400 foot? NOPE
07-17-2016, 02:36 PM
#27
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I provided a link to the actual document written by the conference committee that worked on the FMRA. So they were people from the House of Representatives and the Senate, you know, the people who wrote the bill. I'm sure you can track down the names of the actual individuals.
07-17-2016, 03:09 PM
#28
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I provided a link to the actual document written by the conference committee that worked on the FMRA. So they were people from the House of Representatives and the Senate, you know, the people who wrote the bill. I'm sure you can track down the names of the actual individuals.
07-17-2016, 03:35 PM
#29
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Why would his CBO need to lobby for the same exclusion since any one CBO that meets the definition of a CBO is supposed to be as good as any other ?
The bottom line here is that as it stands now , the CBO , OUR CBO , has done a good thing here with the elimination of the 400 foot cap , and I think the AMA deserves a rousing "Well Done !" .
Now , as to the numbers of CBOs , which seems today to stand at , one , well if any other CBOs come along and want to advocate for my ability to fly my model aircraft , they're more than welcome to do so , but as discussed in a different thread the AMA is serving the CBO need adequately and just like in an old western ; "This Town ain't big enough fer both of us !" , I really don't see any other organization having a chance in such a limited market .....
The bottom line here is that as it stands now , the CBO , OUR CBO , has done a good thing here with the elimination of the 400 foot cap , and I think the AMA deserves a rousing "Well Done !" .
Now , as to the numbers of CBOs , which seems today to stand at , one , well if any other CBOs come along and want to advocate for my ability to fly my model aircraft , they're more than welcome to do so , but as discussed in a different thread the AMA is serving the CBO need adequately and just like in an old western ; "This Town ain't big enough fer both of us !" , I really don't see any other organization having a chance in such a limited market .....
07-17-2016, 03:36 PM
#30
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
As previously stated, some organizations are already doing so but it there are some beurocratic obstacles to overcome... Local CBO's are easy to form but they carry the same federal credibility as your local Home Owners Association...
I just laugh every time a Drone Gypsy Operator is confronted by the police and they rapidly bring out a copy of the AMA UAV Operations Manual.... Similar to not belonging but dressing like an USMC member... The only thing you get is candy on October 31....
I just laugh every time a Drone Gypsy Operator is confronted by the police and they rapidly bring out a copy of the AMA UAV Operations Manual.... Similar to not belonging but dressing like an USMC member... The only thing you get is candy on October 31....
07-17-2016, 03:40 PM
#31
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Interesting revision of history. AMA and their lobbyist(s) didn't have anything to do with Section 336 of P.L. 112-95.....it resulted entirely from an initiative of some member(s) of Congress. Okay, have your way.........but then how does AMA earn credit claimed for this wonderful piece of legislation?
Better?
07-17-2016, 05:42 PM
#33
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting revision of history. AMA and their lobbyist(s) didn't have anything to do with Section 336 of P.L. 112-95.....it resulted entirely from an initiative of some member(s) of Congress. Okay, have your way.........but then how does AMA earn credit claimed for this wonderful piece of legislation?
07-17-2016, 06:19 PM
#34
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, I see, you are confused by the legislative process. While outside groups/lobbyists certainly have input into laws the laws themselves are still proposed, debated, and voted on by Congress. So this concept that you cling to that the AMA in a desperate attempt to force you to belong somehow magically circumvented the entire legislative process and wrote a law themselves. The credit goes for working with Congress to get a law favorable to our hobby on the books, and that is what you dislike. The core of your every thought in this forum is that the AMA is an evil and corrupt organization hell-bent on the domination of the poor freedom loving modeler.
Now lets get back to what you were trying to say when you entered this thread. You 'corrected' Andy (the OP) by saying the news he reported was not that a special privilege for AMA members was being granted, but rather that it applied to any of those conforming to Sec 336 provisions in PL 112-95. The next post you made argued that Sec 336 only applies to AMA members. That closes a circle in the reasoning of your inputs to the thread for me. What did you really mean to say?
07-17-2016, 08:53 PM
#36
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(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 acommunity-based organization;
07-17-2016, 08:57 PM
#37
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well actually I never said that. What I did say is that 336 does not apply specifically to the AMA and only the AMA. So go start a CBO and you too can operate under 336. What is so difficult to grasp about that concept?
07-17-2016, 09:33 PM
#38
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In this section the term ``nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association thatrepresents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members acomprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground;develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions,government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members
07-18-2016, 03:59 AM
#39
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I provided a link to the actual document written by the conference committee that worked on the FMRA. So they were people from the House of Representatives and the Senate, you know, the people who wrote the bill. I'm sure you can track down the names of the actual individuals.
