AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

We should have policed ourselves better?

Reply

Old 12-20-2015, 07:59 PM
  #1  
Rcpilot
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (78)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,736
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Question We should have policed ourselves better?

Given the way the AMA has appeared to have caved on the "drone" designation and now the FAA seems to be requiring registration......... has it crossed anybody's mind that maybe we should have policed ourselves better?

Here is what I mean:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fpv-uav-drones-486/

This website has a forum dedicated to the FPV and "drone" guys who fly outlaw (no AMA).

To me this was a mistake. Not slamming RCU for creating the forum, just saying that we as modelers should have discouraged this type of behavior when we saw it first coming on the scene several years ago. Instead of encouraging FPV fliers without AMA, we should have jumped up their backsides and made it clear that this type of vehicle wasn't welcome in our hobby. We should have discouraged this type of behavior at a minimum. We probably should have done everything we could to discourage the development and availability of these types of aircraft. And we definitely should not have welcomed these types of pilots into our circle (the AMA legal circle). We should have distanced ourselves from these people.

I could go into a long philosophical discussion about this and give plenty of reasons for why we should have policed ourselves better, but it seems a moot point now, given recent legislation. We've been judged by the company we keep, and we chose to let the outlaw drone pilots into our "company" ... see link to above forum.

It's the same philosophical argument about guns. Regulations only hurt the people who will follow the laws. Criminals are criminals, so the law means nothing to them. Criminals will still have guns and commit crimes.
Rcpilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2015, 09:20 PM
  #2  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Rcpilot View Post
Given the way the AMA has appeared to have caved on the "drone" designation and now the FAA seems to be requiring registration......... has it crossed anybody's mind that maybe we should have policed ourselves better?

Here is what I mean:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fpv-uav-drones-486/

This website has a forum dedicated to the FPV and "drone" guys who fly outlaw (no AMA).

To me this was a mistake. Not slamming RCU for creating the forum, just saying that we as modelers should have discouraged this type of behavior when we saw it first coming on the scene several years ago. Instead of encouraging FPV fliers without AMA, we should have jumped up their backsides and made it clear that this type of vehicle wasn't welcome in our hobby. We should have discouraged this type of behavior at a minimum. We probably should have done everything we could to discourage the development and availability of these types of aircraft. And we definitely should not have welcomed these types of pilots into our circle (the AMA legal circle). We should have distanced ourselves from these people.

I could go into a long philosophical discussion about this and give plenty of reasons for why we should have policed ourselves better, but it seems a moot point now, given recent legislation. We've been judged by the company we keep, and we chose to let the outlaw drone pilots into our "company" ... see link to above forum.

It's the same philosophical argument about guns. Regulations only hurt the people who will follow the laws. Criminals are criminals, so the law means nothing to them. Criminals will still have guns and commit crimes.
The whole premise of your question is lost in your characterizations of the AMA, and what they have or haven't done. It's just preposterous, sorry. They "caved" on the definition of the word "drone"? What? When? Do you have any evidence to back that up, even if you used the word "appeared". The announcement is less than a week old, and you have determined they "caved". They have been working on this global issue going back to 2008.

Just out of curiosity, you were aware they were one of over 25 groups that worked on a proposal to the FAA right? Did Google, Walmart, NASA, and DJi also "cave" on this definition? You are no doubt aware of a pending appeal by the AMA filed in court right? And how that appeal really couldn't move forward until the FAA took steps that would show it was in fact promulgating new laws on the AMA/Hobby when it was told explicitly by congress it could do no such thing right? Did I miss the part where the AMA withdrew that appeal?

I'll assume you also knew that FPV predated the use of multi rotors right? That fixed wing aircraft were doing this years before MR's where right? At elevations of 5,000 feet, up to 10,000 even, far outside of what MRs could do. Those videos have been up for years, ever see them? And so when you ask about policing ourselves and the company we keep, and the outlaw pilots, I can't help but wonder why you didn't include fixed wing aircraft in your original post. If this was really about FPV seems as thought they should have been included, or would that not have fit the outlaw drone pilot narrative? You ask the question about what "we" might have done, but what were you specifically doing 8 or more years ago when fixed wing aircraft were doing the same kinds of things?

The other suggestions you make really don't sound like someone a citizen who appreciates freedoms would be advocating. Berating people, promoting elitism, being judgmental, and finally discouraging development and availability of aircraft. Shall we also start censoring other things we don't like on this site and start censoring threads?

It's really disturbing to see what is actually being suggested here.

Last edited by porcia83; 12-20-2015 at 09:22 PM.
porcia83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2015, 09:42 PM
  #3  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 19,891
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

How much business do you reckon RCU would have turned away if they took a hard line, militant stance against all forms of drone related advertising and message traffic..?

I'll bet quite a lot..!

I can't find any fault with them wanting to be a resource for the Drone Market, this is a Dog Eat Dog business unlike the AMA's which is a Virtual Monopoly.
combatpigg is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2015, 11:15 PM
  #4  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,126
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

I don't think the majority of RC operators that caused this problem were AMA members and I doubt many of the FPV flyers that were flying BLOS were doing so from AMA sites, So it was really nothing that the AMA or its
members IMO could do about the issue.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 06:41 AM
  #5  
Rcpilot
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (78)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,736
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
The whole premise of your question is lost in your characterizations of the AMA, and what they have or haven't done. It's just preposterous, sorry. They "caved" on the definition of the word "drone"? What? When? Do you have any evidence to back that up, even if you used the word "appeared". The announcement is less than a week old, and you have determined they "caved". They have been working on this global issue going back to 2008.

Just out of curiosity, you were aware they were one of over 25 groups that worked on a proposal to the FAA right? Did Google, Walmart, NASA, and DJi also "cave" on this definition? You are no doubt aware of a pending appeal by the AMA filed in court right? And how that appeal really couldn't move forward until the FAA took steps that would show it was in fact promulgating new laws on the AMA/Hobby when it was told explicitly by congress it could do no such thing right? Did I miss the part where the AMA withdrew that appeal?

I'll assume you also knew that FPV predated the use of multi rotors right? That fixed wing aircraft were doing this years before MR's where right? At elevations of 5,000 feet, up to 10,000 even, far outside of what MRs could do. Those videos have been up for years, ever see them? And so when you ask about policing ourselves and the company we keep, and the outlaw pilots, I can't help but wonder why you didn't include fixed wing aircraft in your original post. If this was really about FPV seems as thought they should have been included, or would that not have fit the outlaw drone pilot narrative? You ask the question about what "we" might have done, but what were you specifically doing 8 or more years ago when fixed wing aircraft were doing the same kinds of things?

The other suggestions you make really don't sound like someone a citizen who appreciates freedoms would be advocating. Berating people, promoting elitism, being judgmental, and finally discouraging development and availability of aircraft. Shall we also start censoring other things we don't like on this site and start censoring threads?

It's really disturbing to see what is actually being suggested here.
EXACTLY the type of response I expected. You prove my point. Rather than address the discussion put forth, you choose to attack ME for asking the question. You call my knowledge of current events into question.

I've been in this hobby for over 20yrs. I know EXACTLY what the AMA, FAA et all have been up too. I pay attention.

Thanks again. You couldn't have done it any better.
Rcpilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 06:46 AM
  #6  
Rcpilot
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (78)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,736
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by ira d View Post
I don't think the majority of RC operators that caused this problem were AMA members and I doubt many of the FPV flyers that were flying BLOS were doing so from AMA sites, So it was really nothing that the AMA or its
members IMO could do about the issue.
I agree that these operators weren't AMA members. My point is, these people came here to RCU and other discussion forums. We as AMA members had a responsibility to do one of two things:
1) welcome them and make it a requirement to join AMA
2) shun them

We did neither, and here we are with the Federal Government breathing down our necks.
Rcpilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 06:59 AM
  #7  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Rcpilot View Post
EXACTLY the type of response I expected. You prove my point. Rather than address the discussion put forth, you choose to attack ME for asking the question. You call my knowledge of current events into question.

I've been in this hobby for over 20yrs. I know EXACTLY what the AMA, FAA et all have been up too. I pay attention.

