400 foot? NOPE
07-29-2016, 11:08 AM
#478
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as a follow on, the Law does not stipulate you must belong to the AMA, it clearly speaks about any CBO. So if, and when others come into being, then those will be options as well. But as was stated above, if you don't like the CBO option there is always Part 107 there for you.
07-29-2016, 11:37 AM
#479
Let me ask all U a question ... How many AMA chartered fields have been Ramp Checked? In other words has any field anyone knows of been visited by any FAA personal for the purpose of checking for an FAA Registration on the pilot or a plane? Any one know of any FAA people trying to figure if any one was flying over 400' any where? Just asking.
07-29-2016, 12:45 PM
#480
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me ask all U a question ... How many AMA chartered fields have been Ramp Checked? In other words has any field anyone knows of been visited by any FAA personal for the purpose of checking for an FAA Registration on the pilot or a plane? Any one know of any FAA people trying to figure if any one was flying over 400' any where? Just asking.
As far as the 400 foot question goes, since there was not ever and is not now a rule, regulation or requirement to stay below 400 feet that answer to your question is "no". Now, Part 107 does have a 400-foot limit in it for non-hobby operations, so down the road it will be interesting to see what happens there.
07-29-2016, 01:41 PM
#481
Hi Ira , I do agree the FAA shouldn't be able to force an AMA membership on anyone and they have not , by providing a non CBO option in part 107 . If there were no other option then yes I'd call that forced membership . But if one elects to use the CBO route to the skies is it really that unreasonable to require they belong to whichever CBO's rules they are following ? I ask because right now there is only one CBO , but I would not be surprised if the future brings at least one more and so folks won't be bound to use the AMA for the CBO exemption if that's their choice . I hope that made sense that I don't want flyers to be forced to join the AMA but that if they're going to use the AMA's exemption they ought to be members to continue the very existence of the AMA exemption they are enjoying .
In further thought , what if per some stroke of horrible misfortune the AMA were to go belly up tomorrow . No active CBO . Wouldn't folks still be able to fly using part 107 ? In other words even if the AMA didn't exist there would still be a way to fly so nothing but compliance with 107 is being forced . Now since we do have the AMA with it's CBO exemption , and since someone's gonna have to pay to keep that CBO option in business , why shouldn't it be the ones getting the advantage of that exemption to be the ones who pay to keep it afloat ? I don't mean this as any kinds of personal insult and I truly mean this , but it just feels to me like freeloading to use something like the AMA's #336 exemption without paying to keep it alive like all the others who are paying members are doing .
In further thought , what if per some stroke of horrible misfortune the AMA were to go belly up tomorrow . No active CBO . Wouldn't folks still be able to fly using part 107 ? In other words even if the AMA didn't exist there would still be a way to fly so nothing but compliance with 107 is being forced . Now since we do have the AMA with it's CBO exemption , and since someone's gonna have to pay to keep that CBO option in business , why shouldn't it be the ones getting the advantage of that exemption to be the ones who pay to keep it afloat ? I don't mean this as any kinds of personal insult and I truly mean this , but it just feels to me like freeloading to use something like the AMA's #336 exemption without paying to keep it alive like all the others who are paying members are doing .
why worry about a CBO in the first place? Oh but wait you talk of the advantage of the CBO exemption but what is that advantage and why should the FAA treat AMA members any different than none members?
07-29-2016, 05:56 PM
#482
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Ira , I do agree the FAA shouldn't be able to force an AMA membership on anyone and they have not , by providing a non CBO option in part 107 . If there were no other option then yes I'd call that forced membership . But if one elects to use the CBO route to the skies is it really that unreasonable to require they belong to whichever CBO's rules they are following ? I ask because right now there is only one CBO , but I would not be surprised if the future brings at least one more and so folks won't be bound to use the AMA for the CBO exemption if that's their choice . I hope that made sense that I don't want flyers to be forced to join the AMA but that if they're going to use the AMA's exemption they ought to be members to continue the very existence of the AMA exemption they are enjoying .
In further thought , what if per some stroke of horrible misfortune the AMA were to go belly up tomorrow . No active CBO . Wouldn't folks still be able to fly using part 107 ? In other words even if the AMA didn't exist there would still be a way to fly so nothing but compliance with 107 is being forced . Now since we do have the AMA with it's CBO exemption , and since someone's gonna have to pay to keep that CBO option in business , why shouldn't it be the ones getting the advantage of that exemption to be the ones who pay to keep it afloat ? I don't mean this as any kinds of personal insult and I truly mean this , but it just feels to me like freeloading to use something like the AMA's #336 exemption without paying to keep it alive like all the others who are paying members are doing .
