Hossfly

Lots of goodies in the minutes of the last EC meeting now posted on the web. "Goodies" as they may in that particular vernacular (of, relating to, or characteristic of a period, place, or group) of which you view those specific points.

Now available on the AMA web.

EXAMPLES:
>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Action items from the July 12, 2003 Executive Council meeting

1. Safety Committee to address the issue of possible wildfires caused by model planes. (see President’s report July 12, 2003 EC minutes) Make report at November EC meeting.

2. New Ad hoc Committee: B. Oberdieck, Chmn; J. Hager; C. Bauer. Committee charged with reviewing nominating procedures to handle electronic submission of items.

3. ED to draft a letter for President’s signature to Nats Steering Committee re reducing length of Nats to thirty (30) days starting in 2005.
4. Send Media Package to all AVPs.

5. R. Hanson to provide specific wording for proposed bylaws change re EVP position. Will present at November EC meeting.

6. R. Hanson to E-mail copy of bylaws with changes thus far, to all EC members. Show changes in italics or bold; show strikeouts.

7. Safety Committee to investigate proposal re modifying Safety Code General item 4. (see NEW BUSINESS page 5 of July 12, 2003 EC minutes)"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Development of training program which can be expanded to allow for commercial flight instruction-Ad hoc
The Committee is in agreement that it would be beneficial to members and clubs if AMA were in the position to provide some type of liability insurance package to paid instructors.

The Committee is trying to determine what type of paid instructor to cover; most likely targeting the casual type instructor (someone who instructs an individual on a casual basis to earn a few dollars now and then). The professional-type instructor, commercial schools, etc. will be excluded.

There should be a significant cost to apply for this certificate (possibly $100-$150) for two reasons. First, to ensure the person applying for the certificate is serious about instructing; second, the Committee is investigating some type of reserve fund to act as an SIR (similar to fund in general policy.)

AMA should require registration (maintainable database) so they are able to refer people to instructors. This would be a service to the instructors and the members.

In an extension of the discussion relating to new members and flight instructors, the President solicited Council's opinion on clubs with closed memberships. Comments included: AMA should reward clubs that are open to additional members and/or penalize clubs with closed membership; it is difficult to promote the growth of a hobby with a limited number of available sites that are already saturated, without having additional sites to accommodate member growth; AMA should not get involved in club ‘politics’; part of AMA Mission is to grow the sport, but if there are no clubs to send new/potential members to, how do we grow the sport; and a limit on the number of members may be put in place by the entity controlling the site, not the club. No action was taken."

abel_pranger

Glad you liked it, Hoss. The minutes took a month and a half to get posted, and avoid saying anything, Whoop-de-doo!

Example, first item considered:
"J. Mealy requested a minor change to AMA’s definition of a model aircraft and its operation.
MOTION I: Moved by B. Brown (III), seconded by B. Teague (IV), to accept the definition of model aircraft and its operation, as revised. This will replace the current definition in the Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code, General section, item 7.
MOTION passed unanimously."

Why do you suppose they made this 'minor' change and don't want to tell the membership what it is? Could it be because they don't want any discussion of it before the renewal time and the 2004 <edited to correct year> version of the Safety Code is sent out and a done deal? Only a few members that happened to read this forum and the pertinent thread know, thanks to JR's inquiry to Joyce Hager. Some great effort here to improve member communications.

The following is apparently provided as rationale for the change:

"J. Mealy received a call from a gentleman who indicated that Fox National News broadcasted a report which included an FBI agent saying that model airplanes should be banned due to the
possibility of them carrying explosives. The ED received an E-mail from someone in Texas who saw the same newscast. Council viewed a taped portion of the ABC News broadcast from Friday night in which they reported the same thing. There is concern that someone who is unhappy with a nearby flying site could use the excuse they were concerned about potential terrorism attacks by model airplanes, to shut down a flying site.
While in the process of updating the Safety Code last year, a portion had been dropped and needs to be put back in the code."

