FAA: CBO Membership NOT required to comply with 336
#376
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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?
#377
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Nope, just a near miss with a plastic shopping bag. Close call! Actually I think Franklin was referencing the meeting notes surrounding the turbine crashes and lack of responsibility that involved folks were taking. Might have been the incident where the pilot and spotter were severely burned, and the CD claimed no responsibility or fault. Don't know for sure, it's not spelled out. The SIG president though confirmed some well known issues though. As folks are clamoring for CHANGE, I can't help but wonder why they aren't looking for change in that arena. I mean, they're already getting changes at the presidential level with the AMA come election time
#378
Nope, just a near miss with a plastic shopping bag. Close call! Actually I think Franklin was referencing the meeting notes surrounding the turbine crashes and lack of responsibility that involved folks were taking. Might have been the incident where the pilot and spotter were severely burned, and the CD claimed no responsibility or fault. Don't know for sure, it's not spelled out. The SIG president though confirmed some well known issues though. As folks are clamoring for CHANGE, I can't help but wonder why they aren't looking for change in that arena. I mean, they're already getting changes at the presidential level with the AMA come election time
#379
Thread Starter
#380
Thread Starter
If they're well known, why haven't they been addressed before now? Sounds like the oversight has been weak at best. Don't look now, but comments like that are typical of what we find in failed aviation safety programs.
#382
Thread Starter
I also wonder if the timing of the Forbes piece is no accident. If so, one could interpret it as a warning shot to the AMA - a test of their willingness to abide by FAA interpretations.
Last edited by franklin_m; 08-25-2016 at 10:15 AM.
#383
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Oh I agree....could be a serious issue. Serious enough that it's discussed in session, serious enough that the Sig reps confirmed the issue and will work on it. Serious enough to bring up here...but not ask the guy who makes a living from it and might have been involved in it. Weird what becomes a focal point and priority.
#384
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Agree....seems like something to ask those that are very very involved in this area, almost exclusively even. Have they heard about the issue discussed in the meeting, are they aware that this has been a problem , do they say this is a problem themselves or do they think nobody is really responsible, , do they have any plans to deal with this issue if they become the president of the AMA..etc...etc...etc...
#385
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
AMA is already suing them, I'm sure holding a very open violation of the FARs will go over very well.
I also wonder if the timing of the Forbes piece is no accident. If so, one could interpret it as a warning shot to the AMA - a test of their willingness to abide by FAA interpretations.
I also wonder if the timing of the Forbes piece is no accident. If so, one could interpret it as a warning shot to the AMA - a test of their willingness to abide by FAA interpretations.
#387
Thread Starter
Oh I agree....could be a serious issue. Serious enough that it's discussed in session, serious enough that the Sig reps confirmed the issue and will work on it. Serious enough to bring up here...but not ask the guy who makes a living from it and might have been involved in it. Weird what becomes a focal point and priority.
#388
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Chances are the AMA will report back that they had a great event, they might even report on how many pilots showed up, and immediately the result will be labeled as...pathetic.
Just another tempest in a teapot, this time from a blogger. If the story had been even remotely positive...we'd never had heard about it.
#389
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
And yet at least one of those parties will be out of that role shortly. Not that he had exclusive control over that situation to begin with but still. So that leaves the SIG president, and I would presume an immediate situation that the new president would need to deal with. Any chance any of the current candidates for the role could answer questions on this pressing issue? In addition to questions about magazine subscriptions and discounts? It's hard to ask the hard questions I guess.
#390
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Since your involved in building and flying high end giant svale and turbines, do you have any insight to what the EC meeting notes were referring to. Are you aware that there is or has been an ongoing opportunity with regards to safety and to rules and regulations and the turbine community? Are you part of that SIG?
#392
Thread Starter
Untrue. Earlier this year there was a flurry of stories about how WH staff planted stories to create "an echo chamber."
Forbes magazine is hardly a blogger.
Forbes magazine is hardly a blogger.
#393
Thread Starter
Ok, let me see if I follow this. We have a CBO, and those rules aren't being followed. But we expect a "sub-CBO" (SIG) to fix a problem problem they were aware of but did not address already?
#394
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
He's not a writer/reporter for Forbes. He is a blogger/contributor who generally deals with poorly written hack pieces that are not subject to the scrutiny or editorial process a real reporter is. Forbes notes this under his byline. He doesn't appear for/against drones, his work is just clickbaity in general, usually incorrect, or just incomplete.
#395
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Are you advocate that people who were responsible for oversight of the program should not be accountable for the situation they allowed to develop?
Ok, let me see if I follow this. We have a CBO, and those rules aren't being followed. But we expect a "sub-CBO" (SIG) to fix a problem problem they were aware of but did not address already?
Ok, let me see if I follow this. We have a CBO, and those rules aren't being followed. But we expect a "sub-CBO" (SIG) to fix a problem problem they were aware of but did not address already?
#396
Thread Starter
He's not a writer/reporter for Forbes. He is a blogger/contributor who generally deals with poorly written hack pieces that are not subject to the scrutiny or editorial process a real reporter is. Forbes notes this under his byline. He doesn't appear for/against drones, his work is just clickbaity in general, usually incorrect, or just incomplete.
#397
Thread Starter
#398
My Feedback: (10)
AMA is already suing them, I'm sure holding a very open violation of the FARs will go over very well.
I also wonder if the timing of the Forbes piece is no accident. If so, one could interpret it as a warning shot to the AMA - a test of their willingness to abide by FAA interpretations.
I also wonder if the timing of the Forbes piece is no accident. If so, one could interpret it as a warning shot to the AMA - a test of their willingness to abide by FAA interpretations.
Like most of these FAA issues, concerned "safety types" in the club's/AMA's own membership should be most members number 1 concern.
Has the AMA said they will legally ($) defend someone against this (long standing) FAA FPV interpretation if it comes to that?
#399
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He wants to diss it because it isn't what he wants to read. I found something I like in it and want it to be so. If it has any basis in fact, FAA is drawing a clear line between model airplanes and drones. I appreciate that. The "modelers must pay dues to the CBO" thing will go away for the simple reason that it is un-American. Not sure how that will come about, but confident that it will happen.
#400
Thread Starter