FAA Reauthorization 2016 AIRR - 2016
02-05-2016, 07:56 AM
#26
Silent-AV8R;
Who U Talk'n to ?... PLZ give us all a clue ... RCU Doesn't automaticlyprovide the thread to which U refer ... U should really try this Reply With Quote
Dog Gone
Who U Talk'n to ?... PLZ give us all a clue ... RCU Doesn't automaticlyprovide the thread to which U refer ... U should really try this Reply With Quote
Just so people understand you really helps.
Dog Gone
02-05-2016, 08:02 AM
#27
New FAA Reauthorization bill. Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization Act of 2016 - AIRR-2016
Section 336 is gone, replaced by Chapter 45 Section 45507.
Starts on page 215:
http://transportation.house.gov/uplo...r_act_text.pdf
Section 336 is gone, replaced by Chapter 45 Section 45507.
Starts on page 215:
http://transportation.house.gov/uplo...r_act_text.pdf
02-05-2016, 08:04 AM
#28
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just read pages 215 and 216 and it sure looks to me like we are going to get our model aircraft exemption from the drone regulations if this version of the bill passes . I see no objectionable language such as a hard 400 foot limit or anything else addressing us except that we get to continue doing what we have done all along , follow the AMA safety code and enjoy our model aircraft while the rest of the lawmaking deals with the beyond line of sight drones .
02-05-2016, 08:10 AM
#29
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just read pages 215 and 216 and it sure looks to me like we are going to get our model aircraft exemption from the drone regulations if this version of the bill passes . I see no objectionable language such as a hard 400 foot limit or anything else addressing us except that we get to continue doing what we have done all along , follow the AMA safety code and enjoy our model aircraft while the rest of the lawmaking deals with the beyond line of sight drones .
"However, there are still some changes to the bill that could further strengthen and clarify the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. In the weeks ahead, we will be working closely with Chairman Shuster and the Committee on our suggested improvements. "
Seems like to the AMA there is a issue there. I'm no lawyer or claim to be.
Mike
02-05-2016, 08:23 AM
#30
Originally Posted by init4fun 
I just read pages 215 and 216 and it sure looks to me like we are going to get our model aircraft exemption from the drone regulations if this version of the bill passes . I see no objectionable language such as a hard 400 foot limit or anything else addressing us except that we get to continue doing what we have done all along , follow the AMA safety code and enjoy our model aircraft while the rest of the lawmaking deals with the beyond line of sight drones .
Originally Posted by Bob Pastorello I appreciate seeing your thoughts, init .... That's the same conclusion I drew. It would be nice to be right...
If that's so than why the AMA placing this in that email yesterday?
"However, there are still some changes to the bill that could further strengthen and clarify the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. In the weeks ahead, we will be working closely with Chairman Shuster and the Committee on our suggested improvements. "
Seems like to the AMA there is a issue there. I'm no lawyer or claim to be.
Mike
"However, there are still some changes to the bill that could further strengthen and clarify the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. In the weeks ahead, we will be working closely with Chairman Shuster and the Committee on our suggested improvements. "
Seems like to the AMA there is a issue there. I'm no lawyer or claim to be.
Mike
Sic'em there Doggy! Fly Low Blast High.
02-05-2016, 08:23 AM
#31
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that's so than why the AMA placing this in that email yesterday?
"However, there are still some changes to the bill that could further strengthen and clarify the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. In the weeks ahead, we will be working closely with Chairman Shuster and the Committee on our suggested improvements. "
Seems like to the AMA there is a issue there. I'm no lawyer or claim to be.
Mike
"However, there are still some changes to the bill that could further strengthen and clarify the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. In the weeks ahead, we will be working closely with Chairman Shuster and the Committee on our suggested improvements. "
Seems like to the AMA there is a issue there. I'm no lawyer or claim to be.
Mike
Just sharing my opinion here, fellers. Don't nobody get their panties all in a wad....
02-05-2016, 08:46 AM
#32
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MY OPINION FOLLOWS - My belief is that the AMA seeks/desires/needs/wants the FEDERAL LAW to require membership by anyone in any aspect of radio controlled aviation. I'm not a lawyer, don't pretend to be, and am just an old, crotchety curmudgeon who has learned many personal lessons about the "why" of business influences (or attempts) in governmental regulations and law.
Just sharing my opinion here, fellers. Don't nobody get their panties all in a wad....
Just sharing my opinion here, fellers. Don't nobody get their panties all in a wad....
I just want to fly my toy airplanes with the less amount of friction as possible and seems like that's getting more and more difficult.
