Enforcing new laws at Flite Fest

[ScottSteward]

Your semantics are not correct here. While there is a difference between statutes and regulations, it is all *law*. More importantly, for a lay person and as a practical matter, it's a distinction without a difference. In a case like this, involving a goverenmental agency, a statute is the bare bones enabler. The regulations are the meat and potatoes.

In fact, there is an entire body of law dedicated to the interpretation of regulations. It's called Administrative Law. They have their own judges and everything. The are called Administrative Law Judges.

When I spoke to the AMA VP last week, he explained to me that "regulation" and "law" are not synonymous. It's a difference between who enacts it. By Federal definition, a regulation can only become a "law" if passed by Congress or Senate.

Also by Federal definition, in order for something to become law, it must be proposed as a "bill". This is only a "proposal".

The two words theoretically mean the same thing but always remember, it's Government - they love to complicate everything- including vocabulary.

This is at least how it explained to me last week.

 

[rockyboy]

Bingo! And I think this is where things are being misconstrued. The words "further guidence" is being interpreted by some to mean "have not decided or clarified" and that is simply not true. AMA is actually the only group that the FAA is currently using as a model for what a CBO is. "Further guidance" is really a statement there for those seeking to become new ones. It does not negate AMA's current position as one.

I don't understand why you keep coming back to this point when all you have is words spoken by someone you talked to (reguardless of their position) and nothing in writing that contradicts the multiple written official documents and sources myself and others have provided.

Please, what's your point? Does it make the FAA's dismissal of AMA's Remote ID proposals any less problematic if the AMA is a CBO rather than just acting like one?

 

[PsyBorg]

Once again to quote directly from the federal register.. https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-recreational-operations-of-unmanned-aircraft

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 requires the FAA and community-based aeromodelling organizations (CBOs) to coordinate the development of safety guidelines for recreational small unmanned aircraft operations. 49 U.S.C. 44809(a)(2). CBOs are defined in section 44809(h) and must be recognized by the FAA in accordance with section 44809(i). Section 44809(i) requires the FAA to publish guidance establishing the criteria and process for recognizing CBOs. The FAA is developing the criteria and intends to collaborate with stakeholders through a public process.
Until the FAA establishes the criteria and process and begins recognizing CBOs, it cannot coordinate the development of safety guidelines. Accordingly, no recognized CBOs or coordinated safety guidelines currently exist, as contemplated by section 44809(a)(2). Additionally, the FAA acknowledges that aeromodelling organizations have developed safety guidelines that are helpful to recreational flyers. The FAA has determined that it is in the public interest to reasonably interpret this condition to allow recreational unmanned aircraft operations under the exception while the FAA implements all statutory


It also states that the CBO standards that have always been used by the AMA will remain to allow recreational flight to continue until the FAA can define what they deem a CBO should be. Those standards have recently been updated and FT will be going thru the full process as soon as they open it up I am sure.

 

[ScottSteward]

I don't understand why you keep coming back to this point when all you have is words spoken by someone you talked to (reguardless of their position) and nothing in writing that contradicts the multiple written official documents and sources myself and others have provided.

Please, what's your point? Does it make the FAA's dismissal of AMA's Remote ID proposals any less problematic if the AMA is a CBO rather than just acting like one?

Yes, it does because as a CBO, there are things written in the current proposal that would give AMA exemption. I want those things for the clubs I belong to. So it absolutely is important that AMA is recognized as a CBO (and they absolutely are the closest thing to an FAA defined CBO at this time(.

 

[ScottSteward]

Once again to quote directly from the federal register.. https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-recreational-operations-of-unmanned-aircraft

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 requires the FAA and community-based aeromodelling organizations (CBOs) to coordinate the development of safety guidelines for recreational small unmanned aircraft operations. 49 U.S.C. 44809(a)(2). CBOs are defined in section 44809(h) and must be recognized by the FAA in accordance with section 44809(i). Section 44809(i) requires the FAA to publish guidance establishing the criteria and process for recognizing CBOs. The FAA is developing the criteria and intends to collaborate with stakeholders through a public process.
Until the FAA establishes the criteria and process and begins recognizing CBOs, it cannot coordinate the development of safety guidelines. Accordingly, no recognized CBOs or coordinated safety guidelines currently exist, as contemplated by section 44809(a)(2). Additionally, the FAA acknowledges that aeromodelling organizations have developed safety guidelines that are helpful to recreational flyers. The FAA has determined that it is in the public interest to reasonably interpret this condition to allow recreational unmanned aircraft operations under the exception while the FAA implements all statutory


It also states that the CBO standards that have always been used by the AMA will remain to allow recreational flight to continue until the FAA can define what they deem a CBO should be. Those standards have recently been updated and FT will be going thru the full process as soon as they open it up I am sure.

Right. So where in that do you read the words "AMA is not currently recognized as a CBO"? I don't see those words. Do you? If yes, please point me to where.

 

[ScottSteward]

[QUOTE="PsyBorg, post: 536064[/quote]
Until the FAA establishes the criteria and process and begins recognizing CBOs, it cannot coordinate the development of safety guidelines. Accordingly, no recognized CBOs or coordinated safety guidelines currently exist,[/QUOTE]

This is your conclusion to what was written. It's not actually what was stated.

