Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Regulation passed the House

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

Regulation passed the House

Old 02-15-2012, 03:54 PM
  #426  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,354
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


[8D] Thank You for that clarification , Silent , and also Thank You to you and KE and everyone else who have made this an informative and interesting discussion ....
Old 02-15-2012, 04:56 PM
  #427  
warningshot
 
warningshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: OU-OSU OK
Posts: 548
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


ORIGINAL: combatpigg

I'd like to have Johnshe point out the AMA and Uncle Sam haters to me so I don't run into any of them in a dark alley some day.......[8D]
Good luck with your request.
Old 02-15-2012, 05:06 PM
  #428  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

ORIGINAL: init4fun


ORIGINAL: JohnShe
They can then be presented to the FAA, I think, and if the FAA accepts them, you can fly to your hearts content.

I saw no where in the law that said the FAA gets to ''accept'' or approve what constitutes a ''CBO'' , , , just that an RCer must be CBO compliant ...... I think the whole point of the Model Aircraft provision was to keep the FAA from regulating model avation , and here you say that the CBO's regs must meet FAA approval ?

You sure about that ?
The notes from the Conference Committee Report provide guidance on what Congress considers a CBO:

In this section the term ``nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association that
represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the
National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions,
government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members.
But I agree, nowhere is there any indication that a CBO needs to have its safety guidelines reviewed, approved, or otherwise recognized by the FAA, or anyone else.
Not "approved", that is not what I said.The operational guidelines must be "accepted" by the FAA or else the FAA is free to regulate the activity. The law is clear. The AMAhas a solid foothold in this process and a good set of acceptable guidelines reflecting what we have always been doing will be forthcoming. I am an AMAmember, I have a voice in AMA activities and rule making. You can quibble all you want but we members of the AMA still win. If you don't like the AMA, start your own CBO.



Old 02-15-2012, 05:14 PM
  #429  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


ORIGINAL: combatpigg

I'd like to have Johnshe point out the AMA and Uncle Sam haters to me so I don't run into any of them in a dark alley some day.......[8D]
Read the posts, the government and AMA haters stand out like piles of cow flop.

Old 02-15-2012, 06:14 PM
  #430  
DustBen
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Kearney, NE
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

To KidEpoxy and those in the same boat.

1) Please know your comments are ineffective.
2) The people of the world that DO things are the ones that matter.
3) Until you can step above and beyond what the AMA has done, you fall short.
4) There is and has been a structure in place to work within the framework of government to facilitate model aviation; your disorganization doesn't do squat.
5) Until you have better abilities than the AMA to promote flying, you're tilting at windmills.
6)It's easy to complain; getting things done is the mark of effective people.
7) What have you done, and what will you do to actually promote model aviation (other than squawking)?

Just going out on a limb here... but I'm guessing that in the 48 months that this legislation was being debated, you never contacted anyone in Congress to voice your concerns, but now, you're the "hero to the rescue"?

It's the people that actually do things that matter most...
Old 02-15-2012, 06:46 PM
  #431  
wahoo
My Feedback: (59)
 
wahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Steeler Nation
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

I love my gov't....

Seriously.......I do !
Old 02-15-2012, 07:20 PM
  #432  
lopflyers
Senior Member
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (12)
 
lopflyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


ORIGINAL: DustBen

To KidEpoxy and those in the same boat.

1) Please know your comments are ineffective.
2) The people of the world that DO things are the ones that matter.
3) Until you can step above and beyond what the AMA has done, you fall short.
4) There is and has been a structure in place to work within the framework of government to facilitate model aviation; your disorganization doesn't do squat.
5) Until you have better abilities than the AMA to promote flying, you're tilting at windmills.
6)It's easy to complain; getting things done is the mark of effective people.
7) What have you done, and what will you do to actually promote model aviation (other than squawking)?

Just going out on a limb here... but I'm guessing that in the 48 months that this legislation was being debated, you never contacted anyone in Congress to voice your concerns, but now, you're the "hero to the rescue"?

It's the people that actually do things that matter most...

+2
+2
Old 02-15-2012, 07:58 PM
  #433  
KidEpoxy
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

JohnShe
Not "approved", that is not what I said.The operational guidelines must be "accepted" by the FAA or else the FAA is free to regulate the activity. The law is clear.
It equally does not say 'Approved' nor 'Accepted'
... nor 'submitted, 'reviewed', 'authorized', 'acknowledged', 'considered', 'evaluated', 'confirmed', 'presented' etc etc

There is NO requirement for a cbo to actually DO anything with their cbo documents,
other than just HAVE them and have them be extensive.
CBOs are NOT required to submit their documents to FAA.
CBOs are NOT required to REWRITE their documents prior to them not being required to submit.
There is no congressional requirement for that in order to get the congressional protection from FAA that the bill creates.

uh.. why is AMA spending so much resources rewriting their documents that they want to recoup the cost???
Congress is protecting us from FAA harassment now
... FAA harassment like FAA requiring cbos to rewrite and submit our documents



Why, with page after page of this being pointed out,
do folks still cling to that fallacy/myth?