Mike
02-05-2016, 09:00 AM
#33
MY OPINION FOLLOWS - My belief is that the AMA seeks/desires/needs/wants the FEDERAL LAW to require membership by anyone in any aspect of radio controlled aviation. I'm not a lawyer, don't pretend to be, and am just an old, crotchety curmudgeon who has learned many personal lessons about the "why" of business influences (or attempts) in governmental regulations and law.
Just sharing my opinion here, fellers. Don't nobody get their panties all in a wad....
Just sharing my opinion here, fellers. Don't nobody get their panties all in a wad....
No worries my Friend , I would never blast a man for stating what he believes he's seeing . I will second your thought that our organization is attempting to force membership in order to get the CBO exemption , and one needs to look no further than the language regarding models over 55 pounds . As written now , in order to be legal according to the FAA , an over 55 pounder must be AMA certified . And the AMA won't certify a non members aircraft .So for now , anything over 55 pounds MUST be owned by an AMA member in order to get the FAA's approval to be allowed to fly . At what point will it become mandatory for ALL models to be flown by CBO members only ?
My own personal opinion is that one most certainly CAN follow the best practices as outlined in our safety code without being forced to be a member !
I don't ever want our organization to become one of forced membership in order to fly a model airplane , that's not my idea of the right way to grow anything , be it a model aircraft club or any other hobby based organization ! You want to be a part of us ? You want to promote model aviation by your own free will and choice ? GREAT ! Glad to have you as a member . But to be forced into membership ? Nope , don't need people being forced , since force ALWAYS breeds resentment . I'm here cause I WANT to be , not because it's written that I HAVE to be .
02-05-2016, 09:02 AM
#34
From the NEW and Improved IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES bill on aviation moderation.
(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 airport "should" establish a mutually agreed
The word SHOULD not "MUST" ...
See Below FAA Reference to :Must and Must Not"
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
Doesn't mean U need Permission ONLY that U SHOULD inform them of Prior Operation
What I am Saying according to the FAA Document on "MUST MUST NOT" i sen U unless they changed the word Should to Must it is only a suggestion not law.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...les/mandatory/
[TABLE="class: yiv0854150695link-enhancr-element, width: 450"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5, colspan: 8"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD="class: yiv0854150695link-enhancr-image-wrap yiv0854150695enhancr-image-crop"]
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="width: 1, bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what l...We call "must" and "must not" words of obligation. "Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]View on www.faa.gov[/TD]
[TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Slc'em there HD
(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 airport "should" establish a mutually agreed
The word SHOULD not "MUST" ...
See Below FAA Reference to :Must and Must Not"
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
Doesn't mean U need Permission ONLY that U SHOULD inform them of Prior Operation
What I am Saying according to the FAA Document on "MUST MUST NOT" i sen U unless they changed the word Should to Must it is only a suggestion not law.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...les/mandatory/
[TABLE="class: yiv0854150695link-enhancr-element, width: 450"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5, colspan: 8"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD="class: yiv0854150695link-enhancr-image-wrap yiv0854150695enhancr-image-crop"]
[TD="bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="width: 1, bgcolor: #E5E5E5"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]What's the only word that means mandatory? Here's what l...We call "must" and "must not" words of obligation. "Must" is the only word that imposes a legal obligation on your readers to tell them something is mandatory.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]View on www.faa.gov[/TD]
[TD]
Preview by Yahoo
[/TD][/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Slc'em there HD
02-05-2016, 09:06 AM
#35
My Feedback: (198)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: El Reno, OK
Posts: 6,707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the AMA carries enough weight to get anything even close to mandated membership to fly very far. They can't even get the feds to use the AMA as a example of a CBO.
I just want to fly my toy airplanes with the less amount of friction as possible and seems like that's getting more and more difficult.
Mike
I just want to fly my toy airplanes with the less amount of friction as possible and seems like that's getting more and more difficult.
Mike
02-05-2016, 09:14 AM
#36
No worries my Friend , I would never blast a man for stating what he believes he's seeing . I will second your thought that our organization is attempting to force membership in order to get the CBO exemption , and one needs to look no further than the language regarding models over 55 pounds . As written now , in order to be legal according to the FAA , an over 55 pounder must be AMA certified . And the AMA won't certify a non members aircraft .So for now , anything over 55 pounds MUST be owned by an AMA member in order to get the FAA's approval to be allowed to fly . At what point will it become mandatory for ALL models to be flown by CBO members only ?
How many R/C TOYs are Owned and Flown in the USA by non AMA members ... U'll Have to show some at least.
