The AMA members kick their own organization to the curb!
12-25-2015, 04:22 AM
#1
The AMA members kick their own organization to the curb!
Did the bulk of AMA members kick the AMA to the curb and put a major roadblock on the AMA efforts by not adhering to their request NOT to register with the FAA? Some have stated that around 50000 have agreed with the FAA and registered to obey the FAA non-law guidelines.
Of that huge number of FAA registered toy "drone" pilots one would wonder how many are AMA members? Many are because they have posted on the various forums that they indeed did register. Can you imagine the impact that this will have on what the AMA is attempting to accomplish? This will certainly affect their efforts and I am guessing that the AMA will change their direction now since they know the bulk of their members do not support them in this matter.
The AMA members that registered have indeed punched the AMA in the face and shown where there is no allegiance toward the AMA. Whether we like it or not this will have a major impact on the AMA. At some point the numbers of AMA members that went against the AMA's request may be known.
Of that huge number of FAA registered toy "drone" pilots one would wonder how many are AMA members? Many are because they have posted on the various forums that they indeed did register. Can you imagine the impact that this will have on what the AMA is attempting to accomplish? This will certainly affect their efforts and I am guessing that the AMA will change their direction now since they know the bulk of their members do not support them in this matter.
The AMA members that registered have indeed punched the AMA in the face and shown where there is no allegiance toward the AMA. Whether we like it or not this will have a major impact on the AMA. At some point the numbers of AMA members that went against the AMA's request may be known.
12-25-2015, 04:37 AM
#2
Senior Member
My Feedback: (5)
Did the bulk of AMA members kick the AMA to the curb and put a major roadblock on the AMA efforts by not adhering to their request NOT to register with the FAA? Some have stated that around 50000 have agreed with the FAA and registered to obey the FAA non-law guidelines.
Of that huge number of FAA registered toy "drone" pilots one would wonder how many are AMA members? Many are because they have posted on the various forums that they indeed did register. Can you imagine the impact that this will have on what the AMA is attempting to accomplish? This will certainly affect their efforts and I am guessing that the AMA will change their direction now since they know the bulk of their members do not support them in this matter.
The AMA members that registered have indeed punched the AMA in the face and shown where there is no allegiance toward the AMA. Whether we like it or not this will have a major impact on the AMA. At some point the numbers of AMA members that went against the AMA's request may be known.
Of that huge number of FAA registered toy "drone" pilots one would wonder how many are AMA members? Many are because they have posted on the various forums that they indeed did register. Can you imagine the impact that this will have on what the AMA is attempting to accomplish? This will certainly affect their efforts and I am guessing that the AMA will change their direction now since they know the bulk of their members do not support them in this matter.
The AMA members that registered have indeed punched the AMA in the face and shown where there is no allegiance toward the AMA. Whether we like it or not this will have a major impact on the AMA. At some point the numbers of AMA members that went against the AMA's request may be known.
But what you had better understand and get through your head is that the AMA is stating a " REQUEST ". While the FAA is stating a " LAW ".
Now, which one are you going to abide by ?
Last edited by Granpooba; 12-25-2015 at 04:44 AM.
12-25-2015, 04:43 AM
#4
I'm not happy with the ama for various reasons but they are all we have....for now. Following the flock,running to register is not the best course of action now,in my opinion. Sec. 336 is the law according to Congress.
Last edited by flyinwalenda; 12-25-2015 at 04:57 AM.
12-25-2015, 06:22 AM
#7
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
They already started, see post 4 where the first one came in. Always interesting to see you make comments about "the usual suspects" when you are right there along with them. The hypocrisy never ends....
Let me guess, the next response will be...see, I told you so! Good stuff!
Let me guess, the next response will be...see, I told you so! Good stuff!
12-25-2015, 06:38 AM
#8
My Feedback: (27)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Athol,
ID
Posts: 2,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in the holding pattern right now. To bad AMA wasn't proactive when they had the chance, they just saw potential new members and their eyes glazed over.........
