Are there any Nationwide CBO's other then the AMA?
02-27-2015, 08:03 PM
#101
"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.
"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.
Seems to me if congress and or the federal gov wanted all modelers to be AMA members they would just say so and even site the penalty for flying RC without AMA membership.
02-27-2015, 08:09 PM
#102
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We really won't know that until additional FAA rules and regulations are made. Right now there are none, so there is nothing the 'protection' of becoming a CBO member buys. It's a no-op, a $60/yr supply of tin foil hats. There does not appear to be any rational reason for an indie modeler to buy into that until some threat to his modeling freedom becomes manifest and it involves some desired operation that does not pose a threat to the safety of the NAS. That could be years from now, or never, and what one has spent before the membership year when it happens didn't buy anything. Further, IMHO it is unlikely to happen, ever. FAA has made it pretty clear that they are not interested in regulating model airplanes, but rather in maintaining traffic control in the NAS in the interest of safety, which is their charter. They are in the process of codifying language inserted in 336 that will give them the power to take enforcement action against operators of model aircraft that recklessly endanger the NAS. The scope of that power is broad, and there does not appear to be any need to write specific rules that anticipate and prohibit every conceivable misdeed a modeler might engage in and in so doing pose a threat to the NAS, and certainly no motivation to write rules concerning model operations that do not pose such a threat.
02-27-2015, 11:13 PM
#103
We really won't know that until additional FAA rules and regulations are made. Right now there are none, so there is nothing the 'protection' of becoming a CBO member buys. It's a no-op, a $60/yr supply of tin foil hats. There does not appear to be any rational reason for an indie modeler to buy into that until some threat to his modeling freedom becomes manifest and it involves some desired operation that does not pose a threat to the safety of the NAS. That could be years from now, or never, and what one has spent before the membership year when it happens didn't buy anything. Further, IMHO it is unlikely to happen, ever. FAA has made it pretty clear that they are not interested in regulating model airplanes, but rather in maintaining traffic control in the NAS in the interest of safety, which is their charter. They are in the process of codifying language inserted in 336 that will give them the power to take enforcement action against operators of model aircraft that recklessly endanger the NAS. The scope of that power is broad, and there does not appear to be any need to write specific rules that anticipate and prohibit every conceivable misdeed a modeler might engage in and in so doing pose a threat to the NAS, and certainly no motivation to write rules concerning model operations that do not pose such a threat.
02-28-2015, 10:18 AM
#104
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We really won't know that until additional FAA rules and regulations are made. Right now there are none, so there is nothing the 'protection' of becoming a CBO member buys. It's a no-op, a $60/yr supply of tin foil hats. There does not appear to be any rational reason for an indie modeler to buy into that until some threat to his modeling freedom becomes manifest and it involves some desired operation that does not pose a threat to the safety of the NAS. That could be years from now, or never, and what one has spent before the membership year when it happens didn't buy anything. Further, IMHO it is unlikely to happen, ever. FAA has made it pretty clear that they are not interested in regulating model airplanes, but rather in maintaining traffic control in the NAS in the interest of safety, which is their charter. They are in the process of codifying language inserted in 336 that will give them the power to take enforcement action against operators of model aircraft that recklessly endanger the NAS. The scope of that power is broad, and there does not appear to be any need to write specific rules that anticipate and prohibit every conceivable misdeed a modeler might engage in and in so doing pose a threat to the NAS, and certainly no motivation to write rules concerning model operations that do not pose such a threat.
So can I can ignore:
(1)the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
(2)the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3)the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
(4)the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5)when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
(2)the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3)the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
(4)the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5)when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
02-28-2015, 11:12 AM
#105
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the order of questions (1)Yes,(2) None for the time being, (3) I think one can ignore it in entirety and with alacrity. Remember, it is not a set of rules that apply to all modelers, but a set of conditions that must be met by those that feel the need to claim exemption from FAA regulation yet to be written. There is no regulation currently, authorization to operate a model aircraft is the advisory AC 91-57. FAA has said that advisory will be revised, but nothing to suggest that it will change from advisory (voluntary compliance) to mandatory. Not to say that parts (1), (3), (4), (5), won't be covered elsewhere. Part (1) certainly is, and the others may be covered by the provisions for dealing with 'reckless endangerment' that are in the sUAS NPRM.