In further thought , what if per some stroke of horrible misfortune the AMA were to go belly up tomorrow . No active CBO . Wouldn't folks still be able to fly using part 107 ? In other words even if the AMA didn't exist there would still be a way to fly so nothing but compliance with 107 is being forced . Now since we do have the AMA with it's CBO exemption , and since someone's gonna have to pay to keep that CBO option in business , why shouldn't it be the ones getting the advantage of that exemption to be the ones who pay to keep it afloat ? I don't mean this as any kinds of personal insult and I truly mean this , but it just feels to me like freeloading to use something like the AMA's #336 exemption without paying to keep it alive like all the others who are paying members are doing .
Regarding part 107 as an alternative to CBO membership, it was never intended for modelers, but for drone operators. I still feel that a clear distinction between model airplanes should be maintained. FAA seems to be doing that, even if AMA isn't.
Regarding benefits to non-CBO modelers, what are they? I see no enhancement for my own operations over AC91-57, and it seems that way for 90+% of AMA members. The additional 'privileges' per Sec 336 were sought by AMA for the benefit of jet jocks and competition glider guiders that want to fly above 400' AGL and the monster scale enthusiasts that don't want a 55 lb weight limit.
My Q back to you is why should independent modelers (aka freeloaders) pay for something they didn't need or ask for and is of no perceptible value to them, else be lumped in with the droners for some obscure regulatory purpose? I don't see it happening.
07-29-2016, 06:01 PM
#483
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Init, hope you don't mind my interjection of a comment or two on that.
Regarding part 107 as an alternative to CBO membership, it was never intended for modelers, but for drone operators. I still feel that a clear distinction between model airplanes should be maintained. FAA seems to be doing that, even if AMA isn't.
Regarding benefits to non-CBO modelers, what are they? I see no enhancement for my own operations over AC91-57, and it seems that way for 90+% of AMA members. The additional 'privileges' per Sec 336 were sought by AMA for the benefit of jet jocks and competition glider guiders that want to fly above 400' AGL and the monster scale enthusiasts that don't want a 55 lb weight limit.
My Q back to you is why should independent modelers (aka freeloaders) pay for something they didn't need or ask for and is of no perceptible value to them, else be lumped in with the droners for some obscure regulatory purpose? I don't see it happening.
Regarding part 107 as an alternative to CBO membership, it was never intended for modelers, but for drone operators. I still feel that a clear distinction between model airplanes should be maintained. FAA seems to be doing that, even if AMA isn't.
Regarding benefits to non-CBO modelers, what are they? I see no enhancement for my own operations over AC91-57, and it seems that way for 90+% of AMA members. The additional 'privileges' per Sec 336 were sought by AMA for the benefit of jet jocks and competition glider guiders that want to fly above 400' AGL and the monster scale enthusiasts that don't want a 55 lb weight limit.
My Q back to you is why should independent modelers (aka freeloaders) pay for something they didn't need or ask for and is of no perceptible value to them, else be lumped in with the droners for some obscure regulatory purpose? I don't see it happening.
07-29-2016, 08:23 PM
#486
Hi CJ and IRA , My only concern was (is) that if anybody can use the AMA's CBO status without being a member , whose gonna "keep the lights on" , as it were , if a greater majority decide they will use the AMA's CBO exemption without paying for it ? Yes guys I'm 100% with the fact that the FAA should have just themselves put out a set of safe operating standards for hobby model aircraft and said "follow these for your hobby purposes" , instead of all the CBO crap in the first place , this would have left AMA membership as it was , totally by choice . I can certainly see that the way it stands today , to not be lumped in with the droners one needs to fly CBO , and there only being one CBO creates a monopoly . The bottom line is I agree the FAA shouldn't ever force a hobbyist to be a member of a private group to fly and I can also agree that to use the AMA's intellectual property the fair thing is to pay them for that use . That's the screwed up situation the FAA produced by adopting this half baked CBO nonsense in the first place and rectification of this problem is gonna have to come from them , in my opinion the best possible outcome would be to see all the CBO nonsense struck from the #336 law and instead replaced with an FAA authored set of safe operating standards for hobby model aircraft . Christ they set up the standards for full scale that seem to work very well , how hard could it have been for them to have done the same for us and not have deferred this responsibility to a private company in the first place .
