Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

Old 03-08-2010, 04:16 PM
  #1  
Hossfly
Thread Starter
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

http://www.modelaircraft.org/members...ecminutes.aspx

FAA UPDATE

Don't miss the FAA Update (Appendix)

Especially the last portion:
Council was afforded the opportunity to comment and ask questions of J. Sizemore and S. Glowacki; these included:

Lots of discussions. Your choice!

Don't miss the Follow-up on FAA Presentation at the end of the EC Minutes.

See what your AMA District Vice President is doing.

Old 03-08-2010, 04:50 PM
  #2  
mongo
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,791
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

the very last line of the report appears to be the most telling.
Old 03-08-2010, 05:22 PM
  #3  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

I downloaded it a couple days ago..........sumthin' in my head told me this is going to get some serious editing.........
Old 03-08-2010, 06:20 PM
  #4  
tailskid
My Feedback: (34)
 
tailskid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Tolleson, AZ
Posts: 9,468
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

I don't like the clouds on the horizon.........................
Old 03-08-2010, 08:51 PM
  #5  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 19,891
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

As I read through these minutes, thoughts run through my head of.....

Jack and the Bean Stalk.....

Orwell's Animal Farm.....

A Pitbull, a chihuahua and a pork chop laying on the ground......

Livestock getting fed through the pen stock for the last time.

I did like DM's questioning about WHAT the exact relationship is between AMA and Big Brother.
Old 03-08-2010, 09:13 PM
  #6  
littlecrankshaf
My Feedback: (58)
 
littlecrankshaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

Heck, I don't know what everyone is worrying about. All the EC has to do is give Hoss $ 10,000 in small bills and arrange a little meeting...well... I guess if you adjust for inflation maybe a $100,000...but that would still be a cheap way to handle this matter.
Old 03-08-2010, 11:36 PM
  #7  
KidEpoxy
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

From http://www.modelaircraft.org/members...ecminutes.aspx, public AMA webbie:
• Mathewson then stated, internally FAA is going to decide what the ‘OR’ (alternative standard) is; and asked, in deciding the ‘OR’, who is going to be the SME for model aviation in that process? The response was the FAA will not determine what the ‘OR’ is, the FAA will evaluate what was submitted and find it acceptable or not. President Mathewson stated that is where there is disconnect as the FAA ultimately decides what is acceptable. S. Glowacki reiterated the necessity for a relationship between AMA and FAA in developing the standards
• Mathewson expressed concern that although this is suppose to be a collaborative effort, the FAA internal rules prohibit Sizemore and Glowacki from being completely open

well, at least this is being handled in a way familiar to AMA-
just as AMA says to first design and manufacture a metal prop, then they will tell you if ama will accept it or not,
we see the FAA telling us to come up with the Alternative, then FAA will tell us if they accept it or not

FAA wont tell us what the "OR" is, AMA wont tell us what standards metal props need to meet.
It must be fair when FAA does it to AMA if AMA does it to members.... right?
Old 03-08-2010, 11:43 PM
  #8  
mongo
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,791
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

"• Their presentation noted that the alternative standards would be established in accordance with OMB A-119. There are groups that can assist AMA in developing these standards however in discussion with D. Mathewson, R. Hanson noted this would not be cost effective
• Up to this point, Hanson had been told that the program office was going to find simpler way for model aviation to achieve a means of complying with the SFAR; however now that Tarbert is retired from the FAA it makes for a difficult track ahead
• The only alternative would be to talk with the administration of FAA and explain that making AMA go through this process is not feasible and press for reconsideration; this would be difficult but not impossible. It may be necessary to go as high as Peggy Gilmore (Aviation Safety Director)"

kinda bothersome that doing the FAA recommended procedure for establishing the alternative standards is deemed "not cost effective" by the AMA president and our AMA rep.
Old 03-09-2010, 06:44 AM
  #9  
bkdavy
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
 
bkdavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FrederickMD
Posts: 2,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

I think Dave's comment about cost effectiveness wasnt' about the OMB A-119 process, but rather about trying to get other groups to help (read additional consultants). The AMA should be pressing for the Voluntary Consensus Standard approach. Note that in February 1998 (yes, under the last Democratic Administration), the circular was revised to include the following guidance to agencies (including Commerce which covers FAA):

Your agency must use voluntary consensus standards, both domestic and international, in its regulatory and procurement activities in lieu of government-unique standards, unless use of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In all cases, your agency has the discretion to decline to use existing voluntary consensus standards if your agency determines that such standards are inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.


