New FAA Guidance for Recreational Flyers

[cgmaxed]

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?

just carry a copy of the cbo's guidelines that you selected to follow.. no need to do anything else.

 

[cgmaxed]

WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THIS FORUM AND THE OTHER FORUMS THEY RUN TO CREATE A CBO?

 

[dirkclod]

WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THIS FORUM AND THE OTHER FORUMS THEY RUN TO CREATE A CBO?

That would be something @BigAl07 would have to answer.

 

[spudster]

WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THIS FORUM AND THE OTHER FORUMS THEY RUN TO CREATE A CBO?

If they meet all of the requirements in post #40, have the desire to do it and submit an application it is possible. Only the owners of the forum can answer that question.

But then since Profound Interests, LLC is a for-profit company they would have to change their business model or spin off the forums into a seperate 501(c)(3)

 

[Jagerbomb52]

@Vic Moss at one time said forums would be a hard time being a CBO but perhaps with these new proposed guide lines it might be different. If anyone knows it would be @Vic Moss who can give some direction on how to proceed.

 

[Vic Moss]

@Vic Moss at one time said forums would be a hard time being a CBO but perhaps with these new proposed guide lines it might be different. If anyone knows it would be @Vic Moss who can give some direction on how to proceed.

@sar104 has it right in his post (#40).

Way too many guidelines for something like a forum to have one.

 

[sar104]

@sar104 has it right in his post (#40).

Way too many guidelines for something like a forum to have one.

And to expand on that thought - to what end? There are already the AMA guidelines available, and others will follow. The only reason I can think of to create yet another CBO would be to try to get a substantially different set of guidelines in place but, since the basic framework for recreational flight is already laid out in §44809, there's really not a lot of wiggle room.

 

[Vic Moss]

And to expand on that thought - to what end? There are already the AMA guidelines available, and others will follow. The only reason I can think of to create yet another CBO would be to try to get a substantially different set of guidelines in place but, since the basic framework for recreational flight is already laid out in §44809, there's really not a lot of wiggle room.

Yeah.

AMA will be a CBO, as likely FPV Freedom Coalition, and FliteTest.

AMA's current guidelines will be changing for sure. And remember, we don't have to belong to any of the CBO's so we can keep a guide for all of them, and decided which ones fit the current flight.

 

[cgmaxed]

No - to qualify under the exemption from Part 107 you have to fly under a CBO set of rules.

You certainly can start your own:

AC 91-57C​

​

3.1 Community-Based Organization (CBO).​

3.1.1 A CBO is defined in 49 U.S.C. § 44809(h) as a membership-based association entity that meets all of the following criteria:​

​

“(1) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;​

(2) is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;​

(3) the mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of model aviation;​

(4) provides a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for all aspects of model aviation addressing the assembly and operation of model aircraft and that emphasize safe aeromodelling operations within the national airspace system and the protection and safety of individuals and property on the ground, and may provide a comprehensive set of safety rules and programming for the operation of unmanned aircraft that have the advanced flight capabilities enabling active, sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond visual line of sight of the operator;​

(5) provides programming and support for any local charter organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and​

(6) provides assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites.”​

​

3.2 Applying for CBO Recognition. An organization requesting CBO recognition must provide all the documentation and information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 44809(h). See paragraph 3.1.1 above for a listing of those requirements. See paragraph 3.4 for further guidance on the development of safety guidelines for CBO recognition. When submitting a CBO recognition application, the applicant should provide a point of contact for the CBO whom the FAA may contact to request additional information. The FAA estimates that it may take up to 90 days to process requests for recognition. All documentation and information should be submitted via the FAADroneZone website at FAADroneZone.​

​

3.2.1 The FAA will recognize as a CBO an applicant that submits documentation establishing compliance with 49 U.S.C. § 44809(h). The FAA will issue a letter of recognition to the CBO evidencing the organization’s status as a recognized CBO and maintain a list of recognized CBOs at Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations. If the FAA discovers that a recognized CBO no longer meets the requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 44809(h), the FAA will notify the CBO of the deficiency. If the CBO is unable to meet the requirements of § 44809(h) after such notification, the FAA has the authority to issue a letter of rescission and remove the CBO’s name from the website. Letters of CBO denial or rescission will include a notification of appeal rights available to the CBO.​

"Membership-based" How would that term be defined in order for the CBO to be considered legitimate. Can one person start it, then solicit free membership? Would that work?

 

[cgmaxed]

And to expand on that thought - to what end? There are already the AMA guidelines available, and others will follow. The only reason I can think of to create yet another CBO would be to try to get a substantially different set of guidelines in place but, since the basic framework for recreational flight is already laid out in §44809, there's really not a lot of wiggle room.

