400 foot? NOPE
07-28-2016, 01:58 PM
#451
Nope. Again, if my models get stolen, it's my fault for not properly securing them. Same if they burn up, it's something I did. I view the out of pocket loss as the penalty for being stupid.
07-28-2016, 02:08 PM
#453
07-28-2016, 02:08 PM
#454
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The selfish thing is how I was raised - "self last." As for whether they'd like it or not, my family does not enjoy the hobby. I'm the only one, so it would be an imposition on them. That gets back to the selfish thing. I'm just not that way.
My family is big into US history. My 12yo daughter knows more about Lee and Gettysburg than most adults. My sons have seen more historical sites in the country than just about all of their classmates, and even better they can talk about them in detail.
My family is big into US history. My 12yo daughter knows more about Lee and Gettysburg than most adults. My sons have seen more historical sites in the country than just about all of their classmates, and even better they can talk about them in detail.
I might even let the family come along.
07-28-2016, 03:13 PM
#456
I don't need a minute. Again, I wouldn't be stupid enough to leave a $50,000 car unlocked.
In my entire 54 years on this earth, I've had one thing stolen from me --- ever. And that was the battery from my car when I lived in one of the highest crime areas of SoCal at the time (5th St. Santa Ana - it was all I could afford - shell casings in the street in the morning was common). I paid for a new one, as well as for the lock and chain to keep it from happening again.
In my entire 54 years on this earth, I've had one thing stolen from me --- ever. And that was the battery from my car when I lived in one of the highest crime areas of SoCal at the time (5th St. Santa Ana - it was all I could afford - shell casings in the street in the morning was common). I paid for a new one, as well as for the lock and chain to keep it from happening again.
07-29-2016, 06:44 AM
#457
(1) The FAA's letter says nothing about this being limited to members only. I've attached a copy so folks can check for themselves. In fact, it says "Model aircraft may be flown consistent with section 336 and agency guidance at altitudes above 400 feet when following a community-based organization safety guidelines."
(2) It goes on to say that "Community-based organizations, such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics, may establish altitude limitations in their safety guidelines that exceed the FAA's 400 foot AGL altitude recommendation."
(3) Note the absence of the word "members," "membership," or any form of that word in the FAA's 400 foot letter.
(4) Attached is an email from the FAA UAS Integration Office, the same one that wrote the 400' letter, that explicitly says: "The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO ... You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO. [emphasis added]"
So the FAA says if you comply with 336, you can fly above 400 feet. Do you have to register? Yes. Do you have to comply with section 336? Yes. Do you have to comply with the AMA's safety guidelines? Yes.
But do you have to be a member of the AMA to do it? The FAA UAS Integration Office says NO - as section 336 does not require membership!
P.S. - It just dawned on me, why would anyone at AMA be concerned about the 12 July email? Haven't they been saying for months that they would not use section 336 as a membership tool?
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-29-2016 at 07:03 AM.
07-29-2016, 07:11 AM
#458
So the FAA says if you comply with 336, you can fly above 400 feet. Do you have to register? Yes. Do you have to comply with section 336? Yes. Do you have to comply with the AMA's safety guidelines? Yes.
But do you have to be a member of the AMA to do it? The FAA UAS Integration Office says NO - as section 336 does not require membership!
The FAA UAS Integration Office also does not state how you provide proof of compliance. Laws based on hearsay? Do they really hold up in court?
But do you have to be a member of the AMA to do it? The FAA UAS Integration Office says NO - as section 336 does not require membership!
The FAA UAS Integration Office also does not state how you provide proof of compliance. Laws based on hearsay? Do they really hold up in court?
07-29-2016, 07:17 AM
#459
Originally Posted by franklin_m 
So the FAA says if you comply with 336, you can fly above 400 feet. Do you have to register? Yes. Do you have to comply with section 336? Yes. Do you have to comply with the AMA's safety guidelines? Yes.
But do you have to be a member of the AMA to do it? The FAA UAS Integration Office says NO - as section 336 does not require membership!
The FAA UAS Integration Office also does not state how you provide proof of compliance. Laws based on hearsay? Do they really hold up in court?
Well, the way I see it, it's rather simple:
- Copy of FAA registration? Yes.
- Copy of Section 336 on hand? Yes.
- Copy of FAA email saying AMA membership not required? Yes.
- Copy of AMA safety guideline? Yes.
- Contact info of who in tower I notified of flight, and no objection? Yes.
Able to go point by point in AMA safety guideline and prove compliance? Easy!
The secret to success is actually following the law and the guidelines, thus never giving FAA or any LEO a reason to engage in the first place. I already comply with the code and the law, so continued compliance is just doing more of the same.
It's really not that difficult for me.
07-29-2016, 07:23 AM
#460
That might be well and good but to comply with the safety programming of AMA you have to be a member. You have to acknowledge the safety code, and you have to be signed up to receive TFR's and ongoing safety programming.
Maybe if another CBO comes along you can follow their code without acknowledging you will follow it, with AMA you can't.
I can put a cammo uniform on, that doesn't mean I'm in the military.
