FAA: CBO Membership NOT required to comply with 336
#426
My Feedback: (44)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you actually follow the CBO's FAA approved guidelines, then you're likely considered operating within the programming of that CBO. Notice that the FAA does not reinforce the "within the programming" part of that statement, only that one should "follow a community based set of safety guidelines". It stands to reason that by following those guidelines, one then meets the criteria of the second part of the rule, at least in the eye's of the FAA, because by doing so you'll be making a conscious effort to avoiding any safety hazard. I know I'm repeating myself, but this seems to be a really difficult concept for some folks.
Last edited by Tipover; 08-31-2016 at 12:32 PM.
#428
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because you repeat over and over that you think they are insinuating, doesn't make it so. It's your take, not everyone's. Press onwards and forwards though.
LoL...another on the LM kick, join in! There is fabrication and misinformation out there for sure, usually pushed by folks with an agenda. I've yet to see the AMA broadcast what you say. Just keep repeating a lie over and over and pretty soon it becomes "fact".
LoL...another on the LM kick, join in! There is fabrication and misinformation out there for sure, usually pushed by folks with an agenda. I've yet to see the AMA broadcast what you say. Just keep repeating a lie over and over and pretty soon it becomes "fact".
#429
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
But again, more interpretation and spin, a continuation of the narrative. I know it's a mantra thats hard to break out of, AMA bad, AMA lies, AMA insinuates etc etc.
It just isn't fact.
Lets agree to disagree on what they say, even though they don't really say what some say they say, eh?
#430
Thread Starter
10 July 2016 email from me to FAA UAS Integration Office at their official USG email address: "Yes or no, does the FAA interpret PL112-95 Section 336 paragraph (a)(2), 'the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;' to mean that to be considered a 'model aircraft' under the law, the operator must be a member of a community-based organization?"
12 July 2016 email from UAS Integration Office official USG email account to me: "The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO..."
12 July 2016 email from UAS Integration Office official USG email account to me: "The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO..."
#431
Thread Starter
The AMA insinuates isn't fact?
Then what are all of these?
5 July 2016 @ 11:20, AMA HQ's Chad Budreau said "To operate within AMA’s safety program, you must join the AMA...[emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...mall-uas-rule/
20 July 2016 @ 11:05, AMA HQ's Chad Budreau said "To operate within AMA’s community-based organization, a pilot needs to be a member...[emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...s-federal-law/
25 July 2016 @ 08:38, AMA HQ's Chad Budreau said "To operate within AMA’s programming, membership is required. [emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...afety-program/
30 July 2016 @ 13:04, "AMA Staff" said "Participation in AMA’s community-based safety program requires membership in the AMA...[emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...cate-part-107/
4 August 2016 @ 14:35, "AMA Staff" said "AMA membership is required to operate within our CBO programming...[emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...afety-program/
8 August 2016 @ 08:29, "AMA Staff" said "You do not have to join the AMA to fly a model plane. You have the option to instead comply with FAA’s Part 107..."
(i.e. if you're not a CBO member, the only option is 107)
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...afety-program/
And those are just a sampling....
#432
Thread Starter
If you actually follow the CBO's FAA approved guidelines, then you're likely considered operating within the programming of that CBO. Notice that the FAA does not reinforce the "within the programming" part of that statement, only that one should "follow a community based set of safety guidelines". It stands to reason that by following those guidelines, one then meets the criteria of the second part of the rule, at least in the eye's of the FAA, because by doing so you'll be making a conscious effort to avoiding any safety hazard. I know I'm repeating myself, but this seems to be a really difficult concept for some folks.
#434
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What, that "rag"? Doubt it, based on comments here it barely gets read, it's used to line birdcages. Meanwhile, I read it cover to cover, except the drone ads.
But again, more interpretation and spin, a continuation of the narrative. I know it's a mantra thats hard to break out of, AMA bad, AMA lies, AMA insinuates etc etc.
It just isn't fact.
Lets agree to disagree on what they say, even though they don't really say what some say they say, eh?
