FAA: CBO Membership NOT required to comply with 336
#101
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The AMA is who pushed this law through congress concerning models that have to be inspected by the AMA, if they don’t want the liability they should have thought of that before they lobbied for the law. Now the AMA should just inspect any models that the law requires inspection on where it be a AMA members models or not and leave it at that, and also the FAA should require that the AMA follow the law.
They advocate on behalf of their paying membership.....as they should. If some of what they do opens to door for another CBO to come along and enjoy the fruits of the AMA's labor...so be it.
What would you guess though will ultimately be the need for this? 3 times a year? 5? Still feels like this is a tempest in a teapot.
#102
do I would like you to start depositing funds in my account because it is a Ira account.
#103
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I am sure if you take the time to do some research you will find the evidence. Do you really believe that someone just made up the law about operating under a CBO without input of the AMA? If you
do I would like you to start depositing funds in my account because it is a Ira account.
do I would like you to start depositing funds in my account because it is a Ira account.
#104
I am sure if you take the time to do some research you will find the evidence.
So you don't have any actual evidence.
Do you really believe that someone just made up the law about operating under a CBO without input of the AMA?
You think this is the first law Congress wrote?
If you
do I would like you to start depositing funds in my account because it is a Ira account.
Post your account number.
So you don't have any actual evidence.
Do you really believe that someone just made up the law about operating under a CBO without input of the AMA?
You think this is the first law Congress wrote?
If you
do I would like you to start depositing funds in my account because it is a Ira account.
Post your account number.
#106
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure if you take the time to do some research you will find the evidence. Do you really believe that someone just made up the law about operating under a CBO without input of the AMA? If you
do I would like you to start depositing funds in my account because it is a Ira account.
do I would like you to start depositing funds in my account because it is a Ira account.
#107
Certainly possible that if the AMA didn't already have an inspection program in place > 55lb models could be grounded indefinitely. Yet, rather than be thankful, all those who post here don't have anything close to a 55lb model are complaining the most. More AMA = bad mantra.
#108
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If FAA deems flying MA over 55 lbs being restricted to CBO members has become a PITA for them, they have an easy out. FAA represents the US as a member state of ICAO. ICAO's definition of a model aircraft includes a 25 kg upper weight limit. They are not restricted by 336 from doing this, as it not a new restriction, but rather an existing one they have not gotten around to codifying. That isn't surprising; before the sUAS ARC the FAA was pretty much hands off regulating model aircraft and all proposed regulation of UAS specifically excepted them, citing the guidance in AC 91-57 as authorization to fly.
#109
Thread Starter
I'm just thankful they clarified, explicitly, that AMA membership is not required to comply with the "...guidelines.. and programming..." paragraph (a)(2) of PL112-95 Section 336
"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO, nor does the FAA list any CBOs. You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO [emphasis added]".
Regards,
FAA UAS Integration Office
[email protected]
http://www.faa.gov/uas
"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO, nor does the FAA list any CBOs. You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO [emphasis added]".
Regards,
FAA UAS Integration Office
[email protected]
http://www.faa.gov/uas
#114
Thread Starter
#116
Thread Starter
FYI, although you intimated that this isn't news, that it's something everyone knew all along (paraphrasing), apparently some at the AMA still think you have to be a member.
Chad Budreau on 25 July - "To operate within AMA’s programming, membership is required [emphasis added]."
Tyler Dobbs on 28 July - "To operate within AMA’s nationwide community-based programming, a pilot needs to be a member [emphasis added]."
As we know though, the only organization with the authority to enforce has said that membership is not required. Whew!
Chad Budreau on 25 July - "To operate within AMA’s programming, membership is required [emphasis added]."
Tyler Dobbs on 28 July - "To operate within AMA’s nationwide community-based programming, a pilot needs to be a member [emphasis added]."
As we know though, the only organization with the authority to enforce has said that membership is not required. Whew!
#117
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
FYI, although you intimated that this isn't news, that it's something everyone knew all along (paraphrasing), apparently some at the AMA still think you have to be a member.
Chad Budreau on 25 July - "To operate within AMA’s programming, membership is required [emphasis added]."
Tyler Dobbs on 28 July - "To operate within AMA’s nationwide community-based programming, a pilot needs to be a member [emphasis added]."
As we know though, the only organization with the authority to enforce has said that membership is not required. Whew!
Chad Budreau on 25 July - "To operate within AMA’s programming, membership is required [emphasis added]."
Tyler Dobbs on 28 July - "To operate within AMA’s nationwide community-based programming, a pilot needs to be a member [emphasis added]."
As we know though, the only organization with the authority to enforce has said that membership is not required. Whew!
#118
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder why the usual suspects didn't reveal what they, presumably among the "almost everybody knew already" in any of the many posts on the topic they revved up their keyboards to "contribute" to the discussion before Franklin posted the reply to his query to FAA.
#119
Economic analysis.
#120
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#121
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Tomorrow I'll write the FAA and ask them if I need to register my 2.5 pound foamy, because it's an airplane, not a drone. After they write me and tell me that yes, I do, and it's now called an "drone", I'm going to post that response in a thread here and then wait for the thanks and adulation to pour in.
Say, I didn't see you asking the question that Franklin did, before he did. Was that because you genuinely didn't know but didn't want to let on, or you pretty much already knew but didn't want to publicly disagree with him? <rhetorical question>
#123
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really, that's the response? That's the best effort?
Tomorrow I'll write the FAA and ask them if I need to register my 2.5 pound foamy, because it's an airplane, not a drone. After they write me and tell me that yes, I do, and it's now called an "drone", I'm going to post that response in a thread here and then wait for the thanks and adulation to pour in.
Say, I didn't see you asking the question that Franklin did, before he did. Was that because you genuinely didn't know but didn't want to let on, or you pretty much already knew but didn't want to publicly disagree with him? <rhetorical question>
Tomorrow I'll write the FAA and ask them if I need to register my 2.5 pound foamy, because it's an airplane, not a drone. After they write me and tell me that yes, I do, and it's now called an "drone", I'm going to post that response in a thread here and then wait for the thanks and adulation to pour in.
Say, I didn't see you asking the question that Franklin did, before he did. Was that because you genuinely didn't know but didn't want to let on, or you pretty much already knew but didn't want to publicly disagree with him? <rhetorical question>
#124
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Because I genuinely didn't know. Silent-AV8R stated that it was so, and despite a long history of spirited disagreement between him and myself as to opinions, when he makes a statement of fact, I trust and respect what he said. He has earned cred with me and from appearances broadly across the model aviation community. Right now I believe that he was misinformed rather than prevaricating.
#125
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts