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

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

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

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

Old 02-24-2015, 10:10 AM
  #51  
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
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.
It would be interesting, but I don't expect to see it happen anytime soon. The only part of Sect 336 (PL) they will be enforcing is "(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." Any such enforcement action they take will stick regardless of compliance with anything else in the section, so it will carry little weight if an offending modeler tries to use the (CBO related parts of) the PL. I really doubt that FAA gives a tinker's dam about the CBO, so defining what it is, which also would define what is not a CBO, is just non-relevant. They are not going to waste limited resources on enforcement of the CBO provisions in the PL, though they will as ordered by Congress dutifully see to it's codification in FAR.

If "within the programming" is going to get a hearing, it won't be FAA holding the door to courthouse open.

cj
Old 02-24-2015, 10:21 AM
  #52  
bradpaul
Thread Starter
 
bradpaul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

What I find interesting is after all the angst over the AMA participating in the ARC, all the nay saying over the AMA and it's lobbyist writing the Public Law, all the "I told you so don't PO the FAA" over the FAA Interpretation of the Public Law, all the Monday morning quarterbacking over the AMA Lawsuit on the FAA Interpretation......................... the FAA proposed rule does all it can to stay away from Model Aviation as long as it complies with the Public Law. And it puts the AMA in the position of so far, the only CBO.

And the AMA never threw FPV or multi rotors under the bus as many here wanted. I realize "the fat lady hasn't finished singing" but so far Rich Hansen and the AMA are looking like stars.
Old 02-24-2015, 11:15 AM
  #53  
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 Sekhet
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!
No Truer Words were ever Spoken ..... Now let's continue the Argument LOL
Old 02-24-2015, 03:55 PM
  #54  
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
What I find interesting is after all the angst over the AMA participating in the ARC, all the nay saying over the AMA and it's lobbyist writing the Public Law, all the "I told you so don't PO the FAA" over the FAA Interpretation of the Public Law, all the Monday morning quarterbacking over the AMA Lawsuit on the FAA Interpretation......................... the FAA proposed rule does all it can to stay away from Model Aviation as long as it complies with the Public Law. And it puts the AMA in the position of so far, the only CBO.
.
As one of the naysayers you mentioned, I do reconsider/reevaluate from time to time. One good thing that has come of AMA actions, the writing/lobbying for sect 336 in particular, is that it gave FAA an opening to get an effective legal tool for dealing with the dimwits whose actions have given modelers a lot of bad press, that being the "Statuatory Construction" paragraph.
If the cost was about a million bucks for AMA's response to the ARC fiasco, my share is ~ $6.67, about what I pay for a couple of six-packs of Corona at CaliMax. For prompting insertion of that cited language in the PL, I figure I got my money's worth.

cj
Old 02-25-2015, 06:14 PM
  #55  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,498
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

existing nationwide CBOs
AMA-medical
AMA- motorcycle
NRA
AARP
NAACP
LULAC

just to name a few of well known ones
Old 02-25-2015, 06:46 PM
  #56  
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 mongo
existing nationwide CBOs
AMA-medical
AMA- motorcycle
NRA
AARP
NAACP
LULAC

just to name a few of well known ones
Quite a list, which ones have published model aviation operational safety guidelines?
Old 02-26-2015, 03:31 AM
  #57  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by JohnShe
Quite a list, which ones have published model aviation operational safety guidelines?
Internationally the FAI publishes aeromodeling aviation sporting safety guidelines and the AMA is a member of that organization. Nationally the AMA is a member of the NAA which is the governing body for aero sports in the USA. The NAA defers to the AMA in regards to aeromodeling sporting guidlines.

At one time there was an organization known as the Sport Fliers Association (SFA) which had aeromodeling aviation safety guidelines however that organization never got off the ground so to speak and there are many threads that already discuss that.

By the definition of a CBO I could make an argument that most not for profit clubs that follow the AMA safety guidelines and publish their own local safety guidelines and provide instruction/education to its local members can also be defined as a CBO.

Frank

Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 02-26-2015 at 03:34 AM. Reason: clarification
Old 02-26-2015, 05:48 AM
  #58  
bradpaul
Thread Starter
 
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 phlpsfrnk
Internationally the FAI publishes aeromodeling aviation sporting safety guidelines and the AMA is a member of that organization. Nationally the AMA is a member of the NAA which is the governing body for aero sports in the USA. The NAA defers to the AMA in regards to aeromodeling sporting guidlines.

