FAA: CBO Membership NOT required to comply with 336
#351
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 08-25-2016 at 03:32 AM.
#352
I believe the sticking point is spotters. The article was not accurate, it did not point out part 101 for example. They and the FAA said nothing about FPV with spotters. When does the new part 101 take effect?
#353
This is the last mention of 107 on the AMA site. Nothing mentioned about FPV. Now being this is a 624 page document I have no clue if anyone has read this thing. I would imagine ( but don't really know) that "lawyer" quoted in the article should be more up to speed on this than us mere mortals.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 08-25-2016 at 03:52 AM.
#355
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx#107
This is the last mention of 107 on the AMA site. Nothing mentioned about FPV. Now being this is a 624 page document I have no clue if anyone has read this thing. I would imagine ( but don't really know) that "lawyer" quoted in the article should be more up to speed on this than us mere mortals.
Mike
This is the last mention of 107 on the AMA site. Nothing mentioned about FPV. Now being this is a 624 page document I have no clue if anyone has read this thing. I would imagine ( but don't really know) that "lawyer" quoted in the article should be more up to speed on this than us mere mortals.
Mike
#356
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Ya, as suspected, it's the same author that has done some pretty poor "reporting" in the past, John Goglia. I like that the Forbes site makes it clear it's the authors opinion, ie he's not a reporter from Forbes who is held to the same standards as real reporters, he's a "contributor", a fancy term for blogger. He's done similar articles like this in the past, real click bait alarmist sort of stuff. It sounds familiar. Odd that he never asked the FAA questions about spotters.
I liked this part though....it sort of parroted what the AMA had said earlier
Q: Has any organization other than the AMA been determined to qualify as a community based organization for the purposes of Part 101?
A: The FAA’s interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, which was published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2014, noted that the AMA qualified as a community-based organization to provide an example of what types of organizations would qualify. The FAA does not intend to maintain a list of organizations that would qualify as a CBO under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.
Q: Also, will model aircraft pilots who do not belong to the AMA have to get a remote pilot certificate under Part 107 after August 29?
A: The FAA does not mandate membership in any particular community-based organization.
I liked this part though....it sort of parroted what the AMA had said earlier
Q: Has any organization other than the AMA been determined to qualify as a community based organization for the purposes of Part 101?
A: The FAA’s interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, which was published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2014, noted that the AMA qualified as a community-based organization to provide an example of what types of organizations would qualify. The FAA does not intend to maintain a list of organizations that would qualify as a CBO under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.
Q: Also, will model aircraft pilots who do not belong to the AMA have to get a remote pilot certificate under Part 107 after August 29?
A: The FAA does not mandate membership in any particular community-based organization.
#357
Thread Starter
Concur. FPV does and should scare FAA. There's nothing in 336 that says anything about FPV, so the FAA took it out of AMA's hands.
#358
Bottom line the FAA not the AMA will have the final say lawyers can lawyer all they want but whatever the FAA decides on this is what will stick.
Seems like this changes everyday anyway, Wasn't it just last month our Muncie guys were "celebrating " their great victory over the FAA?
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 08-25-2016 at 05:43 AM.
#359
Thread Starter
If memory serves the LOS deal ( AMA doc. 550) was added to the AMA Safety Code after the FAA starting looking at all this..
Bottom line the FAA not the AMA will have the final say lawyers can lawyer all they want but whatever the FAA decides on this is what will stick.
Mike
Bottom line the FAA not the AMA will have the final say lawyers can lawyer all they want but whatever the FAA decides on this is what will stick.
Mike
I agree with you about the lawyers. Until FAA is overturned in court or an injunction issued, the rule interpretation stands.
#360
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
If memory serves the LOS deal ( AMA doc. 550) was added to the AMA Safety Code after the FAA starting looking at all this..
Bottom line the FAA not the AMA will have the final say lawyers can lawyer all they want but whatever the FAA decides on this is what will stick.
Seems like this changes everyday anyway, Wasn't it just last month our Muncie guys were "celebrating " their great victory over the FAA?
Mike
Bottom line the FAA not the AMA will have the final say lawyers can lawyer all they want but whatever the FAA decides on this is what will stick.
Seems like this changes everyday anyway, Wasn't it just last month our Muncie guys were "celebrating " their great victory over the FAA?
Mike
Me thinks the reason they have liaisons and point people like Chad, and of course our advocates signify that they are working with regulators to craft decisions that are in our best interests. When we grow to the size of the NRA, I'm sure we'll be more effective.
#361
If memory serves the LOS deal ( AMA doc. 550) was added to the AMA Safety Code after the FAA starting looking at all this..
Bottom line the FAA not the AMA will have the final say lawyers can lawyer all they want but whatever the FAA decides on this is what will stick.
