acdii

From my understanding the CBO needs to be a nationally recognized organization. Who else besides AMA and FPVFC is one?


Of course this is not set in stone, yet, so procedures are unknown. More than likely there will need to be paperwork to be filled out by the club who maintains the field, but the submission will more than likely be done by the AMA.

As far as CBO, it appears that in order to be recognized as a CBO by the FAA, it needs to be a 501(C)(3) type of organization.

I guess I used "sanction' too loosely, as do others. AMA Sanctions events, and Charters clubs. So the proper term is an AMA Chartered flying field. Charters and Sanction can be easily mixed up since they go hand in hand many times, though with different definitions.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Actually, I believe the proper term is Chartered CLUB (as opposed to FIELD). I don’t believe there is any such thing as an AMA chartered FIELD.
I’m not trying to pick nits with you, just trying to get a grasp on all the new rules and terminology.
For instance, how would one chartered club with a fixed flying site register their alternative, float-flying site as a FRIA?

Tipover

My Feedback: (44)

When I google "Chartered Club", the first definition I get says:

chartered club

noun

NZ a private club licensed to serve alcohol to members

So I guess the AMA uses that term very loosely.

acdii

AH I see what you are coming from. I use "Club" and "Field" synonymous, as in one means the other. IOW to fly at the field, you need to be a club member or a guest and be required to have an AMA Membership. You can have a club without a field, but not a field without a club, at least that will be the case if this proposal makes it to official status. Private fields will not be able to apply unless it is run by a Club. That really pisses off my friend who has been flying his planes from his back yard for 20 something years now. His land abuts a gravel pit and farm fields, and is no where near an airport. Since he is not a 501 (C)(3) CBO or an AMA Club, he won't be able to register his private field.

The Club can register any and all fields they fly at, there doesn't appear to be any limitations in that regard.

Tipover

My Feedback: (44)

Except as being proposed now, the fields will have to meet the FAA's parameters. And from then on out be slated for expiration.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Does the FAA clearly list the parameters that need to be met in order to qualify to be registered as a FRIA? If so, anyone have a link?

Astro

FUTABA-RC

Nope. All they have said is they anticipate about 90% os current AMA fields to qualify as a FRIA. Coincidentally 10% is about the same percentage of AMA fields in controlled airspace. My suspicion is that there will not be any FRIA sites in controlled airspace.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

was wondering if i was the only one that noticed that 10% coincidence...

was definitely NOT going to be the one that brought it up.

tedsander

I did some digging on the FAA site, and some googling of the net. Seems like the FAA has not released their Advisory (that the law mandates them to do) about how to register/qualify as a CBO. While the law has a few points, the most germain is that they be a 503(c) organization. Nothing about how broad a geographic area they need to cover. So at this point, even a small family could form their own 503(c) group to oversee their "club", register, and then apply for their backyard to be a FRIA. But I'm sure there will be forthcoming details to prevent that. That's the worst part of this - all the undefined terms!

And they spent years (how many man-hours?) getting to this sorry stage?

FUTABA-RC

The law says 501(c)3

scott page

There are no "CBO's established yet. Currently AMA will likely be a CBO. Flite Test intends to be a CBO. A group that soon to be more known called Professional Modelers of America (PMA) intends to be a CBO. All of these groups have been in close contact with the FAA and I think we can expect all to become CBO's.
Flite Test is more of a park flyer DIY from foam oriented audience. I expect they will be primarily be advocates for the Limited class of RID.
PMA is comprised of high flyers -- gliders, IMAC, Turbine, and F3A Precision Acrobatics. I get the impression that PMA is fine with Standard RFID so long as they can fly at very high altitudes, although they have not made a formal statement to that point. What PMA has said is they intend to work with FAA to sanction the fields they will fly with a greatly extended ceiling
AMA is -- well AMA -- trying to do everything for everybody and seeming to do little for most.

The most disturbing part of the RFID Proposal is section XV which addresses FRIAs -- what we in AMA call "Flying Fields". Initially aircraft without RFID can fly at FRIAs -- and it appears most AMA fields will be eligible to be a FRIA. However section XV spells out the intent to progressively eliminate all FRIAs via attrition in several ways. They also make it clear that they intend to never allow more FRIAs and never allow a FRIA to move to a new location. AMA Club fields to continue to exist if they were not a FRIA - but only if the aircraft flew using the Standard RFID or limited RFID rules.

One of the things about both Standard and Limited RFID that disturbs me is it will require a payed subscription service to monitor these aircraft -- and the subscription appears to be for each aircraft -- just as the new registration system is for each and every aircraft.

I'm proud of myself. I wrote this entire post without cursing once.

franklin_m

The other problem with the FRIA language is subtle, but I suspect it to be important as it deals with property rights etc. How can AMA, which neither owns, nor leases, nor directly controls the land can apply for an FRIA? That tells me it has to be individual clubs that apply. And an individual club does not meet the definition (in law) of a CBO. Yes, it's a fine point. Given the FAA's desire to eventually end FRIAs, could this be a poison pill that REALLY limits who can apply for one? Or creates a reason to challenge that provision in court?

And additionally, what about the property owner? Can a third party apply for a federal designation w/o the signature of the property owner? I could see some not wanting the attention (and possible additional liability) of being a formally designated FEDERAL site for an activity.

scott page

acdii

Hmm, I wonder how this would affect a flying field that is part of a full size private air strip. Do GA aircraft have ID systems other than the N number?

Hydro Junkie

In a word, YES. All general aviation aircraft are required to have a transponder on board. If you ever watch shows/movies where planes are flying, there are times that the plane gets into trouble and the pilot is told to "SQUAWK", a function of the transponder that high lights that aircraft on the radar screen being used by the controller.

FUTABA-RC

Not exactly.

Also squawking only means the transponder is tuned to a given code. "IDENT" is what lights you up on the ATC radar screen.

Hydro Junkie

Okay, I stand corrected. Been a while since I took ground school or worked with a non-airborne radar system.

acdii

My friend has a Cessna 142, no transponders, There is another 142 at the field I fly at along with another plane that I can't recall off the top of my head, neither have transponders. He can't fly near Chicago in his plane.

RCUer75345

Interesting DJI editorial here:

https://content.dji.com/we-strongly-...not-like-this/

Modelers may have allies in unexpected places...

acdii

Well, I can see why they say that. It will directly impact their sales too. DJI I believe is a leader in drones with the Mavic that takes no skills to use, and is quite popular, but would be affected a lot by this.

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

Thanks for posting that link!

Hydro Junkie

It makes perfect sense that the DJI legal department would put out a statement like this.
That said, if what was said is true on the committee set up by the FAA giving the FAA a broadcast ID recommendation, then someone convinced the FAA to ignore it. That brings up the question of why did the FAA chose to go with the complex, expensive system it did rather than use the simple one recommended?

RCUer75345

"...why did the FAA chose to go with the complex, expensive system it did rather than use the simple one recommended?"

Just speculating, but it looks like you need to buy a DJI Aeroscope receiver to pick up the signals broadcast by the drones. If we're forced to put the information on the Internet no special equipment is needed.

Hydro Junkie

No, but we would be forced to pay for every time we go flying, bringing the question of "Do I pay once to fly, pay every time I fly or do I ignore the rules and fly illegally?" to all R/C pilots.

RCUer75345

"Do I pay once to fly, pay every time I fly or do I ignore the rules and fly illegally?"

Well, if you read the detailed requirements the FAA wants RID set up so your plane won't take off without an Internet connection. So it won't be up to you and me.