Are there any Nationwide CBO's other then the AMA?
03-02-2015, 07:00 PM
#151
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just thinking out loud...Maybe AMA can sue people for flying safe as they have the monopoly on it...Any other good ideas how we can protect AMA's interests?
03-02-2015, 07:54 PM
#152
We have all been speculating about all this which is OK but it would be nice when the FAA finally lets us know what they really intend to do. The whole reason the FAA
starting to look at models was because of safety and it makes no sense to say a modeler that belongs to the AMA can do something that a non AMA member can't do.
Also it makes no sense to say a modeler can go up and take photographs but can't sell a photo to anyone, If it was safe to take the photo in the first place then what
the modeler does with the photo after the fact has no effect on safety.
starting to look at models was because of safety and it makes no sense to say a modeler that belongs to the AMA can do something that a non AMA member can't do.
Also it makes no sense to say a modeler can go up and take photographs but can't sell a photo to anyone, If it was safe to take the photo in the first place then what
the modeler does with the photo after the fact has no effect on safety.
03-03-2015, 07:21 AM
#153
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have all been speculating about all this which is OK but it would be nice when the FAA finally lets us know what they really intend to do. The whole reason the FAA
starting to look at models was because of safety and it makes no sense to say a modeler that belongs to the AMA can do something that a non AMA member can't do.
Also it makes no sense to say a modeler can go up and take photographs but can't sell a photo to anyone, If it was safe to take the photo in the first place then what
the modeler does with the photo after the fact has no effect on safety.
starting to look at models was because of safety and it makes no sense to say a modeler that belongs to the AMA can do something that a non AMA member can't do.
Also it makes no sense to say a modeler can go up and take photographs but can't sell a photo to anyone, If it was safe to take the photo in the first place then what
the modeler does with the photo after the fact has no effect on safety.
The Seven Rules of Bureaucracy
Rule #1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.
Rule #2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.
Rule 2a. Force 11th-hour decisions,threaten the loss of options and opportunities, and limit the opposition's opportunity to review and critique.
Rule #3: If there are not enough crises,manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.
Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
Rule 4a: Deny,delay, obfuscate, spin, and lie.
Rule #5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.
Rule #6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one's political opponents.
Rule #7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, "The emperor has no clothes."
Rule 7a: Accuse the truth teller of one'sown defects, deficiencies, crimes, and misdemeanors.
03-03-2015, 08:40 AM
#154
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it would, but keep in mind:
The Seven Rules of Bureaucracy
Rule #1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.
Rule #2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.
Rule 2a. Force 11th-hour decisions,threaten the loss of options and opportunities, and limit the opposition's opportunity to review and critique.
Rule #3: If there are not enough crises,manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.
Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
Rule 4a: Deny,delay, obfuscate, spin, and lie.
Rule #5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.
Rule #6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one's political opponents.
Rule #7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, "The emperor has no clothes."
Rule 7a: Accuse the truth teller of one'sown defects, deficiencies, crimes, and misdemeanors.
The Seven Rules of Bureaucracy
Rule #1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.
Rule #2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.
Rule 2a. Force 11th-hour decisions,threaten the loss of options and opportunities, and limit the opposition's opportunity to review and critique.
Rule #3: If there are not enough crises,manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.
Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
Rule 4a: Deny,delay, obfuscate, spin, and lie.
Rule #5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.
Rule #6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one's political opponents.
Rule #7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, "The emperor has no clothes."
Rule 7a: Accuse the truth teller of one'sown defects, deficiencies, crimes, and misdemeanors.
LOL! It had me laughing, though it is so true as to be not funny.
03-05-2015, 04:11 PM
#157
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correction
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."
Originally Posted by bradpaul
CJ you are advocating that there is no consequence to not complying with Sec.336.(a) (2)?. So what is the consequence for not complying with Sec. 336 (a) (1),(3),(4),(5)? Why do you think Sec.336 can be ignored?
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)).
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)).
Originally Posted by cj_rumley
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.
Because of the statutory prohibition on FAA rulemaking regarding model aircraft
that meet the above criteria, model aircraft meeting these criteria would not be subject to
the provisions of proposed part 107. Likewise, operators of model aircraft excepted from
part 107 by the statute would not need to hold an unmanned aircraft operator’s certificate
with a small UAS rating. However, the FAA emphasizes that because the prohibition on
rulemaking in section 336 of Public Law 112-95 is limited to model aircraft that meet all of
the above statutory criteria, model aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds that fail to meet all
of the statutory criteria would be subject to proposed part 107.
that meet the above criteria, model aircraft meeting these criteria would not be subject to
the provisions of proposed part 107. Likewise, operators of model aircraft excepted from
part 107 by the statute would not need to hold an unmanned aircraft operator’s certificate
with a small UAS rating. However, the FAA emphasizes that because the prohibition on
rulemaking in section 336 of Public Law 112-95 is limited to model aircraft that meet all of
the above statutory criteria, model aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds that fail to meet all
of the statutory criteria would be subject to proposed part 107.