But again, more interpretation and spin, a continuation of the narrative. I know it's a mantra thats hard to break out of, AMA bad, AMA lies, AMA insinuates etc etc.
It just isn't fact.
Lets agree to disagree on what they say, even though they don't really say what some say they say, eh?
#435
My Feedback: (10)
The AMA insinuates isn't fact?
Then what are all of these?
5 July 2016 @ 11:20, AMA HQ's Chad Budreau said "To operate within AMA’s safety program, you must join the AMA...[emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...mall-uas-rule/
20 July 2016 @ 11:05, AMA HQ's Chad Budreau said "To operate within AMA’s community-based organization, a pilot needs to be a member...[emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...s-federal-law/
25 July 2016 @ 08:38, AMA HQ's Chad Budreau said "To operate within AMA’s programming, membership is required. [emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...afety-program/
30 July 2016 @ 13:04, "AMA Staff" said "Participation in AMA’s community-based safety program requires membership in the AMA...[emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...cate-part-107/
4 August 2016 @ 14:35, "AMA Staff" said "AMA membership is required to operate within our CBO programming...[emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...afety-program/
8 August 2016 @ 08:29, "AMA Staff" said "You do not have to join the AMA to fly a model plane. You have the option to instead comply with FAA’s Part 107..."
(i.e. if you're not a CBO member, the only option is 107)
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...afety-program/
And those are just a sampling....
Then what are all of these?
5 July 2016 @ 11:20, AMA HQ's Chad Budreau said "To operate within AMA’s safety program, you must join the AMA...[emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...mall-uas-rule/
20 July 2016 @ 11:05, AMA HQ's Chad Budreau said "To operate within AMA’s community-based organization, a pilot needs to be a member...[emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...s-federal-law/
25 July 2016 @ 08:38, AMA HQ's Chad Budreau said "To operate within AMA’s programming, membership is required. [emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...afety-program/
30 July 2016 @ 13:04, "AMA Staff" said "Participation in AMA’s community-based safety program requires membership in the AMA...[emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...cate-part-107/
4 August 2016 @ 14:35, "AMA Staff" said "AMA membership is required to operate within our CBO programming...[emphasis added]"
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...afety-program/
8 August 2016 @ 08:29, "AMA Staff" said "You do not have to join the AMA to fly a model plane. You have the option to instead comply with FAA’s Part 107..."
(i.e. if you're not a CBO member, the only option is 107)
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...afety-program/
And those are just a sampling....
That is why the Judicial Branch is needed....to weigh in on this as they do on enumerable other things in the US. I imagine any legislation that carries much weight has to go through some adjudication before the true picture emerges.
I attended a couple or three joint FAA/AMA meetings starting as early as 2008(?) and many issues were discussed and positions staked, but none clearer than these 2:
1.) The FAA position that no one would ever be required to join a private organization.
2.) And (some of) the AMA leadership's position that our Safety Guidelines were AMA "Intellectual Property" and people would either have to join the AMA to fly under them or join another CBO who might then license the AMA safely guidelines (a complete fantasy IMHO, borderline delusional actually).
These positions were staked out almost a decade ago, and nothing I can see has really changed today.
#436
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Of course the AMA is saying that, I would too. And the FAA is saying what they are saying.
That is why the Judicial Branch is needed....to weigh in on this as they do on enumerable other things in the US. I imagine any legislation that carries much weight has to go through some adjudication before the true picture emerges.
I attended a couple or three joint FAA/AMA meetings starting as early as 2008(?) and many issues were discussed and positions staked, but none clearer than these 2:
1.) The FAA position that no one would ever be required to join a private organization.
2.) And (some of) the AMA leadership's position that our Safety Guidelines were AMA "Intellectual Property" and people would either have to join the AMA to fly under them or join another CBO who might then license the AMA safely guidelines (a complete fantasy IMHO, borderline delusional actually).
These positions were staked out almost a decade ago, and nothing I can see has really changed today.
