time to stop the dromes..........NOW
03-11-2015, 07:42 PM
#976
Okay, right. I don't get why FAA would put into the FARs language requiring one to buy into the superfluous AMA aka CBO crap to avoid being subject to proposed Part 107 rules in order to legally fly a toy airplane. The language is clear despite your attempt to pass it off as legal mumbo-jumbo of no possible consequence. Whether or not FAA will ever take action against anyone for being non-compliant with the CBO terms in the proposed rules seems unlikely to me, yet uncertain. Will some people be mislead into thinking they have to buy AMA membership to either avoid prosecution for non-compliance with Part 107 or alternatively accept its terms? I think the answer is clearly yes, and that is the illicit "why" of Sect 336. I want to see it killed, or at least castrated. A simple change from "Part 107" to "Part 101" is all it takes for FAA to accomplish the latter. Why would you argue with that, given that you have repeatedly droned on about how it doesn't matter?
Because they the FAA feel thay are the Almighty
"OZ"
03-11-2015, 07:50 PM
#977
Ira, you just don't seem to get it. It doesen't matter if you belong to a CBO or not. If you do anything that recognizably endangers the NAS with any size aircraft and get caught, you will be punished. That is all the they legal mumbo-jumbo in section 336 and the FAA interpretation of 336 really says.
03-11-2015, 07:56 PM
#978
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, right. I don't get why FAA would put into the FARs language requiring one to buy into the superfluous AMA aka CBO crap to avoid being subject to proposed Part 107 rules in order to legally fly a toy airplane. The language is clear despite your attempt to pass it off as legal mumbo-jumbo of no possible consequence. Whether or not FAA will ever take action against anyone for being non-compliant with the CBO terms in the proposed rules seems unlikely to me, yet uncertain. Will some people be mislead into thinking they have to buy AMA membership to either avoid prosecution for non-compliance with Part 107 or alternatively accept its terms? I think the answer is clearly yes, and that is the illicit "why" of Sect 336. I want to see it killed, or at least castrated. A simple change from "Part 107" to "Part 101" is all it takes for FAA to accomplish the latter. Why would you argue with that, given that you have repeatedly droned on about how it doesn't matter?
Last edited by JohnShe; 03-11-2015 at 08:04 PM.
03-11-2015, 07:59 PM
#979
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, you have made that abundantly, even excruciatingly clear.
03-11-2015, 08:08 PM
#980
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go back and read the last section of the interpretation of section 336, it is very clear in the words of the FAA.
03-11-2015, 08:09 PM
#981
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-11-2015, 08:27 PM
#982
My Feedback: (20)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Frederick, CO
Posts: 5,973
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ira, you just don't seem to get it. It doesen't matter if you belong to a CBO or not. If you do anything that recognizably endangers the NAS with any size aircraft and get caught, you will be punished. That is all the they legal mumbo-jumbo in section 336 and the FAA interpretation of 336 really says.
The AMA safety code provides a reasonable set of guidelines that would help people understand how to avoid endangering the NAS. I don't have a clue what parts 101 and 107 are about, but it doesn't matter to me. These parts are only being used by the FAA to specify which rule you broke when you endangered the NAS. It seems many of the posters here are getting the cart before the horse. In the metaphor, the horse represents an act of endangering the NAS. The cart, representing the rules, contains all of the manor that you will be buried in if they catch you. You guys seem all wrapped around the axle over whether they are going to get you for disobeying a specific word in section 336 or the interpretation of 336, when in reality, the first, and only, thing that matters is the integrity of the NAS.
Agreed !!
if we don't fly stupid, the FAA will NOT prosecute !!
Last edited by srt10; 03-11-2015 at 08:47 PM.
03-11-2015, 08:47 PM
#984
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-11-2015, 09:34 PM
#989
My Feedback: (20)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Frederick, CO
Posts: 5,973
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yet some are just so stupid that no matter what they will get busted
law or no law
permits or no permits
FAA or no FAA
law or no law
permits or no permits
FAA or no FAA
Last edited by srt10; 03-11-2015 at 09:35 PM. Reason: lame trolls
03-11-2015, 09:49 PM
#990
I wonder why a simple discussion has to deteriorate to shouting and personnel attacks when all that is being said is the FAA has not made it clear how they intend to deal
with non AMA flyers. We are not talking about flyers that endanger full scale aviation or any such thing.
with non AMA flyers. We are not talking about flyers that endanger full scale aviation or any such thing.
03-11-2015, 09:57 PM
#991
My Feedback: (20)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Frederick, CO
Posts: 5,973
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why a simple discussion has to deteriorate to shouting and personnel attacks when all that is being said is the FAA has not made it clear how they intend to deal
with non AMA flyers. We are not talking about flyers that endanger full scale aviation or any such thing.
with non AMA flyers. We are not talking about flyers that endanger full scale aviation or any such thing.
that answer is already out there
they will not do anything with NON AMA members
You DO NOT have to be an AMA member to fly a quad
they are only concerned with those who want to fly for money or fly for hire
that is all
and yes, those who choose to fly stupid who endanger the NAS need to be prosecuted
that is what the FAA is trying to eliminate, the stupid ones
Last edited by srt10; 03-11-2015 at 10:00 PM.
03-11-2015, 10:50 PM
#992
that answer is already out there
they will not do anything with NON AMA members
You DO NOT have to be an AMA member to fly a quad
they are only concerned with those who want to fly for money or fly for hire
that is all
and yes, those who choose to fly stupid who endanger the NAS need to be prosecuted
that is what the FAA is trying to eliminate, the stupid ones
they will not do anything with NON AMA members
You DO NOT have to be an AMA member to fly a quad
they are only concerned with those who want to fly for money or fly for hire
that is all
and yes, those who choose to fly stupid who endanger the NAS need to be prosecuted
that is what the FAA is trying to eliminate, the stupid ones
things about those who fly stupid and endangering air space when that's not the subject being discussed.