Maybe if another CBO comes along you can follow their code without acknowledging you will follow it, with AMA you can't.
I can put a cammo uniform on, that doesn't mean I'm in the military.
07-29-2016, 07:44 AM
#461
Well, the way I see it
I'm interested in how the FAA UAS Integration Office see's it. The FAA requires compliance, but haven't specified the requirements for certification of compliance.
, it's rather simple:
- Copy of FAA registration? Yes.
- Copy of Section 336 on hand? Yes.
- Copy of FAA email saying AMA membership not required? Yes.
- Copy of AMA safety guideline? Yes.
- Contact info of who in tower I notified of flight, and no objection? Yes.
Able to go point by point in AMA safety guideline and prove compliance? Easy!
The secret to success is actually following the law and the guidelines, thus never giving FAA or any LEO a reason to engage in the first place. I already comply with the code and the law, so continued compliance is just doing more of the same.
It's really not that difficult for me.
I'm interested in how the FAA UAS Integration Office see's it. The FAA requires compliance, but haven't specified the requirements for certification of compliance.
, it's rather simple:
- Copy of FAA registration? Yes.
- Copy of Section 336 on hand? Yes.
- Copy of FAA email saying AMA membership not required? Yes.
- Copy of AMA safety guideline? Yes.
- Contact info of who in tower I notified of flight, and no objection? Yes.
Able to go point by point in AMA safety guideline and prove compliance? Easy!
The secret to success is actually following the law and the guidelines, thus never giving FAA or any LEO a reason to engage in the first place. I already comply with the code and the law, so continued compliance is just doing more of the same.
It's really not that difficult for me.
07-29-2016, 07:47 AM
#462
The FAA, repeat the FAA, has explicitly they do not require membership in a CBO to comply with the only paragraph in the law that mentions it. I'll remind you any reference to CBO, safety guidelines, and within programming is mentioned in the law ONLY in paragraph (a)(2) of PL112-96 Section 336. That paragraph says:
""the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;"
You'll note that I even mentioned the AMA in my example, and yet the FAA said: "The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO ... You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO."
That means the FAA explicitly said that membership is NOT required to comply with either provision/condition mentioned in that paragraph, whether the safety guidelines OR the programming.
No matter how many times you or other AMA officials say membership is required, that does not make it so. AMA has no enforcement authority, nor are they a regulatory agency of the government empowered by law to interpret law. The FAA is however empowered to decide what it means and doesn't mean. As are they empowered to interpret the law.
The FAA said explicitly that membership is not required to be "within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" or for someone to "operate in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines."
Again, why should anyone at AMA care? They've been saying for months that they'd never use 336 as a membership tool. This just gives them a chance to prove they actually meant it!
Last edited by franklin_m; 07-29-2016 at 07:57 AM.
07-29-2016, 08:02 AM
#463
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm curious. Do you have anything else besides an unsigned email from an FAA help desk? Generally when the FAA issues policy statements they do it on official letterhead, publish an Advisory Circular, publish an Interpretation in the Federal Register, etc. I think you may be giving too much weight to the email you got. It would be very nice to see this is some official form consistent with other policy statement issued by the FAA.
You keep writing that the "FAA says", when in fact there is no official policy statement. Certainly as an experienced manned aircraft person you understand the difference??
For instance, here is an entire webpage, with an actual person taking credit for the content, on what the word "mandatory" means to the FAA:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...les/mandatory/
Another example of an FAA policy statement:
http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/m...n_8900.258.pdf
And yet another:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...in_the_NAS.pdf
But for the very substantial and important interpretation of what operating within the programming of a CBO means to the FAA you hang your hat on an anonymous email from an FAA help desk.
You keep writing that the "FAA says", when in fact there is no official policy statement. Certainly as an experienced manned aircraft person you understand the difference??
For instance, here is an entire webpage, with an actual person taking credit for the content, on what the word "mandatory" means to the FAA:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives...les/mandatory/
Another example of an FAA policy statement:
http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/m...n_8900.258.pdf
And yet another:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...in_the_NAS.pdf
But for the very substantial and important interpretation of what operating within the programming of a CBO means to the FAA you hang your hat on an anonymous email from an FAA help desk.
07-29-2016, 08:40 AM
#465
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. Just like a single line on the FAA's registration page does not set policy, neither does an anonymous email from the "help desk".
BTW - even if the FAA states that CBO membership is required to operate within the programming of the CBO, they are never going to prosecute anyone for not being a member. The only thing the FAA can do is go after you for violating an actual FAR. So they fall back on 91.13 as their catch all for reckless and/or careless operation.
BTW - even if the FAA states that CBO membership is required to operate within the programming of the CBO, they are never going to prosecute anyone for not being a member. The only thing the FAA can do is go after you for violating an actual FAR. So they fall back on 91.13 as their catch all for reckless and/or careless operation.
Last edited by Silent-AV8R; 07-29-2016 at 08:43 AM.
07-29-2016, 08:55 AM
#466
That letter went in the mail yesterday, along with the email where they already answered the question, with copies to AOPA, EAA, and other similar groups who I'd suspect would petition for the same authority if granted to AMA.
