|
Marke Gibson at the AMA expo this weekend around the 24 minute mark plus many more statements..
|
So who is Mark Gibson?
|
A rep from the FAA. If you watch the video you'll know as much as me ;)
|
Just got to the rich Hanson part. He says that the AMA no longer suggests waiting on registration. The hold was only on the chance that the AMA and FAA database could share information in the hope that you could use the AMA number as a registration number and they would handle the registration for the AMA members.
|
Originally Posted by jonkoppisch
(Post 12159502)
Just got to the rich Hanson part. He says that the AMA no longer suggests waiting on registration. The hold was only on the chance that the AMA and FAA database could share information in the hope that you could use the AMA number as a registration number and they would handle the registration for the AMA members.
|
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
(Post 12159486)
That is incorrect. The government can and insurance especially health insurance is a prime example. The SCOTUS upheld that the government can indeed force one to buy insurance from a private for profit corporation, and I assume that would include membership in a non profit organization
Bob |
Rich also says that "AMA says that you need to be compliant with all laws and regulations." Effectively that you need to go ahead and register. It's at the 1.00 point
lol, "then you'll see that by joining the AMA, remaining an AMA member, you will effect registration and continue to enjoy flying our model airplanes like we have in the past" |
Originally Posted by rhklenke
(Post 12159558)
They can tell you that you must HAVE insurance, or that you must purchase insurance, but they can not tell you that you must buy it from a single, specific provider. Also, having insurance, or requiring insurance, is different than forcing membership in an organization... which is why section 336 says CBO, not "AMA" and says "follow the safety rules of" and not "be a member of"...
Bob |
Rich Hanson is not the AMA. I would think the President would listen to their lawyers. Not a hack.
|
|
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
(Post 12159570)
Actually the SCOTUS ruled that they can make you purchase from a single provider, because in some cases only one insurance company may be available. Also this is a non profit provider, so it is not the same.
Nowhere does it say that you must be a member of the CBO, or which CBO that might happen to be... The point is, people keep saying that the AMA counted on "forced membership" to boost their coffers, and from the beginning, it was clear that membership in the AMA would not be "forced" by the law (and I still content that membership can not be forced by a law - membership in an organization is not health insurance) and AMA never counted on "forced" membership. Yes, they did believe that AMA membership would rise by including multirotors and things like FPV in their rules, and it has done so. It is also true that many long-term, existing AMA members have taken up multirotors and FPV - safely, by following the AMA safety code... Bob |
Originally Posted by JimBrown
(Post 12159575)
Also note what they say there about the "400-foot altitude limit"... Bob |
Originally Posted by rhklenke
(Post 12159558)
They can tell you that you must HAVE insurance, or that you must purchase insurance, but they can not tell you that you must buy it from a single, specific provider. Also, having insurance, or requiring insurance, is different than forcing membership in an organization... which is why section 336 says CBO, not "AMA" and says "follow the safety rules of" and not "be a member of"...
Bob AMA said explicitly in the response to my question that they will not certify non-member aircraft. So at least for a part of it, AMA is taking advantage of that portion of the law to require membership. |
And it also looks like the FAA is going to require AMA membership to fly over 400' as the AMA has said the FAA will change it web site to reflect this. http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...ked-questions/
|
It says those "not operating within the safety guidelines". must stay below 400 feet. It does not say you must be an AMA member.
|
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12159614)
Bob, I asked AMA if they require membership to certify aircraft >=55lbs under PL112-95 section 336 (a)(3). That's the part that for something in excess of 55lbs to be considered a model under the law, it has to be certified etc. by a CBO.
AMA said explicitly in the response to my question that they will not certify non-member aircraft. So at least for a part of it, AMA is taking advantage of that portion of the law to require membership. That situation is a bit different. For LMA certification, you have to get other AMA members involved in the inspection/signoff process and they have to be either Leader Members or CD's. For LMA-2 certification, they have to be designated LMA inspectors. As an LMA inspector myself, I would not want to do a signoff that is outside the AMA membership ranks - if for liability reasons if nothing else. Of the 180,000 (or whatever it is) AMA membership, the LMA signoffs number right around 120, so you can be pretty sure that the AMA isn't holding that back for fund raising reasons... Bob |
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
(Post 12159633)
It says those "not operating within the safety guidelines". must stay below 400 feet. It does not say you must be an AMA member.
when the FAA updates their website. Personally I think it would be wrong for the FAA to require AMA membership to do anything and laws they have should apply to everyone no matter if you are a AMA member or not. But I said it looks like they will require membership kind of hard to say for sure one way or another at this point. |
It is the same language in the 2012 bill, nothing new. It is pretty clear to me.
|
Originally Posted by rhklenke
(Post 12159665)
Franklin,
That situation is a bit different. For LMA certification, you have to get other AMA members involved in the inspection/signoff process and they have to be either Leader Members or CD's. For LMA-2 certification, they have to be designated LMA inspectors. As an LMA inspector myself, I would not want to do a signoff that is outside the AMA membership ranks - if for liability reasons if nothing else. Of the 180,000 (or whatever it is) AMA membership, the LMA signoffs number right around 120, so you can be pretty sure that the AMA isn't holding that back for fund raising reasons... Bob Now, if AMA is saying that the $5 registration fee is potentially a member benefit (remember OMB has to approve any deal to reduce fees), then they're incurring $5 x 180,000 in costs after just raising dues. I'd argue if they've got that kind of money to throw around, then they could pay some AMA folks to inspect IAW that section of law w/o requiring membership. Just my 2cents. |
Not to mention, if Chad B's comments on the AMA blog are accurate, AMA is trying to get FAA to state on their website that AMA members can operate above 400'. That does, in a sense, make AMA membership mandatory for many types of sUAS flight.
I'm happy to comply with their safety guidelines, but the moment they make membership a requirement to operate in the people's airspace, they (AMA) loses my support. |
I went ahead and registered. I don't have a problem with 400'. I just don't want to show up to my club to have a safety officer ground me. That would have permanent consequences which are unnecessary.
|
Why would a safety officer ground you? Registration has nothing to do with safety.
|
|
Originally Posted by ira d
(Post 12159632)
And it also looks like the FAA is going to require AMA membership to fly over 400' as the AMA has said the FAA will change it web site to reflect this. http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...ked-questions/
|
Originally Posted by jonkoppisch
(Post 12159491)
FAA at the AMA Expo this Weekend....
He says first up front that a lot of it was about the commercial $ aspect.. FAA. "336 says no new laws or regulations basically, the point of the FAA is that it's pre existing. We already had the statutory authority to compell registration of aircraft. UAS are now called, termed aircraft. It was discretionary before that we didn't before this, but now with the numbers and incidents we figured it was only going to continue to grow. So the idea of accountability and giving the support back and to educate the masses frankly, that haven't come up through the aviation community. So that's kind of the rational, we can talk later whether it was a sledgehammer or not... That was the idea, Especially kind of force, into some time constraint because of the holidays coming up and there was going to be another 400,000 out there and it was timely to get it done. That's why we were able to do it rather quickly because of the pre existing capability" In my opinion none of which accomplishes any goals he claims they set.. http://youtu.be/fOeoHJZdwuw |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:15 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.