03-12-2015, 05:22 AM
#993
Does anybody here know what "endangering the NAS" means? If I fly recklessly over the model airfield am I endangering the NAS. Some were arguing that the NAS is all airspace everywhere to the ground. Is that the FAA position? If I fly over 500 feet am I endangering the NAS? Am I endangering the NAS If I fly over the minimum altitude limit (which is 1000 feet over metropolitian areas and even higher around tall obstuctions). Or does this only apply if I have a near miss with a full scale aircraft or certified UAS?
03-12-2015, 05:25 AM
#994
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the FAA take enforcement action against non CBO flyers? Well have government agency's shut down kids lemonade stands or cookie sales? Never underestimate the ability of a bureaucrat to increase their power. And I include the AMA administration in the definition of bureaucrats.
The Rules of Bureaucracy
A sadly accurate listing of bureaucratic rules
Read more:http://www.bestcleanfunnyjokes.info/...#ixzz3UB4IpZmC
The Rules of Bureaucracy
A sadly accurate listing of bureaucratic rules
- Preserve thyself.
- It is easier to fix the blame than to fix the problem.
- A penny saved is an oversight.
- Information deteriorates upward.
- The first 90% of the task takes 90% of the time; the last 10% takes the other 90%.
- Experience is what you get just after you need it.
- For any given large, complex, hard-to-understand, expensive problem, there exists at least one short, simple, easy, cheap wrong answer.
- Anything that can be changed will be, until time runs out.
- To err is human; to shrug is civil service.
- There’s never enough time to do it right, but there’s always enough time to do it over.
Read more:http://www.bestcleanfunnyjokes.info/...#ixzz3UB4IpZmC
03-12-2015, 06:41 AM
#996
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just trying to understand what 'programming' means in Sect 336, Frank. Re-distributing TFRs is the only thing that came mind as providing safety information that changes frequently enough to remotely justify requiring modelers to remain in contact with the CBO such that they remain current on safety rules.
The turbine and over 55 lb waivers requirements are stated in the proposed rules. No need for CBO contact to stay informed by a CBO on that, as these would become FAA rules and the CBO cannot change them.
added: more on the relevance of TFR to the discussion in reply to your question
The turbine and over 55 lb waivers requirements are stated in the proposed rules. No need for CBO contact to stay informed by a CBO on that, as these would become FAA rules and the CBO cannot change them.
added: more on the relevance of TFR to the discussion in reply to your question
Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
However, I think AMA can say that from AMA's viewpoint... In order to be operating within AMA's safety program you must be a member and actively engaged with AMA and participating within the safety program. We have to have a way of communicating directly with the sUAS operator(s) to relay important safety information such as TFRs, and the participating individual must agree and assert that he/she knows, understands and agrees to abide by AMA's safety guidelines as a condition of membership.
Take care,
Rich Hanson
Take care,
Rich Hanson
My understanding of “within programming” I believe to be such things as the waivers provided by the AMA’s Large Model Airplane Program (over 55 pounds) and its turbine waiver programs. These will never be “FAA rules,” only exceptions that the FAA will accept.
TFRs are a bad example of why one must be a member of a CBO because TFRs are freely available to everyone and the source below is more up-to-date than anything the AMA can provide;
http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html
Everyone that flies within 30NM of a major airport should check it before they fly.
The Rich Hanson quote appears to be a snipped comment from a personnel e-mail to an individual and because it appears to be out of context I won’t comment further on it. I cannot find any references in the AMA Website that one must be a member to fly safely.
Regards
Frank
03-12-2015, 07:06 AM
#997
Senior Member
"Time to stop the drones......NOW" ?
FYI:
The Federal Aviation Administration has granted Michigan State Police permission to fly a drone anywhere in the state for law enforcement purposes.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...-faa/24659777/
Reported cost to the taxpayer is only $158,000.00.
http://www.aeryon.com/products/avs/a...skyranger.html
FYI:
The Federal Aviation Administration has granted Michigan State Police permission to fly a drone anywhere in the state for law enforcement purposes.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...-faa/24659777/
Reported cost to the taxpayer is only $158,000.00.
http://www.aeryon.com/products/avs/a...skyranger.html
Last edited by philakapd; 03-12-2015 at 07:22 AM. Reason: Added Quad Manufacturer Link
03-12-2015, 09:25 AM
#998
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cj,
My understanding of “within programming” I believe to be such things as the waivers provided by the AMA’s Large Model Airplane Program (over 55 pounds) and its turbine waiver programs. These will never be “FAA rules,” only exceptions that the FAA will accept.
Frank
My understanding of “within programming” I believe to be such things as the waivers provided by the AMA’s Large Model Airplane Program (over 55 pounds) and its turbine waiver programs. These will never be “FAA rules,” only exceptions that the FAA will accept.
Frank
03-12-2015, 09:41 AM
#999
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With due respect Frank, my understanding is that the 336 conditions for exemption from new regulation by FAA are part of PL now. FAA is obligated to interpret the PL and make rules to put the PL into effect. Congress set the rules, FAA is charged with enforcing them. AMA no longer has control of the AMA Safety Code, over 55 lb and turbine waiver programs or anything else that may be within safety programming, Congress does. Neither FAA nor AMA can alter them sans Congressional approval. Or are you saying AMA can change Public Law whenever/however they will?
I'm sorry but that is so wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.
Frank