Don't forget to comment on the NPRM and let FAA know how you feel.
03-14-2015, 07:31 AM
#158
I saw in the comment area that someone asked the FAA a specific question about the proposed rule and impact on registration under 49CFR. FAA answered it. So I figured what the heck and asked the FAA an explicit question as to whether a member must be a member of the CBO to operate within the programming of the CBO. We'll see if I get a response. I'm not holding my breath, but it was worth a shot.
As I see it as written
- If you want to fly anything over 55lbs or faster than 100, or (likely) a turbine, you're going to have to be an AMA member to access those aspects of their "programming"
- If you are willing to stay below 55lbs, less than 100 mph, and non-turbine, I could see lawfully flying as a hobbyist by complying with the AMA safety code (assuming you have somewhere to fly where AMA isn't required)
- If you want to go through the hassle, you could get licensed as a commercial drone operator. Then stay within their size and speed limits, as well as comply with the other requirements, and fly where you want (unless it's exclusively an AMA field). That said, you'd have to do your own coordination with the land owner, airport owner, etc.
I will at least pursue a commercial drone cert just so I have the option. My tiny way of rebelling against "the man"
Anyone have thoughts?
As I see it as written
- If you want to fly anything over 55lbs or faster than 100, or (likely) a turbine, you're going to have to be an AMA member to access those aspects of their "programming"
- If you are willing to stay below 55lbs, less than 100 mph, and non-turbine, I could see lawfully flying as a hobbyist by complying with the AMA safety code (assuming you have somewhere to fly where AMA isn't required)
- If you want to go through the hassle, you could get licensed as a commercial drone operator. Then stay within their size and speed limits, as well as comply with the other requirements, and fly where you want (unless it's exclusively an AMA field). That said, you'd have to do your own coordination with the land owner, airport owner, etc.
I will at least pursue a commercial drone cert just so I have the option. My tiny way of rebelling against "the man"
Anyone have thoughts?
03-14-2015, 09:41 AM
#159
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your option sounds good, but when FAA administration of commercial drones is farmed out to the CBO, you'll have to join and be programmed in order to take the required knowledge test. Your credentials issued by the Canoe Club won't cut it.
03-14-2015, 03:02 PM
#160
I saw in the comment area that someone asked the FAA a specific question about the proposed rule and impact on registration under 49CFR. FAA answered it. So I figured what the heck and asked the FAA an explicit question as to whether a member must be a member of the CBO to operate within the programming of the CBO. We'll see if I get a response. I'm not holding my breath, but it was worth a shot.
As I see it as written
- If you want to fly anything over 55lbs or faster than 100, or (likely) a turbine, you're going to have to be an AMA member to access those aspects of their "programming"
- If you are willing to stay below 55lbs, less than 100 mph, and non-turbine, I could see lawfully flying as a hobbyist by complying with the AMA safety code (assuming you have somewhere to fly where AMA isn't required)
- If you want to go through the hassle, you could get licensed as a commercial drone operator. Then stay within their size and speed limits, as well as comply with the other requirements, and fly where you want (unless it's exclusively an AMA field). That said, you'd have to do your own coordination with the land owner, airport owner, etc.
I will at least pursue a commercial drone cert just so I have the option. My tiny way of rebelling against "the man"
Anyone have thoughts?
cj_rumley
Your option sounds good, but when FAA administration of commercial drones is farmed out to the CBO, you'll have to join and be programmed in order to take the required knowledge test. Your credentials issued by the Canoe Club won't cut it.
As I see it as written
- If you want to fly anything over 55lbs or faster than 100, or (likely) a turbine, you're going to have to be an AMA member to access those aspects of their "programming"
- If you are willing to stay below 55lbs, less than 100 mph, and non-turbine, I could see lawfully flying as a hobbyist by complying with the AMA safety code (assuming you have somewhere to fly where AMA isn't required)
- If you want to go through the hassle, you could get licensed as a commercial drone operator. Then stay within their size and speed limits, as well as comply with the other requirements, and fly where you want (unless it's exclusively an AMA field). That said, you'd have to do your own coordination with the land owner, airport owner, etc.
I will at least pursue a commercial drone cert just so I have the option. My tiny way of rebelling against "the man"
Anyone have thoughts?
cj_rumley
Your option sounds good, but when FAA administration of commercial drones is farmed out to the CBO, you'll have to join and be programmed in order to take the required knowledge test. Your credentials issued by the Canoe Club won't cut it.