Seems to me the money we spent ($20K, wasn't it?) to provide Jay Mealy et al with Crisis Training was pounded right down a rathole, if this is how they learned to respond to some wacko press item.
I can just imagine how the law enforcement folks would react to a neighbor of our flying field calling them to report us as potential terrorists because we are flying model airplanes. After the laughter died down, the guy would probably find himself in protective custody for psych observation. In the most unlikely event that the guy were to be taken seriously, what in AMA EC's action has anything whatever to do with keeping a flying site from being shut down? Then there's the last informative sentence - something was dropped from the SC and needs to be put back in. What, why, how does it impact anybody? <edit - PM from another forum participant suggests this applies to Motion II rather than Motion I as I read it. If so, no problem with that one, as what was omitted/replaced is obvious.> Never mind, members are too dumb to understand so just let your big brothers on the EC do what they do for your own good.

Yeah Hoss, really productive. Even more diddling with the List of Exclusions from Insurance Coverage than usual. Rah rah.

Abel

J_R

Abel

The only issue you raised that concerns me is the definition of a model, as we started to discuss before. Personally, I still have mixed emotions.

While it is easy enough to poke fun at the idea that an FBI agent would say we are a threat, I fail to see the humor. Any overzealous law enforcement person could create a real nuisance at our fields. Whether the new definition does anything to belay that concern is certainly open for debate.

I see the banning of model aircraft as about intelligent as banning cars because they can carry explosives, or bicycles, for the same reason. Maybe the FBI agent wants to ban back packs as well. The fact remains that he said what he did on national television.

As with many things, the devil is in the details. We still do not know what the intent of the EC is. I actually doubt that there is a real plan. I have made a couple of inquires and, so far, the only thing that seems to have been aimed at is autonomous (takes off, flys, and lands, without input) planes. The other items we have discussed were not the target of the new rule, e.g. autopilots as we currently know them.

As I see it, the AMA must take some stance. What that stance is to be, or even what is truly necessary, eludes me. I am not sure the EC believes they know what exact actions must be taken to avoid scrutiny of our hobby.

Rather than taking shots at the AMA or the EC, it might be wise to try to help them make the determinations.

JR

abel_pranger

JR-
As you said,
We don't know what the intent of the EC is.
- and I add they are obviously loathe to tell us.
You doubt there is a real plan.
- and I add that seems an understatement.
You're not sure the EC believes they know what actions to take.
- and I add that not knowing what to do isn't stopping them from acting. Is there any more to it than knee jerk reaction?

They have made a change to the 'Official AMA National List of Things Excluded From Insurance Coverage. We don't know why, and as you say, it appears they don't know why. It has nothing to due with dodging liability risk or safety. What issue does it address? Is it as I initially guessed directed at drawing a line between our model airplanes and UAVs so as to avoid being regulated by FAA? The latest in rationale is supposedly to protect somebody's flying field from neighbors that might accuse us of engaging in terrorist activity. It seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Frankly, it appears to me there is an intended audience beyond AMA members here (or around AMA members, as somebody doesn't want us to know about it, 'minor' change and all that rot). This reeks of a political ploy. Somebody wants to expand his empire beyond AMA to control over ALL model airplane flying in the country. Take advantage of the fear, and let a federal agency with the muscle to regulate everyone know that AMA is there to help, with a 'Official AMA National... blah de blah' to form the basis for that regulation.

I don't what they are trying to accomplish, so I don't know what I could do to help. They don't seem real receptive to help anyway. This is a Safety Code change. Did they seek help from the Safety Committee? I've wondered what that is, actually. Maroney is listed as a member, but other names are absent. I wonder if there are any other names. How about the Safety subcommittee, ostensibly charged with rewriting the SC? Did anybody on the EC ask them for help?
The only thing I ever saw from them was a recommendation to delete the rule requiring name and/or AMA # on the model. Dave Brown overrode that, explaining why it was there to the rest of the EC, but as usual, not to any of the members not of that elite.

I'll take a pass on helping them with this. I'm opposed to the action they have taken, whatever the motivation for it I have guessed. Given that, it wouldn't make any sense for me to aid and abet.

Abel

J_R

Abel

You know infinitely more than I do about the FAA. IF the FAA wants someone to turn to that is "responsible?" for modeling, who else could they choose? I am willing to concede that the AMA is saying "me, me, me" when it comes to who will represent all modelers. Maybe I am blind, but, I do not see anyone else that can take on the task. Is my view too simple? Am I even using the right words? Is it necessary that models are all under one organization?

