extra-nut

LOL, one would think. Hmmm so what will plan B contain? Let's see...... Make all AMA charter clubs file for CBO status operating under the National CBO (AMA). Then direct them on how to turn away anyone wanting to fly under another CBO.?

KidEpoxy

plan B?
I dont think everyone is willing to accept what the tiers are yet.

Tier D: "Default Path" FAA regulations on model operations (FAA Requirements)
Tier C: "CBO Standards" faa path for exclusion from FAA regs on model operation (FAA requirements)
Tire B: Being CBO member to get Congress' protection from FAA(congress requirements)
Tier A: AMA-Not-Evil because all models Operating Within CBO Programming can get congress protection from FAA (congress requirements)

Now, AMA has already been talking about
trying to charge non-members that use muncies CBO Standards to get out of "Default Path" (out of Tier D & into C),
and we learned from Ontario a few weeks back that the FAA clearly is not going to require membership to use Standards (Tier C). We also have heard the FaithfulDefenders explain that AMA's lobbyist didnt put a Join AMA requirement into the senate amendment by pointing out how folks can use the cbo protection without joining (Tier A).... and the new congress version has the same language practically verbatim.
Simple.
You can fly Default Path, CBOStandards Path, BeingCBO Protection, or AMA-Not-Evil Protection

Whats new is the folks taking marching orders to become stupid on command
... that suddenly we are all supposed to not know what these words mean,
despite folks posting their understanding of it for a few years now since the Operating Within first showed up in the ARC.
Just take a look at the folks posting in January about what FAA said in Ontario,
and compare what they knew then
to what they claim not to know now.

Maybe I should go back to that January thread
and quote in the folks here saying they dont know what anything means,
next to them posting about them knowing whats going on then.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

There are a couple of different ways of trying to figure out what the law means. My preferred method is to look at what it says. Another, I suppose, would to look at what people were saying in January about what the FAA was saying, but since the law was passed in February, and by Congress, not the FAA, that doesn't seem sensible to me.

llindsey1965

My Feedback: (-1)

i belong to AMA and IMAA im covered by NCBO which wheither you like it or not is AMA , you do not have to join that is your call , quit bashing the AMA join it or leave it alone , as Fleetwood Mac says "Go Your Own Way"
Go to the AMA website they have Q&A about this bill they explain they are not responsible for non members and that the FAA will write the rules for thise who chose to not belong to a NCBO as far as AMA members we are governed by our safety rules pretty simple belong to a ncbo cbo or fly by the seat of your pants and answer to FAA your choice

llindsey1965

My Feedback: (-1)

TG  that wasnt meant for you , just tired of all the bashing of a great orginization, your post is right i hope this post makes sense  , all the info is on AMA website

KidEpoxy

TG
the words that folks want to say they dont understand
that Congress used February2012 in the law,
are practically verbatim copy of the words from LAST FEB when the SENATE said them.

2011 Senate Language
2012 Congress language


This is not folks getting 'new' stuff they dont understand,
it is the SAME 'operating within' that we have had for years (staring with the ARC)

How is it "doesn't seem sensible" to you, that the SAME words from a year ago are not new now?
There is nothing new about the Feb2012 congress Operating Within
because its is a copy of the Feb2011 senate Operating Within


What is the deal,
folks understand the words when said by the senate and FAA,
but lose the ability to comprehend english when the same words are used by the congress a year later?
What changed since Jan2012 to make everyone not understand?
Because there has been NO CHANGE with the congress doing a 2012 copypaste of the 2011 senate words.
What changed since Jan to undo all the understanding we had for year old senate text saying Operating Within?

KidEpoxy

Lindsey
a) That single sentence(??) there is not easy to understand


b) I presume you meant to say you believe the FAA will will rite the rules for nonmembers. yes, the FAA will write the rules for nonmembers, and as the FAA said in January, the FAA will not require membership in a cbo to use that CBO Standard to get out of the faa's Default Path. In other words, the FAA is not seeing any difference or division of the folks that 'Operate Within' cbo standards... they wont require you to be a member to get the same exclusion from regulation members get.

You do understand this, dont you?
Isnt that what you learned watching the Jan Ontario vids of the FAA with AMA?



c) "pretty simple belong to a ncbo cbo or fly by the seat of your pants and answer to FAA your choice"
Well, maybe if you are part of the Elective Amnesia group,
and have suddenly lost understanding of what the senate said a year ago,
and choose now to create you own knowledge of fact that "operating Within' requires membership when the congress says it (but not when the senate says it).

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Is this one requirement, or two?