I've been saying it over and over,
SilentAv has been saying it over and over,
yet we still see folks clinging to that fallacy.



JohnShe, rather than just asking us to believe you,
could you quote where congress says cbo docs must be given to ANY fed boys,
and highlight the word 'required' in the citation
(or its synonym like SHALL or MUST etc)
Old 02-15-2012, 08:02 PM
  #434  
KidEpoxy
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Silent
Good find.


Maybe you and I should just set a macro
to quote the Notes Defining CBO and text pointing out the lack of requiring FAA permission
Old 02-15-2012, 08:05 PM
  #435  
RTK
My Feedback: (1)
 
RTK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Left Coast , CA
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

+1
Old 02-15-2012, 08:14 PM
  #436  
KidEpoxy
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Dustbin
4) There is and has been a structure in place to work within the framework of government to facilitate model aviation;
You are thinking in a '2 weeks ago' frame:
You were not wrong 2 weeks ago, which cannot be said now

NOW we cannot say that the structure cbos use 'has been'
because it was just now signed into law.

The structure cbos use to "work within the framework of government" now
is to point to congress' protection of CBOs, and if the FAA tryst to make demands of cbos we politely say
Sorry FAA, but our CBO is disinclined to acquiese to your request.
Please refer to congress' protection of CBOs from you by name, and pound sand. Thank you, goodby FAA.





btw Dustbin,
that was the nicest personal hate post ever aimed at me, kudos
However, if you would like to discuss the subject rather than me, you could always try that.
Old 02-15-2012, 08:25 PM
  #437  
KidEpoxy
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

You can quibble all you want but we members of the AMA still win.
Where did that come from?
Nobody here said the AMA wouldnt meet the cbo definition,
we all have been saying AMA already meets it.

We won. We are under the protection of congress now (the law is signed)
cause we meet, right now, congress' definition of who is a cbo... there are no unmet actions we need to take.

Folks have been saying we've won for a dozen pages.
We also have been saying we need get folks to see that, and stop 'inviting or manufacturing problems'
Old 02-15-2012, 08:53 PM
  #438  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


ORIGINAL: JohnShe

Not ''approved'', that is not what I said.The operational guidelines must be ''accepted'' by the FAA or else the FAA is free to regulate the activity.

In fact, that is not the situation. It was the previous situation, but now the FAA has no authority to review or "accept" our guidelines for use. However, they do retain the authority to take enforcement action. This is the important phrase: " pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system"

So it is not necessarily so that we have a blank check to do whatever we please. If it annoys the FAA they can still find a way to make our lives unpleasant. I have great confidence however that the AMA has gained considerable insight into what concerns the FAA may have had with model operations and will make certain that we address those to minimize the potential of the FAA of exercising their authority to "pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system".

Kind of like knowing that you can do throw a ball however you want to, but if you break the neighbor's window playing ball then you will have consequences. So you take precautions to make sure you don't break the window.
Old 02-16-2012, 02:42 AM
  #439  
AugerDawger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


ORIGINAL: JohnShe
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
I'd like to have Johnshe point out the AMA and Uncle Sam haters to me so I don't run into any of them in a dark alley some day.......[8D]
Read the posts, the government and AMA haters stand out like piles of cow flop.
Please state numerically the post(s) expressing hate for the government in this thread ?

Straight out of the Janet Napolitano handbook.....dissent against gov = hate = threat with a$29 Harbor Freight foamie and a box of wine.






Old 02-16-2012, 06:08 AM
  #440  
TexasAirBoss
My Feedback: (22)
 
TexasAirBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

As ex-FAA myself, I think you might consider that the FAA is probably as pleased with the legislation as the AMA is. The box has been checked. That item on the "to do" list now has a line through it. There is one less thing to worry about. If I were the specialist asigned to the sUAS spaghetti bowl I would be pleased. And remember, the FAA has plenty of AMA members.

Old 02-16-2012, 07:02 AM
  #441  
KidEpoxy
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

So it is not necessarily so that we have a blank check to do whatever we please. If it annoys the FAA they can still find a way to make our lives unpleasant. I have great confidence however that the AMA has gained considerable insight into what concerns the FAA may have had with model operations and will make certain that we address those to minimize the potential of the FAA of exercising their authority to "pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system".
yup
Congress did not have the bill say its ok to do bad things,
the FAA can still punish you if you do bad things.
It just says that FAA cant harass organized groups of folks that play with their toy airplanes... just playing with a toy airplane is not a crime and the FAA cant say it is to those groups under congress' (US Fed Law) protection.