At one time there was an organization known as the Sport Fliers Association (SFA) which had aeromodeling aviation safety guidelines however that organization never got off the ground so to speak and there are many threads that already discuss that.

By the definition of a CBO I could make an argument that most not for profit clubs that follow the AMA safety guidelines and publish their own local safety guidelines and provide instruction/education to its local members can also be defined as a CBO.

Frank
I agree which is why IMHO the term "nationwide" was added. More and more it looks like the AMA lobbyists knew what they were doing.
Old 02-26-2015, 06:00 AM
  #59  
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

[QUOTE=bradpaul;11991152]I agree which is why IMHO the term "nationwide" was added. More and more it looks like the AMA lobbyists knew what they were doing.[/QUOTE]
"GEE WISS" Just Imagine that .... Will wonders never Cease?
Old 02-26-2015, 06:53 AM
  #60  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
I agree which is why IMHO the term "nationwide" was added. More and more it looks like the AMA lobbyists knew what they were doing.
I believe you grant them more credit for malice of forethought than I think they deserve but I won't belabor the point. While I agree that things like a turbine waiver or the 55lb waiver would require membership in the organizational programing that grants those waivers I do not agree that it equates to requiring AMA or any other CBO membership to be able to fly. As long as I don't require a waiver of some sort there is nothing in any of the current wording that prevents me from legally flying from my own back yard or my cousins 125 acre farm if I so choose.

Frank
Old 02-26-2015, 07:06 AM
  #61  
phlpsfrnk
Senior Member
 
phlpsfrnk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=HoundDog;11991156]
Originally Posted by bradpaul
I agree which is why IMHO the term "nationwide" was added. More and more it looks like the AMA lobbyists knew what they were doing.[/QUOTE]
"GEE WISS" Just Imagine that .... Will wonders never Cease?
[SUB]I’M SO GLAD WE ARE ABLE TO [/SUB][SUP]ENTERTAIN YOU!![/SUP]
Old 02-26-2015, 07:59 AM
  #62  
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

[QUOTE=phlpsfrnk;11991191]
Originally Posted by HoundDog
[SUB]I’M SO GLAD WE ARE ABLE TO [/SUB][SUP]ENTERTAIN YOU!![/SUP]

ME TOO!
Old 02-26-2015, 08:07 AM
  #63  
bradpaul
Thread Starter
 
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 phlpsfrnk
I believe you grant them more credit for malice of forethought than I think they deserve but I won't belabor the point. While I agree that things like a turbine waiver or the 55lb waiver would require membership in the organizational programing that grants those waivers I do not agree that it equates to requiring AMA or any other CBO membership to be able to fly. As long as I don't require a waiver of some sort there is nothing in any of the current wording that prevents me from legally flying from my own back yard or my cousins 125 acre farm if I so choose.

Frank
Again it depends on how you interpret the phrase:
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines andwithin the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
Can you be "within the programming" if you are not a member of the organization? As the organization determines the programming what if they declare that the programming includes membership?

Many have stated that the PL cannot require membership in a CBO, I agree. However IMHO if there is only one nationwide CBO and that CBO requires membership to operate "withing the programming of" then if you want to fly under Sec 336 you must be a CBO member.

Now I personally think that is a terrible idea, similar to a mandate for health care, but the Public Law Sec 336 was written by AMA lobbyists and they seem to know what they were doing.

Last edited by bradpaul; 02-26-2015 at 01:48 PM.
Old 02-26-2015, 01:01 PM
  #64  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
Again it depends on how you interpret the phrase: {quote](2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines andwithin the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
Can you be "within the programming" if you are not a member of the organization? As the organization determines the programming what if they declare that the programming includes membership?

Many have stated that the PL cannot require membership in a CBO, I agree. However IMHO if there is only one nationwide CBO and that CBO requires membership to operate "withing the programming of" then if you want to fly under Sec 336 you must be a CBO member.

Now I personally think that is a terrible idea, similar to a mandate for health care, but the Public Law Sec 336 was written by AMA lobbyists and they seem to know what they were doing.[/QUOTE

Sorry double post.

Last edited by ira d; 02-26-2015 at 01:08 PM.
Old 02-26-2015, 01:07 PM
  #65  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bradpaul
Again it depends on how you interpret the phrase: {quote](2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines andwithin the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
Can you be "within the programming" if you are not a member of the organization? As the organization determines the programming what if they declare that the programming includes membership?

Many have stated that the PL cannot require membership in a CBO, I agree. However IMHO if there is only one nationwide CBO and that CBO requires membership to operate "withing the programming of" then if you want to fly under Sec 336 you must be a CBO member.

