Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

I noticed that these new .pdfs have recently popped up over in the AMA governmental affairs area on the AMA web site. They appear to be a call to arms from when the rules were looking to be getting very tough last fall. I hope that the appearance of these documents now does not mean things with the FAA are taking a turn for the worse......

Each .pdf shows an internal file date of mid Nov 2010 in the documents

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAA-onepage.pdf

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/FAA-fourpage.pdf

I also uploaded the .pdfs on here.

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

The reading of these pdfs looks pretty damming......
I'm glad I brushed up on my helicopter skills, as my jets look like(maybe) they are going to be leislated into oblivion.

But until somebody shows up to take them away ... buy your turbine fuel now and ..........Just Keep flying!!!!

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

I hope that they are artifacts, and based on their creation date that is not an unreasonable assumption. They may also reflect what will be the default limits placed on model aircraft in the absence of any CBO generated safety standards that will allow for more liberal operational limits. Hopefully Rich or Dave will have some feedback on this.

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

Worth remembering that they were created back in Nov 2010, right after the much discussed low point of negotiations with the FAA. I have contacted the AMA asking for more information.

It does briefly mention that we could be exempt from some of the worst rules based on the AMA/CBO alternative means of compliance.

They do mention the two tier program, which seems to be obsolete as of the FAA/AMA panel discussion at the AMA convention.

Overall, even as artifacts, I think the AMA did a pretty good job on these position papers, as a worst case line of defense. Will prove to the naysayers that the AMA is working hard for all.

Always a good idea to start from being a little more hurt than you actually are, in legal things like this, as a negotiating ploy. And let's hope that we are not in that bad of shape!

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

It still seems to me that the FAA has to have some baseline set of operational limits. Then a CBO can present their own standards for review and hopeful acceptance by the FAA which will grant more liberal operational limits. But the FAA has to proceed as if there are no CBOs and no CBO generated standards. It makes sense that their default set would be fairly restrictive. THis does seem counter to what they said at the AMA Expo meeting (they said they were not proposing hard limits) but it does make sense to me.

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

Good points...and it does not hurt for ther AMA to proceed with these position papers in general support of our hobby serving all modelers and not just AMA members., even if we gain some relief through the CBO alternative means of compliance path.


Hopefully, intense lobbying by thousands of R/C flyers will not impact the FAA acceptance of our CBO's proposed alternative means of compliance......

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

To bad the AMA can't come up with a well written letter that could be sent to all club preidents to cet all club members to E-Mail and snail mail to the FAA board, if nothing more it would sure get there attention.


Cheers Bob T
AMA 13377

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

I would not assume that the AMA will not do that, especially as the date of public comment comes closer or arrives for the FAA NPRM. It is a little hard to write a really effective letter so far, as we do not know the exact shape of the rules yet and will not know until June 2011 at the earilest.

However, masses of emails are not as impressive as masses of actual letters written and stamped by individuals....much harder to ignore...:)

And the language in those documents would serve well re-written into a letter to congress critters and the FAA.

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

If only someone could have seen that coming[8D]


OMG
an amazing thing happened when I said that over at the AMA board

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

Lemme guess, your post went poof..............

You should understand that. It's like..............hmmm........a sadist has been defined as somebody that does nice things to a masochist. If you aren't a masochist, why were you there? They were just being nice to you.

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

To be accurate what you were posting on the AMA board was questioning if the AMA was a CBO, not if there were no CBO standards. I know you wanted to make it seem like they were the same thing but they are not. Regardless of whether or not their standards get accepted by the FAA, the AMA is still considered a CBO.

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

Well, the pictured bumper stickers will go on sale soon! AMA turbine and sailplane members receive a 10% discount!

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

Hmmm...Is it just me but does the below make your head shake like a hound dog sprayed by a skunk??

What we do know at this point is that the Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) recommended that there be a provision in the rule to allow model aircraft operations that are conducted in accordance with an FAA-accepted set of standards to be exempt from the rule.






BTW Silent,
Just to be accurate and for proper extrapolation, who first coined the term CBO in regards to model aviation???

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

This may take hundreds upon hundreds of posts going back and forth and back and forth. Maybe we need a group of Cisco-ites to cause an uprising [X(]

Hey, I'll be Unclecicsco while Kid can be Kidcsico ;) We can discuss (fight about) with others the long awaited FAA standards or we can type about how to mount windshield wipers on a horse's butt and people can correct us on our many mis-understood posts.

Unjokingly though, I do wonder what FAA is going to do, if anything. I simply don't think they will leave RC alone since security is such a big deal these days. I am hoping it is not too stringent. If TSA can profile the wrong people, wonder what (secret) FAA rules will setup this year?

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

BTW Silent,
Just to be accurate and for proper extrapolation, who first coined the term CBO in regards to model aviation???

per FHH:
the MA faa "CBO" came from the sUAS ARC,
and we all know the ARC was just a recommendation TO the faa, as to what the FAA should do IN THE FUTURE.
As FHH says, whatever is the faa MA CBO definition to meet (or if one will even exist ), it has not been published yet
and it hard to already meet future requirements that might not even come into existence




Of course, their fixation on defending their belief that AMA is already a ~sUAS/p107 MA CBO~
is just RA tangent to the real discussion:

Regardless of it being 'No CBOs' or if its 'No CBO Standards Accepted' when the regs fire up,
the resulting regulation upon 'non-cbo-standards' modeling (aka Everyone) will be the same

any RA squabbling over AMA now meeting a definition that might never come to exists
is futile

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

The FAA has an established history of working with Community Based Organizations, this NPRM is not the first. Hence they knew what they were before the sUAS ARC.

