phlpsfrnk

The committee comments are not the law. The final wording of SEC 336 is the law further interpreted by the FAA.

Frank

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Exactly

ira d

Well said I agree except I seriously doubt we will see another nationwide CBO anytime soon unless something happens to the AMA.

bradpaul

Of course you realise it does not matter what posters in this forum believe or don't believe........ it only matters what the FAA and the CBO believe.

phlpsfrnk

I think any FAA interpretation of the law that is upheld by the courts will trump whatever the CBOs believe.

Frank

bradpaul

Frank how is that different then what I said? i.e. what the FAA and the CBO think. Notice I used and not or.

So answer this. Can the FAA require the AMA to provide large aircraft program servvices to non members of the AMA?

BTW you realise that it is impossible for a non AMA pilot to comply with all provisions of the AMA Safety Code?

phlpsfrnk

I noticed. Here's what I do know; The FAA has interpreted the law that the AMA lobbied so hard for. The AMA has disputed most if not all of that interpretation and put forth their own interpretation and petitioned the court to review the FAA interpretation. I expect most but not all of the FAA's interpretations will be upheld. Do I agree with every thing the FAA or the AMA has put forth, of course not. Am I required to be a member of AOPA to safely fly an airplane for which I am certified? NO. Am I required to be a member of the EAA to fly a home built, properly inspected and certified experimental aircraft? NO. Am I required to be a member of the AMA to fly a toy airplane?

Frank

ira d

I feel the ball is now in the FAA's court, They can give the AMA power by making restrictions on modelers that force modelers to become AMA members or take away power from
the AMA by not making unnecessary rules for modelers. As I said before I don't believe Congress intended to put restrictions on modelers but just the opposite, However the
language used in the bill IMO was the AMA's attempt to increase their membership.

bradpaul

I agree.

As the requirement for a CBO inspection/waiver for >55 lb models is in the law, there at this time is no alternative other then join the AMA to fly in compliance with Sec 336 for the >55 lb planes.

As for a non member fully complying with the AMA Safety Code look at 2. (f).

phlpsfrnk

Yes, no membership required there.

bradpaul

cute............ please explain how a non AMA member can have his >55 lb model comply with Sec 336.

ira d

I agree the way the law is written it would seem that you have to be a AMA member to fly a model over 55 lb's and that may very well end up being the case but I don't think that was
supposed to be the intent of the law. Also I don't think Congress should have allowed the language about the waivers to end up in the law, But in the end I think the law will only
come into play if the FAA decides to ban models over 55 lb's and go after anyone thats not a AMA member that flies one.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Absolutely there crankey:
Till every one lets the FAA know how they Feel about the terrible thing proposed in the NPRM.
Did U Respond Yet .If Not Why Not Post your reply to the NPRM here PLZ. I realize there only about 12 people that comment in these Forums or even care enough to even care. The rest of them have no Idea of the crises brewing because of the NPRM and future FAR's.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

However the language used in the bill IMO was the AMA's attempt to increase their membership.

The real problem came when congress, because of the lobbying efforts of the AMA/CBO, tried to tell the FAA what they could & could not do in reference to Model "TOY" Airplanes.When U try to tell the FAA how to their job U just get them Pissed and they are going to tell every one they are in charge and this only proves that. JMHO

RC GOLF

My Feedback: (3)

IMMA and AMA are about the only COB's unless individual clubs are considered COB. So who's side are they on. We will be forced to join them or not fly.
Try to fly at almost any event without AMA or IMMA status. (IE) Joe Nall AMA or go home.
If I want to fly on my property in my airspace. If I invite my buddy to come over it is my space my place no trespassing violators will be.....................

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Not sure but are you referring to IMAA?? If so they are no longer in existence.

phlpsfrnk

Brad,
I’m confused, first you make a point of your use of “and” instead of “or” then you point to its use in the safety code. What does one have to do with the other? What’s the point?

I agree and have said all along that one must be an AMA member to obtain an AMA waiver for >55 lbs. i.e. AMA Safety Code 2. (e) “Large Model Safety program”. Same thing for operating a turbine i.e. AMA Safety Code 2. (j) “Turbine Safety program”.

Although it really has nothing to do with safety the AMA Safety Code 2. (f) uses the “or” instead of “and” which means an address would be sufficient and an AMA number (i.e. membership) is not required.

Academy of Model Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety Code
Effective January 1, 2014
A. GENERAL:
2. Model aircraft pilots will:
(e) Not exceed a takeoff weight, including fuel, of 55 pounds unless in compliance with the AMA Large Model Airplane program. (AMA Document 520-A.)
(f) Ensure the aircraft is identified with the name and address or AMA number of the owner on the inside or affixed to the outside of the model aircraft. (This does not apply to model aircraft flown indoors.)
(j) Not operate a turbine-powered aircraft, unless in compliance with the AMA turbine regulations. (AMA Document #510-A.)

I can take my fully loaded 54.9 lb. non turbine aircraft with my name and address on it and fly it from my back 40 and be in full compliance with Sec 336.