Ah, I see, you are confused by the legislative process. While outside groups/lobbyists certainly have input into laws the laws themselves are still proposed, debated, and voted on by Congress. So this concept that you cling to that the AMA in a desperate attempt to force you to belong somehow magically circumvented the entire legislative process and wrote a law themselves. The credit goes for working with Congress to get a law favorable to our hobby on the books, and that is what you dislike. The core of your every thought in this forum is that the AMA is an evil and corrupt organization hell-bent on the domination of the poor freedom loving modeler.
That's in agreement with what I presumed you were squirreling around about. It applies to any member of a CBO that meets the definition of a CBO as sought after/ advised to Congress by AMA:
Certainly there is a multitude of organizations that qualify under those conditions. Not. The bottom line is obvious to anyone with an IQ above a par golf score.
Certainly there is a multitude of organizations that qualify under those conditions. Not. The bottom line is obvious to anyone with an IQ above a par golf score.
07-18-2016, 04:27 AM
#40
Member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting revision of history. AMA and their lobbyist(s) didn't have anything to do with Section 336 of P.L. 112-95.....it resulted entirely from an initiative of some member(s) of Congress. Okay, have your way.........but then how does AMA earn credit claimed for this wonderful piece of legislation?
AMA was highly involved in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95! The section was introduced by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma as an amendment, that was then accepted and incorporated in the full bill. Senator Inhofe is not an AMA member nor a modeler.
AMA has been an involved advocate for model aviation for decades. 72mhz R/C frequencies, used before 2.4 Mhz, were a direct result of AMA working with the FCC. The fact that the US EPA highly recommends that it's remediated sites be used as model airplane fields is a direct result of AMA working with the agency. The fact that clubs with permits are still allowed to fly in National Parks is a direct result of AMA working with the US National Park Service. The fact that the expanded Washington DC FRZ no-fly-zone for model aircraft was lifted was a direct result of AMA working with the FAA, national security entities, and law enforcement. And yes, the fact is Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 is a direct result of efforts by AMA working with Congress.
Last edited by Dokesflyer; 07-18-2016 at 04:33 AM.
07-18-2016, 04:50 AM
#41
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Do you think Congress simply dreamed up a need for protecting model aviation?
AMA was highly involved in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95! The section was introduced by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma as an amendment, that was then accepted and incorporated in the full bill. Senator Inhofe is not an AMA member nor a modeler.
AMA has been an involved advocate for model aviation for decades. 72mhz R/C frequencies, used before 2.4 Mhz, were a direct result of AMA working with the FCC. The fact that the US EPA highly recommends that it's remediated sites be used as model airplane fields is a direct result of AMA working with the agency. The fact that clubs with permits are still allowed to fly in National Parks is a direct result of AMA working with the US National Park Service. The fact that the expanded Washington DC FRZ no-fly-zone for model aircraft was lifted was a direct result of AMA working with the FAA, national security entities, and law enforcement. And yes, the fact is Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 is a direct result of efforts by AMA working with Congress.
AMA was highly involved in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95! The section was introduced by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma as an amendment, that was then accepted and incorporated in the full bill. Senator Inhofe is not an AMA member nor a modeler.
AMA has been an involved advocate for model aviation for decades. 72mhz R/C frequencies, used before 2.4 Mhz, were a direct result of AMA working with the FCC. The fact that the US EPA highly recommends that it's remediated sites be used as model airplane fields is a direct result of AMA working with the agency. The fact that clubs with permits are still allowed to fly in National Parks is a direct result of AMA working with the US National Park Service. The fact that the expanded Washington DC FRZ no-fly-zone for model aircraft was lifted was a direct result of AMA working with the FAA, national security entities, and law enforcement. And yes, the fact is Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 is a direct result of efforts by AMA working with Congress.
07-18-2016, 04:59 AM
#42
Do you think Congress simply dreamed up a need for protecting model aviation?
AMA was highly involved in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95! The section was introduced by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma as an amendment, that was then accepted and incorporated in the full bill. Senator Inhofe is not an AMA member nor a modeler.
AMA has been an involved advocate for model aviation for decades. 72mhz R/C frequencies, used before 2.4 Mhz, were a direct result of AMA working with the FCC. The fact that the US EPA highly recommends that it's remediated sites be used as model airplane fields is a direct result of AMA working with the agency. The fact that clubs with permits are still allowed to fly in National Parks is a direct result of AMA working with the US National Park Service. The fact that the expanded Washington DC FRZ no-fly-zone for model aircraft was lifted was a direct result of AMA working with the FAA, national security entities, and law enforcement. And yes, the fact is Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 is a direct result of efforts by AMA working with Congress.
