brett8883
Well-Known Member
You aren’t missing anything at all. You grasp it quite well if you ask meIf that is the case and all CBOs will have the same guidelines then why even have them at all? Maybe I'm missing something?
You aren’t missing anything at all. You grasp it quite well if you ask meIf that is the case and all CBOs will have the same guidelines then why even have them at all? Maybe I'm missing something?
Because Congress required it. The model aircraft lobby apparently has a surprisingly powerful influence, which prevented the obviously correct solution of having the FAA regulate both recreational and non-recreational sUAS. Instead Congress insisted on having CBOs take the lead on recreational regulations, while giving the FAA the authority to approve the CBOs.If that is the case and all CBOs will have the same guidelines then why even have them at all? Maybe I'm missing something?
No - you have misunderstood §44809 if that's your interpretation. §44809 (d) (2) is only one element relating to future updates.The new guidelines are really about (d)(2). Everything else was already in place in the current AC 91.57B and known since 44809 came out.
Thanks, I didn't know that part. Figures, just another layer of bureaucracy to deal with that is not needed.Because Congress required it.
That question is clearly answered in the circular. There is no requirement to notify a CBO, and what would be the point of that anyway?My question:
- If membership in a CBO is not required, do you have to notify your CBO of choice you are following their rules -or- just pick one, print their rules and carry them?
I appreciate your response. Thanks!That question is clearly answered in the circular. There is no requirement to notify a CBO, and what would be the point of that anyway?
2.2.2 Section 44809(a)(2). “The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.” Recreational flyers should be able to explain to an FAA inspector or law enforcement officer which CBO’s safety guidelines they are following during any given flight. However, an operator does not need to be a member of a CBO to fly under its safety guidelines.
They won't all have the same guidelines, I'm sure each will pick and choose from this list the FAA is proposing. At least I hope!If that is the case and all CBOs will have the same guidelines then why even have them at all? Maybe I'm missing something?
Good job GregThis topic seems to have gone somewhat unnoticed over the last few days but the FAA has posted an updated version of the Recreational Flyer advisory circular (AC 91.57). The draft document is 91.57C (the current version is still 91.57B) and contains new guidelines from the FAA regarding CBO approval. A large portion of the document highlights the restrictions/guidelines that CBOs should include in their Safety Guidelines, which everyone will have to eventually follow in the upcoming months. The document is still a draft and the FAA has opened a comment period until August 9.
We made a detailed video that explains what those new guidelines are and how you can submit a comment to the FAA. This is a fairly important matter and many on this forum fly for recreational purposes, so be sure to voice your opinion. Here's a link to the video.
So, like I said, a flyer can go CBO shopping to pick the rules that best fit their wants.They won't all have the same guidelines, I'm sure each will pick and choose from this list the FAA is proposing. At least I hope!
That is precisely my question. The whole notion of community-based organizations seems like an unnecessary layer. There are rules that should apply everywhere; no community-based organization is going to want to add to them.So why have such organizations?If that is the case and all CBOs will have the same guidelines then why even have them at all? Maybe I'm missing something?
How many times does this have to be repeated? Because the model aircraft community successfully lobbied Congress not to be directly regulated by the FAA.That is precisely my question. The whole notion of community-based organizations seems like an unnecessary layer. There are rules that should apply everywhere; no community-based organization is going to want to add to them.So why have such organizations?
From my understanding is you don't have to "have" a local CBO but you will have to pick a CBO for guidelines to fly under. If the AMA is a CBO, they are nationwide. So even though the are not "local" to you, or even have a chapter in your area, they will still be called a CBO that you could choose.May be a while and never have a local CBO. We just got our 3rd stop light this last year. In the sticks of western NC and probably 3 drones in the county.
From the FAA web site - The FAA-AMA pact is important because the 2012 FAA Reauthorization contained language specific to model aircraft. Congress mandated that the FAA cannot regulate model aircraft operated according to community-based standards developed by a national organization – a designation that AMA satisfies.How many times does this have to be repeated? Because the model aircraft community successfully lobbied Congress not to be directly regulated by the FAA.
The problem is that provision of law hasn’t been in force since then. That was repealed in the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act and the arrangement we looking at now replaced the law you cite.From the FAA web site - The FAA-AMA pact is important because the 2012 FAA Reauthorization contained language specific to model aircraft. Congress mandated that the FAA cannot regulate model aircraft operated according to community-based standards developed by a national organization – a designation that AMA satisfies.
That congressional act was formed and passed back in 2012 and this has been in force since then. Mutually the FAA and AMA determined that the AMA was a CBO and it has acted without problem since that time. I wonder why, 10 years later, that the FAA is stepping in with the new suggestions? To me that is the FAA trying to have control over CBOs. Do this or you can't be a CBO and have no power in the model aviation industry.
Because it was required by law:I wonder why, 10 years later, that the FAA is stepping in with the new suggestions? To me that is the FAA trying to have control over CBOs. Do this or you can't be a CBO and have no power in the model aviation industry.
Thanks for taking the time to post this. When I took the trust test somewhere I saw, if you do not have a CBO just state you are flying under AC97-51B which I assumed was FAA rules. I printed that on my certificate. In another thought, how do we find CBOs? Or better yet, can we just start our own?This topic seems to have gone somewhat unnoticed over the last few days but the FAA has posted an updated version of the Recreational Flyer advisory circular (AC 91.57). The draft document is 91.57C (the current version is still 91.57B) and contains new guidelines from the FAA regarding CBO approval. A large portion of the document highlights the restrictions/guidelines that CBOs should include in their Safety Guidelines, which everyone will have to eventually follow in the upcoming months. The document is still a draft and the FAA has opened a comment period until August 9.
We made a detailed video that explains what those new guidelines are and how you can submit a comment to the FAA. This is a fairly important matter and many on this forum fly for recreational purposes, so be sure to voice your opinion. Here's a link to the video.
No - to qualify under the exemption from Part 107 you have to fly under a CBO set of rules.Thanks for taking the time to post this. When I took the trust test somewhere I saw, if you do not have a CBO just state you are flying under AC97-51B which I assumed was FAA rules. I printed that on my certificate.
You certainly can start your own:In another thought, how do we find CBOs? Or better yet, can we just start our own?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.