porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Interesting take, but say what? Explain how they should be responsible for non members airplanes? Can you see the outrage now about the AMA and some of it's members doing the work of the feds without payment or indemnification! That will stoke the anti AMA rhetoric for the next 10 years.

They advocate on behalf of their paying membership.....as they should. If some of what they do opens to door for another CBO to come along and enjoy the fruits of the AMA's labor...so be it.

What would you guess though will ultimately be the need for this? 3 times a year? 5? Still feels like this is a tempest in a teapot.

ira d

I am sure if you take the time to do some research you will find the evidence. Do you really believe that someone just made up the law about operating under a CBO without input of the AMA? If you
do I would like you to start depositing funds in my account because it is a Ira account.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Finally someone else with a sense of humor!

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

..

Sport_Pilot

I hope they did! We would be in a big hurt if not for this law.

cj_rumley

You are correct Ira, the CBO thing hatched at the sUAS and AMA rep Hanson picked it up and ran with it, even before the ARC made their report. You can see it all in the ARC report. It, and Hanson's comments on it were available on the AMA website, and a search on the ARC topic in this forum will turn up some lengthy and lively threads.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Certainly possible that if the AMA didn't already have an inspection program in place > 55lb models could be grounded indefinitely. Yet, rather than be thankful, all those who post here don't have anything close to a 55lb model are complaining the most. More AMA = bad mantra.

cj_rumley

If FAA deems flying MA over 55 lbs being restricted to CBO members has become a PITA for them, they have an easy out. FAA represents the US as a member state of ICAO. ICAO's definition of a model aircraft includes a 25 kg upper weight limit. They are not restricted by 336 from doing this, as it not a new restriction, but rather an existing one they have not gotten around to codifying. That isn't surprising; before the sUAS ARC the FAA was pretty much hands off regulating model aircraft and all proposed regulation of UAS specifically excepted them, citing the guidance in AC 91-57 as authorization to fly.

franklin_m

I'm just thankful they clarified, explicitly, that AMA membership is not required to comply with the "...guidelines.. and programming..." paragraph (a)(2) of PL112-95 Section 336


"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO, nor does the FAA list any CBOs. You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO [emphasis added]".

Regards,
FAA UAS Integration Office
[email protected]
http://www.faa.gov/uas

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

lol, they "clarified" something almost everyone knew already..how many times are we going to hear this?

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/RL0xU1daTlMoE" width="480" height="443" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe>

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

ouch

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

It gets better after a few hours. Keep watching.

franklin_m

Just getting the thread back on the titled subject.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

okey dokey!

franklin_m

FYI, although you intimated that this isn't news, that it's something everyone knew all along (paraphrasing), apparently some at the AMA still think you have to be a member.

Chad Budreau on 25 July - "To operate within AMA’s programming, membership is required [emphasis added]."

Tyler Dobbs on 28 July - "To operate within AMA’s nationwide community-based programming, a pilot needs to be a member [emphasis added]."

As we know though, the only organization with the authority to enforce has said that membership is not required. Whew!

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Whew indeed! Thank god you forced them to "admit" this.

cj_rumley

Wonder why the usual suspects didn't reveal what they, presumably among the "almost everybody knew already" in any of the many posts on the topic they revved up their keyboards to "contribute" to the discussion before Franklin posted the reply to his query to FAA.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Economic analysis.

cj_rumley

Good point. I can see the economic advantage of propagating that disinformation to increase membership/revenue flow.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Really, that's the response? That's the best effort?

Tomorrow I'll write the FAA and ask them if I need to register my 2.5 pound foamy, because it's an airplane, not a drone. After they write me and tell me that yes, I do, and it's now called an "drone", I'm going to post that response in a thread here and then wait for the thanks and adulation to pour in.

Say, I didn't see you asking the question that Franklin did, before he did. Was that because you genuinely didn't know but didn't want to let on, or you pretty much already knew but didn't want to publicly disagree with him? <rhetorical question>

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

It's all a part of the great scheme you've been calling out for the last 10-13 years.

cj_rumley

Because I genuinely didn't know. Silent-AV8R stated that it was so, and despite a long history of spirited disagreement between him and myself as to opinions, when he makes a statement of fact, I trust and respect what he said. He has earned cred with me and from appearances broadly across the model aviation community. Right now I believe that he was misinformed rather than prevaricating.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I'd rather do my own legwork than rely on someone else, cred or no cred. To each their own.

cj_rumley

Yes, it's clear that cred doesn't matter to you. Got it, quite some time past.