Sport_Pilot

But if there are more rogue flyers then there are more fines. They don't want to work for the fines, they just want more rouge flyers so more of them are caught without any hard work. Again an exaggeration (hyperbole not a lie).

H5487

But I can also see some paranoid legislators wanting to keep potential terrorists (and by that I mean foamie fliers ) contained within easier-to-monitor geographical locations (i.e. AMA flying fields) than simply spread in onesies and twosies all over the country. " Those dangerous balsa UAV rogue pilots will be the death of our country yet!" (Might be true about the 3D guys! )

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Oh you know it...those 3D dudes are baaaad news! All those fast topsy turvey flying and hovering! LOL !

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

meh, I'm hyperboled out! I'm going to take the self appointed conscience of the AMA threads advice and push away from the keyboard....but just for a minute, it's lunchtime!

H5487

Let me point out that fines that would benefit only the FAA would likely have just the support of the FAA, but fines that would benefit the general fund would likely get the full support (and muscle) of the federal government.

GSXR1000

My Feedback: (7)

No I haven't been able to speak to any of the officers directly to the facts of what really happened.

H5487

It's a well-acctepted fact among criminal psychologists that 3D flyers are timebombs waiting for The Signal from their home planet!

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Shhhh...I thought that was confidential info!

H5487

It's not that it's confidential. It's just that most of the unstable types tend to stay within the AMA Discussions forum of RCU.

ira d

IMO until the FAA or congress names a CBO in writing and also put in writing that you must join that CBO then we don’t have to join one. I also think if you don’t do anything to be noticed by
the FAA you will be fine, but to be on the safe side I would suggest to follow the AMA safety code especially as it pertains to flying over people and interaction with full scale planes.

Sport_Pilot

Congress doesn't have to do that. They have approved the AMA safety code.

ira d

The question was do all modelers have to join the AMA to keep the FAA off their back? There is nothing in writing that I know of from congress or the FAA to that effect.

Sport_Pilot

Well so far they are not on anyone's back.

rcmiket

No there isn't and I doubt it will ever come to that.

Mike

H5487

The way I understand it, the FAA is going to allow us (non-commercial UAV pilots) to "self-police ourselves" to abide by a set of operational and safety standards put together by a "community-based organization". AMA assumes that they'll be selected as the approved CBO and many, if not most, of us on RCU also imagine the same. However, until the FAA actually selects a CBO (or CBOs) and enters it into the federal register, their operational and safety standards are neither official nor enforceable. Therefore, you can bet that by the time the dust settles, the FAA will have officially designated the AMA (and/or other entities) as the official CBO(s) as referenced in this month's final ruling.

The question that I asked yesterday is whether the FAA is going to REQUIRE that we all join one of the approved CBOs* or that we simply get a copy of, and follow, their operational limitations and safety standards.

* I doubt that it would be legal for the FAA to require that all modelers join the AMA; which would be akin to requiring that all fishermen join a trout-fishing club. However, I can see the probability that we will be required to follow a set of universal standards, put together by leaders in the aeromodeling industry (undoubtedly including the AMA) and approved by the FAA. And if these aeromodel standards are managed like the full-scale FARs, we'll probably all be required to "have a copy in our possession while exercising our non-commercial UAV privileges". (Those of you who are full-scale pilots will recognize this wording.)

Harvey

franklin_m

I have found nothing from the FAA, DOT, or Congress that says you do.

franklin_m

I agree. I don't think the FAA will EVER mandate membership as a condition of compliance with any part of PL112-95 Section 336 / 14 CFR 101. To do so would be the legal equivalent of requiring membership in AOPA to fly part 61. AMA is trying to lead folks to believe that membership is required, but until I hear it from FAA, it's just wishful thinking on the AMA's part.

H5487

Upon reflection, let me restate how I think it'll probably all turn out...
The FAA won't likely select a single CBO to write the upcoming UAV operating and safety code due to the possibility of getting accused of collusion. It'll more than likely launch an NPRM to solicit inputs from the country's aeromodeling groups (with inputs from individuals as well) and from these inputs, the FAA will then write its own non-commercial UAV operating rules, to be incorporated into, and managed like, the FARs. The resulting regulations will then carry the full enforcement weight of the federal government.

Frankly, I can't imagine them wanting less!

Harvey

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Speaking of wishful thinking, if not outright deception, the AMA has done nothing of the kind. Where do you come with this stuff? I know that line of thinking goes into the ongoing narrative of AMA=Bad...but either put up here, or admit that your just fabricating something out of thin air.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I can imagine them wanting safe national airways, that would be the ultimate goal. That they would seek out counsel and advice from a variety of places I think is a good thing, now the trick will be to see it implemented. I agree that it's doubtful they will name a single CBO, although for all intents and purposes there really is only one, but more than likely there will be more and they don't want to have to go back and change language to accommodate that. Better to leave it open and broad.

H5487

Porcia,

Every editorial in every issue of Sport Aviation encourages continued "growth" of the AMA with the understanding that larger groups get more attention. While I don't think the AMA is hinting that membership will be required, I do believe that they're hoping that membership numbers will grow from all this.

Harvey

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Strength in numbers seems pretty common sense, especially when regulation is involved. It doesn't hurt the NRA that they have > 4M members.

H5487

And I, too, agree that the AMA's current safety code would be an ideal place to start. It's well thought out, not overly restrictive, and encourages safe operations. However, it doesn't include enforcement actions (fines, removal of privileges, etc) and what would the FAA do without its big stick?

Harvey

Harvey

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Where exactly is the AMA leading people to believe this?

BTW, I agree that this will very likely never happen.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

The AMA does not have any kind of formal enforcement actions within the AMA itself that I'm aware of. However, I have heard rumors that some members have had their membership/turbine waivers revoked for violating the AMA safety code.