Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
FAA Sued In Federal Court Over Drone Registration Rules >

FAA Sued In Federal Court Over Drone Registration Rules

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

FAA Sued In Federal Court Over Drone Registration Rules

Old 01-09-2016, 02:23 PM
  #226  
My Feedback: (54)
 
RCFlyerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SWFL
Posts: 2,008
Received 71 Likes on 52 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
I wonder if the AMA's position is really a fact can the FAA force someone to join the AMA in order to fly certain types of models?
If the FAA can, I am moving to Costa Rica!! Near a jet field, of course!! This would be like the FAA making Corporate and 135 Aviation Departments to join the NBAA(National Business Aircraft Association).

Last edited by RCFlyerDan; 01-09-2016 at 02:26 PM.
Old 01-09-2016, 02:29 PM
  #227  
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
I wonder if the AMA's position is really a fact can the FAA force someone to join the AMA in order to fly certain types of models?
Where did you get that idea from, that the FAA can force someone to join the AMA to fly a certain kind of aircraft? Nobody has to join them, it's a choice. If I'm not mistaken the F-16 dude flies giant scale and turbines and doesn't belong to the AMA, at least that's what I think he said.
Old 01-09-2016, 02:46 PM
  #228  
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by RCFlyerDan
If the FAA can, I am moving to Costa Rica!! Near a jet field, of course!! This would be like the FAA making Corporate and 135 Aviation Departments to join the NBAA(National Business Aircraft Association).
No the first time. I think you have to join the USUA to certify your ultralight. Not sure. But they maintain the certification rules.
Old 01-09-2016, 02:47 PM
  #229  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
I wonder if the AMA's position is really a fact can the FAA force someone to join the AMA in order to fly certain types of models?
They have said they cannot, even to the extent of recognizing AMA (or any of the myriad of other wannabes..) as a CBO. In the extremely hypothetical case where some madman in authority in or over FAA said they will force someone to join the AMA, it would last only as long as it takes for one individual to take the matter before a federal court. It is in brief, un-American. In the real world, AMA decision makers that put their eggs in this basket is where you'll find the madness.
Old 01-09-2016, 03:28 PM
  #230  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
I wonder if the AMA's position is really a fact can the FAA force someone to join the AMA in order to fly certain types of models?
if you fly I would think you would want to belong to AMA , with their safety record and insurance for peace of mind if you hit someone or something with these large birds a lot of damage will occur great group of guys , I think we have around 140k members , I enjoy flying at AMA fields , our club meetings events fellowship with the guys , and I believe if this registeration stands then yes the FAA will force you to be a AMA member and vice versa , our IMAC events are great fun and you must be a member of AMA and IMAC to fly no membership you don't fly ,that's the way it is at AMA sanctioned fields , I have belonged to AMA since 1984
Old 01-09-2016, 04:32 PM
  #231  
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by jmiles1941
if you fly I would think you would want to belong to AMA , with their safety record and insurance for peace of mind if you hit someone or something with these large birds a lot of damage will occur great group of guys , I think we have around 140k members , I enjoy flying at AMA fields , our club meetings events fellowship with the guys , and I believe if this registeration stands then yes the FAA will force you to be a AMA member and vice versa , our IMAC events are great fun and you must be a member of AMA and IMAC to fly no membership you don't fly ,that's the way it is at AMA sanctioned fields , I have belonged to AMA since 1984
I'm a believer in what the AMA has done in the past and continues to do on behalf of it's members, as well as what they have to offer us, for me it goes way beyond the insurance, even as secondary level of insurance protection. The fact that no other group in 80 years has even come close to matching what they have to offer I think is testament to their value, and staying power. That being said, I don't think one has to join them to enjoy flying or being in the hobby. AMA stats as of the end of last year show about 185,000 members, and I believe of that number about 30,000 are youth. It always has been and I hope will continue to be a group that one will join because they want to, not because the federal government says they have to. That would bother me, and I think breed ever more discontent with the org than you see now. I'm not aware of any other privately run non profit org that the govt forces someone to belong to in order to enjoy a hobby, but I may be wrong. I also might be wrong in noting that there might be more people out there flying RC or just enjoying RC than there are members of the AMA. I don't think one has anything to do with the other.

