Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

FAA: CBO Membership NOT required to comply with 336

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

FAA: CBO Membership NOT required to comply with 336

Old 07-27-2016, 06:26 AM
  #76  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
So then why is it OK for the AMA to refuse LMA certification to non-members. Charge a small fee (short of membership), heck even let the inspector keep it for his trouble. We know that other than sizing of the control surface servos, it's largely ambiguous anyway ("minimal voltage drop"), so what's the harm?
I don't think the AMA is refusing anybody are they? Individual inspectors may, but I do not believe the AMA has such a policy. Sorry I am late in this discussion so maybe it was resolved elsewhere.
Old 07-27-2016, 06:33 AM
  #77  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
I don't think the AMA is refusing anybody are they? Individual inspectors may, but I do not believe the AMA has such a policy. Sorry I am late in this discussion so maybe it was resolved elsewhere.
On 24 December 2015, I sent this question to AMA: "Will AMA certify non-AMA member aircraft under the provision of PL112-95(b)(3)?"

On 4 January 2016, Chad Budreau responded: "At this time, the AMA will only certify AMA member aircraft [emphasis added]."
Old 07-27-2016, 06:35 AM
  #78  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
Then make those inspections the taxpayer's responsibility.
I would prefer that, with FAA authorized inspectors doing the certifications - whether or not someone is an AMA member.
Old 07-27-2016, 06:48 AM
  #79  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
On 24 December 2015, I sent this question to AMA: "Will AMA certify non-AMA member aircraft under the provision of PL112-95(b)(3)?"

On 4 January 2016, Chad Budreau responded: "At this time, the AMA will only certify AMA member aircraft [emphasis added]."
Why do you fell it's the responsibility of a private dues collecting organization to inspect public aircraft?
Old 07-27-2016, 06:48 AM
  #80  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 07:57 AM.
Old 07-27-2016, 06:52 AM
  #81  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
I would prefer that, with FAA authorized inspectors doing the certifications - whether or not someone is an AMA member.
Are you pursuing this avenue with your representatives?
Old 07-27-2016, 06:55 AM
  #82  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
On 24 December 2015, I sent this question to AMA: "Will AMA certify non-AMA member aircraft under the provision of PL112-95(b)(3)?"

On 4 January 2016, Chad Budreau responded: "At this time, the AMA will only certify AMA member aircraft [emphasis added]."
What authority does he have? Web forum administrator? Does he have authority to make the claim that only AMA members aircraft are inspected? The AMA documents do not make that distinction.
Old 07-27-2016, 06:56 AM
  #83  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Well if FAA is going to inspect large models, will they next inspect small models?
Old 07-27-2016, 06:58 AM
  #84  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 07:56 AM.
Old 07-27-2016, 07:02 AM
  #85  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
I would prefer that, with FAA authorized inspectors doing the certifications - whether or not someone is an AMA member.
Section 336 specifically prohibits the FAA from making any new rules pertaining the hobby sUAS operated within the programming of a CBO. So your proposal would in fact be a violation of Section 336 in that it would be a new program imposed by the FAA on hobby RC aircraft. Plus the law itself is very specific.

(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;
So unless you can get Congress to re-write this law then there is simply no way for your dream of the FAA imposing regulations on RC modelers to come true.
Old 07-27-2016, 07:09 AM
  #86  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
Why should I bother doing that when it's far more fun to point out the hypocrisy with which you post . It's ok for you to go off topic , but no one else can . It's ok for you to talk trash about the posters personally but you wail like a diva when it's done to you . It's ok for you to twist posts to mean things they never did but but you get all indignant when it's done to you . Seen your act before , in fact I'd bet your a poster whose been known here by other names in the past which is why you are so afraid to post even your location much less any credentials , you know , like how you were demanding of someone else here just last night but refused to give the same info back . Just another nameless faceless troll out for a trollabout is how you look to me and quite honestly the game of "whackAtroll" never gets old when the targets are as arrogant as you are ...
If you have issues or concerns with content of my posts please report them to the admins.
Old 07-27-2016, 07:09 AM
  #87  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R
So unless you can get Congress to re-write this law then there is simply no way for your dream of the FAA imposing regulations on RC modelers to come true.
You won't mind me trying? Maybe get some language that covers when the CBO requires you to join to have your aircraft certified.
Old 07-27-2016, 07:12 AM
  #88  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
I'd prefer the option of either the recognized CBO , or the FAA , do the inspection depending on the choice of the owner . Someone wants to go the CBO route , fine , let the CBO sign off on it . They don't want to belong to the CBO , fine , let the FAA do it . Either way the inspection criteria should be the same and the end result would be that the few who fly planes that large would still have a choice between CBO or FAA . It's been said earlier in this thread and I'm inclined to believe that there are likely very few indeed flying +55# model aircraft who aren't in the at present only recognized CBO , but even if there are only one of them your right he does deserve the option of having either a CBO or FAA inspection depending on whether he wants to belong to the CBO or not . Of course the flipside being if there is an FAA inspection available , there should be no reason to ask the CBO to inspect non member aircraft , if they don't want to be members fine take the FAA's inspection path to the skies instead ...
I don't think we're that far apart on this. I think you hit on an important issue, and that is consistency. I don't even mind if the AMA does them on behalf of the FAA, I just don't think they should be permitted to refuse inspections for non-members. If they charge members for inspections, then charge non-members the same. If no charge for members, then no charge for non members. The point is to remove the issue of membership from the discussion.
Old 07-27-2016, 07:14 AM
  #89  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
What authority does he have?
Chad Budreau, Public Relations & Government Affairs.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutam...n/hqstaff.aspx
Old 07-27-2016, 07:15 AM
  #90  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
Are you pursuing this avenue with your representatives?
Matter of fact, yes. Also pursuing it with regulators...ensuring they know that the CBO is denying certification unless you join.
Old 07-27-2016, 07:16 AM
  #91  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon
Why do you fell it's the responsibility of a private dues collecting organization to inspect public aircraft?

