cj_rumley

Kid,

I have felt since first seeing S223 that who is/can become a CBO will become a moot point. No agency of the US government is going to condone privatization of liberties of the citizens. Anything CBO members are allowed to do, anyone else can do - FAAhas recently affirmed that position. Now that congress has limited the FAA from regulating CBOmembers (with conditions), that same freedom from regulation will be extended all modelers. FAAdoesn't want to regulate models anyway; they aren't likely to be disappointed that congress has told them they can't. That leaves the best option for the Administrator is to do nothing..........hold to the status quo, as in Guidance 08-01. That's the baseline, doubtless with some emending to make it crystal clear to those that just don't get it that abiding by that guidance isn't optional.
Then what happens to the CBOs? Poof...........nothing for them to 'protect' us from.

CJ

Silent-AV8R

I suspect that the FAA will move forward with their intention to regulated models under the default path for those who choose not to participate in a CBO program. The Conference committee did have some notes, while not in the actual law, can still be used as a guidance about what is, and is not, a CBO.

But I cannot see any path for them to invoke this up front.

Sport_Pilot

I don't think that the FAA decides who is a CBO or not. Itwould be up to a judgeand onlyduring a lawsuit or criminal procecution.

Silent-AV8R

As I've noted above, the Congressional Conference Committee laid out what they think a CBO is. But there is no mechanism for conferring CBO status that I am aware of. As you say, it would likely end up in a court case after an incident when somebody was trying to claim they were operating under the "You and ME" CBO rules and an accident happened.

Sport_Pilot

Hmm, the CBO part is this.

Quote:

(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;

So where does it say that you have to be a member? It says you must follow their rules, so what part of that is privatization?

The only problem I see is if some other association come along and has no or bad rules. Does every rule from every CBO apply? Or or if you are a member of "The RC terrorist association!", their rules can apply instead?

cj_rumley

How 'bout if I use Silent's words "those who choose not to participate in a CBO program" instead of "members," Sport? As I said, I think any issues regarding "the CBO" or any other CBOwill become moot, as will any question regarding whether alternative standards of a CBO in FAA issued regulatory material represents privatization. Geeez, what will we have to argue over then..........

H5487

(Post deleted. What's the use? Nobody reads these posts anyway. All they want to do is argue.)

Harvey

corch

My Feedback: (1)

Passed the Senate.  On way to executive branch.  Maybe now we can focus on which members of what CBOs will get the signing pens....

Continue on arguing the minutiae...

Red Scholefield

My Feedback: (9)

Date: February 7, 2012
Contact: Chris Brooks, APR
765-287-1256, ext. 276
[email protected]

Senate joins House in passing FAA bill, exemption for aeromodeling


M U N C I E – The U.S. Senate late Monday joined the House in passing the first full FAA Reauthorization Bill in more than four years. In passing the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 both the House and Senate included a provision aimed at protecting model aviation from burdensome regulations. The President is expected to sign the bill into law.

llindsey1965

My Feedback: (-1)

you know it seems to me all this comes down to bashing the AMA , i don't understand why , at our club you don;t have to be a member to fly we enjoy having visitors , but you must have AMA insurance or you cannot fly!!!! wow it has came down to this!!!!! we had some come to our field last year wanted to fly but they did not belong to AMA they ranted and raved but our signs are posted everywhere YOU Must Have AMA Insurance To Fly and they still wanted to agrue , i passed it off as they probably couldn;t read or were to cheap to belong to AMA . AMA has helped make this hobby what it is today , just remember that !!!!! I proudlysay i belong to AMA and have since 1982 and will contuine to support that CBO which i refer to NCBO as they are the only qualified with their history and safety programs , lets get past this . This hobby is suppose to be fun not hate and full of drame and snide remarks ... join AMA that is the final line!!!!!!!!! I'm thru with this

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

I have a question....if anyone knows....with this legislation passing the Senate and going to Obama for signature, how does any of this affect the "NPRMCycle" for comments/change????

warbird_1

My Feedback: (61)

i believe you can "for the lack of better terms" sponsor a person that wants to get into flying without having to join before you give them an intro flight. but if the person feels he's entitled to fly at your field without having an AMA card then you did the right thing and insist that person join before they can enjoy the fruits of your clubs labor. i other words they sound like a freeloader.

c-130RCpilot

Only the FAA knows the real answer to when they'll release their proposed rules - NPRM. AMA is already on top of it. Read more at:http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx

Silent-AV8R

Not one little bit. In fact the legislation requires the FAA to do what it is doing with respect to sUAS/UAV. The major effect on us modelers is that it removes operation under a CBO program out of the hands of the FAA. The way it was going the FAA was going to have a default set of rules for models, along with the whole ream of rules for civil/public use sUAS that are the actual focus of the rule. Within those rules for models was the allowance for a CBO to develop an alternative operating standard which would be submitted to the FAA for review, comment, change and eventual (hopefully) acceptance for use as an alternative compliance path.