I think the reg will absolutely stand, but I have a sinking feeling our every need and request will not be met with the response we want, not because our leadership is ineffective, but because this whole issue is far outside of our doing. I don't think any organization involved in this matter had gotten what they wanted yet, and some of those groups are far more persuasive and able to affect change than the AMA is. It's virtually impossible for anyone to change something a govt agency is intent on doing.
Old 01-09-2016, 04:37 PM
  #232  
My Feedback: (54)
 
RCFlyerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SWFL
Posts: 2,008
Received 71 Likes on 52 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
No the first time. I think you have to join the USUA to certify your ultralight. Not sure. But they maintain the certification rules.
Ultra Light? Maybe wrong forum? I am just joking of moving to Costa Rica, IF the FAA can FORCE someone to join AMA.
Old 01-09-2016, 08:02 PM
  #233  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
Where did you get that idea from, that the FAA can force someone to join the AMA to fly a certain kind of aircraft? Nobody has to join them, it's a choice. If I'm not mistaken the F-16 dude flies giant scale and turbines and doesn't belong to the AMA, at least that's what I think he said.
Last week I forwarded this to AMA: "Is AMA membership required to meet the provisions of PL112-95(a)(2)?" To which the responded "As for the safety guideline, there are specific bullet points that require an AMA membership to comply such as flying with jets or giant scale. For most basic day-to-day flying, you can abide by most of the safety guideline without being an AMA member."

I got the idea from franklins post quoted above.
Old 01-10-2016, 08:38 AM
  #234  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
I wonder if the AMA's position is really a fact can the FAA force someone to join the AMA in order to fly certain types of models?
Short answer? Yes - if you want to fly aircraft under PL112-95 Section 336 (a)(3) - model aircraft >55 lbs.

That section states: "(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization [emphasis added]"

Last week I submitted a question to the AMA and asked "Will AMA certify non-AMA member aircraft under the provision of PL112-95 section 336 (a)(3)? They responded "The AMA will only certify AMA member aircraft."

So, if you want to fly something greater than 55lbs, although the law does not require membership, AMA is using it to require membership.

Last edited by franklin_m; 01-10-2016 at 12:44 PM. Reason: It's actually "a" vice "b" subpara
Old 01-10-2016, 08:40 AM
  #235  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
No the first time. I think you have to join the USUA to certify your ultralight. Not sure. But they maintain the certification rules.
Cite sources. I think you'll find it's not true.


Here's the section on registration...right from USUA's own website. Says NOTHING about requiring membership

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

Section 103.7 Certification and registration
The intent of the FAA is to provide for safety in the national airspace with a minimum amount of regulation. Accordingly, those vehicles which meet the definition of "ultralight vehicle"' will be exempt from FAA certification and registration requirements. Similarly, pilots of ultralight vehicles, as defined in this Part, will not be required to possess FAA pilot certificates or airman medical certificates.


While this rule does not, at this time, require airman/aircraft certification or vehicle registration and is premised on the absolute minimum regulation necessary to ensure safety in the public interest, a continuation of burgeoning growth of the ultralight population could necessitate further regulation. The best practices and methods to preclude the need for further Federal regulation appear to at least include: self-regulation and self-policing, safety standards, membership in organizations and associations equipped to function and operate programs approved by the FAA, markings and identification of vehicles, programs including provisions similar to Federal Aviation Regulations relating to aircraft (both operation and airworthiness), etc.


FAA will continue to monitor performance of the ultralight community in terms of safety statistics, growth trends and maturity and, if indicated, will take additional regulatory actions to preclude degradation of safety to the general public while allowing maximum freedom for ultralight operations. In summary, it should be emphasized that the individual ultralight operator's support and compliance with national self-regulation programs is essential to the FAA's continued policy of allowing industry self regulation in these areas.

