You are not going to believe what the AMA did with part of our money!
01-01-2016, 11:44 AM
#51
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Friant cal
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AMA threw its members under the bus. They have laid down in front of the FPV marketing dollars and folded their hands. As an example. The vote AMA made regarding support of the DRONE folks had the president of AMA cast the deciding tie breaking vote to allocate $250,000.00 of our money to support a segment of the population who has brought unwanted attention to our hobby. An admirable pursuit to perhaps increase membership but your spending OUR money in support of non members who have not contributed a dime to their own defense. IMHO the AMA may want to do battle with the Fervent Authority Above to save not only our hobby but their own careers, which by the way maybe in danger after this fiasco.
TJE AMA8855
TJE AMA8855
01-01-2016, 01:04 PM
#52
The AMA threw its members under the bus. They have laid down in front of the FPV marketing dollars and folded their hands. As an example. The vote AMA made regarding support of the DRONE folks had the president of AMA cast the deciding tie breaking vote to allocate $250,000.00 of our money to support a segment of the population who has brought unwanted attention to our hobby. An admirable pursuit to perhaps increase membership but your spending OUR money in support of non members who have not contributed a dime to their own defense. IMHO the AMA may want to do battle with the Fervent Authority Above to save not only our hobby but their own careers, which by the way maybe in danger after this fiasco.
TJE AMA8855
TJE AMA8855
Meanhile, can you believe what they did with our money?
01-01-2016, 01:36 PM
#54
Although there are some well intentioned people here (for the most part), the reality is these threads are typically best looked at for pure entertainment value. Oddly enough with this was when I say "our money", I mean people who actually made donations to the foundation, not AMA members who just pay their dues..but hey...it's still fun!
01-01-2016, 01:40 PM
#55
The AMA threw its members under the bus. They have laid down in front of the FPV marketing dollars and folded their hands. As an example. The vote AMA made regarding support of the DRONE folks had the president of AMA cast the deciding tie breaking vote to allocate $250,000.00 of our money to support a segment of the population who has brought unwanted attention to our hobby. An admirable pursuit to perhaps increase membership but your spending OUR money in support of non members who have not contributed a dime to their own defense. IMHO the AMA may want to do battle with the Fervent Authority Above to save not only our hobby but their own careers, which by the way maybe in danger after this fiasco.
TJE AMA8855
TJE AMA8855
01-01-2016, 01:58 PM
#56
I might as well pipe in too, as everyone else is. I tend to agree with TJ. Additionally, I think the AMA had a faulty strategy to begin with. The goal was a bit greedy, in that they saw drones as a way to grow the AMA's power and influence by getting the FAA to in effect, endorse the AMA by exempting it's members from whatever rules the FAA came up with. With this "endorsement" in effect, AMA's membership, power, and prestige would swell. It took quite a bit of hubris to even think the FAA would do that. The full scale aviation equivalent would be to expect the FAA to exempt full scale pilots from registering their aircraft if they, say, belonged to AOPA. It's silly....the FAA simply would not do that. Now, the FAA has their foot in the door to future RC airplane & heli regulation, registrations, fees, increases, etc etc. Government always trickles out their bureaucratic horrors slowly, remember. The AMA should have focused on putting the drone community at arms length, educating officials as to the difference, and making sure the rules don't apply unnecessarily to hobby airplanes. Now, we have rules that make no sense. Planes over 55lbs can carry a lot of grief with no apparent regulation, while tiny toy drones need federal registration numbers. It's silly. And none of the rules apply apparently if you are a foreigner or terrorist. Meanwhile, virtually no regulations or control exist at all if you are flying an ultralight.
I sure have enjoyed all the theories that the AMA was in this for the money, can you explain that a bit given the fact that it's a non profit organizations, and they don't run on "profits". You have however added some new motives, "power and prestige". Can you explain that one again, since they are the only CBO dealing with this hobby over the past 80 years, who do they need power over again, or prestige? Finally explain how strong arming "drones" would have mattered as the FAA grouped everything into one. The rules might not make sense to you, but they do make sense, just not the best sense.
