bradpaul

"Programming" not defined?????

As far as I know (perhaps some experts here can correct me) there are only two requirements from the AMA to it's membership.

1. Pay the appropriate dues
2. Follow the Safety Code

If as #1 has been speculated upon many times here, membership in the CBO cannot be a FAA requirement ("programming" is not required membership)

then that leaves #2 as the only possible "programming" that the FAA can require to be exempt under the "model airplane" exemption.

Could the FAA try to add additional "programming" requirements.............., sure that is what this thread is all about the FAA trying to do. All goes back to Section 336(a) of Public Law and the AMA rightly pushing back at this misinterpretation of what the FAA can do.

bradpaul

Could be much worse.................... lets say the FAA announces a "bounty" program and sets up a hot line offering 10% of any penalty to the person that turned in the "unsafe pilot".

Silent-AV8R

deleted

Silent-AV8R

They have the hotline, they just don't have the reward part (yet).

http://www.faa.gov/contact/safety_hotline/

Silent-AV8R

I think this is in large part their response to the Pirker case. I think they know they are going to lose their appeal so they decided to turn the FMRA inside out as a means to show everyone that they are the boss. In addition, they have precedent now to use Part 91 against model pilots. I have hear unconfirmed reports from 2 VERY reliable sources that the guy in NYC settled with the FAA for $200. FAA could not have cared less about the amount, they just wanted the "win" so they could demonstrate legal precedent to fine modelers under Part 91. The dots all connect.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

You must mean me...LOL

BTW was I the only one that perceived AMA's self serving agenda with their implied proclamation that it is by virtue of AMA's oversight the hobby has been such a safe, worthwhile activity...Seems a glorious theme song should be played along with the response letter...Star Spangled with fireworks and all...

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

If your sources hold true, you are indeed correct...It is and always has been about power and control.

DocYates

My Feedback: (102)

Because they are the FAAA, and they are not happy unless you aren't.
Been dealing with them since 2001 and nothing changes. There is no consistentcy from region to region. Some are helpful, some are not. they pick and choose the rules they want to enforce, and they don't mind dragging you into a legal argument. It is your moneythey are spending. This was all about control and they had to respond to actions of a few dimwits. They also know the potential loss of revenue to the commmercial side of aviation from drones, and they plan to tap that nugget before someone else figures out a way to license it. Mark my words, if you want to fly a drone for pay, you will pay someone for that opportunity. Big government at its best.
That being said, for the most part the rules seem to be reasonable with a few minor exceptions, but I think those might be able to be corrected. However, the distinction between hobbyist and commercial ventures will not change.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Hard to argue anything in that post...I think you nailed it.

cj_rumley

bradpaul,

I agree with you for the most part, and your post may lead to better understanding by others of what "programming" is, at least at this time per agreement reached by AMA and FAA.

- The AMA Safety Code is essentially the sum total of AMA's safety programming. No doubt there may be differing opinions about that, but it doesn't really matter because:

- AMA has agreed (ref AMA/FAA MOU) to make any safety related guidance available on it's website to its members and non-members as well.

That ends the speculation for me.

As for AMA rightly pushing back, to me they don't seem to have much of a case, at least re the FPV issue which appears to be the most onerous. The LOS restriction in the bill the FAA has interpreted is practically verbatim from the AMA SC, and FAA's interpretation is exactly what was intended by AMA when they wrote it into the SC and lobbied Congress for. AMA has since changed direction and decided to 'embrace' FPV (with conditions), but that change was not reflected in what Congress considered and voted to accept, and so became their direction to FAA. Will FAA ignore that direction at the behest of AMA? Fat chance.

AMA ignored the admonition "be careful what you wish for."

cj

bradpaul

From what I read on other forums, the battle will be over the definition of Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) and "operator". It seems that that is the kind of thing that the lawyers get paid the big bucks for.
If you fly with a spotter who maintains VLOS there is a opinion that the team of pilot and spotter is the "operator" and has VLOS. Just as the pilot and copilot share responsibilities for the safe operation of an full scale aircraft.

Well that is the theory ................................and is consistent with the AMA 550 on FPV operations. What the AMA should do for clarity is define the team of FPV Pilot and FPV Spotter as the "operator" for compliance with VLOS.FPV flying.

That would make the definition within the "programming" of the CBO and limit the FAA's ability to thwart the intent of Congress.

ira d

The fact that the safety code has changed since congress voted should not matter because things like safety codes tend to consistently change.

As long as the safety code does not allow something that can be proven to dangerously impact full scale operation the FAA should be fine with
the safety code.

Sport_Pilot

I thought it was clear that outside of the airports that there is no actual maximum altitude and that the law so states. Only advice. Most of the aerobatic contests could not be held if done under 400 feet as the box is more than 1000 feet high. And sailplane competition goes higher still.

Sport_Pilot

The courts have stated that model airplanes are not regulated under part 91. The fact that some people did not sue does not make a prescedent, judges will not even consider that. But a court ruling does make president. The fact that fines are so small does say that they do not think they would win in court, however.

