porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Virtually impossible, since it's not 100%, even the congress critters are smart enough to see through that generalization. That, and they know what the AMA has stood and fought for going on 80 plus years.

big fred

My question is why Chad will not state what the provisions are that they ( AMA )have asked to be included in the bill. Every time I read his posts, all I can see is that he is just like those sitting on the "hill" ;(

rcmiket

They can never "disclose anything at this time". Hanson was the same. I follow the blogs on a regular basis and it's the same over and over.

Mike

franklin_m

Keep in mind that Chad is listed as the AMA's Public Relations and Governmental Affairs, which means that when he speaks, one could (perhaps should) think that he speaks for the organization. In one of the responses, he mentioned that the exemption to the 400 foot limit applied to "AMA members." I asked him to clarify and confirm that this did not require membership. He got snippy. In all fairness, the language in the proposed bill is different, and I think they should be clear what the new language means to AMA. He wouldn't.

So made another post, pointing out that it was he, the "Public Affairs and Government Relations" representative of the AMA that used the term "members" and that as a professional we would be correct in assuming that his language choice was deliberate and precise. Not only was the comment not answered, he deleted it.

So, the AMA's paid employee responsible for "Public Relations and Governmental Affairs" refuses to go on record as to whether or not they interpret the language in the proposed bill as requiring membership.

That doesn't sit right with me, and if you agree, please ask the same question on their blog. - Thanks.

radfordc

My Feedback: (14)

Franklin, I can't imagine how anyone could get "snippy" with someone as open minded and unbiased as yourself.

franklin_m

Well, if by that you mean I'm not someone that genuflects toward Muncie four times daily while chanting "I'm not worthy," then guilty as charged. But that's not really the issue.

The issue is someone with his title using a specific word that carries specific meaning, and then being unwilling to either confirm the choice was deliberate or not. If his use of language was sloppy, then own it and correct. That's what professional PR people do.

So it's really one of two things - as a paid PR professional he's careless with his word choice, or he chose to use the word "members" deliberately. It has to be one or the other.

ira d

The AMA ever since the first bill came out in 2012 has been trying to get laws in place that would require AMA membership but has not seemed to want to come out and say so. IMO they should
be up front about what they want and also clarify any questions that are asked.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

As is common when dealing with ongoing negotiations and employment of strategy....not every point is going to be laid out for the world to see, and that includes the membership. Want to know more and be part of the solution, get more involved than commenting online. They reality is they are paid to do what they are doing, and that doesn't involved running to the membership at every turn to either ask for suggestions or solutions, or get permission.

If anyone has followed the AMA blogs (yes, they exist), they will Chad answering many questions, and in a professional way. This is despite the battering that he and the AMA get even in those blogs. It's not shocking to hear they delete some of the more obnoxious comments, or not respond to every question. God knows if he spent his time doing that, he'd no doubt be criticized.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The reason they haven't come right out and said it, is because it's not happening. Why would they lie? They haven't done anything of the kind, where is the evidence of this?

They have tried to get laws in place that would not adversely affect AMA members, but to say they are trying to get laws in place to force people to become AMA members is just patently false.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

I love the classic can't win scenario....."either they are wrong and bad here....or they are wrong and bad there".

rcmiket

"Chad Budreau April 13, 2016 at 11:54

Yes that is correct. The FAA and the Know Before You Fly Campaign offers a safety guideline that encourages modelers to stay below 400-feet. This is a good safe altitude limit for most modelers, but modelers operating under our safety program are permitted to fly over 400′."

From the FAA website.

"I will fly below 400 feet"

I found this interesting. before our registration was accepted we had to agree to the 400 foot rule. Did something change?

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

The AMA has addressed the question repeatedly, you even quote one of their answers. What is interesting or confusing about it? You say you follow the AMA forums and if that' the case the issue was dealt with, Chad noted as much on several occasions. We are exempted....due in part to the AMA's efforts. Isn't that a good thing?

Sport_Pilot

What rule? We have to fly below 400 feet or we cannot take off. It's a law of physics not a legal rule.

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

He is selectively choosing one sentence to try and prove a point about some disconnect, however there isn't one there. Since we follow a safety protocol we are able to fly above 400 feet, simple as that.

rcmiket

Really? Do you even bother reading up on anything before posting?
Mike

init4fun

Mike my Friend , Sport's playing with words (and you) again .