01-01-2016, 05:31 PM
#59
01-01-2016, 08:04 PM
#60
I certainly don't recall FPV happening 15 years ago, heck 2.4GHz TXs weren't available 15 years ago. Either way, expressing concern and taking action are two totally different things. Perhaps nearly every post on these forums could be considered expressing concern in one way or another. Now,
I don't know who us is, but I suspect many folks do feel the AMA is advocating for them.
I don't know who us is, but I suspect many folks do feel the AMA is advocating for them.
videocam mounted in a senior telemaster.
had to be a licensed ham op to fly it or the use the video transmission equipment.
01-01-2016, 08:44 PM
#61
Yup, pork is nice. I tried a filet tenderloin last year and I thought it was be great, but I didn't really work as well as I thought. This was ours today, went real quick as winter finally paid us a visit today 40 degrees and no wind at 11, then by 12 dropped to low 30's, sun went away, and wind picked up. The recpipe came from the most senior person in our club who passed on two years ago, so our club sec keeps it going. Good bean filled chili, meaty taste, minimal spice (we have many older guys with sensitive tummies, and we don't clear out that porta potty for two months now so...) Turn out was great, about 60 peeps, about half that who actually flew. Great way to end/start the year.
01-01-2016, 08:48 PM
#62
Sure, ATV has been around a long time. Not sure the small number of people doing this at that time was raising the concern the other poster expressed.
01-02-2016, 10:38 AM
#63
Sure join in on the fun, it's a public thread, all comments are welcome as long as they aren't mean spirited. And now that I guess the thread is free from viruses, it's even better. I sure have enjoyed all the theories that the AMA was in this for the money, can you explain that a bit given the fact that it's a non profit organizations, and they don't run on "profits". You have however added some new motives, "power and prestige". Can you explain that one again, since they are the only CBO dealing with this hobby over the past 80 years, who do they need power over again, or prestige? Finally explain how strong arming "drones" would have mattered as the FAA grouped everything into one. The rules might not make sense to you, but they do make sense, just not the best sense.
I sure have enjoyed all the theories that the AMA was in this for the money, can you explain that a bit given the fact that it's a non profit organizations, and they don't run on "profits". You have however added some new motives, "power and prestige". Can you explain that one again, since they are the only CBO dealing with this hobby over the past 80 years, who do they need power over again, or prestige? Finally explain how strong arming "drones" would have mattered as the FAA grouped everything into one. The rules might not make sense to you, but they do make sense, just not the best sense.Answers/comments in blue:
Sure join in on the fun, it's a public thread, all comments are welcome as long as they aren't mean spirited. And now that I guess the thread is free from viruses, it's even better.
I sure have enjoyed all the theories that the AMA was in this for the money, can you explain that a bit given the fact that it's a non profit organizations, and they don't run on "profits". A non profit is a legal structure, with rules. That legal status alone does not shed light into the motivations of whoever is running the organization. You have however added some new motives, "power and prestige". Can you explain that one again, since they are the only CBO dealing with this hobby over the past 80 years, who do they need power over again, or prestige? 80 years for a Community Based Organization or not, it doesn't matter. It is human nature for leaders of any organization to grow it. Finally explain how strong arming "drones" would have mattered as the FAA grouped everything into one. I never said "strong-arming drones". I can see how you've been misinterpreted here. To keep a group at arms length is not the same thing as "strong-arming" them. My point was that the AMA's desire to strengthen their organization guided them to a strategy that invited the FAA to group everything into one. The rules might not make sense to you, but they do make sense, just not the best sense. Given the outcome, what you're describing is a distinction without a difference. I offer these comments in the interest of an open discussion, I don't mean to be critical.
Last edited by Pull Up Now!; 01-02-2016 at 09:10 PM.
01-03-2016, 07:01 PM
#64
************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** *******
Answers/comments in blue: My Responses in Red...
