AOPA - Positioning to be a CBO?
08-11-2016, 07:40 PM
#51
Does anyone here believe for a minute that the FAA is not at least partial author of the AMA's safety code, I mean over the year's the FAA has basically laid the groundwork, with possibly some back and forth and a few compromises. I really wonder how the FAA would interact with a second CBO coming on the scene, as far as making safety rule suggestions. Do you think the AMA would try to file suit against a competing CBO for infringement on there intellectual property? I'm thinking the FAA would require such similar guidelines that it could turn into a fiasco. Just some more food for thought.
Last edited by Tipover; 08-11-2016 at 07:42 PM.
08-12-2016, 08:39 AM
#55
I think when the right individuals realize they're in a favorable position, and they see the need, that they may consider becoming a CBO simply because they can. There are still those well off business types around that maintain higher than average ethical standards.
08-12-2016, 11:15 AM
#56
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line would be a motivation? AOPA is another insurance middleman with a community wrapped around it, much like the AMA.
08-12-2016, 11:23 AM
#57
Does anyone here believe for a minute that the FAA is not at least partial author of the AMA's safety code, I mean over the year's the FAA has basically laid the groundwork, with possibly some back and forth and a few compromises. I really wonder how the FAA would interact with a second CBO coming on the scene, as far as making safety rule suggestions. Do you think the AMA would try to file suit against a competing CBO for infringement on there intellectual property? I'm thinking the FAA would require such similar guidelines that it could turn into a fiasco. Just some more food for thought.
The AMA has the same basic safety code long before the FAA became involved in model operations. I don’t think the FAA had anything to do with the safety code if they did we would have more restrictions including
a hard 400 ft altitude limit.
Last edited by ira d; 08-12-2016 at 11:28 AM.
08-12-2016, 02:42 PM
#61
08-12-2016, 05:13 PM
#62
I would think the FAA became concerned with the advent of modern RC equipment. Here's an advisory from June 1981, and I'm pretty sure I've seen one from the mid 70's, but I'm having a hard time finding it now.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...ular/91-57.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...ular/91-57.pdf
Last edited by Tipover; 08-12-2016 at 05:17 PM.
08-12-2016, 05:20 PM
#63
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I would think the FAA became primarily concerned with the advent of modern RC equipment. Here's an advisory from June 1981, and I'm pretty sure I've seen one from the mid 70's, but I'm having a hard time finding it now.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...ular/91-57.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...ular/91-57.pdf
And of course they should have. The technology presents a clear potential security threat, as well as a safety and quailty of life issue for the public. The FAA has a clear mandate , and in fact obligation to deal with those issues.
08-12-2016, 05:32 PM
#64
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think the FAA became concerned with the advent of modern RC equipment. Here's an advisory from June 1981, and I'm pretty sure I've seen one from the mid 70's, but I'm having a hard time finding it now.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...ular/91-57.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/m...ular/91-57.pdf
08-12-2016, 09:38 PM
#66
Here we go, posted by Boombang over on RCG. It's the same basic rules that became 91-57. Looks to have been published in American Aircraft Modeler in November 1972. Wasn't American Aircraft Modeler Association the forerunner to the AMA?
08-13-2016, 12:18 AM
#68
the no room for doubt wording of item C is rather interesting.
and no, the AMA has been the AMA since 1936, and i do not remember any previous org. now, that mag, American Aircraft Modeler, may have been the one AMA bought out to serve as the foundation for Model Aviation magazine.
and no, the AMA has been the AMA since 1936, and i do not remember any previous org. now, that mag, American Aircraft Modeler, may have been the one AMA bought out to serve as the foundation for Model Aviation magazine.
08-13-2016, 05:30 AM
#69
Hi Mongo ,
AC 91-57 issued June 1981 was just as clear , in section 3 "operating standards" subsection c it states ;
" Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface ."
This is a complete sentence that the wordsmiths here have argued in the past is somehow modified by the next sentence ;
"When flying within 3 miles of an airport , notify the airport operator , or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport , notify the the control tower , or flight control station ."
to mean that the 400 foot limit was only in effect when closer than 3 miles to an airport . Now , having some fairly extensive FAA prescribed training I feel confident in making the statement that the stand alone complete sentence that begins section 3 subsection C has no ambiguity whatsoever , the FAA's intent at the time was that no model aircraft will fly above 400 feet . The fact that the 400 foot limit went uninforced all the years since the official proclamation contained in 91-57 is , I believe , nothing more than an indicator of how well our hobby did all those years of not making a menace of ourselves to full scale operations .
AC 91-57 issued June 1981 was just as clear , in section 3 "operating standards" subsection c it states ;
" Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface ."
