RCU Forums - View Single Post - AMA Statement - Didn't even MENTION John Taylor!
Old 08-10-2017 | 04:54 AM
  #60  
franklin_m's Avatar
franklin_m
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,608
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: State College, PA
Default

The law already requires you to follow the code, so attesting to AMA that you'll follow the same code is irrelevant. As to their "programming," AMA can and does say that THEY believe that to be within their programming you have to be a member. Ok. But that's no different than me BELIEVING that you do not. Why? Well, simply put the AMA has zero authority to enforce in the nation's airspace. Who does? FAA. And they've said that they do not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336(a)(2) as requiring membership in a CBO. Just follow the guidelines, which as I said the law already requires. A copy of that interpretation is attached.

So if the agency with enforcement authority for that law says you don't have to be a member, what AMA believes is, as I said earlier, immaterial.

You can check TFRs (and other NOTAMS) directly yourself - and I encourage you to. If you want websites where you can retrieve much better and more thorough information that AMA provides, PM me and I'll send you some.
Attached Thumbnails FAA Interpretation of PL11295S336A2_Redacted.pdf