KidEpoxy

OMG, the selective amnesia is spreading.

We went over the entire "Operating Within" language question last year
when the senate bill had identical language verbatim,
"(B) operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines
and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization; and "
and even years before that when again almost identical language was used in the sUAS ARC.

2 months ago we all knew what Operating Within meant,
because that term has been used since the ARC.
Lets roll that beautiful bean footage [link=http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.asp?m=10904800]from SilentAv on 1/12/2012[/link]
and on Jan 13

Wow,
the same it meant in the ARC,
the same it meant from the Senate,
the same it meant from FAA in Ontario.
But folks just cant figure out what the same words mean when someone else (congress) says them.

We went over this in great detail both here and on AMA's board for the ARC and the senate (verbatim).
Its the same thing we have been seeing for years when we've been dealing with it for FAA regulation and Senate Protection.
And lest we forget, the text is from OUR amendment put on by OUR lobbyist.

now suddenly everyone want to pretend
they have no idea what the meaning is
of the same old wording we have been seeing and understanding (and Silent has been explaining) for years

Sport_Pilot

"Operating within the programming" is not just "operating within".  But even so the AMA must wait for their lawers to them what all of this not just this phrase means.

KidEpoxy

aaaaaand what folks are saying today
is different from what folks have been saying last year
how?
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_10...m.htm#10346146

2011 Senate Language
2012 Congress language
it is the same "Within" discussion that was talked to death
since it first showed up in the ARC.
Some diehard AMA fans say it means you have to be amember,
yet tons more chose to argue against that idea when folks like me said it looked like AMA put wording into the ARC that required membership. Either they did that just to RecArg against KidEpoxy, or they were right when pointing at references to say you dont have to be a member to Operate Within the groups rules.... such compelling data that I agreed with their new info on Within Programing is NOT meaning membership


Sport, when we look back at the ARC and Senate threads talking about "Operating Within"
are we gonna see you saying that it dont mean AMA is trying to make membership a law
because nonmembers can still operate within?

If we look back are we gonna see a lot of fine AMA members defending AMA by saying that?
But now they want to say they dont know,
because they are just following the We No Longer Know What Within Means marching orders from muncie?

If you guys want to NOW reverse and claim that Operating Within means a membership is required,
then are we not just back to Accusing muncie of trying to make membership a law?
Cause I would love to see the new defense to that, if thats the case.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

If "operating within the programming of" the AMA just means "following the AMA rules," then it doesn't mean anything. The first requirement ("operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines") is satisfied by following the AMA rules. So if the "programming" language means anything at all, it means that there is some requirement beyond following the rules. I don't know what that additional requirement is. Anybody who thinks they can tell just by looking at the words is mistaken. We won't know until we get the regs. It could mean flying from an AMA (or other CBO) club field. It could mean being an AMA (or other CBO) member. Or maybe it really doesn't mean anything at all, if that's what the regs say. What somebody in the past "intended" the rule to mean doesn't mean squat: the people who will draft the regulations get to say.

Sport_Pilot

I''m saying it doesn't matter what you or anybody on this forum says. They have to wait till the lawers say what it says.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

(Deleted. Thought my first post didn't get through the fog that seems to have settled into the intertubes so reposted.)

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

And whom do you think those people are, AMA??

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Of course not; the AMA doesn't get to draft federal regulations. I'm sure it will propose some, though.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

There will be NO REGULATIONS drafted against any modeler participation under a CBO guidlines by the FAA....


Many non-AMA members fly at sites other than established model aviation fields (ie: AMA clubs). How will this impact the new regulations and how will the new role for AMA address this?

Rich Hanson, leader of the AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs:

We won’t know for sure how the FAA will address the non-AMA modeler until the proposed sUAS rule is published in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) slated for release later this spring.

However, it’s clear that the provisions provided in the recent FAA reauthorization bill do not apply to model aircraft operations conducted outside the safety programming of a nationwide community-based organization.

Those provisions, the way I read it, are basically what we already have in place through the AMA. Everybody keeps thinking the FAA is going to come and tell us how, what and IF we can do something. They have effectively been eliminated from regulatory authority in our concern, isn't that what was in the bill the president signed???

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Most of us are familiar with club flying sites that are controlled and managed by an AMA chartered club, and where AMA membership is required to fly at the site. However, there are many locations where both AMA members and non members fly. Most of these are established public flying sites; however, there are a few locations where MA operations occur in a more casual or unstructured fashion. Exactly how the rules will be established for these locations is yet to be determined.

Assuming the FAA does establish minimum MA safety criteria in the sUAS regulation, this will then become the operating requirements for the non participating modelers and for all model aircraft operations conducted outside of AMA’s safety program. It would follow that this criteria will become the default rules for locations where non participating modelers are allowed to operate. At public flying sites where both AMA members and non members are allowed to fly it will be left to the public authority to establish the rules for their facility. Nevertheless, AMA intends to work proactively with the public entities to encourage them to adopt AMA’s safety programming in order to afford the greatest latitude in the MA operations.

At other locations where both AMA members and non members fly, the criteria established in the sUAS rule will still apply. However, it will be left to the landowner or the local authorities to determine whether MA operations will be conducted under the sUAS rule or to adopt the safety programming of a community-based organization.

In any case AMA and its standards development workgroup are working hard to protect both public and private flying sites as well as the AMA member’s ability to fly from ad hoc locations.

AMA is not and will not be responsible for model aircraft operations conducted outside of AMA’s safety program and will not be responsible for the actions of the non participating modelers. Enforcement of the safety criteria established in the sUAS rule will be left to the FAA.
Rich Hanson AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

That would be nice. But the exemption that Congress enacted has two requirements that must be met before one is exempt from regulation by the FAA. The first one is compliance with the AMA's safety regulations (or those of some other CBO). The second one is this murky provision about operating "under the programming of" the AMA or some other CBO. So the "bill the president signed" certainly did not say that the FAA can't regulate anyone following the AMA safety code. Maybe it means they can't regulate an AMA member following the safety code. Or maybe it means they can't regulate an AMA member flying from an AMA club's field.

I'm pretty sure the FAA regs won't affect most of us, except for this nonsense about making agreements with all the airports within five miles of our fields. (Look at a sectional chart sometime; it's amazing just how many small airports there are.) Most of us are AMA members who fly mostly from AMA club fields. But some people have been saying that the exemption will cover anybody who follows the AMA safety rules, even if they aren't AMA members and aren't flying from an AMA club field. That seems plainly wrong (though it's possible; as I've said, we'll have to wait for the regs).

Do you really disagree with any of this?

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Yes and No, the FAA can do anything they want being a government entity, you know big brother, BUT they have given up power at this point and have been forced too entrusted the AMA (CBO) to right regs for members to follow.......They will have FULL authority on non AMA (CBO) members only

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Signed last night by President Obama, the special provision in the Bill recognizes community-based safety programming as an effective means of managing the modeling activity. The model aircraft section establishes minimum criteria for safe aeromodeling operations and specifically directs the FAA to not enact rules for modeling activity conducted within the safety programming of a nationwide community-based organization.

From the AMA's sight

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Yes, but that isn't what the law says. The part of the exemption I've been discussing says this:

"the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;"

That is two requirements, not one. Satisfying the first one alone won't do. The question is, what does it mean for an operation to be "within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization"? Does it mean that the person operating the airplane has to be a member of the organization? That the operation has to be conducted at a field run by a member club of the organization? I don't know. Nobody else does either. AMA members flying from AMA club fields seem clearly to be OK. For non-members, or flights from non-AMA-club fields, who knows? Not me. Not you either.

I'm still trying to figure out what it is about my posts that has gotten you so riled up. Do you think that the statute (not the AMA's description of it) clearly allows non-AMA members to be within the exemption if they follow AMA rules? That it clearly applies to people who are not flying from AMA fields? Or what?

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

Not riled at all, from what I have read and listened to I have a different take on what is going on. Maybe right, maybe wrong.
I see you either have two choices, join a CBO (only one being the AMA at this time) or follow the new rules set forth by the FAA when they finally come out. The FAA will not intrude or direct the AMA, but certainly can do so with NON CBO members. I guess I see it a little more cut and dry

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

OK, I give up. It seems clear that if you are an AMA member and fly from an AMA field you're OK, and you don't seem to disagree with me about that. Whatever it is that you do disagree with me about remains a mystery.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

I "feel" you are saying everything could change concerning modelers pending the FAA new regulations. I am an AMA member, but fly at private fields most of the time. I see nothing changing in anything I currently do or want to do unless the CBO (AMA) makes drastic changes which they have not implied.
Everything will be as it was, again, not picking on you or anything, just felt you were for casting rough seas ahead with the FAA

JohnShe

Yes, I also see it as a pro forma type action. One thing that has caught my attention was a statement made during the January AMA&FAAforum that the AMAposted on their website. The FAA rep said that the FAAmight adopt the AMAsafety guidelines. If that happens, then those guidelines will become the rules for all model aviation flyers. Flyers will not have to join the AMA, unless they want to. But they still have to follow the same rules, that we AMA members will follow, wherever they choose to fly.

extra-nut

Do you guys really believe that the AMA is going to put themselves in a position where they "have" to be responsible for anything? LMAO!!