This is a complete sentence that the wordsmiths here have argued in the past is somehow modified by the next sentence ;
"When flying within 3 miles of an airport , notify the airport operator , or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport , notify the the control tower , or flight control station ."
to mean that the 400 foot limit was only in effect when closer than 3 miles to an airport . Now , having some fairly extensive FAA prescribed training I feel confident in making the statement that the stand alone complete sentence that begins section 3 subsection C has no ambiguity whatsoever , the FAA's intent at the time was that no model aircraft will fly above 400 feet . The fact that the 400 foot limit went uninforced all the years since the official proclamation contained in 91-57 is , I believe , nothing more than an indicator of how well our hobby did all those years of not making a menace of ourselves to full scale operations .
Last edited by RCKen; 08-15-2016 at 05:51 PM.
08-13-2016, 07:53 AM
#70
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mongo ,
AC 91-57 issued June 1981 was just as clear , in section 3 "operating standards" subsection c it states ;
" Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface ."
This is a complete sentence that the wordsmiths here have argued in the past is somehow modified by the next sentence ;
"When flying within 3 miles of an airport , notify the airport operator , or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport , notify the the control tower , or flight control station ."
to mean that the 400 foot limit was only in effect when closer than 3 miles to an airport . Now , having some fairly extensive FAA prescribed training I feel confident in making the statement that the stand alone complete sentence that begins section 3 subsection C has no ambiguity whatsoever , the FAA's intent at the time was that no model aircraft will fly above 400 feet . The fact that the 400 foot limit went uninforced all the years since the official proclamation contained in 91-57 is , I believe , nothing more than an indicator of how well our hobby did all those years of not making a menace of ourselves to full scale operations .
AC 91-57 issued June 1981 was just as clear , in section 3 "operating standards" subsection c it states ;
" Do not fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface ."
This is a complete sentence that the wordsmiths here have argued in the past is somehow modified by the next sentence ;
"When flying within 3 miles of an airport , notify the airport operator , or when an air traffic facility is located at the airport , notify the the control tower , or flight control station ."
to mean that the 400 foot limit was only in effect when closer than 3 miles to an airport . Now , having some fairly extensive FAA prescribed training I feel confident in making the statement that the stand alone complete sentence that begins section 3 subsection C has no ambiguity whatsoever , the FAA's intent at the time was that no model aircraft will fly above 400 feet . The fact that the 400 foot limit went uninforced all the years since the official proclamation contained in 91-57 is , I believe , nothing more than an indicator of how well our hobby did all those years of not making a menace of ourselves to full scale operations .
e. Model aircraft operators should follow best practices including limiting operations to 400 feet above ground level (AGL)
08-13-2016, 10:23 AM
#72
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, put the CBO crap aside. It is Celebrate Your Lakes Day, International Left-Handers Day, National Filet Mignon Day, and National Garage Sale Day. Model Aviation Day........BTDT, gave tribute to AC91-57. Next comes celebration of Filet Mignon. Every day is left-handers day and garage sale, I'll pass on that.
08-13-2016, 10:53 AM
#73
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, put the CBO crap aside. It is Celebrate Your Lakes Day, International Left-Handers Day, National Filet Mignon Day, and National Garage Sale Day. Model Aviation Day........BTDT, gave tribute to AC91-57. Next comes celebration of Filet Mignon. Every day is left-handers day and garage sale, I'll pass on that.
Just got back from one of the fields I fly at and none one had a clue about Model Aviation day. I did celebrate Filet Mignon Day but on Thursday I was a bit early.
Mike.
08-13-2016, 12:41 PM
#74
the no room for doubt wording of item C is rather interesting.
and no, the AMA has been the AMA since 1936, and i do not remember any previous org. now, that mag, American Aircraft Modeler, may have been the one AMA bought out to serve as the foundation for Model Aviation magazine.
and no, the AMA has been the AMA since 1936, and i do not remember any previous org. now, that mag, American Aircraft Modeler, may have been the one AMA bought out to serve as the foundation for Model Aviation magazine.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/museum/ama_history.aspx
First known as the American Academy of Model Aeronautics (AAMA), the organization dropped 'American' from its official title within a few years. The AMA’s first mailing address,1732 RCA Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, solidified its legitimacy in 1936. Later that year, the headquarters of the AMA moved to Dupont Circle, Washington D.C. as part of the National Aeronautic Association (NAA).
Last edited by Tipover; 08-13-2016 at 12:47 PM.
08-13-2016, 01:07 PM
#75
Ah ha! Further down the same page from my previous link. I knew there must be a connection. 
In 1966, the AMA approached the publishers of American Aircraft Modeler (AAM) magazine about the possibility of incorporating a section called AMA News into their magazine rather than printing the small but costly MA. AMA members received AAM featuring AMA News as part of their membership beginning with the July/August 1966 issue and ending with the March 1975 issue. AAM went bankrupt in February of 1975, leaving the AMA with no means to communicate with its members. AMA officers realized that a magazine rather than a newsletter was more beneficial to AMA members, and thus resurrected MA as a magazine. To this day, AMA members continue to receive MA as a member benefit.
Last edited by Tipover; 08-13-2016 at 01:09 PM.