BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Exactly!!

cj_rumley

Before Section 336: FAA advised people flying model airplanes to follow the voluntary guidelines published in AC 91-57

After Section 336: FAA advises people flying model airplanes to follow the voluntary guidelines published in AC 91-57 and also advises voluntary compliance with a community-based set of safety guidelines

Makes me wonder how much it is worth to Joe Average modeler to take advantage of using the AMA rules in order to comply with Section 336 which AMA wrote and lobbied for to get into Federal Law. I'm thinking very little, except for those that were too stupid to be capable of flying safely with only the AC for guidance and yet smart enough to feel that 336 will make their flying safer.

ira d

I think we all know when the AMA came up with section 336 they had membership increase in mind, That being said it will really be the FAA who can treat all modelers
the same or have a different set of rules for CBO members that in effect would force flyers to become AMA members.

Silent-AV8R

Not really. FAA advises people flying for hobby/recreational reasons to follow Section 336. Neither their interpretation or the newly proposed Part 101 mention AC 91-57. And by putting Section 336 in the FARs compliance is no longer voluntary.

AC 91-57 will almost certainly be rescinded once the sUAS Rule is final.

rgburrill

And once again you guys are arguing over semantics and other such garbage. The plain and simple fact is the FAA has recogninzed that there are organizations who have established some safety RULES and have exempted those who follow those RULES. There is that nasty word - RULES. All semantics aside that is what they are. And some of you just don't want to follow them so you will use any perveted logic you can to attempt to get around the. Well the FAA has made if perfectly clear - YOU LOSE.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I'm not arguing at all...with you...if I were, I'd try set you straight on your erroneous perception of FAA and how it relates to law...I just give my perspective on how the AMA kicked the sleeping dog among other things.

cj_rumley

Looks like I was wrong if that is so. Okay then, a revision:

Before Section 336: FAA advised people flying model airplanes to follow the voluntary guidelines published in AC 91-57

After Section 336: FAA requires people flying model airplanes to comply with the new FARs written by AMA

And I thought AMA's claimed objective was to preclude new regulation from being placed on model aircraft operation.

FAA regulation is bad, AMA regulation is good, and we call it non-regulation. Are we straight on that yet?

Silent-AV8R

Yep.

Nope. FAA requires people to follow section 336 which requires following a CBO's rules. The AMA rules are NOT Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Nor will the rules of any other CBO that may come around. What the FARs do say is you have to follow the rules of a CBO. Seems like the same thing but it is an important distinction.


What new regulation has been placed on models?? All the FAA has done is officially recognize the exisitng law and provide authorization for model aircraft operations in the FARs. No new or additional rules placed on models.


FAA regulation not needed. Modelers can police themselves as has been proven by AMA members for several decades. How you twist that around to denigrate the AMA and what it has done for modelers in this country continue to amuse and amaze me. But haters got to hate. I get that.

JohnShe

Yep, that was the case since the 1980s. The AMA safety guidelines are based on the AMA interpenetration of that AC. The FAA has never expressed an objection to the AMA interpretation.

What AMA FARs? The AMA safety guidelines have been in existence since the release of the AC91-57. Despite some improvements in the language there are essentially the same since initial publication.

That is correct and they have succeeded admirably.

Well, FAA regulation is not BAD, per se, just inappropriate for recreational model aviation. The AMA safety guidelines are more suitable for recreational model aviation.

We are free and in the clear, all we have to do is stay under the RADAR. We do this by following the intent of the safety guidelines. We don't have to join the AMA if we don't want to. We don't have to follow the safety guidelines or section 336 to the letter. Just stay out of the NAS and avoid endangering full scale aviation. We can soar to thousands of feet if we stay clear of full scale aviation. We can fly jets, extra large giant scale, or anything we want. Just do not endanger the NAS. How easy is that?

cj_rumley

Please clarify the distinction. I agree that it seems important to what you attempting to convey, yet I see per what you said new rules have been added to the FAR is "you do have to follow the rules of a CBO." How is that not new regulation? There was no prior mandate for modelers to follow the rules of a CBO, nor for that matter anything in the FAR concerning model aircraft. Section 336 contains rules and conditions, and it was written by AMA. How then are AMA rules not FAR? You cited them a few posts back:

By "exisitng law" do you mean Sect 336, which AMA wrote?


