Appowner

As it says, what do think a CBO should offer the modeling population? What value is necessary for you to support a CBO?

I'll start:

Insurance options. Options for the individual member and for the land owner. All should be primary coverage.

Local flying site support. I'm talking a program through which your local club can purchase their own flying site. NOT the lip service I have personally experienced.

A web site that works and the variety of services that can support.

flyinfool1

My Feedback: (2)

I guess a lot depends on just how much you are willing to PAY for the CBO. For a CBO to do primary vs secondary insurance would require a huge increase in dues and cause a dramatic reduction in membership.

A CBO should not try to be a bank, but should be able to help a club thru the legal loopholes of acquiring their own flying site.

The CBO we have now is certainly not perfect, but when you get down to it, it really is not all that bad either. It is mathematically impossible to make every member completely happy.

As to what the should offer;
1. A program to have rules and guidelines for safe operation of our toys.
2. A voice in Washington on down to local government to have laws and ordinances that allow our continued operation.
3. Assistance to acquire and keep flying sites, whether they be purchased, leased, or borrowed.
4. An insurance program for members and site owners.

These are just the big ones off the top of my head.

larry@coyotenet

My Feedback: (21)

Amen!

Appowner

I disagree. Back when there was the SFA (1980's), they provided primary liability with membership and if memory serves, that started around $35 a year. I believe it can be done.

rgburrill

Ask yourself why the SFA was back the and not now.

Appowner

1. Law suit with the AMA.
2. Founder and main employee dropped dead of a heart attack in an airport.

But none of that means another one couldn't make a go of it now.

r ward

primary insurance is the big issue...... all the rest is easy and cheap to accomplish and maintain. I think for a new CBO to break in now, will be just about financially impossible given the size of AMA and the salaries that are being paid. those guys aren't just going to lie down and let their livelihoods be steamrolled (ie. legal flak). insurance costs are only going to go one way for everyone (existing CBO's or a new CBO) and a start up policy these days is expensive,....really expensive. add that into the relatively small number of guys who are open to a new (or another) CBO and all I can say is that I think the idea may be good,....but it would be rough getting their foot in the door.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

actually,
nothing.

less disappointment that way...

ira d

Because the vast majority of organized flying sites are chartered by the AMA and the AMA tells the sites to only allow AMA members to fly at the sites it would be almost impossible for a new CBO to start up.

Appowner

Well, first of the flying field is NOT chartered. The club is Chartered. And should the site be on public land, there's an argument to allow anyone fly there. Just saying.

I don't want this to turn into an AMA vs the world discussion. Nor do I want to be told this or that can or can not be done. I simply want an idea of what folks in general expect from a CBO. I notice no one has said anything about organizing/overseeing competitions and record keeping.

049flyer

My Feedback: (18)

franklin_m

I'm going to go another direction. I want a "minimalist" option. Specifically, meet only the LITERAL definition of a CBO without anything extra. So for the sake of discussion, here' s the CBO definition from the proposed Sanford Amendment:

(1) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(2) is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(3) the mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of model aviation;
(4) provides a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for all aspects of model aviation addressing the assembly and operation of model aircraft and that emphasize safe aeromodeling operations within the national airspace system and the protection and safety of individuals and property on the ground, and may provide a comprehensive set of safety rules and programming for the operation of unmanned aircraft that have the advanced flight capabilities enabling active, sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond visual line of sight of the operator;
(5) provides programming and support for any local charter organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and
(6) provides assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites.


#1 & #2 are a paperwork drill. Set up the non-profit, incorporate, and then comply with annual meeting requirements and tax filings. I checked with attorney friend. He says if you're careful you can do the paperwork yourself. If not, maybe $1500 to $2000 to pay an attorney to do it. Assuming you have to pay some fees to the feds and state as well, let's call it $4000 out of pocket (very generous).

#3 - So vague as to be unenforceable. Remember, FAA is likely looking to find any CBO that's an alternative to AMA. So take advantage of that with this section. Lots of talk about furthering the hobby, target folks who don't fly at club fields, and there's lots of room for interpretation of what this means.

#4 - Again, a paperwork drill. All it says is that you have to have a comprehensive set of rules.

#5 - Again, "programming" is undefined, so it's whatever you want it to be. Nothing says you actually have to have local charter organizations, merely a structure and policy to support them when you do.

#6 - Yet again, nothing says you actually have to have any local sites, merely a plan to develop / support them when they do become an option.