If (as the use of the word "and" suggests) there are two requirements, do both requirements mean exactly the same thing? And, if so, why did Congress say the same thing twice?

It is possible that the whole business after the "and" is meaningless, and that there will be only one requirement: following AMA guidelines (or that of some other CBO, if one appears). But don't count on it.

KidEpoxy

I dont see any Infamous Comma in there.

You know that trick, right? Where the government puts up two separate sentences, and then folks combine the two as to make the first a condition for the second. Like combining Fly Below 400' and Contact Airports Within 3Mile... using the Infamous Comma we get Fly Below 400, and contact Airports Within 3mile ... which AMA members are happy to say we only have to fly 400' when within 3miles of an airport.

Seems we have no problem combining two separate sentances into a conditional 1 sentence
when it benefits us.


its not congress saying the same thing twice,
its the government saying the same thing over and over and over
from the ARC, to the Senate, to teh FAA in ontario, to congress,
Operating Within has been what we have been hearing (and understanding) for years.
It is the SAME TEXT without a comma that we saw and understood from the senate,
why do folks lose understanding just because congress repeats it.

Do you really want me to search out your old posts for the past few years
to see if you understood it back then and post quotes of you that I find?
Did you defend the AMA by saying anyone can use the Standards
that AMA isnt evilly trying to force membership with AMA's Lobbyist's amendment?
I know a lot of defenders of the AMA did say that, were you one? Should I go look at last years posts?


Why would AMA want to charge nonmembers that use AMA' cbo Standards to meet FAA's cbo exclusion,
if the AMA didnt know and understand that nonmembers will be able to use them to get same treatment as members?
That was with January FAA,
almost a year after the senate said Operating Within,
and years after arc Operating Within.
Operating Within hasnt changed. What changed is the angle AMA is trying to play... an angle that will result in less freedom for the hobby yet only the same freedom for AMA.



Its the same Operating Within we have seen for years.
If you got marching orders to become stupid on command,
to suddenly chant We No Longer Know What Those Words Mean to get a more restrictive text
... I would question those orders if I were you.

KidEpoxy

Folks

Are you good AMA members that sent a letter to your legislators in AMA's letter drive?
Did you get a response back?
If you dont know what your congressman/senator meant when he voted for it, ASK HIM.
The US Legislature passed that bill with them words, write your reps again and ASK THEM what they meant. I know you guys will act like you are super smart, and ask them
Hey, when you said Operating Within a CBO you meant just members right?
just to let them give the easy politicians answer that appears to agree with a voter regardless of the truth.

yeah
dont do that

Ask them this very simple question in another letter,

I bet when you ask the government if it
will let only folks that pay a private organization to be allowed to break the law others have to obey,
I bet they answer will be No.

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Another question, of course, is whether it's worthwhile to bother with long posts from someone who won't even answer a simple question like "one requirement or two?" and rants about commas and old posts instead. (If anyone cares, which I doubt, I never posted on this matter before the legislation was passed.)

Asking your Congressman what he had in mind when voting on this would be silly. Very few members of Congress (and often none of them) read the bills they vote on. The bills are drafted by staffers, and it has been estimated that the amount of time a legislator gives to each bill is about four or five minutes. That's not long enough to find the language of the bill, let alone read it. What matters is what the words mean and what the people who will draft the regulations decide to make of those words. What went on in the heads of a Congressman and what somebody said in posts here back in January doesn't count. Anyway, my congresscritter voted "no."

K-Bob

My Feedback: (1)

For those who don't care to read all 30 pages .......................

Summary:

The house and senate passed the bill and the prez. signed it.

Yay for us.

Additional 29 pages of Blah, blah, blah.

RTK

My Feedback: (1)

LOL

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

Look at the bright side of this thread. Somewhere there is a flying field being spared a bad case of logorrhea.[8D]

KidEpoxy

TG
I was only pointing out how it dont matter if some government thing is 1 or 2 items when the AMA is involved,
as we have seen with the Infamous 400' Comma.

You really bothered by not having my input?
Ok, I will post post post away to meet your need for me to post stuff for you.
No problemo.


1 or 2 requirements?
Congress had 5 requirements for its protection, obeying the Operating Within stuff is #2 of 5.
#2 is a requirement on HOW to operate models, that lists 2 policy sources that both("and") must be complied to.