To What End? CONTROL or at least the perception of it. Feels Good.

 

[sar104]

"Membership-based" How would that term be defined in order for the CBO to be considered legitimate. Can one person start it, then solicit free membership? Would that work?

It would save a lot of time if people would just read §44809 and AC 91-57C. It's fully defined in §44809 (h) and AC 91-57C 3.1.

 

[sar104]

To What End? CONTROL or at least the perception of it. Feels Good.

No - the question was to what end would this forum want to form a CBO? It wasn't an invitation to invent yet more improbably conspiracy theories about the FAA.

 

[Lets Fly]

If anyone knows where a CBO exists, we can just get their rules and use them.

 

[Earthman]

So you are saying that if you are flying in an area that the CBO restrictions (you may or may not know this) are more strict then your "home" CBO that you don't need to follow local CBO rules? To articulate the rules we are following will we need to carry a copy of these rules when we travel so we can "prove" we are flying under "our" CBO rules?

Since the FAA is just giving "recommendations" for CBO rules I guess someone could go "CBO shopping" to find the one with the most lenient rules and claim they only have to follow them.

I'm not knocking the idea behind having CBO rules as the FAA is trying to recognize that not all areas in the US are the same. What may be proper and safe in the middle of the desert in AZ may be completely different in the Chicago suburbs. Just that I can see some issues when each CBO has different rules.

In this situation, a "community" is an organization of people who agree on the rules that govern their activities - like the AMA, or a local flying club. It's not an area, suburb, town, city, county, etc. like you seem to be assuming.

I have not read the FAA's proposed standards for CBO guidelines, however, I assume that they are consistent with the FAA's apparent agenda of making low altitude airspace safe for commercial interests like Amazon, FedEx, UPS, Uber, Domino's, etc. In other words, low altitude airspace needs to be clear of non-commercial traffic and "safe" for UAS commercial package delivery, taxi services, etc. I expect that CBO guidelines will be required to include FAA-approved "safety rules" and restrictions that will facilitate the FAA's agenda. This will be at the expense of recreational flying.

When flying recreationally, you will need to follow the FAA's rules as well as a CBO guideline of your choice. Hopefully, there will be a CBO guideline that allows us to fly in available parks and fields without the kind of infrastructure that the AMA requires at their fields.

In any case, the FAA hopes its rules and agenda will be enforced by the public and local law enforcement using a free smartphone app and Remote ID, so that those who do not comply with the FAA's rules can be prosecuted.

 

[sar104]

I have not read the FAA's proposed standards for CBO guidelines, however, I assume ...

Of course - why bother to get any facts before proceeding to write an essay on the subject.

that they are consistent with the FAA's apparent agenda of making low altitude airspace safe for commercial interests like Amazon, FedEx, UPS, Uber, Domino's, etc. In other words, low altitude airspace needs to be clear of non-commercial traffic and "safe" for UAS commercial package delivery, taxi services, etc.

No - the guidelines make no attempt to do any of that.

I expect that CBO guidelines will be required to include FAA-approved "safety rules" and restrictions that will facilitate the FAA's agenda. This will be at the expense of recreational flying.

The rules were put in place by Congress in 49 U.S.C. §44809, not by the FAA.

In any case, the FAA hopes its rules and agenda will be enforced by the public and local law enforcement using a free smartphone app and Remote ID, so that those who do not comply with the FAA's rules can be prosecuted.

Now you are conflating the CBO issue with RID. But I'm sure you are correct that it will be a real pain not being able to fly illegally without an increased risk of getting caught.

 

[BigAl07]

WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THIS FORUM AND THE OTHER FORUMS THEY RUN TO CREATE A CBO?

Possible? Maybe but not practical in any way. Way too many hurdles and zero ROI.

 

[Vic Moss]

If anyone knows where a CBO exists, we can just get their rules and use them.

They don't exist yet. Should be in 2-3 months. I have no doubt the news will be posted all over this thread when it happens. Stay tuned...

 

[dirkclod]

What gets me is all this is fine and dandy but what % of drone
owners are even aware of all this. I think most are not aware
of any of this.
Go online buy one and don’t research anything and just fly.
Well where the app will let them. I truly beleave there should
be more educational info included in or on the box so folks
would know.

 

[spudster]

It should be a requirement that all manufacturers and/or retailers include a safety/fact sheet that has this information.

That may not happen until someone sues the manufacturer or retailer for not providing this information.

 

[Rich QR]

What gets me is all this is fine and dandy but what % of drone owners are even aware of all this. I think most are not aware of any of this.

Everyone who passed the TRUST test should be aware of this. It's one of the very few things covered in that test.

Of course, you still may be completely correct. I have no doubt that many drone operators are unaware of the TRUST test.