So , I don't want any forced members , and if folks use AMA materials they should pay for that use . How messed up is that ? Thanks FAA .....
PS , I hope neither of you think I was calling you freeloaders , and I hope the above clarifies my frustration at the "damned if ya do , damned if ya don't" situation the FAA has created for us .
pushing for it and congress not being able to see through it. I don’t feel bad for the AMA because they should have seen this coming when they were pushing for the law.
07-29-2016, 09:41 PM
#487
I agree 100% the CBO language should be struck from the 336 law and should have never been there in the first place, but I don’t fault the FAA for the language but instead I fault the AMA for
pushing for it and congress not being able to see through it. I don’t feel bad for the AMA because they should have seen this coming when they were pushing for the law.
pushing for it and congress not being able to see through it. I don’t feel bad for the AMA because they should have seen this coming when they were pushing for the law.
07-29-2016, 09:43 PM
#488
Hi CJ and IRA , My only concern was (is) that if anybody can use the AMA's CBO status without being a member , whose gonna "keep the lights on" , as it were , if a greater majority decide they will use the AMA's CBO exemption without paying for it ? Yes guys I'm 100% with the fact that the FAA should have just themselves put out a set of safe operating standards for hobby model aircraft and said "follow these for your hobby purposes" , instead of all the CBO crap in the first place , this would have left AMA membership as it was , totally by choice . I can certainly see that the way it stands today , to not be lumped in with the droners one needs to fly CBO , and there only being one CBO creates a monopoly . The bottom line is I agree the FAA shouldn't ever force a hobbyist to be a member of a private group to fly and I can also agree that to use the AMA's intellectual property the fair thing is to pay them for that use . That's the screwed up situation the FAA produced by adopting this half baked CBO nonsense in the first place and rectification of this problem is gonna have to come from them , in my opinion the best possible outcome would be to see all the CBO nonsense struck from the #336 law and instead replaced with an FAA authored set of safe operating standards for hobby model aircraft . Christ they set up the standards for full scale that seem to work very well , how hard could it have been for them to have done the same for us and not have deferred this responsibility to a private company in the first place .
So , I don't want any forced members , and if folks use AMA materials they should pay for that use . How messed up is that ? Thanks FAA .....
PS , I hope neither of you think I was calling you freeloaders , and I hope the above clarifies my frustration at the "damned if ya do , damned if ya don't" situation the FAA has created for us .
07-29-2016, 10:20 PM
#489
07-30-2016, 02:43 AM
#491
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I agree 100% the CBO language should be struck from the 336 law and should have never been there in the first place, but I don’t fault the FAA for the language but instead I fault the AMA for
pushing for it and congress not being able to see through it. I don’t feel bad for the AMA because they should have seen this coming when they were pushing for the law.
pushing for it and congress not being able to see through it. I don’t feel bad for the AMA because they should have seen this coming when they were pushing for the law.
07-30-2016, 02:45 AM
#492
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Perhaps it's easier to hear what you or others don't blame the AMA for.....might be a shorter list?
07-30-2016, 03:23 AM
#493
How many of U fly (at AMA sites) with in 5 miles of a towered airport or any airport? Interesting thing I fly at 2 AMA fields that are with in a quarter mile of the 5 mile ring and not near any Run way approaches. When we went to the tower and airport managers to tell (ask permission) they didn't even know we existed. This was the first time they had realized, in over 40 years that we were even there. Because Sanctioned flying sites have not been a problem to the flying public, All AMA and any designated flying site should be grand fathered form FAA scrutiny. At least till there is a problem. The FAA has enough on it's plate with out messing with Toy Airplanes flown at AMA sites let alone dealing with the real problem of "Drones" being flown in the proximity of full scale aircraft. Which indecently if anyone remembers was what started this whole hullabaloo. If we just continue to fly like we have for the past 80 years, and use a little common sense, we will be just fine. Believe it or not they flew GS R/C WWI war birds at Oshkosh AirVenture this past week. Didn't seem to be any problems either. Here I go Preaching to the choir again. Sorry "NOT"
07-30-2016, 04:00 AM
#494
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
How many of U fly (at AMA sites) with in 5 miles of a towered airport or any airport? Interesting thing I fly at 2 AMA fields that are with in a quarter mile of the 5 mile ring and not near any Run way approaches. When we went to the tower and airport managers to tell (ask permission) they didn't even know we existed. This was the first time they had realized, in over 40 years that we were even there. Because Sanctioned flying sites have not been a problem to the flying public, All AMA and any designated flying site should be grand fathered form FAA scrutiny. At least till there is a problem. The FAA has enough on it's plate with out messing with Toy Airplanes flown at AMA sites let alone dealing with the real problem of "Drones" being flown in the proximity of full scale aircraft. Which indecently if anyone remembers was what started this whole hullabaloo. If we just continue to fly like we have for the past 80 years, and use a little common sense, we will be just fine. Believe it or not they flew GS R/C WWI war birds at Oshkosh AirVenture this past week. Didn't seem to be any problems either. Here I go Preaching to the choir again. Sorry "NOT"
07-30-2016, 05:49 AM
#496
ME and every other dues paying member !!!!!!