Sure join in on the fun, it's a public thread, all comments are welcome as long as they aren't mean spirited. And now that I guess the thread is free from viruses, it's even better. I sure have enjoyed all the theories that the AMA was in this for the money, can you explain that a bit given the fact that it's a non profit organizations, and they don't run on "profits". A non profit is a legal structure, with rules. That legal status alone does not shed light into the motivations of whoever is running the organization.Given that this legal structure isn't a for profit one, that motivation seems to not fit?You have however added some new motives, "power and prestige". Can you explain that one again, since they are the only CBO dealing with this hobby over the past 80 years, who do they need power over again, or prestige? 80 years for a Community Based Organization or not, it doesn't matter. It is human nature for leaders of any organization to grow it.Mkay, but again, what does power and prestige have to do with growth? Two different concepts, imo. Nothing wrong with growing this origanization, it won't automatically mean more power or prestige, just more people enjoying the hobby from what I see. Finally explain how strong arming "drones" would have mattered as the FAA grouped everything into one. I never said "strong-arming drones". I can see how you've been misinterpreted here. To keep a group at arms length is not the same thing as "strong-arming" them. My point was that the AMA's desire to strengthen their organization guided them to a strategy that invited the FAA to group everything into one. Your premise earlier was that the AMA was greedy and should not have accepted "Drones" into the fold. Now you've indicated that what they did, and I presume you mean only the AMA, what they did lead the FAA to group everything into one. There is nothing close to empirical evident to suggest that. You've completely looked past the biggest reason, technology and the proliferation of commercial application of this technology. And if you've read other comments, we have already heard form people who spoke with FAA employees who said this was coming all along, "we" had nothing to do with it. I get that we're the most affected and/or disenfranchised now, but I suspect we've given our hobby and a few people who flew recklessly far to much "credit" for this huge sweeping change the FAA has enacted. The rules might not make sense to you, but they do make sense, just not the best sense. Given the outcome, what you're describing is a distinction without a difference. I offer these comments in the interest of an open discussion, I don't mean to be critical. I appreciate your comments, and for that matter I appreciate a critical view of my own comments even if you didn't mean them in that way. I believe that's part of actually having a good and open discussion. To often here, in these threads, a contrary or critical analysis of a point of view as seen as some type of personal attack.
Answers/comments in blue: My Responses in Red...
Sure join in on the fun, it's a public thread, all comments are welcome as long as they aren't mean spirited. And now that I guess the thread is free from viruses, it's even better.
I sure have enjoyed all the theories that the AMA was in this for the money, can you explain that a bit given the fact that it's a non profit organizations, and they don't run on "profits". A non profit is a legal structure, with rules. That legal status alone does not shed light into the motivations of whoever is running the organization.Given that this legal structure isn't a for profit one, that motivation seems to not fit?You have however added some new motives, "power and prestige". Can you explain that one again, since they are the only CBO dealing with this hobby over the past 80 years, who do they need power over again, or prestige? 80 years for a Community Based Organization or not, it doesn't matter. It is human nature for leaders of any organization to grow it.Mkay, but again, what does power and prestige have to do with growth? Two different concepts, imo. Nothing wrong with growing this origanization, it won't automatically mean more power or prestige, just more people enjoying the hobby from what I see. Finally explain how strong arming "drones" would have mattered as the FAA grouped everything into one. I never said "strong-arming drones". I can see how you've been misinterpreted here. To keep a group at arms length is not the same thing as "strong-arming" them. My point was that the AMA's desire to strengthen their organization guided them to a strategy that invited the FAA to group everything into one. Your premise earlier was that the AMA was greedy and should not have accepted "Drones" into the fold. Now you've indicated that what they did, and I presume you mean only the AMA, what they did lead the FAA to group everything into one. There is nothing close to empirical evident to suggest that. You've completely looked past the biggest reason, technology and the proliferation of commercial application of this technology. And if you've read other comments, we have already heard form people who spoke with FAA employees who said this was coming all along, "we" had nothing to do with it. I get that we're the most affected and/or disenfranchised now, but I suspect we've given our hobby and a few people who flew recklessly far to much "credit" for this huge sweeping change the FAA has enacted. The rules might not make sense to you, but they do make sense, just not the best sense. Given the outcome, what you're describing is a distinction without a difference. I offer these comments in the interest of an open discussion, I don't mean to be critical. I appreciate your comments, and for that matter I appreciate a critical view of my own comments even if you didn't mean them in that way. I believe that's part of actually having a good and open discussion. To often here, in these threads, a contrary or critical analysis of a point of view as seen as some type of personal attack.