But havent folks been bragging for years
how AMA is great cause AMA has been dealing with the FAA for decades for us,
and how AMA is great cause the FAA has always known about and ok'ed AMA's curb-kicking of AC91-57?
I know we have seen the folks here telling us how great AMA is by those points.
So, if AMA The Great has been liaisoning with and doing what FAA is ok with for decades,
where is the new, urgent, expensive need to rewrite our documents coming from?


It almost sounds as if the FAA never heard of AMA,
and wants to see some documents so they can learn about what we do
... it sure dont sound like FAA has been liaisoning with AMA (for decades)
nor that AMA has been lobbying FAA (for decades)
if we need to NOW tell them about our policies that they have been agreeing to for decades.

I gotta wonder, which is it?
Do I believe the folks saying AMA is great cause AMA has been working with FAA for decades,
or do I believe that FAA need to see rewritten AMA documents to introduce FAA to AMA (& what FAA has allegedly been liaisoning / ok'ing for decades) ??[&:]
Old 02-16-2012, 07:25 AM
  #442  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

So, if AMA The Great has been liaisoning with and doing what FAA is ok with for decades, where is the new, urgent, expensive need to rewrite our documents coming from?

The new urgent need to rework the AMA Safety Code grew out of the sUAS regulation/rule making efforts on the part of the FAA. Had that not happened I do not think the AMA wold have been backed into a corner with regard to doing anything with the Safety Cade. But the Rule making process changed everything. But you know this, so why the straw man question?
Old 02-16-2012, 07:29 AM
  #443  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

I copied this from FG. IT was written by another user there (Danaman) and I think it states our current situation very clearly. Summed up my thoughts nicely at least:

AMA and its members have achieved something important, no doubt and kudos to us. However, we are only golden over time if the preponderance of members who choose to pursue their hobby under the AMA umbrella, do so in a way that doesn't get others wet (including the AMA members who do observe the code). Encouraging local club members to stick to the existing guidelines has been an effort for the officers of the clubs that I belong to and the AMA Government Relations Campaign enabled us to highlight the need to observe the rules for safety sake and to protect the hobby. While the new AMA guidelines that are coming our way may not be anymore restrictive to those who observed them to date, a more rigorously defined set may feel "restrictive" to those not yet used to following them? My point is that we will soon need to turn our attention to bringing other members into the compliance fold and stay vigilant of the behavior of new members who will wish to take shelter from the default rule.

And then there is the public comment period for the NPRM that we should not forget about just yet. Those who are outside the AMA will want to pay particular attention to the rulemaking process at this turn, and we should too. Can an unexpected surprise there move the tree line a bit and we find our hobby back in the woods? Alarmist maybe, but if that happens, it will take legions of lawyers and lots of attorney fees to argue the final rule and protect our rights as hobbyists. I have great confidence in the AMAs leadership, just want us followers to stay frosty in case another charge is needed, by way of well reasoned and thoughtful public comments to preserve the gains we made with legislature.
Old 02-16-2012, 08:25 AM
  #444  
KidEpoxy
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

The new urgent need to rework the AMA Safety Code grew out of the sUAS regulation/rule making efforts on the part of the FAA. Had that not happened I do not think the AMA wold have been backed into a corner with regard to doing anything with the Safety Cade. But the Rule making process changed everything. But you know this, so why the straw man question?
I asked what is the need NOW,
not if there was a need before we got congress' protection.
Yes, I did know all about the need back then, but what about NOW?



While the new AMA guidelines that are coming our way may not be anymore restrictive to those who observed them to date, a more rigorously defined set may feel "restrictive" to those not yet used to following them?
omg
you need to rewrite the rules rather than enforce the ones we got now?

I mean, sure some of us have been stating for years that AMA's rules are too subjective and full of terms like Should / Avoid / Try-to rather than terms like Must/Never/Will. If you want to now say we have been right this whole time, maybe a lot of folks shouldnt have been calling us AMA bashers over it, eh?

but the bigger point over that quote is that it dont mandate we submit our New-Enforcable AMA Rules to anyone.

So again, where is the need to ask for FAA's blessing of our New-Enforcable AMA Rules
if you keep saying we will keep doing what we have been doing (and that FAA already knows we do),
and the whole thing falls under congress' protection from having to do it anyway?
Old 02-16-2012, 09:13 AM
  #445  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 20,388
Received 26 Likes on 24 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


ORIGINAL: AugerDawger


ORIGINAL: JohnShe
ORIGINAL: combatpigg
I'd like to have Johnshe point out the AMA and Uncle Sam haters to me so I don't run into any of them in a dark alley some day.......[8D]
Read the posts, the government and AMA haters stand out like piles of cow flop.
Please state numerically the post(s) expressing hate for the government in this thread ?

