littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Come on now, Its clear as day despite all the distraction, smoke and mirrors...Don't blink...the magician rarely does the trick twice.

JohnShe

Oh! I see, it's between the lines. In other words, you only think the said it and that's enough for you.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

LOL...I'll wager 10 years will pass and SA will mine more convoluted text, post in here once again to support his argument... There will be a host of guys supporting or believing his position... as everyone needs something bigger to be apart off to validate themselves...Some have football, some political party or some other thing...depending on their self induced programming....modelers have AMA.

As time goes forward more and more people will look to AMA or some other org to guide them.

Silent-AV8R

http://fas.org/sgp/news/2012/02/faa-uas.html

Scroll down to near the end. Third section from the end. It is in the Congressional record what the definition of a CBO is with regard to Section 336. I've posted the wording several times. The usual suspects refuse to believe what is clearly defined in the Conference Committee report. Oh well.

Silent-AV8R

Yes, "between the lines". No surprise that LCS and others would try to deny reality by pretending that quoting the Congressional Record is reading between the lines.

http://www.gpo.gov/help/about_congressional_reports.htm

phlpsfrnk

Silent,
cj_rumley makes a good point and it is relevant. Nothing in the AMA’s mission statement specifies membership in the AMA’s version of a CBO and the safety guidelines and programing are a matter of public record; http://www.modelaircraft.org/documents.aspx

Whether an RC modeler should be a member of the AMA is irrelevant to this discussion. While I will agree that the wording strongly encourages membership in a CBO it falls far short of a mandate.

If I own property far from any airports and chose to fly 50 lb. model airplanes for recreation with a few friends, where does it say I must be a member of a CBO?

As long as we operate in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft in the NAS what FAA inspector is going to say we can’t?

Neither congress nor the FAA is mandating that an individual must belong to an organization to be able to fly a model airplane, at least not yet.

Frank

804

My Feedback: (1)

Every one of the other provisions of 336, avoiding aircraft, notifying an airport, etc., is written in pretty plain and concise language and is easy for the average person to understand.
Not so the "...and within the programming of..." jazz.
No doubt AMA wanted the wording to read more like "...and membership in the AMA is required...",
but IMO, whoever wrote the actual wording knew that Congress could not absolutely require such a thing.

Silent, can you name any other hobby, pursuit, pass-time, or even profession in which the law
requires paid membership in a CBO, interest group, trade association, etc.?
Maybe there are examples, I just don't know of any.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

What really blows my mind is that anyone would even entertain such a notion, much less be an advocate for such an un-American way...

phlpsfrnk

Once again we are in 100% agreement.

bradpaul

Let's be very clear................... PL 112-95 Sec 336 provides an exemption from further FAA regulation. IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH A REQUIREMENT TO BE A MEMBER OF A CBO TO FLY A MODEL AIRPLANE.

IMHO and considering the way bureaucrats interpret things to their advanatge "within the programming of" will be interpreted by any CBO that meets the requirements to require membership. Does that keep you from flying your model aircraft if you are not a member of the CBO? NO, does however make you subject to possible further FAA regulations.

CBO member (under Sec 336) or non CBO member (not under Sec 336) you are still subject to FAA action foe endangering the NAS.

Silent-AV8R

OK, then I guess what Congress wrote in the Conference Committee report has no meaning then. Thanks for clearing that up. So your position (and that of LCS and others) is that what AMA wrote in their Mission Statement over rides the intent of Congress. Good to know.

But the good news is now that all of you who are so unhappy with the AMA are free to go forth and fly with nary a thought to the AMA. The irony is that it is thanks to the very organization that so many here find fault with on a regular basis. There's a word for that..... hypocrite.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

You'll find that arrow in the woods somewhere...what's so dang funny, the thanks you now say is due AMA is exactly 180 from your contention earlier....there's another word...confused...sounds like you intend to redefine the meaning of "is" LOL

JohnShe

OK, one more time. I have read and reread the law, the interpretation of the law and the conference report. I absolutely do not see any specific words that require membership in the AMA. Now, I suppose that might seem unfair to AMA members who have, through their dues and other actions, supported the AMA efforts to produce a set of safety guidelines and lobbied congress to inset section 336 into the law. But, I personally, as a dues paying AMA member, consider it a fair price to pay for the protection from FAA regulations that we have gained.