Gentlemen or just any buddy: Let me ask a stupid question. When is the last time any one here flew any place other than a CBO/AMA field. Also When is the last time anyone here or that Any of U know of some one flying R/C for Compensation of hire. ect.
I thought not ... So who cares Nothing is going to change for any one of us that are AMA members and who never fly any where but the AMA field(s) and/or never intend to make MONEY at it.
It's all a big waste of your good BUILDING TIME or Flying time, if in a warm climate year round.
So get too it and stop worrying about some thing You/We have absolutely "NO CONTROL OVER" and never will have. The FAA is going to do what the FAA wants and that's that. PERIOD. Again JMHO
03-15-2015, 07:55 AM
#162
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an awesome strategy!!! I think I'll use that strategy and vote for Hilary to rebel against progressive socialism. LOL Conformity...the new rebellion! Thanks for sharing your sage wisdom here...
03-15-2015, 12:57 PM
#163
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is America and everyone should have the freedom to choose the bureaucrats they guess will suck less. I'm thinking less presence where I fly >>>>> sucks less, so like Franklin I'll be keeping options open.
03-16-2015, 01:52 AM
#164
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw in the comment area that someone asked the FAA a specific question about the proposed rule and impact on registration under 49CFR. FAA answered it. So I figured what the heck and asked the FAA an explicit question as to whether a member must be a member of the CBO to operate within the programming of the CBO. We'll see if I get a response. I'm not holding my breath, but it was worth a shot.
On 10 March I asked a similar question at the Ask FAA Website;
Is a recreational modeler flying a model aircraft under PL 336 required to be a member of a CBO?
Like you I'm waiting with bated breath. When I receive a response I'll post it.
Frank
03-16-2015, 02:00 AM
#165
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I see it as written
- If you want to fly anything over 55lbs or faster than 100, or (likely) a turbine, you're going to have to be an AMA member to access those aspects of their "programming"
- If you are willing to stay below 55lbs, less than 100 mph, and non-turbine, I could see lawfully flying as a hobbyist by complying with the AMA safety code (assuming you have somewhere to fly where AMA isn't required)
- If you want to go through the hassle, you could get licensed as a commercial drone operator. Then stay within their size and speed limits, as well as comply with the other requirements, and fly where you want (unless it's exclusively an AMA field). That said, you'd have to do your own coordination with the land owner, airport owner, etc.
I will at least pursue a commercial drone cert just so I have the option. My tiny way of rebelling against "the man"
Anyone have thoughts?
- If you want to fly anything over 55lbs or faster than 100, or (likely) a turbine, you're going to have to be an AMA member to access those aspects of their "programming"
- If you are willing to stay below 55lbs, less than 100 mph, and non-turbine, I could see lawfully flying as a hobbyist by complying with the AMA safety code (assuming you have somewhere to fly where AMA isn't required)
- If you want to go through the hassle, you could get licensed as a commercial drone operator. Then stay within their size and speed limits, as well as comply with the other requirements, and fly where you want (unless it's exclusively an AMA field). That said, you'd have to do your own coordination with the land owner, airport owner, etc.
I will at least pursue a commercial drone cert just so I have the option. My tiny way of rebelling against "the man"
Anyone have thoughts?
Frank
03-16-2015, 08:01 AM
#166
03-16-2015, 10:15 AM
#167
[/B][/FONT] Gentlemen or just any buddy: Let me ask a stupid question. When is the last time any one here flew any place other than a CBO/AMA field. Also When is the last time anyone here or that Any of U know of some one flying R/C for Compensation of hire. ect.
I thought not ... So who cares Nothing is going to change for any one of us that are AMA members and who never fly any where but the AMA field(s) and/or never intend to make MONEY at it.
It's all a big waste of your good BUILDING TIME or Flying time, if in a warm climate year round.
So get too it and stop worrying about some thing You/We have absolutely "NO CONTROL OVER" and never will have. The FAA is going to do what the FAA wants and that's that. PERIOD. Again JMHO
I thought not ... So who cares Nothing is going to change for any one of us that are AMA members and who never fly any where but the AMA field(s) and/or never intend to make MONEY at it.
It's all a big waste of your good BUILDING TIME or Flying time, if in a warm climate year round.
So get too it and stop worrying about some thing You/We have absolutely "NO CONTROL OVER" and never will have. The FAA is going to do what the FAA wants and that's that. PERIOD. Again JMHO
up until it was announced that commercial work with R/C was put on hold, i made quite a bit with helicopter shots for movie, tv, and web productions. so did folks like jason krause, todd bennet and a few others.
and, yes, i am still an AMA member.