JR

hanna

My Feedback: (3)

I would like to know who the supposed FBI agent is and badge #. I want to see what he said and the reason (ulterior motives...?) he said it. If his comments were out of line and a personal vendetta against model airplanes in general I want his superiors and others to know what and why he stated them. Mike Krizan

abel_pranger

JR-
What do you view as being 'responsible' for model aviation? I have no issue with AMA representing all modelers - that's clearly the purpose outlined in the AMA charter. Frankly, I wish they would do just that; promote the interests of model aviation rather than exclusively promoting AMA. IMHO, there is a very important and distinct dividing line between 'representing' and 'regulating,' however. I really don't want regulation by AMA to replace the non-regulated status quo. I'm quite certain that the vast majority of modelers that are not members of AMA would also prefer the current environment of non-regulation. I see no reason of any substance that argues for a change, opinion of the occasional federal gumshoe and/or Chicken Little crackpot notwithstanding.
Re your last question, it is neither necessary nor desirable that models (modelers) are all 'under' (subordinate to; good word choice here ) one organization. Most are not affiliated with any organization, and have no need to be as they do not compete nor operate where specialized, secondary liability insurance is either deemed necessary or pushed on them as a condition for use of a flying site where they are not plentiful, nor do they feel compelled to pay tribute to anybody that claims to have made it possible for them to fly a model airplane. For those that do have a need for organization, a choice of one is not widely regarded as desirable in our society, except for 'ins' in a gamut of special interest groups that view their way as the only way, e.g., the ilk of Pat Robertson and Sun Myung Moon.

Abel

J_R

Abel

Did, or does, the situation exist where the FAA would define a model if the AMA did, or does not?

In other words, could the FAA have defined models in a "top down" approach?

If the AMA had, or does ignore the FAA, what happens to models? Who would be responsible (e.g. Homeland Security?) if it were not for the AMA trying to intercede?

Sure hope the questions are clear.

JR

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

i think that it would be best if we left the definition of a model airplane vs a UAV or other to someone with no ulterior motive or agenda.
that leaves the ama, as we know it these days, out.
i truely believe that we, modelers, will be better served by letting the feds, faa or HSA, set the definitions.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

Ah, sorry Mongo but I have to differ. I have yet to see where the government has improved my life in the areas where it has decided to step in because I am too stupid. A fast foray through recent attempts to control the public will show some of the more worthless rules in action. Look at insurance requirements for drivers license, license plates, and inspection stickers.

The law now says you have to have it and the market came up with a 30 day policy for the first payment that satisfies the law but does NOT accomplish the PURPOSE of the law since many never make the second payment. Wait until you get hit by some jerk carrying a card from one of those kind of companies. Then tell us how you want the government to make all the decisions for us.

Even though the AMA does have underlying motives, I think they are better than absolute control for the sake of control, which is the big government approach. The AMA approach appears to grow the organization at our expense, but that is still better than surrendering the rights to the government. Abel makes some very valid points, but anarchy clearly is not going to work in todays environment. His irritation with the AMA (more wisely) echos the voices of many anti-AMA folks but is still founded on (what I see as) the wrong assumptions.

How can we discriminate between protecting and promoting the hobby and the AMA? I think it is impossible to do one without the other on any scale other than that of you to your next door neighbor.

I think that a good part of the 'single organization' problem is a misconception of what is being compared. No matter what is said or who says it, the AMA is N*O*T an insurance company as the other pseudo organizations out there. This is granting SFA and UMA more than they really are since they A*R*E insurance companies O*N*L*Y. If we move the discussion to that level, I think there is room for more, but it will not be easy and it must not be aggressive between one and the other organization or both will suffer greatly. Please note I said ORGANIZATION and NOT insurance company.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

my point is, that the gvmt isn't going to make the effort to "control" a piddley 340,000, if ya figgure that there are twice as many flyers as the ama has members, of folks.
they gots big fires to be pissen on.

abel_pranger

Mongo-
I think you are right, and that is in essence my reply to JR. FAA 'may' add definition to 'model airplane' if it helps to segregate them from UAVs. FAA motivation is to define the boundary between what they need to regulate (UAVs) from what they do not need or want to be bothered with regulating (model airplanes). I think they have a good concept of what a model airplane is, characterized primarily by purpose of sport and recreation, and would expect nothing more noisome in their edit of the definition than perhaps adding the 25 kg limit already included in the ICAO definition.
AMA's motives are obviously anything but laissez faire. Unfortunately, though it is their stated charter to do so, I can't imagine that intercession by the current AMA powers that be would attempt to influence FAA attitude in the direction of preserving the privileges we now have.

Abel