(1) "Use" means incorporation of a standard in whole, in part, or by reference for procurement purposes, and the inclusion of a standard in whole, in part, or by reference in regulation(s).

(2) "Impractical" includes circumstances in which such use would fail to serve the agency's program needs; would be infeasible; would be inadequate, ineffectual, inefficient, or inconsistent with agency mission; or would impose more burdens, or would be less useful, than the use of another standard.
In other words, it is contingent on the FAA to determine that a consensus standard (e.g. AMA as the only, or at least largest, body covering model aviation in the US) is impractical.

Brad
Old 03-09-2010, 09:20 AM
  #10  
KidEpoxy
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

BK-
In other words, it is contingent on the FAA to determine that a consensus standard (e.g. AMA as the only, or at least largest, body covering model aviation in the US) is impractical.
you seem to have snipped out the important part in your paraphrasing of your quoted text
Your agency must use voluntary consensus standards, both domestic and international, in its regulatory and procurement activities in lieu of government-unique standards, unless use of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Dont you mean:
In other words, it is contingent on the FAA to determine that a consensus standard (e.g. AMA as the only, or at least largest, body covering model aviation in the US) would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical

The process of needing to come up with a Model exclusion from the otherwise applicable laws
is pretty clear that there are /will be applicable laws that it would be inconsistent with.
That is what this is all about, trying to get a Model exclusion from the SUAS regulation that would apply to the AMA's Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (aka toy airplanes / models)
.... exclusion from massive regulation of the things we fly,
based on us simply not getting paid to do what is regulated for paid guys


Impractical?
again, I cite the practicality of trying to ban all propellers made of metal: Its very impractical to attempt at the national level in all model disciplines, until you just say 4 words (Metal Props Are Banned) and then clearly it was very very easy and practical to do.

How practical is it for FAA to place a 400' ceiling on models? (ac91-57/ASF400/G08-01, I'm looking at you)
About as practical as AMA banning metal: Just write the words and its done.
Or just as practical as the 5gallon fuel cap on "unregulated" p103 ultralights.... FAA just writes it down and it done.






For a group that folks here tout as have been in bed with the FAA for decades,
sure seems like we are coming in late to this party and dont know anyone.
Old 03-09-2010, 09:33 AM
  #11  
Hossfly
Thread Starter
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)


ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
//SNIP//

For a group that folks here tout as have been in bed with the FAA for decades,
sure seems like we are coming in late to this party and dont know anyone.
Now ain't that the truth! [sm=red_smile.gif]
Old 03-09-2010, 02:10 PM
  #12  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)


ORIGINAL: Hossfly


ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
//SNIP//

For a group that folks here tout as have been in bed with the FAA for decades,
sure seems like we are coming in late to this party and dont know anyone.
Now ain't that the truth! [sm=red_smile.gif]
It seems that way, but even with a program in front of me I can't tell who the players are. Take FAA rep Sizemore fore example. In [link=http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/AMAWGroup.pdf]This AMA Doc[/link] he (or someone with the same name) is listed as a member of the DCRC Club and the AMA Working Group that is preparing AMA's response to the sUAS ARC. In contrast, the follow-up notes recorded in subj minutes say in part:

"• Glowacki and Sizemore did not exhibit much cooperation; they stated they wanted this to be a collaborative effort but were not forthcoming
• Hanson is of the opinion that they were not trying to be deceptive and they are not trying to do something that might kill the hobby
"

The whole tone conveyed by the report seemed to be 'AMA is being done unto,' but isn't at all clear who are the 'doers' and who the 'do-ees' are. I have a theory........the real 'do-ees' were not among the performers in this show.
Old 03-09-2010, 02:32 PM
  #13  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