AMA managers do not agree that modelers can police themselves. What they have said/inferred repeatedly is that the small fraction of modelers that are programmed, managed etc. by AMA are adequately policed. AMA does like to use the royal "we" though, as in "we are self-regulating." If they actually believed that modelers can police themselves as I do, it would be very hard to explain and attempt to justify Section 336.

bradpaul

Well after 32 posts it seems the answer to the question:

Are there any Nationwide CBO's other then the AMA?


is NO
As for the question is membership in the CBO required to be "within the programming", IMHO the use of the word "within" puts the the AMA a good position to assert that it does. Now before some here have a fit, that DOES NOT mean you must join the AMA it does mean you must be a member of a valid CBO. That is the Catch22......

cj_rumley

Well I am certainly glad that has been settled!

bradpaul

you are very welcome

cj_rumley

I don't want to wear out that welcome, but you're on roll here with digging out information we modelers should be aware of, so....

Among the last several posts to this thread "the newly proposed Part 101" came into the discussion. I haven't a clue as what that is, but as it was mentioned in a reply to me it seems to be something I was presumed to know and/or I/we should know. Do you?

cj

Silent-AV8R

Sorry about the confusion, I assumed you had read the NPRM document. Please see pages 47, 48, 169, 172, 173, and 175 of the sUAS NPRM document:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic..._signature.pdf

In addition, I quoted the entire text of proposed Part 101.41 Special Rule for Model Aircraft in my post #35 above.

bradpaul

It is part of the proposed rule for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems that the FAA put out on Feb. 15. Starts at page 172

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic..._signature.pdf

chuckk2

"We are free and in the clear, all we have to do is stay under the RADAR. We do this by following the intent of the safety guidelines. We don't have to join the AMA if we don't want to. We don't have to follow the safety guidelines or section 336 to the letter. Just stay out of the NAS and avoid endangering full scale aviation. We can soar to thousands of feet if we stay clear of full scale aviation. We can fly jets, extra large giant scale, or anything we want. Just do not endanger the NAS. How easy is that?"

The problem is what exactly is the current definition of the NAS. The FAA thinks that it extends to the ground. Property owners have justification to believe that it does not.

cj_rumley

Thanks again. Appears that its purpose is to codify the sect 336 'overrule clause' that was added to give FAA the authority to act against operators whose actions are deemed to present 'endangerment of the NAS.' I'm good with that.

JohnShe

The NAS refers more practically or pragmatically to that airspace in use by full scale aircraft. We avoid entering the NAS by avoiding full scale aircraft. For instance, if you are out flying in a place where you have permission to fly and a full scale aircraft passes over at a low enough altitude to be at risk, you land. Once the aircraft departs your flying space, the NAS departs with it.

cj_rumley

Your OP asked a question handily answered in this thread, but the following note that I was referred to via PM and attributed to bmschulman (yes, that lawyer representing AMA in an action against FAA) is related and interesting.

As a practical matter the question that remains is Are there any Nationwide CBO's? That, and how much is it going to cost us to get an authoritative answer, as from a court?

bradpaul

Well we know the position of R Hansen of the AMA, and it does not surprise me that the FAA unofficially has a different opinion. But (and this is important to consider) the wording of "within the programming" is Public Law and not a FAA creation. They of course can "interpret" the Public Law but in the end it would as you point out, require a court to decide.

The interesting case would be if the FAA took enforcement action against a modeler that was not an AMA member and the modeler tries to use the Public Law as a defense. That would set a precedent for the membership question.

Silent-AV8R

Yep. Congress granted that authority in Section 336 and this new addition to Part 101 codifies it.

Frankly, from what I have seen in their enforcement guidelines they are no at all unreasonable in their approach:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m....3B_Chg_6_.pdf

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Man when U guys gona give it up ...You've LOST Grow up and admit it. The Horse is dead stop wiping it and just Barry it.

bradpaul

Thank you for your well thought out contribution to this thread.............. and I can say it is up to your usual standard .

Sekhet

My Feedback: (1)

I’m sorry, but after reading all the comments here it just proves to me that something an old NTSB investigator friend of mine once said is very true, “If the FAA can sow enough confusion with legal mambo jumbo to get the aviation community fighting and arguing amongst itself, it (the FAA) can then go about changing or making rules and laws as it (the FAA) wishes before the aviation community knows what hit them.”
This also reminds me of a poster that used to hang in the United Airlines pilot’s lounge at Pittsburgh Intl Airport:
FAA mission statement: We’re not happy until you’re not happy!