I got a 5 digit AMA number , been in a little while , in fact just a bit short of the number you quoted above . And just how many years do YOU have in , Mr. inquisitor ?
PS , enjoy one of my precious few responses to your posts , in case you haven't noticed lately I've decided pretty much everyone else here is for real and deserves responding to . You ? Let's ask this , think if I ran a poll more than 50% of the respondents would agree your a troll ?
I Do !
I got a 5 digit AMA number , been in a little while , in fact just a bit short of the number you quoted above . And just how many years do YOU have in , Mr. inquisitor ?
PS , enjoy one of my precious few responses to your posts , in case you haven't noticed lately I've decided pretty much everyone else here is for real and deserves responding to . You ? Let's ask this , think if I ran a poll more than 50% of the respondents would agree your a troll ?
I Do !
07-30-2016, 07:48 AM
#497
Hi CJ and IRA , My only concern was (is) that if anybody can use the AMA's CBO status without being a member , whose gonna "keep the lights on" , as it were , if a greater majority decide they will use the AMA's CBO exemption without paying for it ? Yes guys I'm 100% with the fact that the FAA should have just themselves put out a set of safe operating standards for hobby model aircraft and said "follow these for your hobby purposes" , instead of all the CBO crap in the first place , this would have left AMA membership as it was , totally by choice . I can certainly see that the way it stands today , to not be lumped in with the droners one needs to fly CBO , and there only being one CBO creates a monopoly . The bottom line is I agree the FAA shouldn't ever force a hobbyist to be a member of a private group to fly and I can also agree that to use the AMA's intellectual property the fair thing is to pay them for that use . That's the screwed up situation the FAA produced by adopting this half baked CBO nonsense in the first place and rectification of this problem is gonna have to come from them , in my opinion the best possible outcome would be to see all the CBO nonsense struck from the #336 law and instead replaced with an FAA authored set of safe operating standards for hobby model aircraft . Christ they set up the standards for full scale that seem to work very well , how hard could it have been for them to have done the same for us and not have deferred this responsibility to a private company in the first place .
So , I don't want any forced members , and if folks use AMA materials they should pay for that use . How messed up is that ? Thanks FAA .....
PS , I hope neither of you think I was calling you freeloaders , and I hope the above clarifies my frustration at the "damned if ya do , damned if ya don't" situation the FAA has created for us .
PL112-95 was being drafted in 2011. In 2011, based on IRS990 data in constant inflation adjusted 2011 dollars, the AMA had experienced seven straight years of declining membership revenue. Using 2003 "membership fees received" as a baseline (in constant 2011 inflation adjusted dollars):
2004 "membership fees received" was down 1.7%
2005 "membership fees received" was down 5.4%
2006 "membership fees received" was down 9.3%
2007 "membership fees received" was down 11.2%
2008 "membership fees received" was down 15.0%
2009 "membership fees received" was down 19.4%
2010 "membership fees received" was down 23.4%
Is this incentive to get CBO language into the law?
Note: Method of calculation (in constant 2011 $$) used was : Delta % change = (20xx $$ - 2003 $$) / 2003 $$
07-30-2016, 08:11 AM
#499
07-30-2016, 08:18 AM
#500
But since you asked, by 2013, it would have been the 10th straight year of declining membership dues:
2011 "membership fees received" was down 23.6%
2012 "membership fees received" was down 27.8%
2013 "membership fees received" was down 28.7%
Again, as compared to a 2003 baseline with all revenue converted to constant 2011 dollars (time the 2012 legislation would have been in work). Calculations done using the same methodology as prior post.
2011 "membership fees received" was down 23.6%
2012 "membership fees received" was down 27.8%
2013 "membership fees received" was down 28.7%
Again, as compared to a 2003 baseline with all revenue converted to constant 2011 dollars (time the 2012 legislation would have been in work). Calculations done using the same methodology as prior post.