JohnShe

Actually my phone has local law enforcement on speed dial. But, according to the special rule, the FAA will only deal with those offenders who violate the commercial rules or who ignore the CBO rules and create a hazard. And, you are right, there are an incredible number of idiots, miscreants, sociopaths and other demented souls who will ignore all safety rules so I guess the FAA will replace the IRS as the nations tax collector and pay off our nations indebtedness.

cj_rumley

I'm not going argue against your sensible rationale for the way things are/should be ira, except that it does and IMHO should matter that congress voted on what should be done, influenced by what one of their members advised should be done, and their decision became a mandate to FAA. FAA is answerable to congress, and the subject of this thread is their response to congress of their understanding of what they have been ordered to do. The whole process started with AMA EC deciding among themselves what they wanted, progressed to hiring a lobbyist to gain support of a congressman who coaxed it through congressional committee(s) and ultimately got it incorporated into an FAA funding bill that was passed and so became public law. FAA is not at liberty to change that law because AMA EC has changed what they wanted and they are GOB's with FAA. There are well established means for changing laws just as there are for instituting them in the first place, and the path is similar. There is lot of finger pointing at FAA going on over this, but I don't see them as the bad guys with motives attributed to them as stated by AMA in their crude response to FAA's interpretation in a press release (that most others are cheering them on for saying). There are significant differences between how a government agency like FAA is managed when compared to how AMA is run. For one, FAA administrator answers to congress and in that presumably to the people, while AMA EC is beholden to nobody.

cj

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

Another piece of this, as I have mentioned in other threads, is that the FAA is charged and authorized with defining how the NAS will be utilized. They don't need to define a model aircraft, a rocket, or a turkey. All they need do is define (as I believe they have in their interpretation) that it will not be permitted for model aircraft to operate beyond visual line of sight.
Personally, I think that is the "club" that the FAA has that the AMA (or nobody else) has the ability to leverage.

acdii

If as you say its to prevent flight beyond VLOS, then I agree, but aren't drones also considered a "model" aircraft and doesn't that mean the military can't fly them in NAS? What defines a "model" aircraft?

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

The definitions are repeated in the Interpretive Rule document, pretty much as the AMA gave them to the FAA (or whomever did that). At any rate, the FAA didn't invent the definition, but relied on others for that.

ira d

I agree with you, We are saying the same thing. What I mean is the FAA should follow the law even if they don't agree with the safety code or feel it has changed since the law passed.

ira d

As far as flying beyond line sight I agree for the most point however if you out in the desert with no one else around I think it could be ok. As far flying with goggles at a rc flying site and with
a spotter I don't see anything wrong with that.

CRye

My Feedback: (15)

Also of interest, many of our fields are on private property. FAA inspectors who do not have the property owner, tenants, permission are trespassing:

VOLUME 1 GENERAL INSPECTOR GUIDANCE AND INFORMATION
CHAPTER 3 INSPECTOR RESPONSIBILITIES, ADMINISTRATION, ETHICS AND CONDUCT
Section 3 Access to Public and Private Airports, Landing Strips, and Other Areas Used for Operation of Aircraft
1-196. Background. Aviation safety inspectors (ASI) are issued credentials allowing them access to areas used for the operation of aircraft. The credential is Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 110A, aviation safety inspector’s credential, which entitles an ASI to uninterrupted access to any United States-registered aircraft pilot compartment (refer to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121 , § 121.548 and part 135, § 135.75). During inspections exceeding 24 hours, ASIs outside their assigned area will coordinate with the affected airport for the issuance of a local ID card, where applicable. FAA Order 8000.38, aviation safety inspector credential program, current edition, provides policy and guidance on this subject. Aviation safety inspector credential program, current edition, provides policy and guidance on this subject.
1-197. DEFINITIONS.
A. Private Airport. Any private property used for the operation of aircraft by the owner or other persons at the invitation or cognizance of the owner.
B. Public Airport. Any airport in which the management offers to the public any type of aircraft sales and/or services for compensation.
1-198. ACCESS TO PRIVATE AIRPORTS, LANDING STRIPS, AND OTHER AREAS. ASIs must advise the owner or agent of a private facility of their desire to enter the premises and the purpose of the visit . An ASI has no authority to enter private property without the owner’s permission. As a courtesy, the owner or agent should be invited to accompany the ASI, as this gesture may encourage further cooperation. If the owner or agent is unable to accompany the ASI, the ASI should request permission for access to aircraft for the stated purposes. However, FAA Form 110A authorizes ASIs to be in a restricted area without escort while conducting official FAA inspections.

1-199. ACCESS TO PUBLIC AIRPORTS. The ASI should give airport management/security sufficient notice of the visit. If the occasion warrants, airport management may be invited to accompany the ASI.
1-200. DENIAL OF ACCESS. ASIs must consider that entry onto the property of another without authority or permission may be construed as trespassing, regardless of intent. It is rare that an ASI is denied access for the purpose of conducting official duties; however, such a case should be referred to the appropriate supervisory authority.

Perhaps we need specific signs at the entry directing and ASI to the person to contact and advising otherwise you are tresspassing.

Charles
Bartlett (Memphis) TN

ira d

I doubt many property owners or clubs will want to deny the FAA entry also I think most of time that the FAA will get involved will be if someone calls them.

PLANE JIM

My Feedback: (109)

So the AMA found out the FAA is not your friend. Tried to warn them-but Muncie would not listen-LEAVE THE UAV'S and anything else being flown out of LOS alone on their own!!!!

Bob Pastorello

My Feedback: (198)

And...considering that local law enforcement would likely accompany said FAA agent, it's even more unlikely access would be denied.

____


The "trick" to this mess is to simply "not poke the bear" (FAA) and follow the rules provided.