FAA: CBO Membership NOT required to comply with 336
08-02-2016, 08:28 AM
#276
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, I don't look at the newsletter in two different lights. the newsletter is a tool for the membership to keep informed on their organization.
08-02-2016, 08:45 AM
#277
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what I mentioned in my post to him as well , because I had read it somewhere here on RCU . Just asking , not accusing , are you sure a regular newsletter is a requirement for non profit organizations ? It sure sounds believable that such a requirement would exist but I haven't seen outside proof of this . If it is a requirement I can see where it would be an additional cost to cull only the required report out of M.A. , and that's why I don't think it will ever happen .
08-08-2016, 07:46 AM
#278
It's not just C3, there are many other types of CX organizations that must report. In fact, most RC clubs are not C3.
08-08-2016, 10:20 AM
#279
Thread Starter
From the FAA's own website: https://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/
Do I need permission from the FAA to fly a UAS for recreation or as a hobby?
There are two ways for recreational or hobby UAS fliers to operate in the national airspace system in accordance with the law and/or FAA regulations. Each of the two options has specific requirements that the UAS operator must follow. The decision as to which option to follow is up to the individual operator.
Option #1. Fly in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Public Law 112-95 Section 336). Under this rule, operators must:
Option #2. Fly in accordance with the FAA's Small UAS Rule (Part 107). This requires operators to:
Note the absence of any statements requiring CBO membership in Option #1, items (a) through (g). I mean, if it was so critical to following the law, then why would they exclude it?
Unless it's not required
Do I need permission from the FAA to fly a UAS for recreation or as a hobby?
There are two ways for recreational or hobby UAS fliers to operate in the national airspace system in accordance with the law and/or FAA regulations. Each of the two options has specific requirements that the UAS operator must follow. The decision as to which option to follow is up to the individual operator.
Option #1. Fly in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Public Law 112-95 Section 336). Under this rule, operators must:
- Fly for hobby or recreational purposes only
- Follow a community-based set of safety guidelines
- Fly the UAS within visual line-of-sight
- Give way to manned aircraft
- Provide prior notification to the airport and air traffic control tower, if one is present, when flying within 5 miles of an airport
- Fly UAS that weigh no more than 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization
- Register the aircraft (UAS over 0.55 lbs. and less than 55 lbs. can be registered online at registermyuas.faa.gov; UAS 55 lbs. or greater must be registered through the FAA's paper-based process)
Option #2. Fly in accordance with the FAA's Small UAS Rule (Part 107). This requires operators to:
- Obtain a remote pilot certificate or be under the direct supervision of someone who holds such a certificate.
- Register the aircraft as a non-modeler at registermyuas.faa.gov
- Follow all the operating rules in accordance with the regulation
Note the absence of any statements requiring CBO membership in Option #1, items (a) through (g). I mean, if it was so critical to following the law, then why would they exclude it?
Unless it's not required
08-08-2016, 03:08 PM
#280
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County,
CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At this point all I can conclude is you are being purposefully obtuse by your continued ignoring the fact that while the FAA may not require CBO membership, the CBO CAN require membership to use its programming. Why you seem unable to grasp this simple fact escapes me.
08-08-2016, 03:26 PM
#281
At this point all I can conclude is you are being purposefully obtuse by your continued ignoring the fact that while the FAA may not require CBO membership, the CBO CAN require membership to use its programming. Why you seem unable to grasp this simple fact escapes me.
08-08-2016, 03:47 PM
#282
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At this point all I can conclude is you are being purposefully obtuse by your continued ignoring the fact that while the FAA may not require CBO membership, the CBO CAN require membership to use its programming. Why you seem unable to grasp this simple fact escapes me.
08-08-2016, 04:32 PM
#283
Thread Starter
[the AMA] cannot use the word 'programming' to force their will on hundreds of thousands of modelers in the US. FAA has interpreted 336, and per guidance from the highest court in the land (Chevron decision), a government agency's interpretation carries more weight than what AMA desperately wants it to mean.
However, what I'm seeing that's worse in the AMA blogs is they're actually leading people toward a place where they can get in trouble. For example,
In one, on the subject of airport notifications, they told a user that FAA "expects" a model aircraft flier to notify an airport. Then they point out that "expect" does not mean compulsory" under the law. Yet "AMA Staff" failed to mention is that the law requires notification (PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(5) / 14 CFR 101.41(e). They also left out that the in the FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule on Model Aircraft, in the sentence after the one that uses the word "expects," the FAA said they would view anyone flying over objections as endangering the NAS. And PL112-95 Section 336(B) / 14 CFR 101.43 gives FAA authority to enforce against Model Aircraft operators that endanger the NAS.
08-08-2016, 04:37 PM
#284
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Concur. Reading the AMA blogs, it appears they're now trying to play linguistic games, none more so than with this whole programming thing. Yet no matter, what, the only reason people care about programming is to comply with 336, and FAA has said you don't have to be a member.