My own personal opinion is that one most certainly CAN follow the best practices as outlined in our safety code without being forced to be a member !
I don't ever want our organization to become one of forced membership in order to fly a model airplane , that's not my idea of the right way to grow anything , be it a model aircraft club or any other hobby based organization ! You want to be a part of us ? You want to promote model aviation by your own free will and choice ? GREAT ! Glad to have you as a member . But to be forced into membership ? Nope , don't need people being forced , since force ALWAYS breeds resentment . I'm here cause I WANT to be , not because it's written that I HAVE to be .
+1
I now agree if it were mandatory every time some IDIOT commits something stupid with a DRONE the AMA will be blamed if he has to be an AMA member. Istill they Inorder to fly not just register but take knowledge test to receive their FAA number.
02-05-2016, 09:21 AM
#37
Originally Posted by rcmiket I don't think the AMA carries enough weight to get anything even close to mandated membership to fly very far. They can't even get the feds to use the AMA as a example of a CBO.
I just want to fly my toy airplanes with the less amount of friction as possible and seems like that's getting more and more difficult.
Mike
+ one more red for emphasis. +++++++
Get it got it good.
This is faster
But this has a bigger BOOM!WARNING Dog on the Loose.
02-05-2016, 10:32 AM
#38
What I found interesting is that the definition of a CBO is expanded to include, among others, that one "...provides assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites." (pg 217 line 21 through 218 line 15).
Now, given that AMA tells us they are already recognized as a CBO (per Chad B.), why would they want this added? Perhaps to make it more difficult on competitors to compete for membership dollars?
Now, given that AMA tells us they are already recognized as a CBO (per Chad B.), why would they want this added? Perhaps to make it more difficult on competitors to compete for membership dollars?
02-05-2016, 01:00 PM
#39
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I don't think the AMA carries enough weight to get anything even close to mandated membership to fly very far. Actually I'm glad about that. I don't want the govt to tell people they have to belong to the AMA or any group in order to fly. Talk about overstepping boundries.
They can't even get the feds to use the AMA as a example of a CBO. Not for lack of trying....they can't force the FAA to recognize them. Any thoughts on what the AMA should do different to force the FAA to recognize them as a CBO?
I just want to fly my toy airplanes with the less amount of friction as possible and seems like that's getting more and more difficult. What is more and more difficult. We registered...and that's it. Nothing else has changed. I get that it's annoying that we had to do that, but is that really a game changer?
Mike
They can't even get the feds to use the AMA as a example of a CBO. Not for lack of trying....they can't force the FAA to recognize them. Any thoughts on what the AMA should do different to force the FAA to recognize them as a CBO?
I just want to fly my toy airplanes with the less amount of friction as possible and seems like that's getting more and more difficult. What is more and more difficult. We registered...and that's it. Nothing else has changed. I get that it's annoying that we had to do that, but is that really a game changer?
Mike
Last edited by porcia83; 02-05-2016 at 02:30 PM.
02-05-2016, 05:59 PM
#45
I vote for that. MANDATORY Insurance through the AMA or any other Insurance Minimum 2 million to fly any R/C TOYs Just think if the AMA had over 1 million members We'ed have lass than 1/4 the effective strength the NRA has.
4,3,2,1, LAUNCH Dog's away.
4,3,2,1, LAUNCH
Dog's away.
Last edited by HoundDog; 02-05-2016 at 06:01 PM.
02-05-2016, 08:14 PM
#47
I don't think the AMA carries enough weight to get anything even close to mandated membership to fly very far. They can't even get the feds to use the AMA as a example of a CBO.
I just want to fly my toy airplanes with the less amount of friction as possible and seems like that's getting more and more difficult.
Mike
I just want to fly my toy airplanes with the less amount of friction as possible and seems like that's getting more and more difficult.
Mike
See the bottom of page 12:
http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_a..._spec_rule.pdf
02-05-2016, 08:36 PM
#48
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I wouldn't say the FAA doesn't recognize the AMA as a CBO.
See the bottom of page 12:
http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_a..._spec_rule.pdf
See the bottom of page 12:
http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_a..._spec_rule.pdf
02-06-2016, 04:49 AM
#49
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't say the FAA doesn't recognize the AMA as a CBO.
See the bottom of page 12:
http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_a..._spec_rule.pdf
See the bottom of page 12:
http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_a..._spec_rule.pdf
As a example, I guess that's something.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 02-06-2016 at 04:51 AM.
02-06-2016, 04:52 AM
#50
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike