Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

All that knowledge, skills, and experience and you couldn't even submit the application for the flying site grant let alone independently raise the 10% (that's right 10%!) the grant program would have provided. Then you blame the club's failure on the AMA. I hope the club didn't spend several thousand dollars a day for those services.

TN RC Flyer117

I personally think that this registration requirement is going to be bad news for our hobby. The primary thing that concerns me is not so much the requirements when these laws are finally passed (simple registration that is free or minimally priced), but what this type of regulation could eventually lead to. We all have to remember how typically once the government establishes regulation in a particular area, it usually does nothing but gets tightened more and more. These registration regulations may not be too much of a burden to deal with now, but it could possibly open up the door to even more harsh regulation on our industry several years down the road. As a relatively young rc'er, this type of government intervention concerns me about what our hobby will look like in 30 years.

Chris P. Bacon

My Feedback: (4)

Me too. The mileage the AMA haters get out of every tiny little thing the AMA does less than 110% perfect is quite impressive. They beat it to death for days on end and then when things quite down and they run out of things to complain about it suddenly resurfaces again. Just a never ending vicious circle.

rcmiket

There ya go the "haters" label again. When ever you don't have a reasonable argument you resort to insults.

Mike

cj_rumley

"http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/23/faa-gets-recommendations-register-all-drones/76253444/"

In the not too distant past the AMA president spoke for AMA. Now a staff guy does it. Maybe a review of corporate protocol is needed.

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

When the Whole world refers to Drones they mean QUAD COPTERS/Multi Rotor craft and some times a fixed wing craft with FPV capabilities. The real problem is that that the FAA's interpretation includes anything that Flies by Remote Control or Autonomously (with out a Pilot) as a UAS Unmanned Aircraft System.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

Now that being said I would think the AMA and every AMA member would be petitioning the DOT/FAA to exempt R/C model aircraft from Displaying a Pilots Registration Number on the outside of the craft when flown at a registered flying site ie AMA Field or sanctioned event.. This would not preclude the Registration number from being in the aircraft as is the AMA Number or Name Address Phone number as now required by the AMA Safety Code. Just a thought.

ira d

I Agree if flying at a registered site there should be no need for a FAA number.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

So again, without anyone knowing if they did or didn't use a PR firm for one press release, they are damned if they did, damned if they didn't. If they did, it's a horrible release. If they didn't, oh god what a waste of money (and of course neither of you know what they are hired to do and what they are not hired to do). It is no longer amazing or shocking to see what level of criticism either of you come up with. After the fact, of course.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Well this is a novel criticism, just some low level staff guy shooting off his mouth about the AMA, maybe even some intern they got for summer help. LoL.

Dave Mathewson
District VI, Muncie, IN
AMA Executive Director [HR][/HR] Dave Mathewson served president of the Academy for five years until he accepted a position as AMA's exective director. He is now in his 51st year of flying radio-controlled model aircraft and has received numerous awards from AMA. Mathewson has an extensive background in model aviation issues relating to all levels of government, has testified before congressional committees in support of model aviation, and has served as a volunteer leader on the AMA district and national level since 1995. He is a 30-year small business owner and a majority owner of a small upstate New York airport. In 2009 he was presented an AMA Fellowship, the Academy’s highest honor.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

So in short, you'll continue to do nothing. Except second guess and criticize after the fact, all the while commenting on all the things they did wrong, that no doubt you would have done better. That's something I guess.

Or are you hoping they will come a calling, hoping with your vast skills in bettering large complex orgs you surely could fix everything with the AMA lickidy split. This from the guy that completely failed in filling out a simple form to submit for consideration? That couldn't figure out a way to pick up a phone and call someone and ask for help. They will reach out and ask you for help?

I don't know who you are tied in to that told you they think they are doing a great job. Source? The extent of your AMA exposure seems to be here online in these threads, has anyone here even said they are doing a perfect job, or is that just another fabrication to make some kind of point?

HoundDog

My Feedback: (49)

Originally Posted by HoundDog
When the Whole world refers to Drones they mean QUAD COPTERS/Multi Rotor craft and some times a fixed wing craft with FPV capabilities. The real problem is that that the FAA's interpretation includes anything that Flies by Remote Control or Autonomously (with out a Pilot) as a UAS Unmanned Aircraft System.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/

Now that being said I would think the AMA and every AMA member would be petitioning the DOT/FAA to exempt R/C model aircraft from Displaying a Pilots Registration Number on the outside of the craft when flown at a registered flying site ie AMA Field or sanctioned event.. This would not preclude the Registration number from being in the aircraft as is the AMA Number or Name Address Phone number as now required by the AMA Safety Code. Just a thought.
Like I said "NO" need to display the Pilots Registration number on the outside of the craft when flying at an AMA or any Registered federal state city designated flying site. U would still need it displayed on any Quad Multi Rotor or FPV type Platform.

cj_rumley

No, the highest ranking staffer, but not the elected AMA president, nor even the govt affairs guy that represented AMA on the DOT Task Force.

franklin_m

Another shoe to drop?

Paragraph 4.1 of the recommendations : "The Task Force accepted as a baseline that the registration requirement will only apply to sUAS (i.e., aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds) [emphasis added] that are operated outdoors in the NAS."

Nowhere in the document do they discuss registering anything greater than 55lbs. I'm of the opinion that the omission is not accidental. Thus I'm wondering if this means that the LMA / LTMA (>55lbs) will be next on the block.

franklin_m

(1) When it's worth my time (and I have a metric that I use to gauge that), then I'm happy to help. I'll even do it for free!

(2) As for the release, it has to be one of two possible actions by AMA: Either they didn't run it through their PR firm, or they did and that's what resulted from it. If the former, why are they bothering to spend the money on a PR firm when they don't even use them on a release about their primary public/media/governmental issue? If the latter, then they should reconsider whether they want to continue the business relationship.

(3) Well, if they're not doing a great job, and they know it, then why aren't they changing?

franklin_m

(sarcasm) Oh yes, it's just so incredibly unreasonable to expect that people / contractors being paid to do a job do it and/or do it well. Yep, totally shocking.

init4fun

Can fellow members who dislike some of what the AMA does , but generally like the organization otherwise , really be called haters ?

I would think the haters are the ones without AMA numbers ......

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Right, so if it had been Hanson, the complaint would have been that it wasn't Bob Brown because after all he's the president, and it was Brown then the complaint would have been jeez it shoulda been Hanson because he's the guy that testified before congress.

It really doesn't matter who from the EC spoke does it, it's just another thing to complain about.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Interesting question. The issue might be that it's virtually impossible for some to find any part of the organization that they "like", or appreciate, when reading the threads here. It's a non stop barrage of negativity in terms of anything the organization does. That being said, the label of hater should be avoided. It's polarizing, and ends up making a discussion almost impossible. It's right up there with "shill".

I'd disagree on the label for non AMA members as well. I'm convinced there are more folks who fly RC that are not part of an AMA club, or even the AMA, for a number of reasons. Franklin himself noted why he isn't going to be part of one soon. He doesn't fly at a club, and doesn't feel the need to have the insurance coverage, because for some reason those appear to be the only benefit of the AMA to him. There are many more of course, but that's this thing, so that's his opinion. There was another guy in here, or another thread, that said he had tons of property and flies on that and doesn't need the AMA...good on him too. Wish I had that option...

The ones that got me wondering now though are the ones that are the first to criticize, vilify, and blame the "drone" guys breaking the rules and causing this to happen, ye they are the first ones to say (usually in large font and caps), hell no I won't register. So it's o/k for them to break what will probably be a rule that applies to them, but it's not o/k for anyone else to do that. I'm lost on the logic there, but again, that will be on them to deal with.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The only people who seem to feel they aren't doing their job are a select few here...from the bleachers, on Monday morning. And they (the Monday morning folk) aren't doing anything about it either...... because they don't know how to get involved in a meaningful way, or realize they lack the skills and ability to do so.

When you hear back from your source in the AMA as to the exact agreement that the AMA had with the PR firm, by all means let the good folks here know what it was, what it entailed exactly. Otherwise, you can keep guessing. (no sarcasm)

bob4432

Put fight controller in a aircraft and then everybody can fly a aircraftBride?guys flying aircraft (use be one of the) **** on the drone community when it was up and coming, thus me not renewing my AMA membership.

IMHO the "bad guys" are the companies like DJI who make it to way too easy to fly whatever aircraft. Also places like Amazon who want to use it as delivery and corporatize the drone - the will have the $$/lobbyist to make it good for them while hobbyist just getsbent over.

Need to go talk to the people at the local regional airport and see if we can come to an agreement for the the time being since I fly multis, but less than 50' AGL.

And fwiw I have seen r/c plane pilots fly over a 1MI away from them with no FPV Equipment.

Who was it that flew their drone around the Statue of Liberty and Brooklyn Bridge?

cj_rumley

Whatever. For all I know, it may their strategy to keep the members and gummit agencies guessing as to who is in charge at, and so accountable for, AMA direction and agreements (ala the MOA with FAA that...somebody......in Muncie lobbied for).

franklin_m

Unfortunately, the fact remains that it was a sub-standard and unprofessional news release. We know that the AMA is paying for the PR firm, as they announced that fact as part of their justification for raising dues. If they choose to spend the money on the firm and not use them, that's their choice, but they're still accountable for the outcome of that decision. On the other hand if they tolerate sub-standard and unprofessional products from the firm and don't fire them, that too is their decision. But again, they're accountable for the outcome of the decision.

No matter what, the AMA is accountable to the membership for the expenditure of the funds they collect from all of us and they results they obtain, or lack thereof.

N410DC

Though this idea make sense, as I said before, the FAA would counter this argument by saying that an sUAV at a designated R/C flying site could malfunction in such a way the pilot looses control of the aircraft. This could cause the sUAV to crash into a building/person, enter restricted airspace, fly too close to an airport, etc. If this were to happen, the FAA and/or local law enforcement will need to identify the pilot via. the registration number.

These kinds of "fly-aways" are uncommon at established flying sites, given the fail safe and "return-to-home" features that are now commonly available. Many pilots configure their fail safe features to cut the power to the engine/motor and/or fly in circles after radio contact is lost. Many multirotor aircraft are setup, straight out of the box, to automatically return to home and land (or just descend and land) after loss of radio contact. However, very few, if any, FAA bureaucrats are aware of these features. They are therefore likely to put too much stock into the "we,,..it could happen" argument.

ira d

Point taken , However in my 21 years in the hobby I have never seen a fly away and heard of two maybe three incidents that happened fifteen or so years ago. As you said this is almost a none events with todays
systems if they are set up properly and the AMA needs to make sure all who need to know gets the info.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Undoubtedly that's it, but you've seen through their elaborate ruse.