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Things will likely not be the same as they were for non-members of the AMA (or other CBO, if some come into existence). That was one of my major points, in response to the people who said that non-members will be OK if they follow AMA rules. Maybe they will, but I don't think so. And what happens to those people isn't up to the AMA, it's up to the federal government. As to whether you'll be OK as an AMA member flying from places that aren't AMA club fields, I don't know; the regs could go either way. That matter aside, AMA members should be in pretty good shape, except maybe for the inconvenience of possibly having to make agreements with airport operators. The issue there is what happens if the airport people refuse to agree. Saying we "should" come to an agreement is fine, but what happens if we can't? My club's field is about three miles from a private field used almost exclusively by ultralights. What would happen if, when we notify them of our existence they say "You should stop flying, because you might hit one of us"? Will we be in for years of hassles with the FAA? Who can say?

I'm not forecasting anything; as I've tried patiently to explain, I don't know what the regulations will say. You don't either.

JohnShe

Could you explain your comment. It seems contradictory to the past history of AMA actions.

ira d

If the FAA and AMA rules turn out to be the same that would make the most sense.

KidEpoxy

TG
Explain WHY the AMA was trying to figure out
how to charge ( "recover costs" ) nonmembers for using AMA's procedures to meet CBO exemptions.

That wouldnt make a lick of sense if there was no cbo exemptions for non-members.
But that is perfectly logical (even if I disagree with doing it) in the case that nonmembers CAN use our procedures to meet cbo exemptions

the congressional text does not say Who can operate MA,
it tells us HOW to operate them,
and even then, that HOW is just to get congress protection from FAA regulation, there is no requirement to seek that protection. MA can either be operated within the FAA's programming for DefaultPath, or excluded from the FAA regs when operated within cbo programing (and paying Muncie for the copy of the CBO rules???[:@])

extra-nut

Ok JS you got me. Seems the AMA is responsible for a couple of things;

1) Excellent record keeping of statistics from competition flying of all kinds, from all across the USA. (gotta have stuff for the magazine you know)

2) This mess we are in right now! I am still not convinced that any branch of the government, has any desire to regulate " line of sight" flying of any type. I mean really, how far can you go.

Looks like all other guidlines, measurements, safety requirements etc. are merely suggestions, not etched in stone rules. When have you ever heard of the AMA repremanding anyone for flying to high, far or fast?

Oh, one more thing I'm starting to feel they are responsible for;

3) Using MY membership dues to fund a battle for regulations in MY hobby!!??


What past AMA actions are you referring to?

KidEpoxy

A couple quotes along a theme, in no particular oder

How exactly will we be able to keep doing what we do,
if some of the stuff we do is/willbe illegal?

If we assume the FAA is going to put a Hobby/Recreation/Sport Purpose requirement in the regs
(and frankly that is about the one thing we all agree on)
then flying sUAV:MA will not include, cannot include, commercial ops.
We all know our AMA insurance covers us for our hobbying, but dont insure commercial ops*.
Muncie has made the determination, by lack of making a determination,
that some of what we AMA members do at AMA chartered club's fields is SO likely to be considered Commercial (and therefore uninsured by us), that we should carry outside insurance when doing that thing that could be "AMA Uninsured".

The problem is that stuff that is Too Commercial to be AMA Insured,
or 'potentially too commercial'
is also in quite clear terms "Too Illegal" or "Potentially Too Illegal" when we acknowledge the law requires models to not be commercial. Who makes that determination? Well, we just gave Muncie the chance and they pass the buck with a CYA and put it on the club to decide if they want to allow stuff that Muncie considered so likely to be Illegal that they recommend outside insurance cause we dont insure that (illegal/commercial) ops. Muncies statement didnt say No Thats Not Commerciall, what muncie did was recognize that it is not just a shoo-in to be Hobby/sport/rec and AMA Insured... but we know that if it is NOT then it is illegal.

Does your club operate within the programming of a CBO?
If you have guys that need to rely on outside insurance to do stuff too commercial for AMA to confidently say they insure,
then the answer is NO, aint it.

So, will we AMA members continue as we have been doing,
accepting that what we do is so likely to be illegal that we pay for outside insurance to cover it?
Or will this new congress protection law bring muncie back to reevaluate their position on blindly allowing Potentially (Illegal Commercial) ops.