Now I personally think that is a terrible idea, similar to a mandate for health care, but the Public Law Sec 336 was written by AMA lobbyists and they seem to know what they were doing.[/QUOTE]



It would seem to me that if the FAA decides not to impose rules on modelers that are more restrictive than the the AMA's then this is a moot point.
Old 02-26-2015, 01:41 PM
  #66  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I keep going back to the Conference Committee notes on Section 336:

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 theNational 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
Pretty clear to me. Especially this line:

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;
This makes it clear that the Safety Program is intended for use by the members of the CBO. It does not say that the CBO provides the public with a set of safety guidelines. It says members. More than once.

And I am still mystified why somebody would feel fine about using the Safety Program and benefitting from the efforts of a CBO without wanting to be a member of that CBO and to support it.
Old 02-26-2015, 01:56 PM
  #67  
bradpaul
Thread Starter
 
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 ira d
It would seem to me that if the FAA decides not to impose rules on modelers that are more restrictive than the the AMA's then this is a moot point.
Agree that there is little to no chance that the FAA would want to pursue an action against a non CBO pilot. The FAA has said that they don't want be involved with model aircraft as long as there is no danger to the NAS.

But just what FAA regulations would a model aviator that is not in compliance with the PL Sec. 336 be expected to comply with?
Old 02-26-2015, 02:27 PM
  #68  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R

And I am still mystified why somebody would feel fine about using the Safety Program and benefitting from the efforts of a CBO without wanting to be a member of that CBO and to support it.
Yea...what a bunch of ingrates... They should be more than glad to pay for their programming.
Old 02-26-2015, 02:59 PM
  #69  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
I keep going back to the Conference Committee notes on Section 336:

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 theNational 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
Pretty clear to me. Especially this line:
safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground;safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground;

This makes it clear that the Safety Program is intended for use by the members of the CBO. It does not say that the CBO provides the public with a set of safety guidelines. It says members. More than once.

And I am still mystified why somebody would feel fine about using the Safety Program and benefitting from the efforts of a CBO without wanting to be a member of that CBO and to support it.
Interesting to compare that highlighted wording to the AMA Mission Statement:
AMA Mission
The Academy of Model Aeronautics is a world-class association of modelers organized for the purpose of promotion, development, education, advancement, and safeguarding of modeling activities.
The Academy provides leadership, organization, competition, communication, protection, representation, recognition, education and scientific/technical development to modelers.
Apparently it depends on which way the wind is blowing........
Old 02-26-2015, 03:22 PM
  #70  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thanks CJ, that makes a lot of sense. Here's one for you:

"Did you walk to work?"

"No, I brought my lunch"
Old 02-26-2015, 03:48 PM
  #71  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
Thanks CJ, that makes a lot of sense. Here's one for you:

"Did you walk to work?"

"No, I brought my lunch"
Hey, that's clever.

Q: In its filing for 501(c)3 exemption from taxes, does AMA use the CBO wording (serves its members only) or the Mission Statement variant (serves modelers)?
Old 02-26-2015, 05:10 PM
  #72  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
Hey, that's clever.

Q: In its filing for 501(c)3 exemption from taxes, does AMA use the CBO wording (serves its members only) or the Mission Statement variant (serves modelers)?
Irrelevant since the Congress defined what a CBO meant for the purposes of Section 336.
Old 02-26-2015, 05:20 PM
  #73  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
Irrelevant since the Congress defined what a CBO meant for the purposes of Section 336.
Thanks. Your non-answer is a sufficient answer.
Old 02-26-2015, 06:21 PM
  #74  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cj_rumley
Thanks. Your non-answer is a sufficient answer.
Your question has no bearing on the definition of a CBO as it applies to P.L. 112-95. That is the answer to your question. AMA could say their mission is bunny rabbits and rainbows and it does not change how Congress defined what a CBO is. My question is why are you attempting to divert the conversation away from the clear and irrefutable fact that COngress clearly intends that a person must be a member of a CBO in order to be "within" the programming.
Old 02-26-2015, 07:23 PM
  #75  
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 Silent-AV8R
Your question has no bearing on the definition of a CBO as it applies to P.L. 112-95. That is the answer to your question. AMA could say their mission is bunny rabbits and rainbows and it does not change how Congress defined what a CBO is. My question is why are you attempting to divert the conversation away from the clear and irrefutable fact that COngress clearly intends that a person must be a member of a CBO in order to be "within" the programming.
Where did congress explicitly say that? It is not in the law, so where is it?

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.