400 foot? NOPE
07-18-2016, 06:43 AM
#53
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes there is. The AMA really doesn't want to be an official CBO. If the AMA were to go down the path as an officially recognized CBO, the AMA would have all sorts of new regulations and hoops to follow and jump through.
07-18-2016, 06:48 AM
#55
In fact , just for giggles & grins , I just searched through Hangar 9's biggest ARFs and the biggest I could find in a quick look was the "3.1 m Sukhoi SU-26MM ARF" at between 38 and 42 pounds flying weight (4 pounds different for engine choice , maybe?) . That's a 122" wingspan , "perfect for a 150 to 170 cc Gas engine" model aircraft that I'd be downright scared to fly unless at least a few of my fellow flying friends had a peek at it first ! And it's still 13 pounds under the threshold of needing to be inspected !
And Porcia , I wouldn't trust my reflexes with a 200MPH ANYTHING these days . Maybe when I was young and actually did have the reflexes for such , but I'm just as happy now to leave the fast stuff to the folks lucky enough to be both young AND rich enough to own such incredible toys .
And Porcia , I wouldn't trust my reflexes with a 200MPH ANYTHING these days . Maybe when I was young and actually did have the reflexes for such , but I'm just as happy now to leave the fast stuff to the folks lucky enough to be both young AND rich enough to own such incredible toys .
07-18-2016, 06:52 AM
#56
Thank You Andy , It shows up perfectly . And now , with the pertinent part highlighted , a copy of this will be right alongside my copy of #336 and the AMA safety code , tucked into the side pocket of my field box . Hell , I think I'll go right now and explore my newfound freedom to fly at 450 feet
!As much as members get frustrated about lack of information sometimes, it's equally frustrating not being able to share some of the hard work that is going on behind the scenes so that it doesn't put verbal agreements at risk until it's signed off by everyone and their cat.
07-18-2016, 06:54 AM
#57
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I failed to recall that. Thank you for the reminder. There's still confusion with LMA. When one registers with the FAA as you know it states .5 to 55lb and in fact there are many FAA officials that believe that modelers must perform full scale registration for aircraft 55lb and up even if following CBO inspections. This is why I made that comment.
07-18-2016, 09:02 AM
#59
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-18-2016, 09:17 AM
#60
The AMA doesn't say that. They only say that you must be a member to avoid the FAA regulations for hobby aircraft. If you are a member you follow the AMA rules if you are not you follow the FAA rules. How else can you interpret this? The FAA rules do allow you to fly a model airplane or other UAV for recreation.
07-18-2016, 09:17 AM
#61
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, here it is:
In this section the term ``nationwidecommunity-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive 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.
Ignoring this is nothing more than willful ignorance.
07-18-2016, 09:20 AM
#62
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.
Waiting to see your response to your earlier statement about revisionist history by the AMA. It looks like a revision is in order........do tell.
07-18-2016, 09:20 AM
#63
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AMA doesn't say that. They only say that you must be a member to avoid the FAA regulations for hobby aircraft. If you are a member you follow the AMA rules if you are not you follow the FAA rules. How else can you interpret this? The FAA rules do allow you to fly a model airplane or other UAV for recreation.
07-18-2016, 09:22 AM
#65
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
And you keep saying this as if repeating it somehow makes it true. I have posted the actual citation by the Conference Committee for Section 336 that makes it crystal clear except to those who want to willingly ignore plain English that Congress INTENDED the Section to apply to the MEMBERS of a CBO, and NOT the general public.
Once again, here it is:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/02/faa-uas.html
Ignoring this is nothing more than willful ignorance.
Once again, here it is:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/02/faa-uas.html
Ignoring this is nothing more than willful ignorance.
07-18-2016, 09:34 AM
#67
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. When, and if, other CBOs come into being and write a safety program equal to the AMA's then people can join that CBO and comply with Section 336. otherwise go fly under Part 107 and you are free of the burden of being "forced" to be an AMA, or any other CBO, member.
07-18-2016, 09:38 AM
#68
And you keep saying this as if repeating it somehow makes it true. I have posted the actual citation by the Conference Committee for Section 336 that makes it crystal clear except to those who want to willingly ignore plain English that Congress INTENDED the Section to apply to the MEMBERS of a CBO, and NOT the general public.
Once again, here it is:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/02/faa-uas.html
Ignoring this is nothing more than willful ignorance.
Once again, here it is:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/02/faa-uas.html
Ignoring this is nothing more than willful ignorance.
07-18-2016, 09:40 AM
#69
I may have said this already, it's hard to keep track but I'll say this.
To fly under the AMA umbrella you need to acknowledge your acceptance to abide by the AMA safety code, you do this when you join and each time you renew.
So in order to be in compliance with the AMA CBO safety program, you need to join to make said acknowledgement. I'm not a lawyer but it seems pretty simple to me in laymen terms.
To fly under the AMA umbrella you need to acknowledge your acceptance to abide by the AMA safety code, you do this when you join and each time you renew.
So in order to be in compliance with the AMA CBO safety program, you need to join to make said acknowledgement. I'm not a lawyer but it seems pretty simple to me in laymen terms.
07-18-2016, 09:52 AM
#70
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. When, and if, other CBOs come into being and write a safety program equal to the AMA's then people can join that CBO and comply with Section 336. otherwise go fly under Part 107 and you are free of the burden of being "forced" to be an AMA, or any other CBO, member.
07-18-2016, 09:58 AM
#71
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?
07-18-2016, 10:15 AM
#73
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Well , at 90 degrees my outing to the field was short lived , and there were no other people to share the good news with . I did fly over 400 feet , i think , and no alarms went off in the woods surrounding the field so I guess we're all good 
Now , about all this , I can certainly see the AMA's point that if you want to fly under our CBO exemption you've gotta be a member . A non member who hasn't agreed to the Safety Code may be able to follow that code just fine , but has not sworn his intent to do so until putting his name on it (by the agreement of joining) . Our CBO exemption is just that , ours , that of our members , and there is nothing that I know of saying that only one CBO will be allowed or that they who don't want to use our CBO exemption (by joining) can't fly under 107 instead .
Bottom line is if folks want to use our exemption why shouldn't they contribute to our organization ?
Now , about all this , I can certainly see the AMA's point that if you want to fly under our CBO exemption you've gotta be a member . A non member who hasn't agreed to the Safety Code may be able to follow that code just fine , but has not sworn his intent to do so until putting his name on it (by the agreement of joining) . Our CBO exemption is just that , ours , that of our members , and there is nothing that I know of saying that only one CBO will be allowed or that they who don't want to use our CBO exemption (by joining) can't fly under 107 instead .
Bottom line is if folks want to use our exemption why shouldn't they contribute to our organization ?
07-18-2016, 10:21 AM
#74
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...... 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.