Straight out of the Janet Napolitano handbook.....dissent against gov = hate = threat with a $29 Harbor Freight foamie and a box of wine.






The biggest difference between genius and stupidity is.....genius has it's limits.
Old 02-16-2012, 09:28 AM
  #446  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

JohnShe
Not "approved", that is not what I said.The operational guidelines must be "accepted" by the FAA or else the FAA is free to regulate the activity. The law is clear.
JohnShe, rather than just asking us to believe you,
could you quote where congress says cbo docs must be given to ANY fed boys,
and highlight the word 'required' in the citation
(or its synonym like SHALL or MUST etc)
First off, KidEpoxy, your contempt for teh AMAand government is showing. Now...

Read the law, it is perfectly clear.



SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if

(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(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;

(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is

(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and

(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

Congress is directing the FAA to regulate the use of drones in public airspace. While, at the same time, telling the FAA that they cannot regulate model aviation operations that meet the criteria and definitions given in the special rule. It is up to the FAA to determine that these criteria and definitions are met. It is up to the AMA to demonstrate that they meet these criteria and definitions. The law is clear.

The AMAhas already approached the FAAhand has a working relationship with them. We know that the AMA is a CBO, we know that the FAA can accept the AMAas a CBO and is likely to accept them although that has not been officially announced by the FAA. We know that the AMAhas a set of guidelines that can meet the concept of guidelines in the law, but that has not been officially announced either.

But, I am confident that the FAAand the AMAare working in our best interest.

Old 02-16-2012, 09:42 AM
  #447  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

The new urgent need to rework the AMA Safety Code grew out of the sUAS regulation/rule making efforts on the part of the FAA. Had that not happened I do not think the AMA wold have been backed into a corner with regard to doing anything with the Safety Cade. But the Rule making process changed everything. But you know this, so why the straw man question?
I asked what is the need NOW,
not if there was a need before we got congress' protection.
Yes, I did know all about the need back then, but what about NOW?

Back then, you mean last week? [&:]

I think the AMA feels that they have invested considerable time and effort at working on making our operational guidelines robust enough that they would not be questioned by anyone who looked at them. Rather than just abandon that effort, since they are so close to being done, I think they plan to finish it. As The quote above note, even though there will likely not be a reduction in what we can do, having to pay more attention to how we do it might feel like a restriction at first. But having a robust set of guidelines reduces the ability of the FAA or anyone else from pointing at our 1-page safety code and implying that it is not adequate.

The big point is not we do not have to give the FAA a chance to review, accept, or fool with our guidelines, but I think it is prudent to be prepared for it in the future, especially since we are already so far down the road. The Bill has a 4-year term on it. Who knows what might happen 4 years down the line.
Old 02-16-2012, 09:47 AM
  #448  
JohnShe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Round Hill, VA
Posts: 1,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House


ORIGINAL: combatpigg

Please state numerically the post(s) expressing hate for the government in this thread ?
OK, Combatpig. Here is a direct quote from a government hater.

"Then let's start selling .50 caliber machine guns and sticks of dynamite at Walmart for a "low-low price" because we don't need laws to cover every conceivable evil action if we simply work with God's Law.
Believe it or not there once was a time that any farmer or rancher could drive on down to the local Co-op and buy dynamite. Too bad those who lacked the desire or ambition to use dynamite in constructive ways put severe restrictions on it's sale and usage or we could buy it at 7/11 now.

KE, you don't need to load up planes with a ridiculous amount of ord to cause a mass stampede of humanity in full panic mode out of a stadium.
This latest congressional act that everyone is feeling so warm and fuzzy about is nothing more than a "House of Cards" that could come toppling down with a shopping spree at Harbor Freight by just 1 Sicko or maybe a small posse of Sickos."


Old 02-16-2012, 10:16 AM
  #449  
bkdavy
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
bkdavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Bill passed and signed by the President. Good job.

We can now answer the infamous comma question on AC 91-57 (which takes precendence, FAA guideline or AMA safety code) and the AMA wins.

We hobbyists have to continue to act responsibly.

If someone doesn't behave responsibly, the FAA has the teeth to act if they choose.

What Congress enacts, Congress can repeal.

Brad
Old 02-16-2012, 10:21 AM
  #450  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Regulation passed the House

Bk - Exactly right. And the last line is why it is worth the AMA beefing up our standards as a "just in case" type of thing.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.