bradpaul

OK, bear with me, I may not explain this clearly.........................

I do not believe the AMA is going to self declare themselves as a NCBO for the purpose of SEC 336 (a) (2).

I suspect that the lawyers and insurance providers have said HELL NO.

If you set yourself up as a standard to meet an exemption you just made yourself potentially liable for actions of RC modelers following your "programming".............................AND that would be for anybody relying on the NCBO programming, AMA member or non member.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Maybe the AMA should just coin a new term and just distance themselves from the whole NCBO thingy...maybe the Department of Aviation Modeler's Nation....DAMN for short...

phlpsfrnk

Brad,
I think you are attributing more Malice Aforethought to them than I would give them credit for.

Frank

MajorTomski

On the CBO issue. Just some thoughts to ponder on how things have changed since the 80's Part 103 was created out of close cooperation and discussions with multiple ultra-light aircraft organizations. (CBOs if you will ) and it worked and it has held up to the test of time. Note that in the 80's the names and concerns of the contributing organizations were given credit and addressed.

http://www.usua.org/Rules/faa103.htm

Now the FAA is so convoluted in its thinking that's almost terrified to give any acknowledgment that it worked with the AMA and other organization on developing its current document. It's almost as if political correctness has frozen the organization into a point of inaction, and what action it does take only offends the few organizations that are cooperating with it to carry this UAV implementation into the NAS. Hurt the folks that would benefit most from common sense rulings.

Then the AMA itself is partly to blame. They write a lot of documents in a lot of different writing styles, that, as pointed out above have probably not been through an even meager legal review to see if the words they wrote actually carry the correct legal meaning for what they meant to say. And they really don't have the staff or time to review all of their documents for consistency and legal content.

So we get confusing poorly worded information from the source; fed to an agency which drafts legislation; that gets passed by congress and here we are arguing about it.
Just my two cents.

Safe weekend all..If you're near OKC come fly indoor free flight with us tomorrow.

Tom

Hossfly

GEE, Major Tom, you do make it difficult. I did well for some years in the late '60s to late .70s in outdoor FF. That Indoor Stuff was way beyond my abilities. Hope you have a ball.

cj_rumley

I didn't an see attribution to malice, but I don't speak for Brad. I would think the CBO mess such as it is is more likely due to a failure to consider the potential adverse consequences of their actions. That is repeatedly apparent throughout the whole scheme.