Originally Posted by
Hydro Junkie
Okay, in NAMBA, if you want to make a rule change, you submit it to your district VP who sends it to the equivalent of Muncie where it is given a one year trial before being voted on to make it a hard change with the rules updated.
Yes, the AMA Bylaws have a clearly defined methodology for making new rules, or changing existing rules.
Does the AMA have a similar process and, if so, would it work to get the vaunted Safety Code updated
The EC has sole authority and discretion over the Safety Code. Members are not involved in the process.
Just had a thought, the FAA can shut down any event they want right now for violation of the law(altitude limit) whether the rules/safety code is changed or not.
As I have tried to point out numerous times, the 8 conditions set forth in Section 349 are just that, conditions. They define what actions a person must take to be exempt from the FARs and specifically Part 107. So it is not "illegal" in and of itself to disregard any of the 8 conditions. If it were the law would define the nature of the violation and the associated punishment. Section 349 has no such provisions. All that does is move your operation from being an exempt recreational flight to being a non-exempt flight subject to Part 107. Part 107 applies ONLY to the PIC, so it might be difficult to shut down an entire event. What they could do is observe and record actions that fail to meet the 8 conditions and then issue citations to individual pilots for violating Part 107.
This is exactly what happened about a year ago when a young kid and his father received a number of Part 107 violations because they failed to register their DJI Spark. As such their flight was deemed subject to Part 107 and that is what they were cited for. The failure to comply with 336 (which was active at the time) moved them into the FARs and Part 107. But they were not cited for "violating" Section 336.