phlpsfrnk

Do we know what has been spent to-date in addition to this money and what is the stated purpose and goals of the small UAS program?

Frank

bradpaul

Hardly, we have the meeting notes from HC and the response I received from Rich Hanson to "Ask AMA".

Quote:

[TABLE="class: cms_table_main_table, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: cms_table_table_header_cell, align: left"]Thu Aug 07 2014 11:56AM by bradpaul[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #FFFFFF, align: left"]Just what is the "small UAS program" that was allocated $250,000 at the last EC Meeting?

Why as a Leader Member have I not heard of this program and can find no reference to it when searching the AMA site?

thank you,

Brad Paul[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Reference in the meeting minutes? What a wonderful non answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is the section from the October 19th EC Meeting:



And of course the July 19th Minutes will not be published buntil they are approved at the next EC Meeting, October 11, 2014

Do they really think we are such fools to accept such a non response????? However this statement gives away the plan............................

Quote:

The staff is tasked with developing a program for the personal and light commercial community. Approving the motion gives the staff and committee the latitude to make some decisions independent of council because time will be of the essence on many of the issues, both in writing the standards, creating programming functionality and infrastructure

It is all about the "personal and light commercial community"............................. or non AMA members that do not fly per AMA 550.

JohnShe

"light commercial community"? Isn't that like being just a little bit pregnant?

I think that they are playing with fire and we will get burnt.

phlpsfrnk

I've seen this term and I have to wonder what is "light commercial" as opposed to just "commercial"? Under 6 lbs? Should the AMA, a not for profit organization, be supporting anything "commercial"? light or otherwise. Another term I have issue with is "purposeful use". Does this mean other than recreational use? If so then by the terms of P.L. 112-95 it is no longer a "model aircraft" and as a CBO for model aircraft has nothing to do with the AMA.

Regards
Frank

bradpaul

"commercial" with any adjective in front of it cannot be "recreational".. What is a bigger question is what is the "personal community"?

phlpsfrnk

I agree, and what is it that the AMA hopes to accomplish with the continuing expense of the small UAS program that essentially has nothing to do with “model aircraft”. I don’t think the small increased membership the AMA might gain from the FPV/UAS/Drone community justifies the money being spent. The AMA spent considerable money lobbying congress for P.L. 112-95 section 336 and now it appears they wish to spend more money butting heads with the FAA and going against the P.L. they lobbied for. It appears to me that the current AMA administration is working at cross purposes and I would like to know why?

Regards
Frank

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

There was a fellow here that pointed out, years ago, that AMA has become self-aware and its agenda is now only about feeding its own existence, growth and control instead of just simply promoting the hobby...every sentence it utters and every policy made is now constructed to further that very agenda...of growth and control.

it's alive...it's alive...and we built it...It will need a recharge soon... Naming it, the AMA, the the only NCBO will be a very great boost that will take decades to fade but in interim it will consume much. Funny, people generally learn that what they ask for isn't really what they wanted after all...but usually way to late then to do much about it.

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

Haven't heard from my D-VIII VP yet. It has been 5 business days since I Emailed him. I'm a bit disappointed in this lack of a response.

CR

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

We should learn to be happy and just eat our Ramen noodles every night... I know, I know...a little cake would be nice sometimes but that might be a little much to ask.

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

So then has their mission statement changed to follow the above agenda? I suppose not as it is rare that an org will change its primary mission even they they tend to forget what that mission was and usually quit following it a short time down the road. Most orgs make the claim, "In order to grow we have to do this or that" - guess that means sorry about our original mission we are no longer accountable for that.

rcmiket

At least D8 voted against it. I also emailed him about this and received a quick response. He did mention he was on vacation,
Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Might want to revisit the daily dose of Ramen!

http://www.ajc.com/news/lifestyles/h...killing/ng3cG/

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Well, if the trend continues we will all be eating rice soon...but for now we've got to keep supporting the insurance companies!

eddieC

My Feedback: (2)

I just posted a new thread on the AMA and FAA jointly sponsoring a drone demo at a full-scale airshow:

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/club...l#post11862854

What exactly is the AMA's intent regarding drones? Why aren't they explaining the long-term plans and goals, and providing transparency on the process? Instead, they bury the allocation of $250,000.00 of our funds in the closing minutes of a couple of meetings. This is very troubling, and Mr. Hanson and the rest of the council need to step up and explain themselves.

cj_rumley

See post #85 above, including the cited post. Head count of paying members appears to be the primary objective, far ahead of whatever goal is in second place.