Frank

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Do any of U guys fly R/C aircraft over 55 lbs or fly turbines ... Seems Ya'all are to o'l ta participate in real R/C

phlpsfrnk

What do you consider to be "real R/C" or "to o'l ta participate [sic]" Mike with 60 years experience?

Frank

init4fun

Hi Guys ,

I would like to take a minute and thank everyone who said they liked my post . It truly is how i feel about all of this AMA/FAA/CBO stuff and it took me a while to put in words exactly how I felt about it . I'm not sure if I can put my finger on it , but I guess my biggest fear is the thought that my aeromodeling promoting non profit organization would somehow use this drone incorporation as an opportunity for a power grab to position itself as I said in my earlier post ; "AMA OR NO WAY" for the hobby use of our technology . I truly have no problem with commercial operators being held to higher standards of certification since they very well will be doing the kinds of things full scale does , IE flying over people to get their real estate photos for the real estate sales listing and so on , Whereas we will NOT be flying over anyone's heads as per our safety code . Bottom line to me here is that the intent of the law , in my humble opinion , was that safe hobby use of RC technology wouldn't be regulated . So how , exactly would being required to be AMA to fly hobby grade equipment be considered non regulatory , as long as the same set of accepted safe operating practices are followed ?

Now , I quoted LCS' post to ask hound dog a personal favor . Hound dog , there are plenty of times when I agree with you , but what I never seem to agree with is your delivery ! You've said it yourself and it's true , there are only like 12 to 15 of us who post here . I know that everyone here cares about our hobby's future and are AMA supporters otherwise we'd be off viewing other things with our internet surfing time . It's the sarcasm specifically I'm referring to , the huge red letters and the calling of LCS by the name "crankey" , things like that look insultive at best and downright condescending at worst , I hope you understand it's damned hard to decipher playful ribbing from brutal sarcasm , but I seem to keep getting the feeling of brutal sarcasm from your posts rather than the impression of some friends having a spirited discussion .

Have a great day gents and Happy Flying

phlpsfrnk

Thank You init4fun. Another very thoughtful post.

Regards
Frank

bradpaul

This is a question for the lawyers. If the FAA stated that "in the programming of" only required that you follow the CBO Safety Code with no membership required does any liability attach to the author of the Safety Code?

If there was an incident and at trial the CBO Safety Code was found to be insufficient and negligence was assigned to the CBO. Don't think the CBO should be liable for non members but with our legal system?????

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

The different colors are to High lite the the quoted post from others posts and to High lite some things in my posts. Sorry if U don't like color and I happen to like certain scripts Rather than Just plain Text also. It is not shouting just high lighting the important things for clarity. Some times when people don't fully refer to or repeat the issue it hard to follow their line of thinking and one can interpret some statements in a way not intended by the writer.

As for your Statement ""crankey" , things like that look insultive at best and downright condescending at worst"
It's not. It's meant to get someones attention. example what is LCS?


phlpsfrnk has the perfect explanation:

It is not possible to write in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted by a reader determined to do so.

As for Cranky or Sporty or any other handle I use is just that and to make it clear whom I'm addressing.

This issue of requiring people to belong to the AMA/CBO or not doesn't shouldn't matter to any one of us I would believe that even the ,AMA haters among us, are members of the AMA if for nothing else than being able to fly at an AMA chartered field or any other that requires AMA secondary insurance ...

There is a bigger crises looking us all right in the face ... It's the Interpretation of the #336 that the FAA has referenced in the NPRM on (s)UAS and whom will be allowed and where and under whos set of rules and Regulations. Now if that bothers some people SO BE IT.

Sorry if I've offended people but Like a the saying at our Field is "You really should leave your feelings at home"
I'll explain before some one jumps all over me. It's means if U can't take a little RIBBING U really don't belong in this Hobby/Sport. How dull life would be if there were no kidding allowed or some individual can't take a JOKE.

Sorry if U or anyone are/were/will be Offended but Again, it's JMHO but remmeber Opinions are like arse wholes we all have'em.

cj_rumley

Good question, Brad. There is precedent for the CBO being found liable for injuries when a model airplane was found to be defective because of negligent safety requirements. An individual that was pit crew in a CL speed contest was hit by a model that veered out of the circle when the bellcrank mount broke, attributed by the court to have resulted from excessive stress of a pull test required by AMA. AMA had denied the injured party's claim under the model-owning member's liability insurance, claiming he was aware of the risk in such a model competition but decided to participate anyway and so was liable for his own injuries. Injured party then sued AMA itself (not the AMA member that flew the model) and won a judgement of about $1.3 million. Your hypothetical situation is different because the liability was incurred by a non-member, yet he was following the AMA Safety Code as a condition of FAA granting him authorization to fly. It sure would be interesting to hear from the lawyers on how that would come down in a civil court.

Silent-AV8R

This is the summary of the case, which took place in 2003 at Whittier Narrows in California: