cj_rumley

I guess I am losing track. Where does a requirement for FAA acceptance of CBO waivers validity appear in the NPRM? Where does FAA state a requirement for any waivers for over 55 lbs or turbine power for those that do not claim exemption from regulation per 336? I agree with your observation "There is no AMA membership requirement to be able to safely fly an RC aircraft outside of AMA chartered club sites." Hundreds of thousands of modelers have demonstrated that, and even AMA recognizes that and claims credit for the record of safe operation of model aircraft by AMA members whether club members or not and non members as well.

phlpsfrnk

Pages 6, 12 & 13 of Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (see attached)

[ATTACH]2082059[/IMG]

Specifically; "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)."


Frank

cj_rumley

Still doesn't say anything about FAA validation/acceptance of a CBO's waiver processing. What criteria does FAA have for testing the validity of CBO waiver processing, or for that matter anything about CBO safety rules/programming?

There is no waiver requirement that I can find that applies to modelers that choose not to operate in accordance with section 336(a) conditions. Where is any limit on weight or propulsion method stated for model aircraft operated by a modeler that doesn't buy the CBO rules?

ira d

I went the FAA web site and they have some guidelines posted for RC operation, The guidelines seem to be suggestive because it's stated that RC operators are strongly encouraged
to follow them one of which states not to fly a model over 55lbs. IMO at present we don't have to follow them but that could change and if the FAA banned models over 55lb's The
only legal way to go over that limit would be to join the AMA.

Until the FAA finalizes the rules and makes a hard statement as to what they intend to do and make known the penalty for not following the rules we are just speculating IMO.

bradpaul

Where did the FAA state that that the FAA requires validation/acceptance?

You posted this earlier ........................



Since a sUAS that weighs more then 55 lbs that does have a CBO waiver would NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A MODEL AIRCRAFT, then it is under all the rules of Part 107.

bradpaul

Frank you accept that the FAA has allowed a "private organization" (CBO) to require membership to meet a regulatory requirement, (i.e. +55 lbs. and turbines). So what stops the "private organization" (CBO) from designing its "programming" to require membership?

I did not say that AMA Membership IS REQUIRED, but that a poorly written Public Law namely Sec 336 has left the door open.

Silent-AV8R

Which rules are you waiting for the FAA to finalize? P.L. 112-95 Section 336 is law right now. There is nothing about that which requires further FAA action. So hobby/non-commercial operations are already legal and authorized under this law.

The NPRM for Part 107 only affects non-hobby flying, is this what you are waiting for the FAA to finalize?

ira d

As I understand it the rules that were just released I think a month or two ago are just proposed rules and after the public has a chance to provide input will
at some point become finalized and then enforcement will start. At this point we don't know if the FAA will put in the final rule that you cannot fly a model
over 55 lb's or what they intend to do about someone that does.

cj_rumley

From what I have seen FAA made no such statement, but phlpsfrnk did, hence my question to him.



.Indeed I did, cited verbatim from the NPRM. It makes no rule(s) pertaining to the operation of a model aircraft outside the provisions of 336.

I think you meant "does not have a CBO waiver." Not at all clear why there is any mention of "less than 55 pounds" here, unless it is a part of definition of model aircraft stated elsewhere. The point of the sentence seem to be that the exemption from rulemaking of Sec 336 of the PL does not apply to model aircraft that don't meet the conditions stated in that section. I think there is a difference that is significant between "would be subject to proposed part 107" and "it is under all the rules of Part 107." The "would be subject to....." phrase rings of the "subject to all future rules that FAA might make" theme, just tailored to the limited scope of proposed rules in the NPRM. Missing are compelling words like 'must' and 'shall' conform to part 107 rules. I think that it means nothing more than if outside of 336, then new rules may be applied in the future. Interpretation dependent? Of course. YMMV

Silent-AV8R

I think you have crossed wires on hobby and commercial flying. Hobby flying is completely authorized by Section 336. No further action is required by, or even allowed by, the FAA. It is law. It allows flying a 55 pound+ aircraft as long as a CBO has a program that allows you to do such, like the AMA program.

The NPRM for Part 107 has absolutely zero to do with hobby flying. Nothing in it will, or can, apply to models. Section 336 explicitly prohibits that. The FAA is proposing to include Section 336 as Part 101.41 which does not affect anything that already exists in the law. So unless you are flying commercially there is no action pending on the part of the FAA and there are no applicable comments to be made on the Proposed Part 107 presented in the NPRM.

There is a case pending filed by the AMA and others regrading the "clarification" document FAA published for model aircraft last June. FAA clearly overstepped their authority and I suspect we will see that fade away.

bradpaul

I agree there are a lot of questions that have been left unanswered, and what regs/rules will apply to non Sec 336 "model aircraft" used for recreation is a big one.

ira d

The way I see it if the FAA chooses not bother anyone who may fly a model over 55 lb's then unless you fly at a AMA chartered club it will be fine. OTH the FAA could say if you
fly a model over 55 lb's even if on your own property you will be cited and or arrested and the penalty will be $1000.00 fine or a year in jail. So far the FAA had not said such and
until they do I don't think it will be a problem.