(If I say you need a fire extinguisher that suppresses B and C fires,
that is not a requirement for 2 extinguishers,
nor is a requirement for a B fire extinguisher and a runway foam truck as a separate requirement,
nor is it a time for folks to suddenly claim not know what a fire extinguisher is)


This is nothing new, its old and older,
and trying to ruin the wide freedom congress gave modelers (by getting more restrictive wording)
is a vile thing to do.
Trying to feign ignorance, to get that restrictive wording while claiming innocence, is even worse.
Also vile is trying to charge nonmembers that use FAA accepted Alternate Standards.

KidEpoxy

no,
what matters is how the Court interprets those words,
when the FAA is taken to court for creating unlawful regulations/rules.
The FAA will claim they are just doing their job as congress has authorized them years/decades ago,
and the folks taking them to court will point out s336 where congress now prohibits such regs/rules.

Besides, if it is up to the reg writers as you say,
and that is the FAA,
and we heard (despite folks not wanting to admit it) the FAA in Jan say membership not required
.... wow, didnt you just say it was the reg writing FAA that matters?
And the reg writing FAA says membership not required.
Not any real lack of understanding to have on that, is there?

You say its up to the reg writers,
and the reg writers already say they dont require membership for Operating Within standards.
Which is GREAT for the hobby... why would anyone try to change that to end up Less Great for the hobby.

Rockin Robbins

Two things are clear.

Item #2 specifies two different requirements to be unregulated by the FAA. First, you have to operate in compliance with the rules of the non-specified (wink) community-based organization. AND secondly that operation must be "within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization." The first part is the part that the AMA is trumpeting. They are pointedly ignoring the second part. Why? The only way to fly "within the programming" of the AMA is to JOIN the AMA. Yes there are programs where a non-member can learn to fly before joining, but the instant they get the certificate and are no longer a learner, they must pay the piper to fly at an AMA field "within the programming."

So "within the programming of" means that we are all required to join the AMA in order to fly legally, not subject to FAA jurisdiction. The wording of the Congressional Conference Committee Report makes is very clear that the legislative intent is that only one organization can qualify. However, the law, which is a superior document to the Committee Report does not qualify the term nationwide community based organization. This is clearly intended to require AMA membership and to set up the AMA as a quasi-legal regulatory agency.

This is balanced by the fact that our little section 336 is a non-player in anything that dominates the thoughts of the legislators, regulators or courts relating to the larger importance of the FAA law. I doubt seriously if any congressperson, including the chairman of the committee, John Mica, knows the wording that requires AMA membership. If they did, they would say that in a certain state you are required to walk a hundred yards in front of an automobile swinging a lantern to avoid spooking livestock and we laugh at that too.

Nobody cares. The law can be construed, and probably should be construed that we all have to swarm to the AMA or be outlaws, but nobody cares. There will be no enforcement and business will continue as usual with no changes in our status. Ten years from now we'll all wonder what the fuss was about.

KidEpoxy

Robbins
Who started this whole Operating Within idea?
If you want to say FAA sUAS ARC years before the senate (and later congress) repeated it, you'd be right.

I guess a better question for ya is
For how many years has the FAA considered Operating Within not to mean membership required?

And the question nobody want to look at-
Even if congress wont protect non-members that Operate Within from the FAA,
why should nonmembers that Operate Within care,
given that the FAA says membership is not required to get the FAA Exclusion from faa regs for operation within Alternate CBO Standards?


Again, being a very nonlinear thread (PilotFighter) that has to keep circling back:
The requirements laid out by congress in 336
are to receive congress' protection from the faa-
there is no other effect gained or lost by complying / failing to comply with congress' requirements in 336.

Further,
had you read congress definition of what they consider CBOs to be,
you wouldnt be of the notion that only AMA can be a cbo.
It is a very very permissive text, whether AMA members like it or not, that affords folks great ease in declaring themselves to be one of the CBOs. But again, is this going to be yet another very very permissive text that someone (ama maybe????) is going to rattle cages until the text ends up less permissive? You already speak like the text has been changed into something less permissive, where is that going to be coming from?

Rockin Robbins

Au Contraire! The meaning is quite restricted and you are purposely omitting words in the law in order to try to bend the meaning.

First of all "and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization." is brand new language to this law. There are no years of considering it to mean something else to consider. The FAA has no power to do anything contrary to the law. The superior document in all considerations of the FAA law is the text of the law as just passed by Congress and signed by the President. Nothing that the AMA or FAA or any other construction of alphabet soup can say will change the law. The law will change IT. That's just how it works.