Last edited by franklin_m; 01-10-2016 at 08:47 AM.
Old 01-10-2016, 08:43 AM
  #236  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
Where did you get that idea from, that the FAA can force someone to join the AMA to fly a certain kind of aircraft? Nobody has to join them, it's a choice. If I'm not mistaken the F-16 dude flies giant scale and turbines and doesn't belong to the AMA, at least that's what I think he said.
I asked AMA directly if they require membership to certify aircraft greater than 55lbs [required to be compliant with PL112-95 section 336 (a)(3)]. To which they responded that "the AMA will only certify AMA member aircraft." So, in effect, yes, AMA is using the law to force people to join in order to fly (legally) certain types of aircraft.
Old 01-10-2016, 10:47 AM
  #237  
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
I asked AMA directly if they require membership to certify aircraft greater than 55lbs [required to be compliant with PL112-95 section 336 (a)(3)]. To which they responded that "the AMA will only certify AMA member aircraft." So, in effect, yes, AMA is using the law to force people to join in order to fly (legally) certain types of aircraft.
At AMA chartered fields or events I would probably agree...but not such thing is needed if one flies at private fields etc.
Old 01-10-2016, 10:56 AM
  #238  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
At AMA chartered fields or events I would probably agree...but not such thing is needed if one flies at private fields etc.
Law doesn't say that though. For it to be considered a "model aircraft" under 336, and exempt from FAA rule making (all of them), then if over 55lbs it has to be certified through a CBO. And AMA is saying they won't do that unless you're a member.
Old 01-10-2016, 11:42 AM
  #239  
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Can we hear from any rouge pilots flying over 55lb planes without being certified? Gotta be one or two out there no?
Old 01-10-2016, 11:51 AM
  #240  
Member
 
jelge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Before too many people get too many people arguing over whether or not the FAA can or can't make someone join a certain group consider this....The federal government cannot compel a person to pay for a commercial product BUT, if you breath, you now either buy health insurance or you pay a penalty. There has been a push to force gun owners to buy insurance to cover what a thief may do with the gun should it be stolen. There have been cases where the courts upheld guidelines as law when liability was being examined. Please do not think it cannot happen in this venue. Everyone's rights are being attacked on all fronts.
Old 01-10-2016, 12:38 PM
  #241  
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

My point isn't to argue whether the feds can or cannot, what they say in the law is that for something above >=55lbs to be considered a "model aircraft" under the law, then it must meed the requirements of PL112-95 section 336 (a)(3), and be certified by a CBO. Now, AMA has said they will not certify non-member aircraft. So unless and until we have more than one CBO, then you have to be a member of AMA to legally fly them. That's why I disagree with that language in the law as written and think it should be changed in the next transportation bill.

Not to say you can't, so long as not at an AMA field (or one that doesn't enforce), but if you do then you're operating outside the law.
Old 01-10-2016, 04:02 PM
  #242  
My Feedback: (9)
 
Old RC Aviator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broaddus TX
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I guess most older modelers have forgotten about the FCC license we used to have to have for our radio equipment back in the day like 60s and 70s. Never stopped us from flying. I still have mine laminated in my picture album of all the planes I crashed while learning to fly RC. I don't agree with the 400' rule. That's the FAA trying to keep a 100' buffer between piloted aircraft at 500'AGL and us poor schmukes at 400'. Besides this was put together so hastily and so haphazard there's bound to be amendments coming by the tons once the FAA gets it's head out of it's arss. As for the AMA changing anything? They have no real pull to do anything but make it so you have to have their number to fly at a sanctioned event. So guys quite sniping at each other and play nice. It will all work out.
Old 01-11-2016, 06:46 AM
  #243  
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,868
Received 77 Likes on 68 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83
Can we hear from any rouge pilots flying over 55lb planes without being certified? Gotta be one or two out there no?
If they aren't certifed these rogue pilots will find a big fine waiting for them.

