Circle the wagons ! It's Senator writing time !!!!
#27
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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" ;(
#28
Mike
#29
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.
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.
#31
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.
Last edited by franklin_m; 04-13-2016 at 07:15 PM.
#32
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.
be up front about what they want and also clarify any questions that are asked.
#33
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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.
#34
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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.
#35
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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.
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.
#36
"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
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
Last edited by rcmiket; 04-14-2016 at 03:56 AM.
#37
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
"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
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
#38
"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
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
#40
#41
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 .......
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 .......
#42
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 will 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 .......
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 will 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 .......
Mike
#43
"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
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
#44
Banned
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.
#45
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 " .
Mike
#47
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 .
Last edited by init4fun; 04-14-2016 at 11:58 AM.
#48
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
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 .
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 .
#49
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 .
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 .
#50
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 .
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 .
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
Last edited by rcmiket; 04-14-2016 at 02:37 PM.