Thanks again. You couldn't have done it any better.
LoL...you new to the whole internet thing? Seems like you got some pretty thin skin there. I never attacked you once, I did call into question your premise and your position, and now I'm left to question your reading skills. Sorry bud, you got it wrong. If you aren't mature enough to have someone critique your position, and turn that around as an attack on you personally, perhaps you should refrain from posting. I notice you didn't bother to answer any questions. I guess at the end of the day you just wanted to state your position, and not invite any discussion unless it was aligned with yours?
porcia83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 07:02 AM
  #8  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Rcpilot View Post
I agree that these operators weren't AMA members. My point is, these people came here to RCU and other discussion forums. We as AMA members had a responsibility to do one of two things:
1) welcome them and make it a requirement to join AMA
2) shun them

We did neither, and here we are with the Federal Government breathing down our necks.
We didn't shun people, and as a direct result of that, the Feds are breathing down our necks. Talk about a leap.
porcia83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 09:14 AM
  #9  
LarsL
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Shorewood, WI
Posts: 195
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Porcia83, you state above that the operators who weren't flying responsibly were not shunned and as a direct result the Feds are breathing down our necks. What In your opinion should the shunning have consisted of?

I know that the AMA, formally on multiple occasions, has stated that FPV flight must be LOS with override backup by a second pilot to take over if the FPV pilot starts to lose control such that the aircraft could go BLOS. All the other imperatives about responsible flight around people, airports, etc. has also been stated. In other words fly your aircraft (fixed wing, single rotor, multi-rotor) responsibly per the AMA rules.

I believe the AMA has been doing the right things. It is my opinion that shunning, denouncing, outlawing, or whatever would have had no effect on the FAA's recent action. By the way, I recall that when there were media reports about some high visibility irresponsible flights, the AMA's position shunned those incidents as irresponsible and not per AMA safety guidelines.

As others have stated, the rule breakers are going to fly irresponsibly and we catch some of the fragmentation. In the same vein unlawfull gun use sends flack over to the hunter/sportsman who enjoys guns in a responsible manner. At this point sticking together to fight the onerous FAA government regulations is the right approach just like the NRA does.

Lars
LarsL is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 10:59 AM
  #10  
Couch-pilot
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hamilton, ON, CANADA
Posts: 223
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

It is difficult enough to police the "mavericks" in our clubs. There is NO control for anyone that buys a drone online, or from a toy store, and just goes flying in the park....
Couch-pilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 01:07 PM
  #11  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,126
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Rcpilot View Post
I agree that these operators weren't AMA members. My point is, these people came here to RCU and other discussion forums. We as AMA members had a responsibility to do one of two things:
1) welcome them and make it a requirement to join AMA
2) shun them

We did neither, and here we are with the Federal Government breathing down our necks.

None of us have the right to demand that anyone join the AMA or any other org for that matter nor do we have the right to shun anybody.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 01:57 PM
  #12  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by ira d View Post
None of us have the right to demand that anyone join the AMA or any other org for that matter nor do we have the right to shun anybody.
Absolutely 100% correct.

Originally Posted by LarsL View Post
Porcia83, you state above that the operators who weren't flying responsibly were not shunned and as a direct result the Feds are breathing down our necks. What In your opinion should the shunning have consisted of?

I know that the AMA, formally on multiple occasions, has stated that FPV flight must be LOS with override backup by a second pilot to take over if the FPV pilot starts to lose control such that the aircraft could go BLOS. All the other imperatives about responsible flight around people, airports, etc. has also been stated. In other words fly your aircraft (fixed wing, single rotor, multi-rotor) responsibly per the AMA rules.

I believe the AMA has been doing the right things. It is my opinion that shunning, denouncing, outlawing, or whatever would have had no effect on the FAA's recent action. By the way, I recall that when there were media reports about some high visibility irresponsible flights, the AMA's position shunned those incidents as irresponsible and not per AMA safety guidelines.

As others have stated, the rule breakers are going to fly irresponsibly and we catch some of the fragmentation. In the same vein unlawfull gun use sends flack over to the hunter/sportsman who enjoys guns in a responsible manner. At this point sticking together to fight the onerous FAA government regulations is the right approach just like the NRA does.

Lars
Perhaps I wasn't clear or didn't quote the other party correct. I abhor the use of the would "shun" in any context here. I find it offends my delicate sensibilities..I'm practically getting the vapors! All joking aside, I find it presumptuous. I do not find that the AMA has done any shunning of any kind, and that is good. Ironically, it's what people are complaining about the most it seems...that the AMA didn't shun or disengage from MR users. This is a hobby that should be open to all safe fliers, and has been for 80 years. It would have folded years ago if it was kept to what people liked in the past.
porcia83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 10:25 PM
  #13  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,496
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Rcpilot View Post
Given the way the AMA has appeared to have caved on the "drone" designation and now the FAA seems to be requiring registration......... has it crossed anybody's mind that maybe we should have policed ourselves better?

Here is what I mean:
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fpv-uav-drones-486/

This website has a forum dedicated to the FPV and "drone" guys who fly outlaw (no AMA).

To me this was a mistake. Not slamming RCU for creating the forum, just saying that we as modelers should have discouraged this type of behavior when we saw it first coming on the scene several years ago. Instead of encouraging FPV fliers without AMA, we should have jumped up their backsides and made it clear that this type of vehicle wasn't welcome in our hobby. We should have discouraged this type of behavior at a minimum. We probably should have done everything we could to discourage the development and availability of these types of aircraft. And we definitely should not have welcomed these types of pilots into our circle (the AMA legal circle). We should have distanced ourselves from these people.

I could go into a long philosophical discussion about this and give plenty of reasons for why we should have policed ourselves better, but it seems a moot point now, given recent legislation. We've been judged by the company we keep, and we chose to let the outlaw drone pilots into our "company" ... see link to above forum.

It's the same philosophical argument about guns. Regulations only hurt the people who will follow the laws. Criminals are criminals, so the law means nothing to them. Criminals will still have guns and commit crimes.
U are preaching t the choir Man
modelers should have discouraged this type of behavior when we saw it first coming on
HOW? Tell us what/how we should have done something Hind sight is 20/20.

should have policed ourselves better,
Again HOW Specifics please OH with 20/20 Hind sight too. The FAA could not have made it any easier for us. If we buck the system only we will suffer the Wrath of the FAA. I hold a Pilots Certificate U think I'm Going to Jeopardise that over a FREE FED Number U'R Loonier than some others here. INIT that's not an insult it's a fact of life.
HoundDog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 10:35 PM
  #14  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,496
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
None of us have the right to demand that anyone join the AMA or any other org for that matter nor do we have the right to shun anybody.
Quote
Not Yet but ... In New Zealand U Must belong to their version of our AMA to fly anything R/C. U also need a special endorsement to fly with in 4km of any airport, Not just Towered ones. Lastly U do not under any circumstance break the 400' Ceiling. On the other U can do FPV out over 4 km. So don't say that couldn't happen here. The FAA is ALL MIGHTY GOD when it comes to the NAS.
Registration Is FREE it's Easy, & It's the Law for Now. Could very easily get much worse.
HoundDog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 10:48 PM
  #15  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Moreno Valley, CA
Posts: 3,126
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog View Post
Originally Posted by ira d
None of us have the right to demand that anyone join the AMA or any other org for that matter nor do we have the right to shun anybody.
Quote
Not Yet but ... In New Zealand U Must belong to their version of our AMA to fly anything R/C. U also need a special endorsement to fly with in 4km of any airport, Not just Towered ones. Lastly U do not under any circumstance break the 400' Ceiling. On the other U can do FPV out over 4 km. So don't say that couldn't happen here. The FAA is ALL MIGHTY GOD when it comes to the NAS.
Registration Is FREE it's Easy, & It's the Law for Now. Could very easily get much worse.
As far as belonging to AMA being a mandate to fly RC it has been practically that way here until the last few years that is if you flew at a RC club because the the AMA told the clubs to demand AMA membership. But as
individuals we don't have the right to demand anything. I will say one thing it seems what the FAA is doing has been law in other countries for a while now. I have already registered and don't see it as a big deal for now.
ira d is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 04:28 AM
  #16  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog View Post
modelers should have discouraged this type of behavior when we saw it first coming on
HOW? Tell us what/how we should have done something Hind sight is 20/20.

should have policed ourselves better,
Again HOW Specifics please OH with 20/20 Hind sight too. The FAA could not have made it any easier for us. If we buck the system only we will suffer the Wrath of the FAA. I hold a Pilots Certificate U think I'm Going to Jeopardise that over a FREE FED Number U'R Loonier than some others here. INIT that's not an insult it's a fact of life.
Now you've gone and done it HD...rather than agree with the OP explicitly, you've questioned him...and as such, you have "attacked" him. And even better, he EXPECTED this all along. Don't expect any answers to your very valid questions, doesn't appear he wanted to really have any discussions, just make a statement and move on. More empty platitudes with nothing to back them up.
porcia83 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 06:12 AM
  #17  
rm1963
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: rhinelander, WI
Posts: 31
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

If the AMA club is using federal land, state land, or any land the club or AMA does not own;
they can not demand any thing. They can only report any unlawful activities.
rm1963 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 09:13 AM
  #18  
Rcpilot
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (78)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,736
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

How are you guys feeling NOW?

AMA failed you. Why were we paying the dues in the first place, if they weren't going to step-up and draw clear distinctions between walmart drones and organized flying sites?

You failed to police yourselves.

Me? I was thinking about getting back into the hobby after a 6yrs break. Instead, I think I'll go build a hot rod.
Rcpilot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 06:13 PM
  #19  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,710
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Rcpilot View Post
How are you guys feeling NOW?
I'm feeling a little nostalgic for Porcia. I can only imagine what his reply to this might be! LOL

Astro
astrohog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2019, 07:30 PM
  #20  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,474
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

To quote Mr Worf, "IT WOULD BE GLORIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
To quote almost anyone else, "Meh"
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2019, 05:05 AM
  #21  
Appowner
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 821
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Rcpilot View Post
....................... has it crossed anybody's mind that maybe we should have policed ourselves better?

.....................
One of the very first points I made, several times, way back when this whole thing began. And others made the same observations and were treated similar to me.

But I was basically shouted down by the "rights" crowd. You know, "It's my right to fly toys and I'll fly anytime, anywhere and in any manner I please." Yes, that basic line was actually said to me in one forum. Often by devout members of the AMA.

May I suggest to those individuals: Constitutional Education
Appowner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2019, 05:18 AM
  #22  
HoundDog
My Feedback: (49)
 
HoundDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Apache Junction AZ. WI 0WI8
Posts: 4,496
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Rcpilot View Post
How are you guys feeling NOW?

AMA failed you. Why were we paying the dues in the first place, if they weren't going to step-up and draw clear distinctions between walmart drones and organized flying sites?

You failed to police yourselves.

Me? I was thinking about getting back into the hobby after a 6yrs break. Instead, I think I'll go build a hot rod.
Good ... bet no one will miss you in the least ... Man I see all you 'NICE PEOPLE' are still here. yggiP n'ood ay woH

Last edited by BarracudaHockey; 03-16-2019 at 08:58 AM.
HoundDog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2019, 12:37 PM
  #23  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 7,474
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by HoundDog View Post
Good ... bet no one will miss you in the least ... Man I see all you 'NICE PEOPLE' are still here. yggiP n'ood ay woH
I don't see his post as anything other than what he said in it. I don't see it as being a wiener, but more of a statement about trusting an organization that became so self important that it forgot what it was created to do in the first place. It's job was to lobby for those flying model aircraft, provide a secondary insurance source and pass out new information to those people. The question has now become "What is the AMA doing now?" Just look through the AMA threads and it's obvious:
1) Spending millions of dollars on a white elephant of a headquarter
2) Being laughed at by Congress and the FAA for trying to protect itself and make it relevant in how the FAA sets it's policies
3) Clinging to and quoting laws and policies set out years ago by Congress than have since been dropped from all of the active laws

Last edited by BarracudaHockey; 03-16-2019 at 08:59 AM.
Hydro Junkie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2019, 09:42 AM
  #24  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,515
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie View Post
To quote Mr Worf, "IT WOULD BE GLORIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
To quote almost anyone else, "Meh"

LOL, I looked out my window this morning and declared “ Perhaps today is a good day to Fly”!
speedracerntrixie is offline  
Reply With Quote

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service