What the definition DOES NOT require:
- Insurance (expensive)
- National flying site (expensive)
- Permanent staff (expensive)
- Magazine (expensive)
- Lobbying (expensive)

So what I want:
#1 priority: Meet ONLY the literal definition
#2 priority: LOW cost of membership

r ward

the majority of flyers simply want a decent place to fly,.....(for some, "any" place to fly).....clubs that require AMA membership are the only source in many of those areas. not much can be done about that, unfortunately.
i'm not say joining is a bad idea, or a rip-off of some kind,....just that to many, joining the AMA is the only way they would be able to fly their planes. as flying area gets more and more scarce, the AMA starts to look better and better because most clubs that have a (AMA)membership requirement also are the clubs that have decent air fields. if airfields were more available in number, I don't think the AMA would have as strong a hold as it has on membership.
that is how it is around my area. acres and acres and acres of open field, no facilities to fly off of them, so anyone who wants to fly, needs to join the AMA. it is literally, " build it and they will come" around here. the numbers of people flying aren't real high, but they are high enough that a new field would get attention pretty fast. in a situation like that, insurance is an absolute must have,.....so the AMA holds it's ground because the insurance is readily available and well established, keeping the cost as low as reasonably possible.
70 bucks/yr. for AMA and 30 bucks /yr. for club dues ..........100 bucks /yr. to have a decent flying field,......24/7,....can't go wrong.
I think if some sort of club sponsored insurance and a field could be had for less, it would have already been done. a minimalist option sounds and looks good on paper, until some litigation goes overboard as legal issues almost always do,.....the a lot of people get hurt.

franklin_m

Perhaps, but AMA charter club fees have been declining for almost ten years, there's fewer and fewer of these sites around. I suspect that if it drops below some critical number, then AMA fields will all be within a relatively small distance from major population centers.

Therein lies part of the problem. For me, it's $75 a year for AMA, plus $100 a year for a crappy rutted grass field, 20 minutes one way. Since I don't "need" to fly larger stuff, I just switched to smaller things that I can fly at a local park. That $100 a year for club now goes into batteries. Crazy thing is, I fly more often in a month than I flew in 3 years of club membership. Schlepping out to the field just wasn't worth the time and expense. Now I walk 150 feet to my flying site.

ira d

We can split hairs over club vs site being chartered but we all know what is meant when when someone talks about a site or club charter. I would also say that no one has said anything about the AMA vs the world but in
order for a new CBO to start up their members would need a place to fly. If a CBO could start up and provide places for their members to fly and offer competitive services and prices I am sure they would be received well
and that would be what most RC's would be most concerned about. I have found a lot of flying sites although located on state or county land and even city land still require all to who fly there to be AMA members and
I have not seen any argument to speak of to operate any different.

franklin_m

I guess that's the assumption that I'd like to challenge. Nothing in the law that defines what a CBO says that a CBO has to provide flying sites. Not everyone needs an AMA field. In fact, even if we assume 100% of the AMA members "need" a club field, there's still some 800,000 other "rogues" that have shown they don't need fields. What about a CBO that serves that group?

That's what I'd like to see stand up. No insurance. No national flying site. No museum. No staff. No HQ building. No magazine. Just rules, etc. Again, bare minimum to meet the definition of a CBO.

ira d

Yes Franklin I know there are a lot of rogue flyers but I still think there are even more flyers that want to fly at a established site if not all the time but at least some time. Speaking for myself I would not be interested in a CBO
that could not afford me the opportunity to either fly where I currently fly or provide me comparable opportunities. As for insurance that would not be a deal breaker if I was able to fly on my own land but otherwise
that could be a concern.

r ward

i'd hate to see what a clubs membership fee would be if it operated with no insurance !

Appowner

How so? You think it would go up?

And what club provides and charges for insurance today?

Appowner

No, actually we can be accurate in our communications in order to reduce confusion. Lots of misunderstanding goes on in these forums. We don't need to add to it by being lazy in our word choices.

franklin_m

What I want to do is stop interpreting words through the lens of an AMA structure, with clubs and charters and HQ and staff, but rather a new model. One built on the literal definition of words and no others. If we assume the AMA interpretation of "club," then it comes with it a field, need for insurance, etc. But nothing in the definition of the word "club" requires a dedicated field. No dedicated field, no need for insurance. See where I'm going?

club: an association or organization dedicated to a particular interest or activity

049flyer

My Feedback: (18)

franklin_m

It could be. The formal definition in post #12, which comes straight from AMA's beloved Sanford Amendment, says nothing about "national." If your local club meets all the criteria, I'd say the FAA would be hard pressed to deny it CBO status.

As I've said elsewhere, I suspect FAA has not approved AMA's CBO petition because AMA pi**ed them off with the lawsuit over interpretation of the special rule. I'm sure FAA saw it as a bunch of amateur fuddy-duddys from the corn fields trying to tell them how to do their job. I also suspect FAA will be quick to approve AMA's petition as soon as they have some competitor CBO petitions to approve at the same time.

Again, it was AMA that tried to play hardball with the FAA. As a wise man once told me "When you play hardball, you have to be prepared to get hit."

r ward

in all reality,....most clubs are small CBO's. the term "CBO" is just a fancy name for recognition of a group of clubs that all respect the same rules and laws on a national level. strength in number and that strength is in the form of lower cost. think of what it would cot for each club in the AMA to have the same insurance and benefits the AMA provides, but on an individual basis. cost would be astronomical.

franklin_m

I'm curious, where in the definition provided above, one that comes directly from the actual legislation, does it say:

- "national" or "national level?"
- "group of clubs?"

Hint: It doesn't. You're looking at the definition through the lens of AMA's existing structure, much of which is NOT required by law. Which means as they look to cut costs, that's the first place to look.