However, what I'm seeing that's worse in the AMA blogs is they're actually leading people toward a place where they can get in trouble. For example,
In one, on the subject of airport notifications, they told a user that FAA "expects" a model aircraft flier to notify an airport. Then they point out that "expect" does not mean compulsory" under the law. Yet "AMA Staff" failed to mention is that the law requires notification (PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(5) / 14 CFR 101.41(e). They also left out that the in the FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule on Model Aircraft, in the sentence after the one that uses the word "expects," the FAA said they would view anyone flying over objections as endangering the NAS. And PL112-95 Section 336(B) / 14 CFR 101.43 gives FAA authority to enforce against Model Aircraft operators that endanger the NAS.
However, what I'm seeing that's worse in the AMA blogs is they're actually leading people toward a place where they can get in trouble. For example,
In one, on the subject of airport notifications, they told a user that FAA "expects" a model aircraft flier to notify an airport. Then they point out that "expect" does not mean compulsory" under the law. Yet "AMA Staff" failed to mention is that the law requires notification (PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(5) / 14 CFR 101.41(e). They also left out that the in the FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule on Model Aircraft, in the sentence after the one that uses the word "expects," the FAA said they would view anyone flying over objections as endangering the NAS. And PL112-95 Section 336(B) / 14 CFR 101.43 gives FAA authority to enforce against Model Aircraft operators that endanger the NAS.
08-08-2016, 04:38 PM
#285
Thread Starter
2. FAA said if you comply with 336, you can fly above 400'.
3. AMA has ZEROenforcement authority outside of AMA clubs and events.
08-08-2016, 04:45 PM
#286
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
At this point all I can conclude is you are being purposefully obtuse by your continued ignoring the fact that while the FAA may not require CBO membership, the CBO CAN require membership to use its programming. Why you seem unable to grasp this simple fact escapes me.
08-08-2016, 04:56 PM
#287
1. FAAsays I don't have to be a member to comply with 336: "The FAA does notinterpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO … Youmust only follow the guidelines of a CBO.”
2. FAA said if you comply with 336, you can fly above 400'.
3. AMA has ZEROenforcement authority outside of AMA clubs and events.
2. FAA said if you comply with 336, you can fly above 400'.
3. AMA has ZEROenforcement authority outside of AMA clubs and events.
Have you received and posted anything more than the alleged email from the FAA?
08-08-2016, 06:26 PM
#288
My Feedback: (7)
Concur. Reading the AMA blogs, it appears they're now trying to play linguistic games, none more so than with this whole programming thing. Yet no matter, what, the only reason people care about programming is to comply with 336, and FAA has said you don't have to be a member.
However, what I'm seeing that's worse in the AMA blogs is they're actually leading people toward a place where they can get in trouble. For example,
In one, on the subject of airport notifications, they told a user that FAA "expects" a model aircraft flier to notify an airport. Then they point out that "expect" does not mean compulsory" under the law. Yet "AMA Staff" failed to mention is that the law requires notification (PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(5) / 14 CFR 101.41(e). They also left out that the in the FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule on Model Aircraft, in the sentence after the one that uses the word "expects," the FAA said they would view anyone flying over objections as endangering the NAS. And PL112-95 Section 336(B) / 14 CFR 101.43 gives FAA authority to enforce against Model Aircraft operators that endanger the NAS.
However, what I'm seeing that's worse in the AMA blogs is they're actually leading people toward a place where they can get in trouble. For example,
In one, on the subject of airport notifications, they told a user that FAA "expects" a model aircraft flier to notify an airport. Then they point out that "expect" does not mean compulsory" under the law. Yet "AMA Staff" failed to mention is that the law requires notification (PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(5) / 14 CFR 101.41(e). They also left out that the in the FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule on Model Aircraft, in the sentence after the one that uses the word "expects," the FAA said they would view anyone flying over objections as endangering the NAS. And PL112-95 Section 336(B) / 14 CFR 101.43 gives FAA authority to enforce against Model Aircraft operators that endanger the NAS.
08-08-2016, 08:41 PM
#289
At this point all I can conclude is you are being purposefully obtuse by your continued ignoring the fact that while the FAA may not require CBO membership, the CBO CAN require membership to use its programming. Why you seem unable to grasp this simple fact escapes me.
Last edited by Tipover; 08-08-2016 at 08:46 PM.
08-08-2016, 09:05 PM
#290
There would be no basis for them to require membership. As far as the FAA is concerned(apparently), that individual following the recognized CBO rules remains transparent to the issuing CBO. The individual operates within a FAA recognized CBO program, thus fulfilling the FAA hobbyist requirement. The CBO continues to pitch whatever value they have to potential new members, and everyone remains happy.
08-09-2016, 06:01 AM
#292
Hi Tipover ,
Since one member here is in possession of an Email from the FAA that indicates that CBO membership is not required ,
An anonymous unsigned email response, not on FAA letterhead. Yeah, it looks official.... I guess some folks will believe anything they read on the Internet. Oh wait, Franklin posted it so it must be true.
it is common sense to those who read it that AMA membership is not required ,
Agreed. I don't ever recall seeing a response from anyone in this sub-forum stating AMA membership was required.
but some folks are harboring a grudge and will never be happy that the FAA won't force AMA membership .