02-28-2015, 11:45 AM
#106
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the order of questions (1)Yes,(2) None for the time being, (3) I think one can ignore it in entirety and with alacrity. Remember, it is not a set of rules that apply to all modelers, but a set of conditions that must be met by those that feel the need to claim exemption from FAA regulation yet to be written. There is no regulation currently, authorization to operate a model aircraft is the advisory AC 91-57. FAA has said that advisory will be revised, but nothing to suggest that it will change from advisory (voluntary compliance) to mandatory. Not to say that parts (1), (3), (4), (5), won't be covered elsewhere. Part (1) certainly is, and the others may be covered by the provisions for dealing with 'reckless endangerment' that are in the sUAS NPRM.
First, the rule writing for model airplanes is over. There will be no rules at all. The closest we get to a rule, and it is not a rule, is the interpretation of section 336. Other than that, the FAA might or might not publish a policy circular, But I doubt it. There will be very little communication from the FAA. As far as the FAA is concerned, and this is stated in the interpretation, we are to fly for fun and stay the heck out of the NAS. The FAA has made it clear that they will select and apply applicable existing regulations to anyone who is caught endangering the NAS. How do we do this? It is really simple, we follow the safety guidelines of a CBO like the AMA. The AMA clearly fits the CBO definition.
The sUAS NPRM applies only to commercial drone operations and will have no effect at all in any way on recreational model aviators.
02-28-2015, 07:20 PM
#107
You are pretty close, but not all the way there.
First, the rule writing for model airplanes is over. There will be no rules at all. The closest we get to a rule, and it is not a rule, is the interpretation of section 336. Other than that, the FAA might or might not publish a policy circular, But I doubt it. There will be very little communication from the FAA. As far as the FAA is concerned, and this is stated in the interpretation, we are to fly for fun and stay the heck out of the NAS. The FAA has made it clear that they will select and apply applicable existing regulations to anyone who is caught endangering the NAS. How do we do this? It is really simple, we follow the safety guidelines of a CBO like the AMA. The AMA clearly fits the CBO definition.
The sUAS NPRM applies only to commercial drone operations and will have no effect at all in any way on recreational model aviators.
First, the rule writing for model airplanes is over. There will be no rules at all. The closest we get to a rule, and it is not a rule, is the interpretation of section 336. Other than that, the FAA might or might not publish a policy circular, But I doubt it. There will be very little communication from the FAA. As far as the FAA is concerned, and this is stated in the interpretation, we are to fly for fun and stay the heck out of the NAS. The FAA has made it clear that they will select and apply applicable existing regulations to anyone who is caught endangering the NAS. How do we do this? It is really simple, we follow the safety guidelines of a CBO like the AMA. The AMA clearly fits the CBO definition.
The sUAS NPRM applies only to commercial drone operations and will have no effect at all in any way on recreational model aviators.
Unless they attempt to fly too close to any Air Port. That is the deal breaker.
02-28-2015, 07:32 PM
#108
You are pretty close, but not all the way there.
First, the rule writing for model airplanes is over. There will be no rules at all. The closest we get to a rule, and it is not a rule, is the interpretation of section 336. Other than that, the FAA might or might not publish a policy circular, But I doubt it. There will be very little communication from the FAA. As far as the FAA is concerned, and this is stated in the interpretation, we are to fly for fun and stay the heck out of the NAS. The FAA has made it clear that they will select and apply applicable existing regulations to anyone who is caught endangering the NAS. How do we do this? It is really simple, we follow the safety guidelines of a CBO like the AMA. The AMA clearly fits the CBO definition.
The sUAS NPRM applies only to commercial drone operations and will have no effect at all in any way on recreational model aviators.
First, the rule writing for model airplanes is over. There will be no rules at all. The closest we get to a rule, and it is not a rule, is the interpretation of section 336. Other than that, the FAA might or might not publish a policy circular, But I doubt it. There will be very little communication from the FAA. As far as the FAA is concerned, and this is stated in the interpretation, we are to fly for fun and stay the heck out of the NAS. The FAA has made it clear that they will select and apply applicable existing regulations to anyone who is caught endangering the NAS. How do we do this? It is really simple, we follow the safety guidelines of a CBO like the AMA. The AMA clearly fits the CBO definition.
The sUAS NPRM applies only to commercial drone operations and will have no effect at all in any way on recreational model aviators.
Unless they attempt to fly too close to any Air Port. That is the deal breaker.
02-28-2015, 08:08 PM
#109
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-28-2015, 08:44 PM
#110
My Feedback: (17)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bellevue, WA
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont understand why you guys keep on flogging a dead horse. I will repeat again - AMA IS NOT A COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATION. They would like to be one but the FAAhas told them that they do not have the authority to define them as such. Maybe you guys should pose this question to your District VP.