I think the LOS flyers should be in separate division from FPV fliers, who actually are not really fliers but just operators, program it and it does it all. ..........bet if tracking were done there will be more serious problems with the FPV crowd than LOS fliers?
A serious consideration is will "DRONES" cause an increase in AMA insurance down the line?
I think the LOS flyers should be in separate division from FPV fliers, who actually are not really fliers but just operators, program it and it does it all. ..........bet if tracking were done there will be more serious problems with the FPV crowd than LOS fliers?
A serious consideration is will "DRONES" cause an increase in AMA insurance down the line?
12-25-2015, 06:42 AM
#9
I don't see what will be accomplished by waiting and I did not want to be caught up in a last min rush to register, IMO the AMA has been talking to FAA for about ten years on this subject and if they could not come to a
agreement in that length of time I doubt they will in sixty days of course I could be wrong but I doubt it. Another thing the AMA did that I don't feel was the best idea was to include the CBO language in the bill 336.
agreement in that length of time I doubt they will in sixty days of course I could be wrong but I doubt it. Another thing the AMA did that I don't feel was the best idea was to include the CBO language in the bill 336.
12-25-2015, 06:46 AM
#10
Exactly what will holding off registering with the FAA do for the AMA?
I'd say it sends a message to the FAA that the AMA members are a bunch of rogue drone operators with no concern for the full scale planes. (Likely not true, but a bad message). I'd rather work with the FAA as a partner than an enemy.
Wouldnt it be better for the AMA argue that we are not the problem, we fully complied with registration, but we need to work together to make some adjustments to the process?
I've registered.
I'd say it sends a message to the FAA that the AMA members are a bunch of rogue drone operators with no concern for the full scale planes. (Likely not true, but a bad message). I'd rather work with the FAA as a partner than an enemy.
Wouldnt it be better for the AMA argue that we are not the problem, we fully complied with registration, but we need to work together to make some adjustments to the process?
I've registered.
12-25-2015, 06:50 AM
#11
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Did the bulk of AMA members kick the AMA to the curb and put a major roadblock on the AMA efforts by not adhering to their request NOT to register with the FAA? Some have stated that around 50000 have agreed with the FAA and registered to obey the FAA non-law guidelines.
Of that huge number of FAA registered toy "drone" pilots one would wonder how many are AMA members? Many are because they have posted on the various forums that they indeed did register. Can you imagine the impact that this will have on what the AMA is attempting to accomplish? This will certainly affect their efforts and I am guessing that the AMA will change their direction now since they know the bulk of their members do not support them in this matter.
The AMA members that registered have indeed punched the AMA in the face and shown where there is no allegiance toward the AMA. Whether we like it or not this will have a major impact on the AMA. At some point the numbers of AMA members that went against the AMA's request may be known.
Of that huge number of FAA registered toy "drone" pilots one would wonder how many are AMA members? Many are because they have posted on the various forums that they indeed did register. Can you imagine the impact that this will have on what the AMA is attempting to accomplish? This will certainly affect their efforts and I am guessing that the AMA will change their direction now since they know the bulk of their members do not support them in this matter.
The AMA members that registered have indeed punched the AMA in the face and shown where there is no allegiance toward the AMA. Whether we like it or not this will have a major impact on the AMA. At some point the numbers of AMA members that went against the AMA's request may be known.
12-25-2015, 06:56 AM
#12
Did the bulk of AMA members kick the AMA to the curb and put a major roadblock on the AMA efforts by not adhering to their request NOT to register with the FAA? Some have stated that around 50000 have agreed with the FAA and registered to obey the FAA non-law guidelines.
Of that huge number of FAA registered toy "drone" pilots one would wonder how many are AMA members? Many are because they have posted on the various forums that they indeed did register. Can you imagine the impact that this will have on what the AMA is attempting to accomplish? This will certainly affect their efforts and I am guessing that the AMA will change their direction now since they know the bulk of their members do not support them in this matter.
The AMA members that registered have indeed punched the AMA in the face and shown where there is no allegiance toward the AMA. Whether we like it or not this will have a major impact on the AMA. At some point the numbers of AMA members that went against the AMA's request may be known.