One of the FAA guys is also a modeler. Not sure if it is Sizemore or not, but it seems that may be the case.
Old 03-09-2010, 09:50 PM
  #14  
TexasAirBoss
My Feedback: (22)
 
TexasAirBoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,972
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

AMA needs to triple the amount of non-dues revenue they currently generate

How did you guys miss this one ?
Old 03-09-2010, 10:00 PM
  #15  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)


ORIGINAL: mongo

the very last line of the report appears to be the most telling.
mongo-

You are one of most observant and savvy people I know, but your commentary on what you have observed is sometimes so subtle as to be overlooked by some of us. For some that let it slip by as I did, here is that last line with emphasis added:

AMA has a responsibility to advocate for their members and protect their privilege to fly model aircraft and that is what AMA will do

Amen, bro. The Mission Statement and sundry other passages relating to the org's purpose have been revised in recent years to project the 'public good' image befitting a section 501(c)(3) exempted corporation, but the beliefs of its principals and their actions have not.

Cletus
Old 03-09-2010, 10:07 PM
  #16  
Hossfly
Thread Starter
 
Hossfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Caney, TX
Posts: 6,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

ORIGINAL: FrankHawks

AMA needs to triple the amount of non-dues revenue they currently generate

How did you guys miss this one ?
Not missed, but that subject has not been considered significant by the membership. The first thing to be done there is to raise the advertising rates for MA to free-market levels. AMA's MA has almost twice the distribution - conscripted distribution at that - yet they lose a million dollars per year on the magazine. Bring it up to a break-even and there is a million in the jeans. MA costs more than the member insurance plan. All you need to do is to go to the Auditor's Reports, and it's in black and white for those that can read a most simple Audit Report.
Old 03-10-2010, 07:44 PM
  #17  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)


ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

One of the FAA guys is also a modeler. Not sure if it is Sizemore or not, but it seems that may be the case.
James Sizemore, Acting Manager, Unmanned Aircraft Program Office. I would expect from the AMA's POV he is the FAA.

Cletus
Old 03-10-2010, 07:57 PM
  #18  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)


ORIGINAL: cj_rumley


ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R

One of the FAA guys is also a modeler. Not sure if it is Sizemore or not, but it seems that may be the case.
James Sizemore, Acting Manager, Unmanned Aircraft Program Office. I would expect from the AMA's POV he is the FAA.

Cletus
I'd agree and don't think I implied otherwise. I was just passing along what I was told, that one of the two of them was also a modeler. But since the FAA gives his paychecks I think it's easy to surmise where his loyalties are!!
Old 03-10-2010, 10:39 PM
  #19  
cj_rumley
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga, CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

ORIGINAL: Silent-AV8R


I'd agree and don't think I implied otherwise. I was just passing along what I was told, that one of the two of them was also a modeler. But since the FAA gives his paychecks I think it's easy to surmise where his loyalties are!!
I trust then that he can appreciate the distinction between "US citizen that engages in aeromodeling" and "AMA member."

Edit: format glitch
Old 03-10-2010, 11:32 PM
  #20  
KidEpoxy
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

so are we still assuming there is going to be
a set of loose guidelines for Union/Acorn/AMA members,
and a strict set of regulations for "US citizens that engages in aeromodeling" ?
Old 03-11-2010, 01:54 AM
  #21  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

I forgot to bookmark the link, but I found it when searching for ICAO information.

This is the title:

Integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)into the Global ATM System

Federal Aviation Administration
Name: Ardyth Williams, Air Traffic Manager, Unmanned Aircraft Systems
James Sizemore, Acting Manager, Unmanned Aircraft Program Office
Date: October 20, 2009

The image is a screen grab from that document. So at least in October 2009 the FAA appeared to be still thinking about the dreaded tiered approach. I added the page that follows the first one. Makes it clearer.
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	Ec87345.jpg
Views:	31
Size:	108.1 KB
ID:	1395744   Click image for larger version

Name:	Vt57070.jpg
Views:	33
Size:	94.4 KB
ID:	1395745  
Old 03-11-2010, 02:22 AM
  #22  
mongo
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,791
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

if those 4 bullet points are all ya have to do to meet the non community based standards flying regs, ie, a non AMA member, then this might just be very livable.
no speed limit, no power-plant restriction, just the 400 ft and proximity to airport stuff to really be concerned with.
Old 03-11-2010, 03:51 AM
  #23  
KidEpoxy
Senior Member
 