That is why the Judicial Branch is needed....to weigh in on this as they do on enumerable other things in the US. I imagine any legislation that carries much weight has to go through some adjudication before the true picture emerges.
I attended a couple or three joint FAA/AMA meetings starting as early as 2008(?) and many issues were discussed and positions staked, but none clearer than these 2:
1.) The FAA position that no one would ever be required to join a private organization.
2.) And (some of) the AMA leadership's position that our Safety Guidelines were AMA "Intellectual Property" and people would either have to join the AMA to fly under them or join another CBO who might then license the AMA safely guidelines (a complete fantasy IMHO, borderline delusional actually).
These positions were staked out almost a decade ago, and nothing I can see has really changed today.
#437
Thread Starter
Of course the AMA is saying that, I would too. And the FAA is saying what they are saying.
That is why the Judicial Branch is needed....to weigh in on this as they do on enumerable other things in the US. I imagine any legislation that carries much weight has to go through some adjudication before the true picture emerges.
I attended a couple or three joint FAA/AMA meetings starting as early as 2008(?) and many issues were discussed and positions staked, but none clearer than these 2:
1.) The FAA position that no one would ever be required to join a private organization.
2.) And (some of) the AMA leadership's position that our Safety Guidelines were AMA "Intellectual Property" and people would either have to join the AMA to fly under them or join another CBO who might then license the AMA safely guidelines (a complete fantasy IMHO, borderline delusional actually).
These positions were staked out almost a decade ago, and nothing I can see has really changed today.
That is why the Judicial Branch is needed....to weigh in on this as they do on enumerable other things in the US. I imagine any legislation that carries much weight has to go through some adjudication before the true picture emerges.
I attended a couple or three joint FAA/AMA meetings starting as early as 2008(?) and many issues were discussed and positions staked, but none clearer than these 2:
1.) The FAA position that no one would ever be required to join a private organization.
2.) And (some of) the AMA leadership's position that our Safety Guidelines were AMA "Intellectual Property" and people would either have to join the AMA to fly under them or join another CBO who might then license the AMA safely guidelines (a complete fantasy IMHO, borderline delusional actually).
These positions were staked out almost a decade ago, and nothing I can see has really changed today.
Unfortunately, a case of first impression is probably years away.
If AMA is so concerned about their intellectual property, any idea why they haven't put it in the members only area?
#438
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the more things change the more they stay the same. The complaints remain the same for the most part, as do the owners of those, lol. FAA will never require membership, thats petty clear. Gotta love the AMA trying to protect their turf all those years ago ( no complaints about that back then though)...a pipe dream perhaps in thinking they could copy write or claim exclusive rights to common use safety rules, lol. Who was on the EC back ten years ago, we need to see some CHANGE and vote them out, take back our hobby.
#439
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Wouldn't dream of it...a man's gotta know his limits amiright? I'm good, but not ready for that yet. Gotta learn how to build a $10,000 turbine first so folks know I'm really invested in the hobby, not like those arf and foamy guys we all hear about... unwashed masses if you will. .
But Tiano's the man for the job right...? Check out his FB response to a question from the co-creator of RCU Mike Kranitz. Grace under pressure. Say, wonder why nobody here has asked him about this horrible tax scam problem, or the whole dishonest scheme to trick people into becoming AMA members. Guess it's easier to lob up some softballs and wait for the nonanswers. Would have thought those were pressing issues but the MA mag and money Muncie gets for grass cutting and Bic pens etc was the priority.
But Tiano's the man for the job right...? Check out his FB response to a question from the co-creator of RCU Mike Kranitz. Grace under pressure. Say, wonder why nobody here has asked him about this horrible tax scam problem, or the whole dishonest scheme to trick people into becoming AMA members. Guess it's easier to lob up some softballs and wait for the nonanswers. Would have thought those were pressing issues but the MA mag and money Muncie gets for grass cutting and Bic pens etc was the priority.