Seems like this changes everyday anyway, Wasn't it just last month our Muncie guys were "celebrating " their great victory over the FAA?
Mike
Bottom line the FAA not the AMA will have the final say lawyers can lawyer all they want but whatever the FAA decides on this is what will stick.
Seems like this changes everyday anyway, Wasn't it just last month our Muncie guys were "celebrating " their great victory over the FAA?
Mike
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/AFSCREPORT101.pdf
AMA first wrote up their FPV rules in 2008, which predates any concerns from the FAA that I recall. It certainly predates P.L. 112.95/Section 336 by 4 years and the FAA's Interpretation os the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (where they spelled out their interpretation of FPV uses) by 6 full years.
#362
You might want to take a look at this:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/AFSCREPORT101.pdf
AMA first wrote up their FPV rules in 2008, which predates any concerns from the FAA that I recall. It certainly predates P.L. 112.95/Section 336 by 4 years and the FAA's Interpretation os the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (where they spelled out their interpretation of FPV uses) by 6 full years.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/AFSCREPORT101.pdf
AMA first wrote up their FPV rules in 2008, which predates any concerns from the FAA that I recall. It certainly predates P.L. 112.95/Section 336 by 4 years and the FAA's Interpretation os the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (where they spelled out their interpretation of FPV uses) by 6 full years.
Mike
#363
You might want to take a look at this:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/AFSCREPORT101.pdf
AMA first wrote up their FPV rules in 2008, which predates any concerns from the FAA that I recall. It certainly predates P.L. 112.95/Section 336 by 4 years and the FAA's Interpretation os the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (where they spelled out their interpretation of FPV uses) by 6 full years.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/AFSCREPORT101.pdf
AMA first wrote up their FPV rules in 2008, which predates any concerns from the FAA that I recall. It certainly predates P.L. 112.95/Section 336 by 4 years and the FAA's Interpretation os the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (where they spelled out their interpretation of FPV uses) by 6 full years.
#364
My Feedback: (44)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But of course the FAA was well aware and concerned about use of Advanced Flight Systems technology well before the AMA took action. After all we're talking about military technology that his since trickled down into the hands of civilian operators. I don't understand how anyone can convince themselves into believing that a CBO could be allowed to govern such advanced model aircraft? The FAA has been watching the hobby industry advancement and has finally determined it's time to step in. Left alone it was sure to turn into an out of control situation.
#365
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
But of course the FAA was well aware and concerned about use of Advanced Flight Systems technology well before the AMA took action. After all we're talking about military technology that his since trickled down into the hands of civilian operators. I don't understand how anyone can convince themselves into believing that a CBO could be allowed to govern such advanced model aircraft? The FAA has been watching the hobby industry advancement and has finally determined it's time to step in. Left alone it was sure to turn into an out of control situation.
#367
Mike
#368
Thread Starter
#369
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I believe the specific discussion surrounded the requirement to register each plane, which of course was something that was noted by some to be "just around the corner", another rumor put out there that came to be just that, a rumor. Oh I know it " could" happen in the future, but as if now, not so much.
#370
Thread Starter
As always, there will be some folks are just going to convince themselves of what they want, no matter what fact or logic can be shown contrary. Conspiracy theories involving the FAA or any other govt entities are nothing new, the same with AMA ones. The logic is flawed, the same logic that says if people keep asking questions, something must be wrong!!! The FAA will always have the ultimate say when dealing with safety, and the national airspace. To think that some group like the AMA could do that is just silly. Now, once we grow to the size of the NRA or an organization like that, well maybe we'll have more of a say in terms of what happens. Time will tell!
If AMA is having compliance problems in arguably their highest risk operations (ones you'd think would be closely watched), then why in the world would FAA think they'd be even better at FPV rule compliance?
#371
Thread Starter
I believe the specific discussion surrounded the requirement to register each plane, which of course was something that was noted by some to be "just around the corner", another rumor put out there that came to be just that, a rumor. Oh I know it " could" happen in the future, but as if now, not so much.
#372
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The FAA will always get the final say... nobody here has said otherwise, nor did the AMA indicate this.
#373
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Kudos for the argument the AMA went into discussions with, better to have gone in with nothing? Are we back to second guessing them after the fact, again? Did any other group get everything they were asking for. Does the NRA?
#374
#375
I don't think it's size as much as it is failure of self regulation. One only needs to look at the EC minutes from July to see there's problems with the whole CBO self regulation methodology.
If AMA is having compliance problems in arguably their highest risk operations (ones you'd think would be closely watched), then why in the world would FAA think they'd be even better at FPV rule compliance?
If AMA is having compliance problems in arguably their highest risk operations (ones you'd think would be closely watched), then why in the world would FAA think they'd be even better at FPV rule compliance?
What failure. Was there a mid-air between a model and full scale aircraft that I am not aware of?