KidEpoxy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

Mongo-
but look at what that screen shot was referring to:
we all have been over the old sUAS-ARC text of chapter2 (com stand org) vs chapter 3 (3.2 & 3.3 excessive regs),
and the screen shot refers to Small UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee recommendations
... well shucks thats the sUAS ARC text we all know and love/lovenot.
We already know what the ARC recommended,
the question now is what FAA is doing deciding their regulations with regard or disregard to the recommendations

But the news in this thread is that FAA is telling AMA how to exempt itself ("or" / ComStandOrg Alternative),
but AMA dont want to follow the instructions

• Sizemore stated that it is important for the members to realize that if the alternative standards do not happen, members will be forced to adhere to the very restrictive general standards. Sizemore also indicated that the alternative standards will not be a ‘cut and paste’ of what AMA has today; there will have to be substantiation from AMA so the FAA is sure they can rely on the alternative standards
• The OMB A-119 is what guides the FAA in how they work with developing standards
• J. Rice informed S. Glowacki that Council is expecting to present a ‘package’ for their review and comments on what was submitted; then AMA would massage the ‘package’ if necessary before final presentation to the FAA. Glowacki indicated this is not the way A-119 recommends doing this; A-119 recommends a relationship between the FAA and the other entity (in this case AMA) in the development of a common package
• Mathewson then stated, internally FAA is going to decide what the ‘OR’ (alternative standard) is; and asked, in deciding the ‘OR’, who is going to be the SME for model aviation in that process? The response was the FAA will not determine what the ‘OR’ is, the FAA will evaluate what was submitted and find it acceptable or not. President Mathewson stated that is where there is disconnect as the FAA ultimately decides what is acceptable. S. Glowacki reiterated the necessity for a relationship between AMA and FAA in developing the standards

• Their presentation noted that the alternative standards would be established in accordance with OMB A-119. There are groups that can assist AMA in developing these standards however in discussion with D. Mathewson, R. Hanson noted this would not be cost effective
• The only alternative would be to talk with the administration of FAA and explain that making AMA go through this process is not feasible and press for reconsideration; this would be difficult but not impossible. It may be necessary to go as high as Peggy Gilmore (Aviation Safety Director)



come on,
How hard is it to write up a ComStandOrg alternative to 400'cap is... uh... "No 400'cap for union/acorn/ama members."
See, easy.

Looks to me FAA is telling AMA exactly what to do for AMA to exempt itself from practically all restrictions,
but that AMA has better things to do than follow FAAs instructions.



Heres something to give some folks nightmares:
Since AMA doesnt want to do it right via consultants for OMB-a119 compliance to be a comstand org (aka Alternative / "or"),
> if that other model plane insurance co DOES do OMBa119 right to be an Alternative comstand org
then THEY would be the top dog in aeromodeling in the US...
maybe $20 USAmA will be the FAA recognized standards organization
that $58AMA would have to follow to avoid the harsh non-Alternative regs
Old 03-11-2010, 10:25 AM
  #24  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)

ORIGINAL: mongo

if those 4 bullet points are all ya have to do to meet the non community based standards flying regs, ie, a non AMA member, then this might just be very livable.
no speed limit, no power-plant restriction, just the 400 ft and proximity to airport stuff to really be concerned with.
Look at the actual ARC memo to see what they are proposing for operation outside the auspices of a community based safety program. It is a bit more involved than the bullet points make it seem.
Old 03-11-2010, 10:29 AM
  #25  
Silent-AV8R
 
Silent-AV8R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 5,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: AMA EC Minutes Jan. 23 2010 (FAA INFO)


the question now is what FAA is doing deciding their regulations with regard or disregard to the recommendations
Which clearly the FAA is leaning towards adopting


But the news in this thread is that FAA is telling AMA how to exempt itself (''or'' / ComStandOrg Alternative),
but AMA dont want to follow the instructions
But feel free to carry on.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.