#440
"Within the programming" can be defined as operating within the rules of CBO. The language is intentionally vague and non specific about forced membership in a CBO. As Matt has indicated a judge may need to make a specific ruling on that, but I doubt it will ever happen.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/programming
#441
If you actually follow the CBO's FAA approved guidelines, then you're likely considered operating within the programming of that CBO. Notice that the FAA does not reinforce the "within the programming" part of that statement, only that one should "follow a community based set of safety guidelines". It stands to reason that by following those guidelines, one then meets the criteria of the second part of the rule, at least in the eye's of the FAA, because by doing so you'll be making a conscious effort to avoiding any safety hazard. I know I'm repeating myself, but this seems to be a really difficult concept for some folks.
Following guidelines means you don't really have to follow them. A member has to follow rules, not guidelines.
#442
10 July 2016 email from me to FAA UAS Integration Office at their official USG email address: "Yes or no, does the FAA interpret PL112-95 Section 336 paragraph (a)(2), 'the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;' to mean that to be considered a 'model aircraft' under the law, the operator must be a member of a community-based organization?"
12 July 2016 email from UAS Integration Office official USG email account to me: "The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO..."
12 July 2016 email from UAS Integration Office official USG email account to me: "The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO..."
#443
What difference does that make. You can copy any computer software out there and put it into your own code, maybe even change someo of it and you are still violating copyright laws. But I don't think the AMA has a copyright, though I am not sure.
#444
Thread Starter
#445
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I've said what I've said, the AMA has said what they have said. The parsing, editorializing, and narrative spinning goes on regardless of what is said. Time is probably spent in more constructive ways, but we all have, and make our own choices.
Last edited by porcia83; 09-01-2016 at 07:51 AM.
#446
Odds are that nobody cares what the AMA is implying in the statements about needing to be a member. The ones reading it already are members. The rest could care less.
Mike
Mike
#447
My Feedback: (44)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Option #1. Fly in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Public Law 112-95 Section 336). Under this rule, operators must:
a. Fly for hobby or recreational purposes only
b. Follow a community-based set of safety guidelines
c. Fly the UAS within visual line-of-sight
d. Give way to manned aircraft
e. Provide prior notification to the airport and air traffic control tower, if one is present, when flying within 5 miles of an airport
f. Fly UAS that weigh no more than 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization
g. 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)
a. Fly for hobby or recreational purposes only
b. Follow a community-based set of safety guidelines
c. Fly the UAS within visual line-of-sight
d. Give way to manned aircraft
e. Provide prior notification to the airport and air traffic control tower, if one is present, when flying within 5 miles of an airport
f. Fly UAS that weigh no more than 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization
g. 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)
Last edited by Tipover; 09-01-2016 at 08:23 AM.
#448
Well I'm not sure what you're getting at in regard to a member having to follow rules, because there has never been any enforcement by a CBO of their safety guidelines, or whatever you wish to call them. And if I'm not mistaken the AMA specifically calls theirs a safety code. Back when I was president of our local club, we were always told by the AMA that they set guidelines and made recommendations, but that ultimately they left final say up to the discretion of the clubs officers. But here again is what was quoted earlier that the FAA states must be met for option 1 hobby operations:
Mike
#449
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Nothing odd about it really, I think the majority of the members (at least here) understand this is yet another fabricated tempest in a teapot, even more so after the e-mails to the FAA and then the thread announcing what most already knew. Just another in an ongoing campaign of outrage, scorn, and suspicion (err, I mean "questioning"). IF there truly was intent to deceive or other malfeasance, I'd hope the membership would speak up about it, but clearly...and demonstrably, that's just not the case is it?
#450
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing odd about it really, I think the majority of the members (at least here) understand this is yet another fabricated tempest in a teapot, even more so after the e-mails to the FAA and then the thread announcing what most already knew. Just another in an ongoing campaign of outrage, scorn, and suspicion (err, I mean "questioning"). IF there truly was intent to deceive or other malfeasance, I'd hope the membership would speak up about it, but clearly...and demonstrably, that's just not the case is it?
BTW, as if you didn't notice, clearly some of the membership have spoken up about it.