bradpaul

Guys, as CL Rumley has pointed out there are no FAA rules regulations at this time other then AC 91-57 for "recreational" model aviation controlling models/pilots that DO NOT MEET the terms of Sec. 336.

The fall back which applies to ANY AND ALL "model aviation" is endanger the NAS and the FAA can take action.

The recently issued FAA NRPM only addressed models that meet Sec.336 and "commercial" use........ non Sec. 336 "recreational" flying was not addressed.

ira d

As I understand it the new rules are not effect yet but have to go through public comment and be finalized. Also there will another path to compliance because there
will be many UAS that weigh over 55lb although not necessarily for hobby use.

Silent-AV8R

Section 336 is actual law now, so flying a plane over 55 pounds without a waiver from a CBO is not permitted as a hobby use.

Silent-AV8R

Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 is in fact active law now. No further action is required on the part of any agency or otherwise to make it so. All FAA did in the NPRM was to say that they were going to recognize it as such as part of Part 101.41. But it became law the day it was signed by the President.

ira d

I will agree you may be right but I don't think we will see any enforcement for the time being and I would not be surprised to see changes to the rules before we see enforcement.

phlpsfrnk

You certainly like cherry picking your quotes. The committee report discussed some changing of the language and what must and will be in the final version of the public law. Here is the section you refer to in total:

Conference Report (H. Rpt. 112-381)
SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT

H--/S607(g)

House bill
No similar provision.
Senate bill
Section 607(g) exempts most model airplanes used for recreational or academic use from any UAS regulations established by the FAA.
Conference Substitute Senate bill with modifications. Language including model aircraft for the purposes of sports, competitions and academic purposes is removed and replaced with ``hobby''. The modified section includes language requiring that the model aircraft must be operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way, to all manned aircraft. In addition, language that requires that model aircraft flown within five miles of an airport will give prior notification to the airport and the air traffic control (ATC), and that model aircraft that are flown consistently within five miles of the ATC will do so under standing agreements with the airports and ATC. Lastly, language is added that will ensure that nothing in this provision will interfere with the Administrator's authority to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system. In this section the term ``nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; 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; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions, government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members.

What you keep quoting is what the committee used "In this section the term ``nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean" nothing more. Nowhere in the final public law does it say must be a member of a CBO. That said if I apply the duck test to the AMA I could make the argument that the AMA is a CBO and one must be a member for sanctioned competitions and waivers but it is not a requirement to legally fly aero models under public law 336.

Frank

ira d

Frank what is your take on the part in the rule that states that a model over 55 lb's must be certified and inspected by a CBO?

phlpsfrnk

On this I have to agree with silent. It was passed by Congress (PL 336) and signed by the President. Its the law.

Frank

bradpaul

NO, NO, NO please understand Sec.336 it does nothing more then exempt from further rules and regulations, "model aircraft" that meet the provisions of Sec.336 There is nothing in Sec. 336 that says a non commercial flyer cannot fly a model aircraft over 55 lbs.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

The CBO only has authority to apply it's safety rules to CBO members ... What the LAW really says is that all others that profess to follow these rules will "NOT" get a visit from the "Jack Booted FAA and their Black Helicopters. Un less they do something to endanger the NAS just as any CBO member, No Matter where, will be disciplined under the FAR's if they violate the NAS> the only exception will be when someone attempts to do anything for compensation or Hire with out the proper credentials and certificates and ratings, ... that's another Ball Game all together not even up for discussion here.

ira d

Yes the way that parts reads it does seem that congress is forcing anyone who wants to fly a model over 55 lb's to be a AMA member, Somehow I don't think they really
understood what they were doing when they wrote it though. The good point in all this is most modelers fly craft that are under that limit and I do think before it's all
said and done we will see a change in that rule.

Silent-AV8R

In order for P.L. 112-95 Section 336 to be changed would require Congress amending the section (or the entire Act) and then getting it signed again by the President. There is nothing pending with regard to Section 336. It IS the law right now. FAA has issued their interpretation, and that will be sussed out thanks to the AMA's lawsuit against the FAA. But that does not affect the law itself. I do agree that until the lawsuit is settled I doubt we will see any kind of enforcement against modelers if for no other reason than 99% of us are not going to cause an issue in the first place.