02-28-2015, 08:47 PM
#111
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont understand why you guys keep on flogging a dead horse. I will repeat again - AMA IS NOT A COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATION. They would like to be one but the FAAhas told them that they do not have the authority to define them as such. Maybe you guys should pose this question to your District VP.
03-01-2015, 01:35 PM
#112
I dont understand why you guys keep on flogging a dead horse. I will repeat again - AMA IS NOT A COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATION. They would like to be one but the FAAhas told them that they do not have the authority to define them as such. Maybe you guys should pose this question to your District VP.
03-02-2015, 08:01 AM
#113
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again it depends on how you interpret the phrase:
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.
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.
To answer your question in the AMA's case, NO. As I stated previously the organization signing off on a waiver could require membership. In the AMA's case:
AMA Waiver programs requires;
3. Permit to Fly Operation
b. Possession of a valid Permit to Fly allows flights of the subject model by the owner, or by a competent pilot designated by the owner, both of whom must be current AMA members. Designated pilot(s) must comply with the minimum pilot standards of this program. All flights are subject to all limitations applying to their location.
I think this thread has established that currently the AMA is the only organization that comes close to the definition of an aero modeling CBO and by that logic in order to meet the AMA "Programing" for a wavier one must be a member. That said, there is nothing in the AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code guidelines (public record) that requires AMA membership to be legally able to fly non-turbine, under 55 lbs aircraft.
Neither the committee report, the public law or the FAA interpretation requires membership in a CBO. In fact the language states things like "must be operated in a manner... will give prior notification... will do so under standing agreements with... will ensure nothing in this provision will interfere with... and will be operated according to those guideline."
Must be or will be a member of a CBO is not there.
Frank
Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 03-02-2015 at 08:24 AM. Reason: clarification
03-02-2015, 08:22 AM
#114
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brad,
Neither the committee report, the public law or the FAA interpretation requires membership in a CBO. In fact the language states things like "must be operated in a manner... will give prior notification... will ensure nothing in this provision will interfere with... and will be operated according to those guideline." Must be a member of a CBO is not there.
Frank
Neither the committee report, the public law or the FAA interpretation requires membership in a CBO. In fact the language states things like "must be operated in a manner... will give prior notification... will ensure nothing in this provision will interfere with... and will be operated according to those guideline." Must be a member of a CBO is not there.
Frank
If the AMA is the only CBO and if the AMA requires membership to be "within the programming" then if you decide to not join you can still fly, but may be subject to additional FAA rules and regulations that CBO members are exempt from.
As far as I know the AMA other then Rich Hansen has not stated that membership is required. And as of this time the FAA has not released any rules for recreational model aircraft not under CBO programming. So my purpose in being pendantic is to expose the potential that exists due to the wording of Sec. 336.
03-02-2015, 08:40 AM
#115
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank, you are equating apples and oranges. All you said above is correct, but that does not matter.
If the AMA is the only CBO and if the AMA requires membership to be "within the programming" then if you decide to not join you can still fly, but may be subject to additional FAA rules and regulations that CBO members are exempt from.
As far as I know the AMA other then Rich Hansen has not stated that membership is required. And as of this time the FAA has not released any rules for recreational model aircraft not under CBO programming. So my purpose in being pendantic is to expose the potential that exists due to the wording of Sec. 336.
If the AMA is the only CBO and if the AMA requires membership to be "within the programming" then if you decide to not join you can still fly, but may be subject to additional FAA rules and regulations that CBO members are exempt from.
As far as I know the AMA other then Rich Hansen has not stated that membership is required. And as of this time the FAA has not released any rules for recreational model aircraft not under CBO programming. So my purpose in being pendantic is to expose the potential that exists due to the wording of Sec. 336.
03-02-2015, 08:50 AM
#116
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank, you are equating apples and oranges. All you said above is correct, but that does not matter.
If the AMA is the only CBO and if the AMA requires membership to be "within the programming" then if you decide to not join you can still fly, but may be subject to additional FAA rules and regulations that CBO members are exempt from.
As far as I know the AMA other then Rich Hansen has not stated that membership is required. And as of this time the FAA has not released any rules for recreational model aircraft not under CBO programming. So my purpose in being pendantic is to expose the potential that exists due to the wording of Sec. 336.
If the AMA is the only CBO and if the AMA requires membership to be "within the programming" then if you decide to not join you can still fly, but may be subject to additional FAA rules and regulations that CBO members are exempt from.
As far as I know the AMA other then Rich Hansen has not stated that membership is required. And as of this time the FAA has not released any rules for recreational model aircraft not under CBO programming. So my purpose in being pendantic is to expose the potential that exists due to the wording of Sec. 336.
