSA just declared "model aircraft" to be "aircraft"
Old 12-05-2014, 11:44 AM
  #250  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Your citation says "To operate under 336 means you must be an AMA member (ref Rich Hanson, Oct 11 EC meeting)" That is so untrue that my mind blanked out when I saw it. The FAA cannot force anyone to join any organization that is a guaranteed right under the 1st amendment. Who is "Rich Hanson" and are you sure that you quoted him correctly?
Yes, it is apparent your mind has blanked out. Good luck with that.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.