Read PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(3), that paragraph makes it so.
Old 07-27-2016, 07:19 AM
  #92  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Matter of fact, yes. Also pursuing it with regulators...ensuring they know that the CBO is denying certification unless you join.
Great. Keep us posted.
Old 07-27-2016, 07:34 AM
  #93  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default

...

Last edited by init4fun; 08-15-2016 at 07:55 AM.
Old 07-27-2016, 08:09 AM
  #94  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun
Oh look , there's a parrot in the thread , how quaint ....



I agree , we are not that far apart on this at all . The only thing I'd mention would be that if the CBO did charge for inspections of non member planes I can see a "discount rate" applying to members VS non members , just as many other organizations have discount rates for members only , as long as the option existed to have either the FAA or the CBO inspect the plane for a fairly set (not discounted) fee . Your point of being forced to join the CBO for the 55# inspection , when your letter specifically says CBO membership isn't required , needs to be addressed fairly and I do believe that can be accomplished for the few flying such large planes who aren't CBO members ...

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/report.php?p=12239378
Old 07-27-2016, 08:12 AM
  #95  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Chad Budreau, Public Relations & Government Affairs.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutam...n/hqstaff.aspx
Then as the PAO his word means less than spit.
Old 07-27-2016, 10:32 AM
  #96  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Then as the PAO his word means less than spit.
Well, yes and no. He speaks as a representative of the AMA and behalf of them as well, so at a minimum he is often times seen as the "Face" of the AMA, at least in regards to these issues. It's safe to say the average AMA member would take what he says as coming from and approved by the AMA. But yes, at the end of the day he has no real authority, or perhaps even decision making abilities.
Old 07-27-2016, 10:36 AM
  #97  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
On 24 December 2015, I sent this question to AMA: "Will AMA certify non-AMA member aircraft under the provision of PL112-95(b)(3)?"

On 4 January 2016, Chad Budreau responded: "At this time, the AMA will only certify AMA member aircraft [emphasis added]."
Does this not make sense though? I know you're going to pivot to the "AMA forcing membership narrative", but I don't know if I want the AMA doing specific things for non members, even more so if it opens a person or the AMA up to any liability.

"at this time" means just that. Leaves open the possibility for something else, like say another CBO (which is free to form on it's own). Or, perhaps the AMA decides to be a go to resource and charges a "fee" for services. Again, how many of these non member requested inspections do you realistically think there will be?
Old 07-27-2016, 10:53 AM
  #98  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
Does this not make sense though? I know you're going to pivot to the "AMA forcing membership narrative", but I don't know if I want the AMA doing specific things for non members, even more so if it opens a person or the AMA up to any liability.

"at this time" means just that. Leaves open the possibility for something else, like say another CBO (which is free to form on it's own). Or, perhaps the AMA decides to be a go to resource and charges a "fee" for services. Again, how many of these non member requested inspections do you realistically think there will be?
+1. I don't want my membership dollars being used to fund non-member inspections and assume liability for those inspections.
Old 07-27-2016, 11:13 AM
  #99  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
Does this not make sense though? I know you're going to pivot to the "AMA forcing membership narrative", but I don't know if I want the AMA doing specific things for non members, even more so if it opens a person or the AMA up to any liability.

"at this time" means just that. Leaves open the possibility for something else, like say another CBO (which is free to form on it's own). Or, perhaps the AMA decides to be a go to resource and charges a "fee" for services. Again, how many of these non member requested inspections do you realistically think there will be?
The AMA is who pushed this law through congress concerning models that have to be inspected by the AMA, if they don’t want the liability they should have thought of that before they lobbied for the law. Now the AMA
should just inspect any models that the law requires inspection on where it be a AMA members models or not and leave it at that, and also the FAA should require that the AMA follow the law.
Old 07-27-2016, 11:22 AM
  #100  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
The AMA is who pushed this law through congress concerning models that have to be inspected by the AMA, if they don’t want the liability they should have thought of that before they lobbied for the law. Now the AMA
should just inspect any models that the law requires inspection on where it be a AMA members models or not and leave it at that, and also the FAA should require that the AMA follow the law.
Really? What evidence do you have that the AMA lobbied for this law?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.