AMA was highly involved in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95! The section was introduced by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma as an amendment, that was then accepted and incorporated in the full bill. Senator Inhofe is not an AMA member nor a modeler.
AMA has been an involved advocate for model aviation for decades. 72mhz R/C frequencies, used before 2.4 Mhz, were a direct result of AMA working with the FCC. The fact that the US EPA highly recommends that it's remediated sites be used as model airplane fields is a direct result of AMA working with the agency. The fact that clubs with permits are still allowed to fly in National Parks is a direct result of AMA working with the US National Park Service. The fact that the expanded Washington DC FRZ no-fly-zone for model aircraft was lifted was a direct result of AMA working with the FAA, national security entities, and law enforcement. And yes, the fact is Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 is a direct result of efforts by AMA working with Congress.
07-18-2016, 05:04 AM
#43
Do you think Congress simply dreamed up a need for protecting model aviation?
AMA was highly involved in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95! The section was introduced by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma as an amendment, that was then accepted and incorporated in the full bill. Senator Inhofe is not an AMA member nor a modeler.
AMA has been an involved advocate for model aviation for decades. 72mhz R/C frequencies, used before 2.4 Mhz, were a direct result of AMA working with the FCC. The fact that the US EPA highly recommends that it's remediated sites be used as model airplane fields is a direct result of AMA working with the agency. The fact that clubs with permits are still allowed to fly in National Parks is a direct result of AMA working with the US National Park Service. The fact that the expanded Washington DC FRZ no-fly-zone for model aircraft was lifted was a direct result of AMA working with the FAA, national security entities, and law enforcement. And yes, the fact is Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 is a direct result of efforts by AMA working with Congress.
AMA was highly involved in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95! The section was introduced by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma as an amendment, that was then accepted and incorporated in the full bill. Senator Inhofe is not an AMA member nor a modeler.
AMA has been an involved advocate for model aviation for decades. 72mhz R/C frequencies, used before 2.4 Mhz, were a direct result of AMA working with the FCC. The fact that the US EPA highly recommends that it's remediated sites be used as model airplane fields is a direct result of AMA working with the agency. The fact that clubs with permits are still allowed to fly in National Parks is a direct result of AMA working with the US National Park Service. The fact that the expanded Washington DC FRZ no-fly-zone for model aircraft was lifted was a direct result of AMA working with the FAA, national security entities, and law enforcement. And yes, the fact is Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 is a direct result of efforts by AMA working with Congress.
07-18-2016, 06:06 AM
#46
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta be honest here , I'm perfectly fine with RC craft over 55 pounds being held to a higher standard of safety by at least needing to be gone over by a second set of eyes before it's first flown . By the time your flying better than 55 pounds , your well entrenched into the hobby enough that a simple inspection from a fellow AMA member should be a fairly easy thing to get done . I just looked at Horizon's site at a 1/4 scale Cub , flying weight a mere 18 pounds ! The size of an RC craft that exceeds 55 pounds is what , 1/2 scale ? That's a damn lot of potential energy and were I to fly it I'd feel FAR more comfortable knowing that a fellow RC aircraft hobbyist "proof read" the build for possible unnoticed errors .
Mike
07-18-2016, 06:08 AM
#47
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Gotta be honest here , I'm perfectly fine with RC craft over 55 pounds being held to a higher standard of safety by at least needing to be gone over by a second set of eyes before it's first flown . By the time your flying better than 55 pounds , your well entrenched into the hobby enough that a simple inspection from a fellow AMA member should be a fairly easy thing to get done . I just looked at Horizon's site at a 1/4 scale Cub , flying weight a mere 18 pounds ! The size of an RC craft that exceeds 55 pounds is what , 1/2 scale ? That's a damn lot of potential energy and were I to fly it I'd feel FAR more comfortable knowing that a fellow RC aircraft hobbyist "proof read" the build for possible unnoticed errors .
07-18-2016, 06:16 AM
#48
Gotta be honest here , I'm perfectly fine with RC craft over 55 pounds being held to a higher standard of safety by at least needing to be gone over by a second set of eyes before it's first flown . By the time your flying better than 55 pounds , your well entrenched into the hobby enough that a simple inspection from a fellow AMA member should be a fairly easy thing to get done . I just looked at Horizon's site at a 1/4 scale Cub , flying weight a mere 18 pounds ! The size of an RC craft that exceeds 55 pounds is what , 1/2 scale ? That's a damn lot of potential energy and were I to fly it I'd feel FAR more comfortable knowing that a fellow RC aircraft hobbyist "proof read" the build for possible unnoticed errors .