Of that huge number of FAA registered toy "drone" pilots one would wonder how many are AMA members? Many are because they have posted on the various forums that they indeed did register. Can you imagine the impact that this will have on what the AMA is attempting to accomplish? This will certainly affect their efforts and I am guessing that the AMA will change their direction now since they know the bulk of their members do not support them in this matter.
The AMA members that registered have indeed punched the AMA in the face and shown where there is no allegiance toward the AMA. Whether we like it or not this will have a major impact on the AMA. At some point the numbers of AMA members that went against the AMA's request may be known.
So, is it then a good assumption that the majority of the 60K that have registered are AMA members? Perhaps. If so, that's approaching 1/3 of the membership (even including all those free youth memberships they gave away). If paying membership is closer to 120k ish, then 60K registrations are approaching 1/2 of membership.
12-25-2015, 06:57 AM
#13
Holding off past 21 January costs $5 (first 30 days free).
Two logical disconnects. First, at the same time AMA is asking it's members to do that, they're arguing that imposition of a $5 fee is burdensome. So, somehow it's not burdensome for AMA to ask its members to incur a $5 cost, but it is when the FAA does it? Secondly, if the $5 every three years is burdensome as argued by AMA, then why is the AMA's $75 a year not burdensome? Another logical disconnect.
In this line of response, I think AMA is actually helping the FAA make a case for one set of rules for everyone. FAA is must consider the "equal protection" clause when rule making. The NAS is the taxpayer's resource; giving special dispensation to CBO members over non-members might run counter to that. FAA is not in the business of helping private non-profits pad their membership, they have to look out for the interests of all NAS users - including those who can't afford $75 a year.
Honestly, I don't see FAA approving two sets of rules, one for CBO members and another for non-CBO members.
Two logical disconnects. First, at the same time AMA is asking it's members to do that, they're arguing that imposition of a $5 fee is burdensome. So, somehow it's not burdensome for AMA to ask its members to incur a $5 cost, but it is when the FAA does it? Secondly, if the $5 every three years is burdensome as argued by AMA, then why is the AMA's $75 a year not burdensome? Another logical disconnect.
In this line of response, I think AMA is actually helping the FAA make a case for one set of rules for everyone. FAA is must consider the "equal protection" clause when rule making. The NAS is the taxpayer's resource; giving special dispensation to CBO members over non-members might run counter to that. FAA is not in the business of helping private non-profits pad their membership, they have to look out for the interests of all NAS users - including those who can't afford $75 a year.
Honestly, I don't see FAA approving two sets of rules, one for CBO members and another for non-CBO members.
Last edited by franklin_m; 12-25-2015 at 07:42 AM.
12-25-2015, 09:28 AM
#14
Never let a good conspiracy get in the way of explaining something. A week after the registration the theories run wild. As if members signing up but some kind of roadblock up in front what the AMA was doing. Punched in the face.....that is funny. Love the ominus ending too...those that registered might be found out by the AMA. I bet they are all quaking in their boots.
You like the ominus ending? Why thank you
12-25-2015, 10:28 AM
#16
Those with existing aircraft can hold off on registration and still legally fly all the way to the deadline.
The AMA asked me to hold off registering for what I hope is OUR mutual benefit.
I fail to see why I should not abide by this request for the time being.
The AMA asked me to hold off registering for what I hope is OUR mutual benefit.
I fail to see why I should not abide by this request for the time being.
12-25-2015, 12:04 PM
#17
They already started, see post 4 where the first one came in. Always interesting to see you make comments about "the usual suspects" when you are right there along with them. The hypocrisy never ends....
Let me guess, the next response will be...see, I told you so! Good stuff!
Let me guess, the next response will be...see, I told you so! Good stuff!
No I won't do that but Thank You from all of us here on this new thread and all of the other AMA/FAA,etc... threads on this site where you have tried to dominate and derail the conversations; that if nothing else you are at least ......predictable !