I won't comment on Rich's comment because it appeared to be only a partial quote and may have been taken out of context. I think you are focusing (being pedantic) too much on the "within the programming" as a requirement of the whole CBO issue when it only applies to the exceptions.
FAA Interpretation:
The statute creates an exception for model aircraft that exceed the 55-pound weight limit if the aircraft is “certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization.” P.L. 112-95, section 336(a) (3). If a nationwide community-based organization has provided its members with a set of safety guidelines that define a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program then model aircraft constructed in accordance with that program may exceed 55 pounds and operate in accordance with section 336(a).
This of course also applies to the turbine waiver program and any future waiver program that may be required. It does not and should not apply to normal aero modeling operations.
Frank
03-02-2015, 09:01 AM
#117
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I read you correctly, you are saying that: If I am not an AMA member, without the proper waivers, and I fly a 60 pound turbine on my son-in-law's 200 acre farm, the jack-booted FAA storm troopers will descend on me, in their black helicopters, and cart me off to room 101 for reeducation. Well, I don't believe that for an instant. It will not happen as long as I do nothing that endangers the public or the NAS. I think yiu guys have allowed yourselves to get mentally wrapped around the axle over a trivial misinterpretation of the intent of the law and they FAA interpretation of the law.
Frank
03-02-2015, 09:23 AM
#118
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no "jack-booted FAA storm troopers" that are going to descend on you. If you operate a 60 lb. turbine without a waiver (and the AMA is currently the only organization that can grant a turbine over 55 lb. waiver) and you have an incident that causes injury or personal property damage the consequences will be far greater than if you had those waivers.
Frank
Frank
03-02-2015, 09:30 AM
#119
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by phlpsfrnk; 03-03-2015 at 02:46 AM. Reason: clarification
03-02-2015, 09:52 AM
#120
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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;
and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members.
But as I have also written, until Congress calls each and every doubter and tells them each individually that they must be a member people will continue to say it is not required. Congress is NOT requiring you join the AMA per se. What they are requiring is that you be a member of the membership based organization whose safety program you have chosen to operate under.
03-02-2015, 09:56 AM
#121
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure I called anyone a name. I simply pointed out that the position of some people is hypocritical. You will use the Safety Program of an organization yet feel no need to belong to or support that organization. Not name calling. Simply pointing out the logical conclusion of a certain mindset.
03-02-2015, 10:05 AM
#122
There are no "jack-booted FAA storm troopers" that are going to descend on you. If you operate a 60 lb. turbine without a waiver (and the AMA is currently the only organization that can grant a turbine over 55 lb. waiver) and you have an incident that causes injury or personal property damage the consequences will be far greater than if you had those waivers.
Frank
Frank
be involved, There is no law that requires you to have a waiver to fly a turbine. As for being over 55lb's I believe that will be in violation of the FAA when the new rules take effect.
03-02-2015, 10:10 AM
#123
I disagree. From the Committee Report
and
As I have stated numerous time, this is crystal clear, the safety program is provided to the members of the CBO, not the general public. The benefits of the organization are for its members, not the general public. Therefore to be within the programming one must be a member.
But as I have also written, until Congress calls each and every doubter and tells them each individually that they must be a member people will continue to say it is not required. Congress is NOT requiring you join the AMA per se. What they are requiring is that you be a member of the membership based organization whose safety program you have chosen to operate under.
and
As I have stated numerous time, this is crystal clear, the safety program is provided to the members of the CBO, not the general public. The benefits of the organization are for its members, not the general public. Therefore to be within the programming one must be a member.
But as I have also written, until Congress calls each and every doubter and tells them each individually that they must be a member people will continue to say it is not required. Congress is NOT requiring you join the AMA per se. What they are requiring is that you be a member of the membership based organization whose safety program you have chosen to operate under.
03-02-2015, 10:22 AM
#124
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are on private property with permission and a incident should happen and you have the means to settle up with those involved I don't see what other consequence would
be involved, There is no law that requires you to have a waiver to fly a turbine. As for being over 55lb's I believe that will be in violation of the FAA when the new rules take effect.
be involved, There is no law that requires you to have a waiver to fly a turbine. As for being over 55lb's I believe that will be in violation of the FAA when the new rules take effect.
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
Frank
03-02-2015, 10:37 AM
#125
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure I called anyone a name. I simply pointed out that the position of some people is hypocritical. You will use the Safety Program of an organization yet feel no need to belong to or support that organization. Not name calling. Simply pointing out the logical conclusion of a certain mindset.