Silent-AV8R

Well, it certainly seems that this paragraph from Section 336 contradicts your understanding:

That is if they want to operate under Section 336. If not, then AC 91-57 would apply right now.

bradpaul

Bingo give the man a cigar.

Tell me how is that different then:

Now here is the thing some do not want flyers to understand ....................... As AC 91-57 is a "recomendation", and the NRPM is a long way from going into effect, a "model aircraft" pilot has fewer restrictions by not complying with Sec. 336.. As long as you DO NOT ENDANGER THE NAS you are completely free to fly without a CBO.

ira d

But how do you get around not having a CBO if you want fly a model heaver than 55 lb's?

bradpaul

just don't fly claiming to comply with Sec.336

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

This is a truism, for now sure hope it stays almost unchanged and no member of the (Proposed/existing) CBO does something, "STUPID" to in danger the NAS and make it bad for all of us, by association.

cj_rumley

If you are not a CBO "follower," i.e., not looking for exemption from regulation by conforming to 336, then AC 91-57 applies. AC 91-57 does not specify a weight limit. Same goes for operating a turbojet powered model - it is not outside of the authorization to fly per AC 91-57, whether or not it has been waivered by AMA. Just because somebody makes noise about 336 and its conditions being the law (which is true) doesn't mean it applies to everyone. By 'everyone' in this context I mean inclusive of the large majority of modelers that are not AMA members or any other group that may call themselves a CBO. Simply put, you get around CBO rules by not joining a CBO.

ira d

I hope you are right and IMO we should not have the FAA telling us we need to belong to the AMA to do anything.

ira d

I'm inclined to agree with you, the problem as I see it is in the rule that the FAA put out it states if you want to fly a model over 55 lb's it must be certified and inspected by the AMA. So that
wording sounds as the FAA will see it as illegal for anyone to AMA member or not to fly a model over 55lb' without a AMA inspection.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

[QUOTE=cj_rumley;11994283]If you are not a CBO "follower," i.e., not looking for exemption from regulation by conforming to 336, then AC 91-57 applies. AC 91-57 does not specify a weight limit. Same goes for operating a turbojet powered model - it is not outside of the authorization to fly per AC 91-57, whether or not it has been waivered by AMA. Just because somebody makes noise about 336 and its conditions being the law (which is true) doesn't mean it applies to everyone. By 'everyone' in this context I mean inclusive of the large majority of modelers that are not AMA members or any other group that may call themselves a CBO. Simply put, you get around CBO rules by not joining a CBO. [QUOTE]

But if U do not follow the rules of a CBO U will be subject to stricter rules governing the NAS ....
The whole thing breaks down to "Don't acquire the "Rath of the Jack Booted FAA and U will be OK". For now.

bradpaul

Quote:

But if U do not follow the rules of a CBO U will be subject to stricter rules governing the NAS ....
The whole thing breaks down to "Don't acquire the "Rath of the Jack Booted FAA and U will be OK". For now.

If and when in about 5 to 10 years the FAA goes through the NPRM process to publish proposed rules, public comment, etc.............................

cj_rumley

In a previous post I noted that the listed rules you refer to are not rules per se, but rather conditions that apply if one chooses to align with a CBO to be exempt from future FAA rulemaking. It will help if if you are skeptical of that statement and go back to 336 and verify (or diss) what I said based on what you read there, ira.
Basically, most things stay the same as before 336. If you belong to AMA to because you have to in order to gain access to a flying site, you will have to comply with the rules stated in 336. If you are not an AMA member you are not subject to AMA rules, just as before. The only of substance in 336 is the opening it gave FAA to get some enforcement authority. That has been lacking and made it awkward to go after clowns like Pirker and others that have posted video evidence of their recklessness online. That to me is the saving grace of 336,as it is beneficial to all responsible modelers. Maybe not what AMA planned, but perhaps a karma sort of thing.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

"Zactily"
it all depends on the FAA getting their Ducks in a Row .... Been only 8 to 10 years so far.
If Quads had not become prevalent nothing would be happening YET JMHO!

ira d

[QUOTE=HoundDog;11994295]In the usa unless you own or have access to land to fly on it's almost impossible to fly RC without being a AMA member so it want be as simple as you say. anyway the good thing is
as has already been said it will probably 5-10 before all this gets sorted out and we see enforcement