I have read the Congressional Conference Committee's report and it is not permissive or "very permissive" or even lending itself to doubt. Here's your link to the entire law and the Congressional Conference Committee Report so everyone can check our accuracy. I have nothing to fear from that. You however..... [link]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt381/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt381.pdf[/link]
Our tiny section of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 is found on page 68 of 287 total pages including the Congressional Committee Report. We are a pimple on the face of a giant! Here's the relevant part of the Conference Committee's comments (these comments do not have the force of law):
Let's leave it up to a vote! All in favor of KidEpoxy's statement that this constitutes a "very very permissive text" raise your hand......anybody? Not one? In fact this is so restrictive that it can only mean one organization in the world. It is restricted to the United States, it lays a laundry list of qualifications that we could not hope to meet if we purposely got together to form a new qualifying organization! It IS the AMA and none other need apply.

And leaving out words when the complete phrase is "within the programming of," not "operating within" as you say. You can't disagree with something when you change the wording to suit your purposes. We are parsing the law, not your preconceptions. I completely agree with you that before this law was passed there was no requirement to join the AMA. With the passage of the law, it is required. Now we have to find out whether that will be enforced.

I believe that the congresspeople did not know that the law would require AMA membership and that item two of section 336 was written by the AMA and congressional aides. I believe it was the AMA's idea to require membership in order to fly legally outside the supervision of the FAA. I believe that is the reason they are very loud about the first requirement of item 2: "(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines" and completely reserving comment on the equally necessary second part, "and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;" Generally you don't hide something unless you believe people would think badly of you if they knew about it. As I said above, the only way to fly "within the programming" of the AMA is to JOIN the AMA. You cannot fly in any of their events without membership. The only exception to that is their student pilot program where they will permit you to learn to fly at an AMA field with an AMA instructor. Once you learn to fly, you must join to continue flying there.

This logic (that the law requires AMA membership) is inescapable to anyone speaking the English language and who reads the law and the Congressional Conference Committee Report. Will it be unmistakable to those who will administer the law?

No, I don't believe it will. They will willingly or unwillingly ignore this portion of the law because it makes no sense whatever! How are they going to set up the AMA, a private sanctioning organization, as a quasi-legal regulatory agency? Is any other private organization so empowered? Wouldn't there be issues of control in letting that kind of power get into non-governmental hands? Of course there would! Regulators would absolutely hate that.

In view of that there are two governmental options: ignore the requirement or completely take over the AMA as a government agency. Although I believe the AMA did wish to require all RC pilots to join, I don't believe they thought the process out to its logical conclusion. That conclusion is that enforcing that requirement also means the end of the AMA as the people in charge of it now know it. It would mean their entire replacement. All that would be left would be the name and we would have a completely new organization. It would have very little interest in doing the things that the AMA does really well, sanctioning meets and contests that give exposure and credit to the leaders in aeromodeling. It would be like expecting the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to sponsor the Daytona 500. Wouldn't happen.

So I believe that having a lot more larger fish to fry, the FAA will simply overlook item 2 of section 336 and we'll all have a Merry Christmas.

KidEpoxy

Firstly,
Careful, you are shooting holes in folks defending the AMA
from claims that the AMA's lobbyist got AMA a law that makes membership required to fly (grounding non-members)... something the good and faithful members deny. Its a very Anti-AMA position you front there, and folks on the internet dont like AMA haters that say the stuff you say. Not that I would say you hate the AMA just cause you want to be honest in your posts even if it dont make the AMA look good... not me, but others might and do all the time

..

Brand new?
so you are trying to tell us the Senate didnt use that language a year ago?
NOT NEW
Also, where do you think the AMA lobbyist got the Operating Within junk anyway?
Just a rehash of the ARC saying it.

"Modelers not participating in the additional safety programming established in an accepted set of standards
shall comply with the requirements of Section 3."

and what does the ARC call the the CBO safety stuff and policies to follow ?
ARC 2.2
wow, 'programming' that is just policy to operate under,
kinda like I've been saying,
and its NOT NEW.
What gets called 'programming'? The overweight policy operators have to comply with. If I hand a non-member a packet of CBO Guidelines and Programming, and that pilot flys without violating any of those things in the packet, then that non-member is indeed OPERATING WITHIN the programming and guidelines, aint he

Did we go over this YEARS AGO?
yes, yes we did
because its not new

The only thing new,
might be the AMA (by a lobbyist) trying real hard to get non-members grounded by law,
which folks (not you of course) claim innocence of and come up with denials to.
You of course are above needing to defend the AMA from accusations and allusions (like these coming from you)
that whats new is AMAs lobbyist got the law to require AMA membership to fly what nonmembers can freely fly now... AMA is shutting down non-member flying.

