There's a lot of ambiguity over the "...and within the programming..." part of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (PL112-95 Section 336). Since that wording is in PL 112-95 Section 336 para (a)(2), I thought I'd ask the agency responsible for enforcement ... the FAA.

My question and their response is attached. In short:

"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO, nor does the FAA list any CBOs. You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO." - email from FAA UAS Integration Office, 12 July 2016

Actually the FAA does list a CBO and it's the AMA

7 “[C]ommunity-based organizations,” for example, would include groups such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics and others that meet the statutory definition.

[4910-13]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FAA-2014-0396]
Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

Page 12 footnote 7

Originally Posted by franklin_m

There's a lot of ambiguity over the "...and within the programming..." part of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (PL112-95 Section 336). Since that wording is in PL 112-95 Section 336 para (a)(2), I thought I'd ask the agency responsible for enforcement ... the FAA.

My question and their response is attached. In short:

"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO, nor does the FAA list any CBOs. You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO." - email from FAA UAS Integration Office, 12 July 2016

.......

Originally Posted by RustyK

.......

What exactly does that mean?

I wanted to save your post but you have to type three characters in order to post, thus .....

Not sure why you’d need to save the post since it’s at the beginning.

And just this month, the Executive Director of the FAA UAS Integration Office confirmed membership is not required. CES 2018.

Advance to 56:45 for question and Earl Lawrence’s response
https://www.ces.tech/Conference/Conf...one-Innovation

Well that settles that.
Thanks for the link.

Mike

Originally Posted by franklin_m

There's a lot of ambiguity over the "...and within the programming..." part of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (PL112-95 Section 336). Since that wording is in PL 112-95 Section 336 para (a)(2), I thought I'd ask the agency responsible for enforcement ... the FAA.

My question and their response is attached. In short:

"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO, nor does the FAA list any CBOs. You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO." - email from FAA UAS Integration Office, 12 July 2016

Congress needs to pass a FAA re-authorization/funding bill regularly, and one is due this year. There are riders lobbied for by AMA in House and Senate versions that are essentially the same as what is in PL 112-95 Sec 336, with a new twist in the House version that replaces the "...and within the programming..." to the effect that CBO (aka AMA since there are no others extant) membership is required to operate under the provision that was Sec 336. The House version H.R. 4 contains several sections in addition to the CBO section that each would allow for model airplane operation without the CBO "excess baggage" required.
The position of FAA on the matter is currently as you have stated, but when the new FAA re-authorization act becomes law, it could well result in retaining freedom to fly a model airplane without question of some requirement to pay for membership in a "CBO such as AMA." FAA is the cognizant authority regarding this and the appropriate source for answers to any questions.

Originally Posted by abel pranger

Congress needs to pass a FAA re-authorization/funding bill regularly, and one is due this year. There are riders lobbied for by AMA in House and Senate versions that are essentially the same as what is in PL 112-95 Sec 336, with a new twist in the House version that replaces the "...and within the programming..." to the effect that CBO (aka AMA since there are no others extant) membership is required to operate under the provision that was Sec 336. The House version H.R. 4 contains several sections in addition to the CBO section that each would allow for model airplane operation without the CBO "excess baggage" required.

The position of FAA on the matter is currently as you have stated, but when the new FAA re-authorization act becomes law, it could well result in retaining freedom to fly a model airplane without question of some requirement to pay for membership in a "CBO such as AMA." FAA is the cognizant authority regarding this and the appropriate source for answers to any questions.

I think it would be wise for AMA to reconsider what they’re asking for. Imagine what happens to AMAs membership revenue if FAA writes operational rules that cover the vast majority of flying - for example most everything except FW turbine and LMA (which would only happen via a CBO).

Can AMA survive on membership dollars of only those who have no option but fly at AMA chartered club sites? I suspect not. But if they push the FAA hard enough, we just might find out!

Originally Posted by franklin_m

I think it would be wise for AMA to reconsider what they’re asking for. Imagine what happens to AMAs membership revenue if FAA writes operational rules that cover the vast majority of flying - for example most everything except FW turbine and LMA (which would only happen via a CBO).

Can AMA survive on membership dollars of only those who have no option but fly at AMA chartered club sites? I suspect not. But if they push the FAA hard enough, we just might find out!

I have a strong feeling that the AMA's plan for a national commune of R/C modelers under their wise leadership will soon die of self-inflected wounds. FAA has spoiled their ambitions wrapped up in Sec 336. The "within the programming of a CBO" ambiguity in the wording of 336 was intended to disguise their ploy to put a CBO (i.e., AMA as there are no others) membership requirement in the only federal law that would authorize flying a model airplane. FAA, the agent charged with interpreting the law, did not interpret the ambiguous language as AMA intended nor more importantly, what Congress intended. AMA's speaking for Congress on what was intended has fallen on deaf ears, and the latest version is the first attempt to get the bill passed while saying clearly what they wanted. That may be sufficient in itself to get the section thrown out in conference because it is merit-less. If not, then there are several provisions in other sections of H.R. 4 that relate to inclusion of modelers that don't want their freedom to fly a model airplane in public airspace be conditioned on paying dues to a private business.

The question relating to model aircraft when PL 112-95 Section 336 became law was should model aircraft operation be protected from future FAA regulation? The multiple amendments included in H.R. 4 change the question to should the freedom to fly model aircraft in public airspace be privatized for the benefit of non-profit company(s) in fiscal need calling themselves "CBO('s)"? No contest IMHO.

Sorry, I didn't really address your question. It's a matter of priorities; freedom to fly models is high in my priorities so I give it time for some serious thought. Resolution of AMA's fiscal difficulties isn't. If a company is exempt from paying taxes and holds a monopoly over the small minority of the modeling public that needs improved fixed-base fields to operate from can't balance the books, perhaps they need to downsize.

For those that recently joined the forum from the Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy forum, you are welcome to join this thread. Another thread about this one creates discontinuity and confusion.