Silent-AV8R

Right now the law says that you cannot fly a model aircraft over 55 pounds unless it meets the requirements set forth in Section 336. The proposed Part 101.41 simply re-states the existing law, so in either case you cannot fly a model over 55 pounds unless it meets the requirements of Section 336. I am not sure I see the confusion. Where you fly has nothing to do with it. The law (Section 336) makes no mention of location having any bearing on the requirement of being certified by a CBO.

It is extremely unlikely that the FAA is going to try to take any enforcement action for violating Section 336 since they really have no authority to do so. Their only authority is to take action if the safety of the NAS has been endangered.

What you are waiting for will never happen, so you will have a long wait indeed. BTW - the FAA can only take CIVIL actions, they can issue fines, etc. They cannot arrest you you. If you are a licensed pilot they could revoke your certificate in an extreme case.

Their instructions to field people seems to be pretty clear and all this angst for the sake of argument seems a bit silly to me.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m....3B_Chg_6_.pdf

But go ahead and keep waiting if you like. Maybe some unicorns will wander by while you are waiting

ira d

I don't know you may be right, But also it makes no sense to have a law in effect that no one has the authority to enforce.

ira d

As I think about it I and most people believe the law or rule section 336 was put in place to stop the FAA from outlawing turbines and over 55 lb models for AMA members. It was not
intended to be blanket ban on certain models, Thus it stands to reason if the FAA does not ban turbines and over 55 lb models the law serves no purpose.

cj_rumley

Dunno enough about about the factuality in the first two sentences, Ira, so won't opine on your thoughts there. I do think the law is intended to serve a purpose, though not by any stretch a legitimate one that can be construed as promoting our hobby. Some people will pay to be a member of a (weirdly, "a" meaning for ALCON in this instance "the only") CBO because they have been mislead into thinking that is required in order to legally fly a toy airplane in the USA, and that is shameful.

ira d

While I do think the AMA was looking for protection for the hobby I also think they were looking for a way to increase their membership and that IMO is why they came up with the CBO stuff.
They could have just as easy left off the programming and waiver language and said models that don't interfere with full scale operations and operate at designated RC sites and or private
property be exempt from regulation.

phlpsfrnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by BILL-112 HR 658 SEC.336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT. (a)(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;

The above provides protection from further FARs and allows one to operate as a recreational modeler above 55lbs. if certified by a CBO. The AMA is cited in the FAA interpretation of 336 as an example of such a CBO. The AMA has a certification/waiver program for an over 55 lb. model, ergo FAA acceptance of said programing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj_rumley

There is no waiver requirement that I can find that applies to modelers that choose not to operate in accordance with section 336(a) conditions. Where is any limit on weight or propulsion method stated for model aircraft operated by a modeler that doesn't buy the CBO rules?

If one is not operating "in accordance with section 336" one is not operating a recreational model aircraft and is not "exempt" and by default is subject to whatever FARs that apply.

Frank

phlpsfrnk

Brad
If by accept ““private organization” (CBO)” you mean AMA (CBO) yes, however as an “Organization open to anyone interested in model aviation.” By definition wouldn’t they be considered a public organization?

PRIVATE 1 a : intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class

PUBLIC 1 a : exposed to general view : open b : well-known, prominent c : perceptible, material 2 a : of, relating to, or affecting all the people

I normally don't like answering a question with a question but how would any organization “design programming” of a concept such as safety that could be “private”?

No argument there as to the confusion.

Frank

bradpaul

When the question of weather or not the AMA (CBO) could require membership to be "within the programming of " was asked, multiple posters and especially JohnShe have replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnShe

Well the FAA cannot require AMA membership. The law only requires that recreational model aviators follow the safety guidelines of a CBO. The FAA only acknowledges the AMA as a CBO at present. I don't think there is another organization that would qualify as a CBO.

However in order to fly a "model aircraft" <55 lbs the FAA requires an inspection and waiver from an CBO. The AMA ONLY PROVIDES THIS SERVICE TO IT'S MEMBERSHIP. The turbine waiver is also exclusive to AMA members.

THEREFORE TO FLY A <55 lb "MODEL AIRCRAFT" UNDER SE 336 YOU MUST B A MEMBER OF THE AMA AND HAVE A LARGE AIRCRAFT WAIVER.

As the FAA has allowed a "private organization" (CBO) to require membership to meet a regulatory requirement, (i.e. +55 lbs. and turbines). What stops the "private organization" (CBO) from designing its "programming" to require membership?

AGAIN, I did not say that AMA Membership IS REQUIRED for all "model aircraft", but that a poorly written Public Law namely Sec 336 has left the door open.

cj_rumley

......and so, Timmy, that is how AMA saved model aviation.

cj_rumley

......and so, Timmy, that is how AMA saved model aviation.

bradpaul

And is why after all the "the AMA was stupid to author Sec. 336, it will just PO the FAA" posts........................ From the perspective of an AMA that desires to control all model aviation it was brilliant................................we were all played and played very well.

phlpsfrnk

Nothing, however it is not a requirement sec 336 or the FAA interpretation.

Frank

phlpsfrnk

I agree you didn't, however there are some that do believe membership is required under SEC 336 and even quoted Rich Hansen as a source.

Frank