Ask CJ (Cletus) about that stuff,
since when we just went over this earlier he was taking lead on it












not permissive?
Pfffft, any clowns can say they do that,
and its not like there is any approval or certification congress is demanding for its membering and representing.

Oh, dont worry, those 'any clowns' have a ruleset and its VERY comprehensive,
and its not like there is any approval or certification congress is demanding for its comprehensivocity.

again, the clowns can set up a nice web page and make a couple calls to schoos
"establishing the extended availability for educational events", to take care of that,
since its not like there is any approval or certification congress is demanding for just WHAT you do with schools & others.

Yup, Joe is the liaison officer. He is the one that placed a couple calls to the feds, and he left his number with them as Liason Officer,
again, its not like there is any mandated liaison actions that must be accomplished, othet than just having liaisoning existing



but, as FighterPilot noticed about the discussion a while back,
this was ALL gone over before in this circling thread,
in regards to my old bowling team declaring themselves an Aeromodeling CBO.
Yeah, about 600 posts ago we went over just how permissive it is

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

Welcome to the funhouse, RR. I hope you're right about the FAA ignoring us.

One possible way for the FAA to write reg's that don't require all modelers to join the AMA to avoid harsh regulations would be to say that following the AMA safety code would ordinarily suffice, but that, when you're doing riskier things like flying turbines or over-55-pound models, you must have AMA permission, which would require AMA membership. This would keep most of us, including non-AMA-members, free to do what we've been doing while imposing some controls on modeling activities that do pose extra risks. This would give the "within the programming of" language meaning and would even make some sense. Not that I'd bet the farm on it happening. These are two areas in which the AMA takes an active role in safety, beyond just having a set of rules.

KidEpoxy

first,
dont try to say it is not going make all modelers join the AMA,
because what you propose would make all turbine modelers join or quit flying their discipline.
As I pointed out earlier,
Being just a little oppressed (by the AMA via the government)
is still being oppressed (by the AMA via the government)

why would folks say its the AMA doing it?
Cause there YOU are, an AMA member happy as a clam to ground nonmembers
by proposing entire disciplines of modeling lose the freedom to fly without paying your group for that freedom.
We all have that freedom now, but you the AMA member propose taking that freedom away from just them.
Can I start calling you Mr Ambassador,
since you are good at showing the world AMA members true colors?
(but this is really Cletus' line of discussion, not my area)


secondly,
No, what you typed would make LESS sense.
Your proposal would render congress' Operating Within to be utterly worthless.
FAA has made it clear time and time again that their Rule will be a "Default Path" and allow Alternate Standards,
and that folks wont have to be a member to use any FAA Accepted set of Alternate CBO Standards.
So, no, if FAA rules "No Turbines in the Default Path",
and accepts sets of standards from CBOs that have turbines ('sets', as in faa does not say there can be only 1 cbo),
then FAA will allow nonmembers to use those standards. Which is why we saw AMA trying to figure how to charge nonmembers that use FAA Accepted Alternate Standards that we submit to the FAA (how many government manhours has FAA Sizemore logged in developing 'our' alternate standards??)

So, if you propose the FAA will have non-members in the draconian Default Path,
but allow AMA members to use Alternate Standards written by that CBO instead of the Default Path,
then what would your proposed CBO Member congress protection from FAA rules actually do?
The FAA rule will include CBO member protection already.

Makes no sense for you to say only members can get congress protection
from FAA rules that you propose grant only members protection from the other FAA rules.
(even though that january FAA video you disbelieve
says folks wont be required to be a member to use faa alternate standards that get accepted,
and even muncie sees that faa position as a reason to try to charge nonmembers that do just that)

seems we just went over this-

Top_Gunn

My Feedback: (6)

I give up. You can't outsmart crazy.

KidEpoxy

thats right, ama members cant outsmart congress



remember this one you laid on us?
and what did I post to completely invalidate your text?

>>
Besides, if it is up to the reg writers as you say,
and that is the FAA,
and we heard (despite folks not wanting to admit it) the FAA in Jan say membership not required
.... wow, didnt you just say it was the reg writing FAA that matters?
And the reg writing FAA says membership not required.
Not any real lack of understanding to have on that, is there?

You say its up to the reg writers,
and the reg writers already say they dont require membership for Operating Within standards.
Which is GREAT for the hobby... why would anyone try to change that to end up Less Great for the hobby.

Sport_Pilot

There is no indication of that, actually this phrase is most often used for education as a program is a educational activity.  The AMA has educaton activity, so any education to the public of the AMA rules, and their use by other modelers would be "within the programming".

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pro...use-education/