 

[ScottSteward]

Look guys! i'm just trying to be optimistic and positive here. So many of you on this thread are just depressing. All doom and gloom...."hobby's over"....."scrappimg my fleet"....man.......why?!?

I realize we have to be proactive and realistic about this but my gosh. Some of you are just miserable with your pessimism.

 

[ScottSteward]

I cant make it any more obvious then quoting the LAW that was enacted in 2018 that CLEARLY states NO RECOGNIZED CBO's OR COORDINATED SAFETY GUIDELINES CURRENTLY EXIST.

WHERE....does it say that? You keep quoting it. I want to see those exact words in writing. I "understand the words coming out of your mouth". I just refuse to believe them until I see it on an FAA document. In those exact words. NOT just your interpretation of a vague FAA statement out of context.

 

[Flying Monkey fab]

I appreciate your concern. There is a flipside to this however. Would you rather have no nothing politicians in the place of the expert bureaucrats?

As a professional mariner, I get to deal with U.S. Coast Guard regulations all the time. I don't think I'd be better served by congress in this regard.

On the bigger picture, and I think this is the juxt of your complaint, do unelected bureaucrats have too much power? They have a lot of it. Maybe too much. But it's a complicated world and what's the alternative?

I hear you and would have agreed with you in practice right up to the start of this year!
Now on principle, there is way too much power given to those without accountability.

 

[ScottSteward]

How much freakin dope do you smoke each day dude... I linked the laws so you didnt have to search for them, I even pulled that quote directly from the documents.

At this point your making cheech and chong look like rocket scientists.. The way you are replying and acting I am almost to the point of thinking you are TAZMAN reincarnated just to stir up more problems.

I don't smoke anything. I just interpret these documents differently.

 

[ScottSteward]

It also states that the CBO standards that have always been used by the AMA will remain to allow recreational flight to continue until the FAA can define what they deem a CBO should be. Those standards have recently been updated and FT will be going thru the full process as soon as they open it up I am sure.

Now THAT would be awesome!!!! I'm all about a FT CBO!!!!

 

[ScottSteward]

Already posted that info. You need to have EVERY craft individually registered at 5 dollars each. Each one of them have to have their own yet to be determined identification device that connect to the internet thru your cell phone to the 30 dollar a year "Service provider" (not sure if that will be per craft or not as no clarification has been given) to the FAA.

This has nothing to do with FRIAS nor does Josh and Alex being in the video. It also does not guarantee Flite Test / Flite Fest a FRIA before July. If they get an automatic pass imagine the out cry from AMA fields and other areas in line to get their FRIAS.

Nobody is going Defcon 5. Its a discussion I started to put thoughts and ideas and stimulate dialog in one place where hopefully at some point actual information can be put from the Flite Test core team.

That's a reasonable statement.

 

[AkimboGlueGuns]

Just going to leave it at this.

 

[PsyBorg]

Just going to leave it at this.

YEAH!!!!!!
They can have my quads when they can pry my cold dead fingers from my transmitter!!!


I pledge allegiance to the flags for which I rip my quads around.
And to the gaps thru which I fly
One hobby INDIVISIBLE
With High tech and fresh props for all!!

My quaddies tis of thee
Machines for ripp erry
Of thee I sing

fields where us pilots fly
land of the building dives
screwed up by DJI
Let high KV ring

 

[rockyboy]

 

[skymaster]

there has to be a reason why the FAA is tagetting the hobby. we know drone delivery is a well done fail. so what are they really after. i am still a noob about all this but what does CBO stand for?

 

[PsyBorg]

CBO = Community Based Organization.

The AMA for the entire history of the hobby was the only one. With all the restructuring AND after the AMA tried to make a play to stay the only one as well as throwing the entire FPV community under the bus someone decided that was not a good idea and they have been working on what the government thinks a CBO should be so that all bases of the hobby are covered. That way there could still be free flight only clubs, Slope soaring only clubs and so on because not all aspects of the hobby mix well in the same air space. (I am giving them the benefit of the doubt on that statement as it only makes sense)

As for why they do it..Why else does any government do things.. MONEY. All the big businesses have lobbied politicians and officials as well as "gifted" them things or flat out gave them cash bribes to manipulate laws that favor their businesses. So my thoughts are they are burdening the hobby to the point people will just quit so those air spaces are freely given over to business. It is also getting structured so IF that doesnt happen things are in place to force registration, taxing, and insurances upon the hobby like they have with cars and boats and full scale aircraft.

NONE of it is over safety. May be partially over security with us and other countries developing drone swarms as a method of battle but again its government and they have their own agendas not what is actually best for the public in mind.

 

[skymaster]

So i just google how many members the AMA have and it says it has, 195,000 members. so 195.000 x 75.00=14.625.000 Imagine when if the law goes through all that money goes away.

 

[rockyboy]

Honestly, that much money is peanuts when compared to the lobby budget of groups like the Commercial Drone Alliance or the consulting fees of the companies"helping the FAA" research and implement aspects of the new law. $10M for a three month consulting/ lobby engagement is not uncommon at all. Yes money is likely a motivator, but the money at the scale AMA has to apply here is just pissing in the wind in DC.

 

[OliverW]

I understand where the FAA is coming from, but they cant enforce their laws where I live. I asked a police officer about this and he said that local law enforcement in Oregon does not enforce federal laws. He said that if the rules go into play that they won't last long anyways.