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

Oh, when was this? What did Armstrong tell you? Did you send your Email through AMA HQ?

CR

eddieC

My Feedback: (2)

My query to Mr. Hanson, and his response:


"Hi Ed,

*

In a recent survey it was found that upwards of 30% of existing AMA members are either currently involved in or have some interest in automated (UAS) flight technology, and there is a growing community of personal/purposeful users of this technology. This new aeromodeling community is currently operating without the programing necessary to educate them and to assist them in learning how to use this technology in a safe and responsible manner. And, unfortunately, the lack of a safe structure for this aspect of the hobby is resulting in a growing number of incidences that have resulted in adverse exposure in the media, exposure that is reflecting poorly on the entire aeromodeling community.

*

The funding authorized by the AMA Executive Council will be used to develop the programing necessary to educate, manage and reach out to this community of personal/purposeful operators.

*

Rich Hanson

AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs

*

*

From:*Ed Chmielewski
Sent:*Monday, August 18, 2014 10:44 AM
To:*[email protected]
Subject:*AMA and Drones/sUAS

*

Rich,

*

I'm troubled by the recent allocation of $250,000.00 of member funds for drone/sUAS projects. A recent thread on RC Universe outlines some of the unease expressed by myself and other AMA members:

*

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/ama-...0-000-fpv.html

*

What exactly are the funds for? What intent does the AMA have regarding sUAS/sUAV? How are drones even associated with the AMA, especially 'light commercial' (what is THAT?)?

*

IMO, the AMA has no business associating with any commercial venture. Ours is a hobbyist organization, and should remain so. Especially troubling in this allocation is how it may positively affect an AMA board member who has business interests in the sUAS area, and its appearance of cronyism.

*

Ed Chmielewski"

When has the AMA ever targeted one group with a Quarter-Million Dollar war chest? Let those who work in the UAV industry form their own CBO! The political doublespeak is nauseating.

AMA, STOP THE DRONE SPENDING NOW!

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

eddiec,

Looks like what the AMA wants is a way to bring a significant number of FPV users into the AMA. So they're looking for a way to make the AMA attractive to the unaligned FPV community, including the manufacturers.

CR

rcmiket

Late last week. He did confirm that D8 along with 5 other districts voted against it. As far as how I contacted him, I just used the AMA sites district contact page. He did mention that he was on vacation.


http://www.ama-dist-8.org/

Mike

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

I notice the convenient omission of a response to your reference to the commercial aspect that you specifically inquired about.

Dennis

eddieC

My Feedback: (2)

Thanks for noticing, Dennis. I wish he, in his position as Director, PR & Gov't Affairs, would display a similar focus. I'll attempt to demonstrate what I mean by 'focus', (Rich, pay attention):

1. He sidestepped the question about where the money is going IMO. Is this for one person or a group to travel, print and place flyers in an ever-dwindling group of hobby shops, put together multimedia programs for colleges, industry, government and municipalities, or who-knows-what?

2. How are drones even relevant to our hobbyist organization, beyond sharing frequencies? No Answer.

3. What is 'light commercial'? No Answer.

4. The cronyism question of a council member? No Answer.

Lest anyone think I'm anti-drone, nothing could be further from the truth. As a corporate pilot, I've dealt with the FAA for 30+ years. I've done R&D flying (unpaid) for a local firm doing UAS prototype research. And I'm pro-AMA. I fully agree with littlecrankshaf, Charley, bradpaul and everyone else who at least questions, if not opposes, this spending, and the path the EC is directing.

Maybe it's not too silly to investigate an alternative CBO ala Sport Flyers Association.

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

I heard from my AMA D-VIII VP today. He says, in part, that he would rather see the $250K spent on a vigorous ad campaign to counteract the media reports of "drone" accidents by pointing out that the perpetrators of the incidences are not responsible, safety conscious modelers, such as AMA & its club members, but are non-aligned & irresponsible individuals.

I tend to agree with him. Comments?

CR

cj_rumley

I agree. AMA should give the boot to all AMA members that are not club members.

AlW

My Feedback: (17)

Ama needs to agree with the faa and give the boot to fpv instead of poking the faa in the eye with a sharp stick.

ira d

It would be wrong for the AMA to require their members to belong to a club. However I would bet that 90% of the AMA members to belong to a club.