Really? Who are you referring to?
Now , unless the AMA is going to somehow hide it's safety code from everybody except members , an impossible task , or unless they plan to sue anyone who is following the code without being a member ,
Lawsuit? Seriously?
also an impossible task since the AMA has no way of knowing a flyer's status without being told by that flyer , I'd say this is pretty much a dead issue ,
It was dead long ago, but some are unable to let go.
except of course for those harboring the grudge of no FAA forced AMA memberships .
The truth is what you want it to be.
I've said it before , I would rather 180K who want to be members instead of 500K or even a million forced members , most of which who would bail out the minute such forced membership was found to be unconstitutional .
Since one member here is in possession of an Email from the FAA that indicates that CBO membership is not required ,
An anonymous unsigned email response, not on FAA letterhead. Yeah, it looks official.... I guess some folks will believe anything they read on the Internet. Oh wait, Franklin posted it so it must be true.
it is common sense to those who read it that AMA membership is not required ,
Agreed. I don't ever recall seeing a response from anyone in this sub-forum stating AMA membership was required.
but some folks are harboring a grudge and will never be happy that the FAA won't force AMA membership .
Really? Who are you referring to?
Now , unless the AMA is going to somehow hide it's safety code from everybody except members , an impossible task , or unless they plan to sue anyone who is following the code without being a member ,
Lawsuit? Seriously?
also an impossible task since the AMA has no way of knowing a flyer's status without being told by that flyer , I'd say this is pretty much a dead issue ,
It was dead long ago, but some are unable to let go.
except of course for those harboring the grudge of no FAA forced AMA memberships .
The truth is what you want it to be.
I've said it before , I would rather 180K who want to be members instead of 500K or even a million forced members , most of which who would bail out the minute such forced membership was found to be unconstitutional .
08-09-2016, 07:36 AM
#293
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Hi Tipover ,
Since one member here is in possession of an Email from the FAA that indicates that CBO membership is not required , it is common sense to those who read it that AMA membership is not required , but some folks are harboring a grudge and will never be happy that the FAA won't force AMA membership . Now , unless the AMA is going to somehow hide it's safety code from everybody except members , an impossible task , or unless they plan to sue anyone who is following the code without being a member , also an impossible task since the AMA has no way of knowing a flyer's status without being told by that flyer , I'd say this is pretty much a dead issue , except of course for those harboring the grudge of no FAA forced AMA memberships . I've said it before , I would rather 180K who want to be members instead of 500K or even a million forced members , most of which who would bail out the minute such forced membership was found to be unconstitutional .
Since one member here is in possession of an Email from the FAA that indicates that CBO membership is not required , it is common sense to those who read it that AMA membership is not required , but some folks are harboring a grudge and will never be happy that the FAA won't force AMA membership . Now , unless the AMA is going to somehow hide it's safety code from everybody except members , an impossible task , or unless they plan to sue anyone who is following the code without being a member , also an impossible task since the AMA has no way of knowing a flyer's status without being told by that flyer , I'd say this is pretty much a dead issue , except of course for those harboring the grudge of no FAA forced AMA memberships . I've said it before , I would rather 180K who want to be members instead of 500K or even a million forced members , most of which who would bail out the minute such forced membership was found to be unconstitutional .
08-09-2016, 08:53 AM
#294
Any participating CBO will do well to present themselves as an upstanding nationwide safety leader through setting good example. These CBO safety guidelines need to be upheld by the FAA, so it stands to reason that they should remain free source to the general public. IMO there is no way the FAA will ever stand for this relationship turning into a proprietary safety programming circus. There is no logical reason to assume a membership supported CBO will fail because the organization freely shares it's safety programming. When folks see the good will mission of an organization, quite the opposite has been known to happen.
08-09-2016, 09:09 AM
#295
Any participating CBO will do well to present themselves as an upstanding nationwide safety leader through setting good example. These CBO safety guidelines need to be upheld by the FAA, so it stands to reason that they should remain free source to the general public. IMO there is no way the FAA will ever stand for this relationship turning into a proprietary safety programming circus. There is no logical reason to assume a membership supported CBO will fail because the organization freely shares it's safety programming. When folks see the good will mission of an organization, quite the opposite has been known to happen.
Yep , pretty much nailed it here ...
08-09-2016, 06:03 PM
#299
I asked at [email protected] how to verify you are flying within a CBO program if a problem came up. They're reply was that they would do case by case review, which includes checking
for membership of CBO.
Bob
for membership of CBO.
Bob
08-09-2016, 06:16 PM
#300
I asked at [email protected] how to verify you are flying within a CBO program if a problem came up. They're reply was that they would do case by case review, which includes checking
for membership of CBO.
Bob
for membership of CBO.
Bob