FAA: CBO Membership NOT required to comply with 336
07-26-2016, 05:57 PM
#26
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
We already have one guy trying hard to derail any thread where he doesn't agree with everything written, will you be joining in?
If you can't handle the discussion, simply hit the Ignore function, or better yet the back key. What is so hard to understand about that? Notice who is in the threads running around name calling, etc etc? It's not me or Chris. So far it's you and one other. Ironic eh?
Notice how Franklin continues the conversation without having to sink to that level? Although we agree on some issues we disagree on others, and yet continue to have a conversation about it without turning into 12 year olds.
Last edited by porcia83; 07-26-2016 at 06:00 PM.
07-26-2016, 06:03 PM
#27
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
No slip. Logic goes like this: Law says that you can't fly a "model aircraft" greater than 55lbs unless inspected by a CBO (a.k.a. AMA). AMA has told me directly they won't inspect non-member aircraft. Thus if I want to fly a model greater than 55lbs in the public airspace, I have to join AMA. So in fact, AMA is acting as a gatekeeper to what I can and cannot do in the airspace, and it's based on whether I pay them $75 or not.
So what was the context that explains the statement "We've made it clear, that to operate within our safety program, you must join the AMA and affirm your willingness to comply with our safety code and related safety guidelines. [emphasis added]"
How exactly am I misinterpreting that statement? It seems pretty clear.
And then there's this one....
"Chad Budreau July 12, 2016 at 13:13 Anyone is free to read and comply with parts of our safety program,but to fully satisfy all of 336 and to operate within AMA’s safety program you must be a member. [emphasis added]"
So now we have to misinterpret yet another statement? That one too seems pretty clear.
So what was the context that explains the statement "We've made it clear, that to operate within our safety program, you must join the AMA and affirm your willingness to comply with our safety code and related safety guidelines. [emphasis added]"
How exactly am I misinterpreting that statement? It seems pretty clear.
And then there's this one....
"Chad Budreau July 12, 2016 at 13:13 Anyone is free to read and comply with parts of our safety program,but to fully satisfy all of 336 and to operate within AMA’s safety program you must be a member. [emphasis added]"
So now we have to misinterpret yet another statement? That one too seems pretty clear.
That is an impressive leap you've made there, but all the leaps and conclusions you make tend to end with AMA=Bad. I guess if you and one or two other (I see we have a noob joining the group lol) say it enough times, it will become fact.
I don't see it, so we'll chalk this up in the nah, let's agree to disagree column (is there room left?).
07-26-2016, 06:05 PM
#28
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We already have one guy trying hard to derail any thread where he doesn't agree with everything written, will you be joining in?
If you can't handle the discussion, simply hit the Ignore function, or better yet the back key. What is so hard about you people who love to call others Trolls while doing the exact thing, that is so hard to understand? A lack of common sense, or maturity?
07-26-2016, 06:10 PM
#29
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Do as I say, not as I do.
Yes or no: Do you and crispy share the same bait bucket?
Hit the Ignore function, it seems to work wonders for some.
07-26-2016, 06:28 PM
#30
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look in the mirror and repeat that. You and crispy have both said/implied/inferred the topic is a non-issue, with the usual veiled ad hom attacks and other attempts to kill any discussion of the topic. Invoke the ignore function, as you would have me do.
07-26-2016, 06:30 PM
#31
Thread Starter
The logic is no leap, please point out the flaw:
- PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(3) says "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 a community-based organization;"
- The "community-based organization" says they will not certify non-member aircraft
- Therefore, a citizen cannot enjoy the privilege of flying an aircraft greater than 55lbs in the public airspace unless they pay $75 to a private dues collecting organization - the AMA.
So does this mean you're not going to explain how I'm misinterpreting Chad's statement on the video? And not going to explain how I'm also misinterpreting his statement in his PM to me?
- PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(3) says "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 a community-based organization;"
- The "community-based organization" says they will not certify non-member aircraft
- Therefore, a citizen cannot enjoy the privilege of flying an aircraft greater than 55lbs in the public airspace unless they pay $75 to a private dues collecting organization - the AMA.
So does this mean you're not going to explain how I'm misinterpreting Chad's statement on the video? And not going to explain how I'm also misinterpreting his statement in his PM to me?
07-26-2016, 06:40 PM
#32
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Wait...I continue to have a discussion with Franklin about the topic but I am also trying to kill any attempts to discuss the topic? How does that work? If you don't like my comments, either ignore them or go past them. Coming into a thread and starting a temper tantrum and going to name calling isn't helping at all, I certainly haven't done that here. I don't need to use the Ignore function, I can handle a contrary position or comment. Not an issue. Anything else you want to get off your chest?
07-26-2016, 06:47 PM
#33
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait...I continue to have a discussion with Franklin about the topic but I am also trying to kill any attempts to discuss the topic? How does that work? If you don't like my comments, either ignore them or go past them. Coming into a thread and starting a temper tantrum and going to name calling isn't helping at all, I certainly haven't done that here. I don't need to use the Ignore function, I can handle a contrary position or comment. Not an issue. Anything else you want to get off your chest?
07-26-2016, 06:50 PM
#34
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The logic is no leap, please point out the flaw:
- PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(3) says "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 a community-based organization;"
- The "community-based organization" says they will not certify non-member aircraft
- Therefore, a citizen cannot enjoy the privilege of flying an aircraft greater than 55lbs in the public airspace unless they pay $75 to a private dues collecting organization - the AMA.
So does this mean you're not going to explain how I'm misinterpreting Chad's statement on the video? And not going to explain how I'm also misinterpreting his statement in his PM to me?
- PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(3) says "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 a community-based organization;"
- The "community-based organization" says they will not certify non-member aircraft
- Therefore, a citizen cannot enjoy the privilege of flying an aircraft greater than 55lbs in the public airspace unless they pay $75 to a private dues collecting organization - the AMA.
So does this mean you're not going to explain how I'm misinterpreting Chad's statement on the video? And not going to explain how I'm also misinterpreting his statement in his PM to me?
07-26-2016, 06:55 PM
#35
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
What? huh? LOL.
Using that function is a complete cop out, an acknowledgement of failure, imo. Going on and on in multiple threads about using that is even more humiliating for the user as far as I'm concerned, it screams "look at me, I'm letting everyone know I can't handle discussing issues". I want to see everything written, even if it's not something I will agree with. I've learned a lot about my positions on things from seeing others. I only offer it up as an option, just like RCKen did, especially for those folks who like to focus on people, rather than their comments.
Using that function is a complete cop out, an acknowledgement of failure, imo. Going on and on in multiple threads about using that is even more humiliating for the user as far as I'm concerned, it screams "look at me, I'm letting everyone know I can't handle discussing issues". I want to see everything written, even if it's not something I will agree with. I've learned a lot about my positions on things from seeing others. I only offer it up as an option, just like RCKen did, especially for those folks who like to focus on people, rather than their comments.
07-26-2016, 07:17 PM
#37
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What? huh? LOL.
Using that function is a complete cop out, an acknowledgement of failure, imo. Going on and on in multiple threads about using that is even more humiliating for the user as far as I'm concerned, it screams "look at me, I'm letting everyone know I can't handle discussing issues". I want to see everything written, even if it's not something I will agree with. I've learned a lot about my positions on things from seeing others. I only offer it up as an option, just like RCKen did, especially for those folks who like to focus on people, rather than their comments.
Using that function is a complete cop out, an acknowledgement of failure, imo. Going on and on in multiple threads about using that is even more humiliating for the user as far as I'm concerned, it screams "look at me, I'm letting everyone know I can't handle discussing issues". I want to see everything written, even if it's not something I will agree with. I've learned a lot about my positions on things from seeing others. I only offer it up as an option, just like RCKen did, especially for those folks who like to focus on people, rather than their comments.
Outside of an admission that you fat fingered something or misspoke, you rarely agree with anything I say, not matter what it is. You've been playing word games for a couple of days on the "there is only so much that can be done"...that's a black and white issue..and we can't get even close to an agreement there. I disagree with your comments on Chad, that's all. I don't exactly see a groundswell of support for your position either, for what that's worth. But I think I even said we can agree to disagree no? At some point even I can spot a dead horse......imagine that? Plus, and more importantly, we're already seeing one person slowly unravel in front of us over the past few days, and now we have CJ jumping in to keep the fires stoked, I'm not really interested in having the thread descend into the usual "troll brothers" and "three amigos" rut. I guess you can keep asking the question, and if want, use my "refusal" to answer a question as some type of evidence of something.
07-26-2016, 07:25 PM
#39
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
That presumes I care about how I am seen by you, or anyone else here. I could care less. If you feel otherwise, more power to you. Thanks for the attempt at a life lesson though, seems pertinent for the thread topic. Shoot me some PM's if you want to continue the discussion, seems to be a more appropriate place than a thread about the FAA and CBOs, and bait buckets.
07-26-2016, 07:27 PM
#40
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
No , you don't focus on people , right ? Oh , gee , what's this ? Sure looks like your focusing on a person here , now don't it . Again , you are a hypocrite and a pompous one at that . Now , go twist this so that I'm angry , mistaken , "intolerant" , or whatever other BS you want to sling , but you ARE being seen for what you truly are here , like that or not .
07-26-2016, 07:51 PM
#44
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That presumes I care about how I am seen by you, or anyone else here. I could care less. If you feel otherwise, more power to you. Thanks for the attempt at a life lesson though, seems pertinent for the thread topic. Shoot me some PM's if you want to continue the discussion, seems to be a more appropriate place than a thread about the FAA and CBOs, and bait buckets.
07-26-2016, 08:00 PM
#46
Yep , every bit of this is respectful conversation with other hobbyists , Right ? You damned well know that if anyone had said any one of these things to either you or your shadow you'd be going off crying foul , everything from off topic to intolerant . You have no right whatsoever to demand a measure of respect that you refuse to extend to your fellow posters in return . You don't get to play the jerk card and demand everyone else play nice , it just ain't ever gonna work that way .
Are these posts really respectful of the holder of the opposing viewpoint , or are they the rotten mean spirited trash they appear to be ?
Are these posts really respectful of the holder of the opposing viewpoint , or are they the rotten mean spirited trash they appear to be ?
07-26-2016, 08:49 PM
#50
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
You know something ? There was a time a few months ago that I gave you the benefit of the doubt . I though "maybe it IS me , maybe I'm taking his posts all wrong" and so I stayed out of the AMA forum conversations to see if it was me or if I was seeing things for what they really are . You do NOT attack viewpoints , you attack people and then accuse them of attacking when they react to your taunts and insults . Do I really need to compile a post of quotes of noteworthy times you've been a total dick without me even being in the thread ? Yep , It's me , Franklin , The Edge , CJ , and a few others all out to get you , right ? Keep sellin yourself that line of BS and wondering why pretty much all but your buddy here think your a pompous ass , you've done a great job of alienating all but him anyway . I hate to think that any person who flys model airplanes could be so rude and disrespectful to his fellow hobbyists , but your and your buddy's posts really do speak for themselves .
I've never wished you ill in any way (nor anyone else here), and I don't see how you would think otherwise. I'm not wasting any more time or effort trying to figure it out. At the end of the days we're talking about toys here. Have a good night.