12-25-2015, 12:57 PM
#18
Hi Luchnia , 
Did the AMA give it's membership list to the FAA ? I ask because if the FAA has no access to the AMA's membership records , how would the FAA know how many of the registrants were AMA members or not ? Maybe most or all of the registrants so far are folks with new drones . Maybe most of the registrants are AMA members . Without a way for the FAA to cross reference who's an AMA member or not how could this be used against the AMA that some ? most ? all ? AMA members went against the AMA's directive to wait ?
12-25-2015, 02:15 PM
#19
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly what will holding off registering with the FAA do for the AMA?
I'd say it sends a message to the FAA that the AMA members are a bunch of rogue drone operators with no concern for the full scale planes. (Likely not true, but a bad message). I'd rather work with the FAA as a partner than an enemy.
Wouldnt it be better for the AMA argue that we are not the problem, we fully complied with registration, but we need to work together to make some adjustments to the process?
I've registered.
I'd say it sends a message to the FAA that the AMA members are a bunch of rogue drone operators with no concern for the full scale planes. (Likely not true, but a bad message). I'd rather work with the FAA as a partner than an enemy.
Wouldnt it be better for the AMA argue that we are not the problem, we fully complied with registration, but we need to work together to make some adjustments to the process?
I've registered.
Have a look at this.
http://jrupprechtlaw.com/myrupprecht...istration-rule
Mike
12-25-2015, 02:42 PM
#21
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That my friend is a long way of saying I disagree with you as for abiding by AMA's request. I think it may be viewed from within as being to AMA HQ's benefit, but consider it will unlikely be to OUR benefit as modelers. So, even notwithstanding my recent move to the dark side, I hope for and give my support to an overwhelming showing of acceptance of the registration process, as it might just get AMA management to take a few steps down from their ivory tower and empire building ambitions.
12-25-2015, 02:54 PM
#22
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a retailer we tell everyone about the registration process but it's up to them to follow though.
Mike
12-25-2015, 04:00 PM
#23
Having recently joined the Dark Side (opened a Christmas present early, days before the "mark before flying" edict), it seemed a small measure of prudence to register early. It's a toy-grade unabashed copy of the DJI Phantom, sans the smarts (except for stabilization) and brushless motors. The FPV link is via WiFi to a cell phone attached by a clip on the antenna housing of the Tx, so range is obviously limited - could hardly be considered BLOS capable. It is a gift from daughter, so Pa Pa can share the experience of flying it with 10 year old grandson who also received one as a gift. I think the craft and the circumstances are pretty typical - if the projected number sold is a million, these toys probably account for 8-900,000 of them. I seem them as being pretty innocuous, and though capable of some minor mischief, probably will very rarely get the notice of FAA, and will never be AMA's business. Most of the remainder will be flying cameras, with the airframe capable of the kind of stability provided by a tripod and quality optics. It is these that are most likely to attract scrutiny by FAA, simply because they will be operated where photo subjects are, and that is generally not on empty fields. AP is worthwhile hobby in its own right, and enthusiasts should look to organization of their own making, say as an AP SIG within an organization centered on photography. It is not an aeromodeling activity and AMA should not be party to it.
That my friend is a long way of saying I disagree with you as for abiding by AMA's request. I think it may be viewed from within as being to AMA HQ's benefit, but consider it will unlikely be to OUR benefit as modelers. So, even notwithstanding my recent move to the dark side, I hope for and give my support to an overwhelming showing of acceptance of the registration process, as it might just get AMA management to take a few steps down from their ivory tower and empire building ambitions.
That my friend is a long way of saying I disagree with you as for abiding by AMA's request. I think it may be viewed from within as being to AMA HQ's benefit, but consider it will unlikely be to OUR benefit as modelers. So, even notwithstanding my recent move to the dark side, I hope for and give my support to an overwhelming showing of acceptance of the registration process, as it might just get AMA management to take a few steps down from their ivory tower and empire building ambitions.
I'm just "playing a hunch" and hope I'm rewarded for procrastinating...!