The beauty of it is that I really don't need to. For if the AMA does, and get a different response, they'll sing it from the rooftops. However, I don't think they'll get that response, as FAA knows they'd have to do the same for AOPA etc. Which means if they ask, they run the risk of getting a "no" and then having it in writing that what they've been telling their members is wrong. It would be pretty embarrassing to have to back track on any number of public statements.
So, under the premise of not asking a question you don't want the answer to, I predict the AMA won't ask. That allows them to keep forwarding their "interpretation" to anyone that cares to believe them, while not running the risk of being slammed in writing by FAA.
Of course I'll be happy to post the response to my letter when I get it. I'm fairly certain they'll answer the exact same way.
That's what AMA should worry about, for if that is what their letter says, a big part of their justification for membership goes away.
The beauty of it is that I really don't need to. For if the AMA does, and get a different response, they'll sing it from the rooftops. However, I don't think they'll get that response, as FAA knows they'd have to do the same for AOPA etc. Which means if they ask, they run the risk of getting a "no" and then having it in writing that what they've been telling their members is wrong. It would be pretty embarrassing to have to back track on any number of public statements.
So, under the premise of not asking a question you don't want the answer to, I predict the AMA won't ask. That allows them to keep forwarding their "interpretation" to anyone that cares to believe them, while not running the risk of being slammed in writing by FAA.
Of course I'll be happy to post the response to my letter when I get it. I'm fairly certain they'll answer the exact same way.
That's what AMA should worry about, for if that is what their letter says, a big part of their justification for membership goes away.
07-29-2016, 08:57 AM
#467
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Well, the way I see it, it's rather simple:
- Copy of FAA registration? Yes.
- Copy of Section 336 on hand? Yes.
- Copy of FAA email saying AMA membership not required? Yes.
- Copy of AMA safety guideline? Yes.
- Contact info of who in tower I notified of flight, and no objection? Yes.
Able to go point by point in AMA safety guideline and prove compliance? Easy!
The secret to success is actually following the law and the guidelines, thus never giving FAA or any LEO a reason to engage in the first place. I already comply with the code and the law, so continued compliance is just doing more of the same.
It's really not that difficult for me.
- Copy of FAA registration? Yes.
- Copy of Section 336 on hand? Yes.
- Copy of FAA email saying AMA membership not required? Yes.
- Copy of AMA safety guideline? Yes.
- Contact info of who in tower I notified of flight, and no objection? Yes.
Able to go point by point in AMA safety guideline and prove compliance? Easy!
The secret to success is actually following the law and the guidelines, thus never giving FAA or any LEO a reason to engage in the first place. I already comply with the code and the law, so continued compliance is just doing more of the same.
It's really not that difficult for me.
Last edited by porcia83; 07-29-2016 at 09:09 AM.
07-29-2016, 08:58 AM
#468
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another interesting fact is ( to the best of my knowledge anyway) is the AMA has still not reversed it's policy of AMA clubs and officers to follow up on or even require FAA registration.
Mike
Mike
07-29-2016, 09:09 AM
#470
Exactly. Just like a single line on the FAA's registration page does not set policy, neither does an anonymous email from the "help desk".
BTW - even if the FAA states that CBO membership is required to operate within the programming of the CBO, they are never going to prosecute anyone for not being a member. The only thing the FAA can do is go after you for violating an actual FAR. So they fall back on 91.13 as their catch all for reckless and/or careless operation.
BTW - even if the FAA states that CBO membership is required to operate within the programming of the CBO, they are never going to prosecute anyone for not being a member. The only thing the FAA can do is go after you for violating an actual FAR. So they fall back on 91.13 as their catch all for reckless and/or careless operation.
07-29-2016, 09:14 AM
#473
You said something very relevant in the AMA Blogs site that I think bears repeating here . To the AMA , and I cant blame them (us) one bit , to have folks flying using our #336 CBO exemption by following our safety code that we paid through our dues to establish , but without actually being a member , reeks of "theft of intellectual property" since if everyone decided they didn't need to belong to enjoy our CBO exemption there wouldn't be an AMA safety code or an AMA to begin with . The FAA needs to clarify this big time , while I don't want folks forced to be in the AMA (fine , fly 107 or pay to form a new CBO if ya don't to go the AMA CBO route) I don't think it's fair nor morally right for folks to use our (AMA) CBO exemption without paying for it just as we members are and have been all this time .
have thought of this before pushing to have the law written.
07-29-2016, 09:17 AM
#474
07-29-2016, 09:19 AM
#475
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of those definitions is that you are operating in accordance with the Safety Program and "Within the programming" of a CBO. So not doing so merely means your flight is not a hobby flight, and therefore subject to being a Part 107 operation.
If you cause an incident the FAA will first determine what type of flight it was, Part 101.41 or Part 107, then they will determine what FARs you may have violated and move on from there. But Part 101.41 does not in and of itself state that you need to be a CBO member or anything else. Any mention of a CBO is only as a part of the definition that qualifies a person to operate under 101.41 as a hobby flight.