The law now says that the FAA must allow modelers/hobby users who meet the 5 conditions (ifs) in the law to operate under a CBO and the FAA has little to say about it. The FAA of course retains all enforcement ability if you cause an issue/incident/accident with a full size plane.

But the NPRM will move forward regardless of the passage of this bill. Keep in mind that we are only a tiny slice of that rule and the only thing this changes with regard to models is it removes the FAA from being able to pass judgement on our rules. Those who do not operate under a CBO will still have to comply with the default set of rules in the FAA's coming rules for sUAS.

llindsey1965

My Feedback: (-1)

warbird we offered to help , and let them be a guest but they stated we had no right to not let them fly , we weren;t trying to be rude just following rules and guidelines !!! thanks we enjoy introducing people to this wonderful hobby , after all that is the future of our hobby clubs and AMA

pilotchute

My Feedback: (29)

llindsey1965-
+1000.

Yes!

There are a certain predictable few that cannot wait to bash the AMA under any situation or pretext. This is NOT an AMA issue other than their running interference from the FAA.

llindsey1965

My Feedback: (-1)

i understand pc just get tired of the bashing  godspeed

50+AirYears

Why are so many people on this thread trying to imagine or invent problems? 91-57 has been around since 1981. Has anybody ever been stomped on for exceeding 400' altitude? Does anybody out there even know of anybody that has been? I haven't. Seems to me that as long as we operate in a reasonably safe manner, nothing negative is likely to happen. The FAA has in the past expressed satisfaction with us, and we have had an excellent safety record, even if about 20 years years ago a couple non-conformists did fly a plane into one of the Goodyear Blimps.
Why would we have any trouble with them if we don't screw up?

warbird_1

My Feedback: (61)

Well if you guys own the field then you had every right to say no. now if you were in a county park or public land then he may have had a point. but even then the county may require some form of insurance to use their land in that manner . if he acted like that then consider yourself lucky you found out what he was like before he joined your club.

warbird_1

My Feedback: (61)

i admit that i have given my Boomerang intro turbine nose bleeds ,but we fly out in the middle of nowhere and i always have a spotter .No one ever gave me a hard time for doing it but the rules are the rules.

warbird addict

http://republicans.transportation.ho...nf-Draft-2.pdf

KidEpoxy

50+
wow
its almost like you didnt know about the ama member that flew a model into the leading edge of a fullscale Bipe in colorado late 2010... especially considering the vidoes of the collision all over the web

Yes, we have a spotless safety record
(when you ignore the spots on the record)

Perhaps, before you brag about how we dont hit GA craft,
you should find out if its true or not,
because bragging about a fib dont make us look good

wallace.tharp

I think AV8R has a good grip on it. I retired from FAA after 21 years of "ATC" air traffic control. I was at the National Hadquartes several times. Before I went, as a representative to my fellow FAA supervisors for, sugested changes to FARs, working hours, policy, etc. I had the idea that the "head Shed" was filled with a bunch of climbers with little or no proctical aviation experience. So, what is it? In my opinion, a group of mostly hard working, very professional people who mostly try to do the best job they know how almost every work day. The ultralight craze was just going strong on my first visit and everyone was talking about it. Believe it or not, the average person in the HQ did not want anything to do with it. It was considered as nearly impossible to regulate and there seemed to be only one group of organized people that had any real picture of what needed to be done. So.... that's who they picked to starty making recomendations on how to procede. How does that confront us? The word was the head shed coud barley keep up with what it was charged with regulating and examining then and now, last thing they probably want is model airplane fun on official duty! The AMA does take good care of us. The insurance and programs are good. People spend untold time and their own money helping with our hobby and encouraging kids to get involved so it does not die. It's all good people!!! wally tharp

KidEpoxy

Silent
yup, I mentioned that... a vivid and livid mention of it too
and in court the 'You&Me" or C&CFP or whomever can just point to the block of congressional text
that notes exactly what congress intended to mean... its a dead giveaway when we read congress saying
"In this section the term "nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean a..."

All "Me&You"/C&CFP need to do is show that they do operate to do all the listed things in the intent,
such as providing archived copies of correspondence with the feds and schools,
including showing a few rules in a codex that obviously are 'comprehensive'.... they clearly have a score of 14 kiloComperes (remember the Comprehensivometer?)

One could argue that "You&Me"/C&CFP cbos dont have rules comprehensive 'enough',
but what is 'enough'?
Cause one could also argue that AMA's member rules must not be comprehensive 'enough' when looks at the ColoradoCollision vid.


. . .


Perhaps AMA (& the members) should applaud and encourage more CBOs
to cover more parts of Aeromodeling than AMA is willing to handle,
instead of trying to prevent other cbos from starting up to do stuff AMA wont do.

If a guy wants to put on a giant plane show with models WAY past the AMA weight limit,
we should applaud his effort and encourage him to CBO-up with his own (comprehensive of course) weight rules.

JohnShe

[quote]ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy

50+
I saw a report on that, the guy broke a bunch safety rules. Member or not ,his behavior was irresponsible. When the rules are followed, the AMAhas an impressive safety record.