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

Is the term 'working with' that you use
synonymous with 'ignoring'
cause I keep reading how the AMA is getting ignored re the ARC etc


ama fourpage.pdf


Regardless if my bowling team or AMA meet some non-(sUAS/p107) CBO requirements,
either way, even if AMA is just as non-suas-CBO as my bowling team,
the results are the same for model flyers if there are no-cbos or if there are no-accepted-cbo-standards

heck, if you want to stay with demanding AMA is already a CBO,
then whats the point of being a CBO
if AMA gets SOOOOO ignored by the faa in the arc-nprm process?
How much did being a non-p107-CBO help when AMA wrote the OMG-DOOOOOM!!1!!1! pdfs in Novenber?

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

Fortunately for our club our field is on MY property. While I would hate the idea of leaving the AMA I will not stop flying all my aircraft. Should the AMA fall under the grips of the FAA I will leave the group and continue to fly in the same manner as I have for the past 25 years. This would really upset me but it would not surprise me given the climate in DC. I am not much of a poster on discussion sites like this but I do read a lot of them. Like most people I dont have any FAA details on this subject, but I do know AMA needs to get more agressive towards the FAA in committments to protect our hobby.

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

The way it works is after the NPRM Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued in june, a comment period is set up, as short as 30 days to 90 or 180 days. This is some times extended when a lot of comments are recieved. When the actual NPRM is issued and the comment period is announced is the time to send your comments to the FAA. We have to also get the estimated 350000 or so non AMA affliated flyers and manufactures to take the time to WRIGHT (Hard COPY) comments to the FAA. WE have to inindate them with paper ... Believe me it works, other NPRM's have been altered or changed because of public comment.

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

Am I the only person who received the AMA newsletter by e-mail. In it, they included this link: http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/gov.aspx
This is the text from that page:
Government Relations
For the past three years the AMA has participated in the rulemaking process aimed at establishing federal regulations for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS). We’ve worked directly with the FAA in an effort to ensure that these regulations will not have a detrimental impact on the aeromodeling community, and we are continuing to work with the regulators in an effort to safeguard the future of model aviation. The rulemaking process is very long and complex, and to date very little is known regarding the specifics of the proposed rule. However, the FAA is nearing completion of the initial phase of the rulemaking process and is expected to publish its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register in June 2011. The proposed rule will then be open for public comment.

What we do know at this point is that the Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) recommended that there be a provision in the rule to allow model aircraft operations that are conducted in accordance with an FAA-accepted set of standards to be exempt from the rule. The FAA leadership in the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO) has consistently held that this has been, and continues to be, its regulatory approach to model aviation. And during the past year and a half, UAPO representatives have been actively involved in providing guidance to the AMA in its effort to develop a set of standards that—if accepted and adopted by the FAA—will serve as an alternative means of complying with the new sUAS regulation.

As we near the public-comment period, it’s extremely important that all aeromodeling enthusiasts become aware of the issues at stake and the challenges that lie ahead. This AMA webpage provides much of the background material on the sUAS rulemaking issue and will serve as a resource to the AMA membership for current and relevant information as the regulatory and standards-development process progresses.

– Rich Hanson, AMA Government Relations and Regulatory Affairs Representative

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

Nope. I got it yesterday. Read it, decided to see if there was anything new on the AMA Government Affairs wed page and found the newly posted .pdf pages that I put in the first post.

Based on that email, it does sound like model flyers without a alternative means of compliance are possibly looking at the harsh regulations mentioned in those .pdfs

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

<span style="font-size: medium">I will retire my R/C planes, boats, cars ETC., along with my less than 5000' altitude rockets, whenyou pry the controls from mycold deadfingers.</span></p>

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

Seems we figured AMA would OMB119 its way into CBO Standards exclusion from the harsh ARCs3 stuff.

Why is it we dont see any mention of OMB119 in the two 'new' PDFs,
(havent heard of it since that AMA-FAA meeting text that had the FAA tell us to use it, and we said it was too hard)

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

It may just come down to that sort of thing in this country. Is AMA truly the "voice" of the people in RC? Don't get me wrong with this. I do believe AMA is trying. Do we think FAA will really listen to AMA or more to the government twerps behind their Mahogany desks that run everything?

If there is not one thing I have seen in the good old USA is that the gov wants to run our lives and control EVERY aspect. I watched it change since I was a boy and watched how they have increased at every level and we have decreased.

It may come a time that we have to take back what our fathers and their fathers fought to keep. It is sickening. There will always be people that misuse rights and RC is no different from what I can tell. Anyone can abuse any privilege.

Which one of us would build an RC plane to bomb something? Just like guns are not the problem, the evil that use them are. I mean who would fly over some secure land if we knew it was secure? Usually it is nothing more than a mistake or ignorance. If AMA is our only recourse then we must make AMA speak louder and stand stronger.

OK, rant done :D

RE: Interesting newly posted AMA documents concerning the FAA regulations
 

Good Rant!!;)


but unfortunately it seems that AMA speaks out for the membership first and foremost... and most people agree that is just how it should be...