I will further admit that the term, "within the programming" is difficult to comprehend. But, there are no FAA or AMA jack booted stormtroopers. Nobody will descend on you in black helicopters with the intent of confiscating your equipment and brutally punishing you for simply not flying within the programming of a CBO (whatever it means).

In order to have fun and avoid trouble with the law or the jack booted storm troopers we need to stay under the RADAR. This is so simple that I do not understand why anyone is having difficulty. Here are the rules.

1. Never fly anywhere without permission
2 . Never endanger the public by flying over them or to close.
3. Never endanger private property by flying over it or too close.
4. Never endanger the NAS by flying too close to full scale aircraft.


I don't see what is so hard about that.

Silent-AV8R

So it appears that until the until the law is amended to read as follows there is little reason to continue this discussion:

"LCS, JohnShe, bradpaul, CJ_Rumley, et. al. the AMA is a recognized CBO and you MUST belong to a CBO in order to operate within its programming."

I understand now. I'll stop beating my head against the wall for now.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I needed that laugh...Thanks!

Tony Iannucelli

My Feedback: (193)

To answer the original question, we in R/C did have the Sport Flyers Association, but AMA put them out of business many years ago.

JohnShe

I am confused by the statement in quotes. I have said repeatedly that there is no requirement to join the AMA or any other CBO. Recreational model aviators are only required to follow the safety guidelines of a CBO. I do admit that the term "within the programming" is unclear, but I don't see it as a problem, because it would be unenforceable no matter how it is interpreted.

N410DC

Good points. Only the Courts can interpret law, based on what I read in the US Constitution. Anyone can have an opinion, but the matter will never be settled without a precedent from a Court, or a new FAA regulation that states the matter more clearly.

As other have said, local clubs cannot be defined as a CBO under the FAA's guidelines, since their reach is not nationwide.

There are a handful of organizations that have recently formed to cater to the UAV/Multirotor community, though I think they are generally focused on the commercial sector, rather than the modeling community. This would probably preclude them from being defined as an aeromodelling CBO, under the FAA's guidelines.

ira d

Until something changes in the rules regarding RC flying that would clearly show a great benefit to being a AMA member IMO it really does not matter one way or the other.

JohnShe

That may be true. I am primarily an AMA member because I need access to a club flying field. The insurance is nice and the congressional lobbying is a bonus.

ira d

John I agree with your statement, I don't have anything against the AMA and I am a member but as for legal reasons right now there is nothing pressing for
someone to join the AMA unless the FAA comes out with a two tier approach with rules for RC operations ie different rules for members and non members.

Silent-AV8R

Exactly. I am saying that the only way some (many) of you would accept what the Conference Committee intended and the way the law is worded is if it very explicitly mentioned you by name and spelled it out in simplistic and unequivocal terms.

bradpaul

"within the programming of a nationwide Community Based Organization" is unclear?, really?.................. not if you understand the English language.

"within" (inside something) "the programming" (rules regulations, safety code) "of a nationwide Community Based Organization " (the only one at this time is the AMA).

If the CBO requires membership to be ""within the programming of a nationwide Community Based Organization" and you opt out then you are not exempt from additional FAA rules and regulations.

quite clear.

804

My Feedback: (1)

You're saying the Fed is delegating authority to a non-governmental
entity-a CBO- to require membership in that CBO to comply with a federal
law.
I still would like to know if this is has been done before.
Anybody?

JohnShe

It is unenforceable as you interpret it. A government agency cannot force anyone to join a private club. And, besides, the FAA has made it clear, rather frequently, that it is only the safety guidelines that they are interested in.