03-16-2015, 11:21 AM
#168
Well, there's only one AMA flying site, thats in Muncie.
Flying at a site outside the control of a AMA club isn't all that unusual, we float fly and foamie fly all the time at non club sites but follow the safety code and if the soccer moms or whatever show up we pack up and split. Same with charging for aerial photos with quads and such, I never did it but it was fairly common for a few of our guys doing shots for realators until the "clarification"
Flying at a site outside the control of a AMA club isn't all that unusual, we float fly and foamie fly all the time at non club sites but follow the safety code and if the soccer moms or whatever show up we pack up and split. Same with charging for aerial photos with quads and such, I never did it but it was fairly common for a few of our guys doing shots for realators until the "clarification"
03-16-2015, 03:13 PM
#169
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-16-2015, 03:15 PM
#170
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Apopka,
FL
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[/B][/FONT] Gentlemen or just any buddy: Let me ask a stupid question. When is the last time any one here flew any place other than a CBO/AMA field. Also When is the last time anyone here or that Any of U know of some one flying R/C for Compensation of hire. ect.
I thought not ... So who cares Nothing is going to change for any one of us that are AMA members and who never fly any where but the AMA field(s) and/or never intend to make MONEY at it.
It's all a big waste of your good BUILDING TIME or Flying time, if in a warm climate year round.
So get too it and stop worrying about some thing You/We have absolutely "NO CONTROL OVER" and never will have. The FAA is going to do what the FAA wants and that's that. PERIOD. Again JMHO
I thought not ... So who cares Nothing is going to change for any one of us that are AMA members and who never fly any where but the AMA field(s) and/or never intend to make MONEY at it.
It's all a big waste of your good BUILDING TIME or Flying time, if in a warm climate year round.
So get too it and stop worrying about some thing You/We have absolutely "NO CONTROL OVER" and never will have. The FAA is going to do what the FAA wants and that's that. PERIOD. Again JMHO
03-17-2015, 02:00 AM
#171
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you wish to ask your question go to Ask FAA, sign up and ask your question.
Frank
03-17-2015, 05:40 AM
#172
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a different question and I think the answer to your question is obvious. The AMA's over 55 lbs. (Cited as example) and turbine waiver programs require AMA membership in order to be valid waivers that the FAA accepts. There is no AMA membership requirement to be able to safely fly an RC aircraft outside of AMA chartered club sites. I expect the FAA's response will back me up but whatever the response I will post it in full when I receive it.
If you wish to ask your question go to Ask FAA, sign up and ask your question.
Frank
If you wish to ask your question go to Ask FAA, sign up and ask your question.
Frank
"If someone is flying at a safe location, in a safe manner, not endangering the NAS and is not engaged in a commercial activity, does the FAA care what size or type of model aircraft this person is flying or if he is a member of a CBO?"
Now there are some assumptions associated with this question:
1 - A safe location means that the location is sufficiently large enough to accommodate his operations, that the aviator has permission to fly there, that he is operating within the confines of his flying site and that any nearby (5 mile) airport is aware of his operation and does not object.
2 - Safe operation implies that the aviator is operating according to the principle of the AMA (or other CBO) safety code but not necessarily the letter of the code. That he is not recklessly endangering people or property.
3 - He has not necessarily obtained a waiver for special types of aircraft (turbine, over 55, etc.) but is able to operate them safely.
4 - He is not necessarily an AMA or other CBO member.
5 - He is not in anyway interfering with the NAS as the FAA perceives it.
I believe the answer is no.
03-17-2015, 08:26 AM
#174
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Cartersville, GA
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a membership with the AMA, and at out local AMA club. Though I always fly my fixed wing aircraft at the club's field, the vast majority of my multirotor flights take place in my yard. I would argue that the vast majority of multirotor flights in the USA take place outside an AMA field. Many of the people who buy multirotors do not even know about the AMA. This is becoming increasingly true for R/C planes that are sold on Amazon, and at other "non-hobby" stores, such as WalMart.
Last edited by N410DC; 03-17-2015 at 08:30 AM.
03-17-2015, 09:09 AM
#175
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a different question and I think the answer to your question is obvious. The AMA's over 55 lbs. (Cited as example) and turbine waiver programs require AMA membership in order to be valid waivers that the FAA accepts. There is no AMA membership requirement to be able to safely fly an RC aircraft outside of AMA chartered club sites. I expect the FAA's response will back me up but whatever the response I will post it in full when I receive it.
If you wish to ask your question go to Ask FAA, sign up and ask your question.
Frank
If you wish to ask your question go to Ask FAA, sign up and ask your question.
Frank