Note, the FAA does not require that a person join the AMA. The AMA has made that a requirement to cerfify bigger planes. It's not the FAA's problem that no one has stepped forward to create their own big, turbine jet CBO.
Old 01-11-2016, 06:49 AM
  #244  
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,868
Received 77 Likes on 68 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Old RC Aviator
I guess most older modelers have forgotten about the FCC license we used to have to have for our radio equipment back in the day like 60s and 70s. Never stopped us from flying. I still have mine laminated in my picture album of all the planes I crashed while learning to fly RC. I don't agree with the 400' rule. That's the FAA trying to keep a 100' buffer between piloted aircraft at 500'AGL and us poor schmukes at 400'. Besides this was put together so hastily and so haphazard there's bound to be amendments coming by the tons once the FAA gets it's head out of it's arss. As for the AMA changing anything? They have no real pull to do anything but make it so you have to have their number to fly at a sanctioned event. So guys quite sniping at each other and play nice. It will all work out.
Actually the 400 ft limit is there to allow commerical drones to operate between 400 ft and 500 ft.
Old 01-11-2016, 06:54 AM
  #245  
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by rgburrill
If they aren't certifed these rogue pilots will find a big fine waiting for them.

Note, the FAA does not require that a person join the AMA. The AMA has made that a requirement to cerfify bigger planes. It's not the FAA's problem that no one has stepped forward to create their own big, turbine jet CBO.
Great point...or for giant scale even....or for that matter an AMA competitor. Tell you what though...there is one group well on their way to creating their own CBO....and they don't fly fixed wing!

Originally Posted by rgburrill
Actually the 400 ft limit is there to allow commerical drones to operate between 400 ft and 500 ft.
Where/when has that been decided?
Old 01-11-2016, 07:13 AM
  #246  
 
rgburrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx CT
Posts: 2,868
Received 77 Likes on 68 Posts
Default

Deleted post.
Old 01-11-2016, 03:14 PM
  #247  
My Feedback: (209)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: right here
Posts: 867
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jelge
Before too many people get too many people arguing over whether or not the FAA can or can't make someone join a certain group consider this....The federal government cannot compel a person to pay for a commercial product BUT, if you breath, you now either buy health insurance or you pay a penalty. There has been a push to force gun owners to buy insurance to cover what a thief may do with the gun should it be stolen. There have been cases where the courts upheld guidelines as law when liability was being examined. Please do not think it cannot happen in this venue. Everyone's rights are being attacked on all fronts.

+1 Welcome to to Socialism.
Old 01-12-2016, 06:09 AM
  #248  
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by FLAPHappy
+1 Welcome to to Socialism.
Actually socialism is more economic. This is more authoritarian. As with communism, fascism, totalitarianism , etc.
Old 01-21-2016, 05:04 AM
  #249  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by VF84sluggo
^^^^^ Agree totally. I guess that's why I find it funny; the nail has been hit squarely on the head.

People doing nothing but pissing and moaning, pointing fingers, you hate the AMA, no I don't, I hate 'em more, I love 'em more, the FAA can't do that, the FAA can do that...yada yada yada. Good grief.

I paid my $5, could give a rat's ass if I get it back or not, got on another federal database (just a match on the big-brother lack of privacy modern American government intrusion bonfire) and have gone on my way with numbers on my planes and one more piece of paper in my fieldbox.

I'm over it.
I AM NOT.

LIBERTY DEMANDS CONSTANT VIGILANCE
now more than any other time in my life post "patriot Act" abuses of WeThePeople. The NSA can kiss my a** as they read this.
142088
Liberty has a flavor those that never defended it can NEVER know.
Liberty is not a table ante to enter the game it IS THE TABLE
"You gotta stand right up for somethin',
or you'll fall for anything!"
Semper Fidelis
PS. It is not about a measly 5 dollars to me.
Old 01-21-2016, 05:40 AM
  #250  
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by 142088
I AM NOT.

LIBERTY DEMANDS CONSTANT VIGILANCE
now more than any other time in my life post "patriot Act" abuses of WeThePeople. The NSA can kiss my a** as they read this.
142088
Liberty has a flavor those that never defended it can NEVER know.
Liberty is not a table ante to enter the game it IS THE TABLE
"You gotta stand right up for somethin',
or you'll fall for anything!"
Semper Fidelis
PS. It is not about a measly 5 dollars to me.
I think most people didn't care about the money either, it's the idea of paying for something that we should be able to do for free.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.