As everyone in the world , dare I even say in the universe (the RC Universe , that is) knows , when the FAA says "I will fly below 400 feet" , they mean that as "I will fly no higher than 400 feet" . Now Sport , OTH , likes to interpret it as "I will fly below 400 , sure I will , and I'll fly above 400 feet too" . Now , since Sport isn't presently flying anything by his own admission , his words mean nothing to anyone who has actually read the statute , understands it's meaning , and has to live with it each time they take their model out . The danger of course is if someone who only has half a clue sees one of his posts and believes it , and has a problem while over 400 feet , maybe they will point the investigators to the repeated false info that Sport posts all over these threads and maybe he just might get him a visit by the FAA and get to do all kinds of wordsmithing with them . Not likely ? Sure , BUT ! I am sure in a court of law the FAA's interpretation would win out over Sport's .

Untill I see the FAA letterhead on the top of the decree that says , "sure Mr. AMA 80274 , init4fun , your more than welcome to fly above 400 feet" , I think I'll stick with the majority's opinion on this and keep under 400 feet just to err on the side of caution .......

rcmiket

I figured that about Sport.This is certainly a mess and getting worst. The EC meets in a couple of days maybe when the minutes are posted we'll get a update but I'm not holding my breath.

Mike

init4fun

Mike , Just remember , Neither Chad NOR the AMA are in any way a "Higher authority" over the FAA . It is the FAA who owns the Ball , Bat , and Bases too in this ballgame , and so far they have proven that by pretty much doing exactly as they please , #336 be damned . Now , if someone's RC runs into a full scale at 900 feet , is Chad or the AMA going to represent them in the investigation ? Like I said in my last post , I see no where in any official FAA document that we have the permission to fly over 400 feet , only that one could have been worded better statement of "I will fly below 400 feet " .

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Curious....we want information from the AMA and complain that we don't get enough of it, but when we do get information from the AMA...and from someone at the AMA who's job it is to interact with the FAA, and they tell us it's o/k to do something...we still find a way to ignore that info, as if it's not credible.

rcmiket

Correct I fail to understand why Chad posted that. Things are bad enough between us modelers and the FAA now the AMA government relations guy is posting incorrect information on the AMA site.

Mike

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

Only it isn't incorrect. Why has this become an issue so suddenly...it was addressed over a month ago.

init4fun

Mike , I hate like Hell to believe this , but here goes ;

I have come to the belief that the AMA sees it's only future in two things , #1 being Drones and #2 being the ability to get itself positioned as the only authority over ALL non commercial UAS flight . It is also my belief that they are perfectly willing to gamble us "traditional" LOS RC flyers rights away to get what they think they need to survive , a monopoly on all non commercial UAS . We "traditional" RCers are not seen as the AMA's future , we're already seen as it's past , and that's the reason the AMA never came right out and made the distinction between RC LOS and BLOS , cause they are banking on their being NO distinction between the two and in fact want to be in control of all of both !

It never has been about "saving" the "traditional" LOS flyer from excessive regulation , It's about the AMA insuring IT'S survival , whether our part of the hobby survives or not ! In the future , if AMA membership isn't somehow mandated by the FAA , The AMA will cease to exist as it's quite obvious where the hobby is headed and folks who need no club fields really won't have much need of clubs , including right on up to the biggest club , the AMA .

porcia83

My Feedback: (8)

So 80 years of being involved in heli and fixed wing advocacy and interest is going to be done away with, just so the AMA can put all of eggs in the drone basket. Even though that currently represents a small segment of the hobby, (you didn't mention FPV/Quad racing), they are doing all in for drones?

franklin_m

I think you're absolutely correct. The problem will be that in the end, the Congress will not tolerate AMA requiring membership. Now, that doesn't mean the AMA won't try it anyway (survival instinct). And they may well succeed for a while. But then someone in government will put 2 & 2 together and yank that special status out from under them. Unfortunately, by that time all those traditional folks will have left, or will just fly smaller stuff. I'm already moving in that direction myself, mostly because I can fly within 200 yards of my house, vice packing up all my stuff, schlepping 13 miles one way to the field -- just to fly nitro? Just to fly big stuff? Not worth it. Even accounting for the larger planes being better in wind, I still fly much more often smaller stuff close to home than I ever flew going to the flying field.

rcmiket

I agree but will add it will never work. The government would never give up that kinda power to a CBO. Why would these guys not have the same right of control over all non commercial UAS flight?

http://www.dontflystupid.org/

Either way I really don't see that AMA as a player in all of this anyway. The kind of money Amazon and so on are pouring into lobbying for the rights to our airspace is astronomical compared to what the AMA has spent. The AMA along with us are just viewed as pests that can be sweep away with the stoke of a pen for the right price.

Mike