AMA Statement - Didn't even MENTION John Taylor!
#1
Thread Starter
AMA Statement - Didn't even MENTION John Taylor!
I'm appalled at AMA's lack of even a modicum of professional courtesy. They didn't even mention John Taylor in their statement, let alone have the decency to thank him!
“AMA is encouraged to see the Court affirm the strength of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, otherwise known as Section 336, under which our members operate. For decades, AMA members have registered their aircraft with AMA and have followed our community-based safety programming. It is our belief that a community-based program works better than a federally mandated program to manage the recreational community. “We have long held that federal registration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) makes sense at an appropriate threshold of weight, capability and other safety-related characteristics. However, federal registration shouldn’t apply at such a low threshold that it includes toys. It also shouldn’t burden those who have operated harmoniously within our communities for decades, and who already comply with
AMA’s registration system.”
“AMA is encouraged to see the Court affirm the strength of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, otherwise known as Section 336, under which our members operate. For decades, AMA members have registered their aircraft with AMA and have followed our community-based safety programming. It is our belief that a community-based program works better than a federally mandated program to manage the recreational community. “We have long held that federal registration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) makes sense at an appropriate threshold of weight, capability and other safety-related characteristics. However, federal registration shouldn’t apply at such a low threshold that it includes toys. It also shouldn’t burden those who have operated harmoniously within our communities for decades, and who already comply with
AMA’s registration system.”
#2
But Franklin, they can't mention him. To say anything about John Taylor is to admit they basically got their asses kicked or that they didn't do what they claimed they were. To use an Asian statement, to acknowledge John would make the AMA executive board lose face in the eyes of the members
#3
Thread Starter
But Franklin, they can't mention him. To say anything about John Taylor is to admit they basically got their asses kicked or that they didn't do what they claimed they were. To use an Asian statement, to acknowledge John would make the AMA executive board lose face in the eyes of the members
#4
My Feedback: (243)
They do mention John Taylor in the video that was just released. I agree with the OP as that was my first reaction upon reading it.
I also agree this isn't the end of the issue but I did register, put the numbers on my flying machines where they will remain.
To those who got their knickers in a knot defying the registration, get over it. The Feds already know everything about you so if having registered keeps the FAA at bay while I enjoy my hobby it is worth it. Abandoning your hobby and sitting if front of the TV in a snit to prove defiance only affects you. Go fly rather than melting your brain.
I also agree this isn't the end of the issue but I did register, put the numbers on my flying machines where they will remain.
To those who got their knickers in a knot defying the registration, get over it. The Feds already know everything about you so if having registered keeps the FAA at bay while I enjoy my hobby it is worth it. Abandoning your hobby and sitting if front of the TV in a snit to prove defiance only affects you. Go fly rather than melting your brain.
#5
Thread Starter
They do mention John Taylor in the video that was just released. I agree with the OP as that was my first reaction upon reading it.
I also agree this isn't the end of the issue but I did register, put the numbers on my flying machines where they will remain.
To those who got their knickers in a knot defying the registration, get over it. The Feds already know everything about you so if having registered keeps the FAA at bay while I enjoy my hobby it is worth it. Abandoning your hobby and sitting if front of the TV in a snit to prove defiance only affects you. Go fly rather than melting your brain.
I also agree this isn't the end of the issue but I did register, put the numbers on my flying machines where they will remain.
To those who got their knickers in a knot defying the registration, get over it. The Feds already know everything about you so if having registered keeps the FAA at bay while I enjoy my hobby it is worth it. Abandoning your hobby and sitting if front of the TV in a snit to prove defiance only affects you. Go fly rather than melting your brain.
After watching the video my impression was "Us too! Us too!"
I think this will ultimately prove to by a pyrrhic victory. I think FAA will go to Congress and say they can't do the safety job so long as they're not able to regulate a big segment of users.
#6
Everyone get this last week?
Mike
Dear members,
It's been a busy week for AMA in Washington, D.C., where the government affairs team has held multiple meetings with members of Congress and other industry stakeholders to discuss FAA reauthorization and other issues. We've met with the National Aeronautic Association, National League of Cities, the National Association of Realtors and a subcommittee of the Drone Advisory Committee, among others.
We continue to urge policymakers and their staff to strengthen and protect the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336), which allows hobbyists to fly within the safety programming of a community-based organization (CBO) such as AMA.
We've also emphasized the important role that CBOs play in managing the recreational community and ensuring the safety of the skies.AMA president Rich Hanson recently authored an op-ed in The Hill about the importance of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, which provides a good overview of the messages we're advancing on Capitol Hill. If you missed Rich's op-ed, you can read it here.
Things are starting to move quickly around FAA reauthorization and there's always the possibility that we may need your help to weigh in with your members of Congress. Please continue to monitor your email, AMA's Facebook and Twitter, as well as modelaircraft.org/gov for updates.
As always, thank you for your continued support of AMA.
It's been a busy week for AMA in Washington, D.C., where the government affairs team has held multiple meetings with members of Congress and other industry stakeholders to discuss FAA reauthorization and other issues. We've met with the National Aeronautic Association, National League of Cities, the National Association of Realtors and a subcommittee of the Drone Advisory Committee, among others.
We continue to urge policymakers and their staff to strengthen and protect the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Section 336), which allows hobbyists to fly within the safety programming of a community-based organization (CBO) such as AMA.
We've also emphasized the important role that CBOs play in managing the recreational community and ensuring the safety of the skies.AMA president Rich Hanson recently authored an op-ed in The Hill about the importance of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, which provides a good overview of the messages we're advancing on Capitol Hill. If you missed Rich's op-ed, you can read it here.
Things are starting to move quickly around FAA reauthorization and there's always the possibility that we may need your help to weigh in with your members of Congress. Please continue to monitor your email, AMA's Facebook and Twitter, as well as modelaircraft.org/gov for updates.
As always, thank you for your continued support of AMA.
Mike
#8
Two things in Rich''s OP- ED stuck out to me. The AMA has always claimed to be the driving force behind SEC. 336 but that's not mentioned. This got my attention.
" Unfortunately, some people simply use the Special Rule as a get out of jail free card and do not fully engage or operate in accordance with a CBO program. This is part of the reason why we acknowledge that some tweaks may be necessary for the Special Rule. Nevertheless, we strongly believe that the option for hobbyists to operate in a CBO structure should remain. "
So is he suggesting mandatory membership as the "tweak"??
Mike
" Unfortunately, some people simply use the Special Rule as a get out of jail free card and do not fully engage or operate in accordance with a CBO program. This is part of the reason why we acknowledge that some tweaks may be necessary for the Special Rule. Nevertheless, we strongly believe that the option for hobbyists to operate in a CBO structure should remain. "
So is he suggesting mandatory membership as the "tweak"??
Mike
#10
Two things in Rich''s OP- ED stuck out to me. The AMA has always claimed to be the driving force behind SEC. 336 but that's not mentioned. This got my attention.
" Unfortunately, some people simply use the Special Rule as a get out of jail free card and do not fully engage or operate in accordance with a CBO program. This is part of the reason why we acknowledge that some tweaks may be necessary for the Special Rule. Nevertheless, we strongly believe that the option for hobbyists to operate in a CBO structure should remain. "
So is he suggesting mandatory membership as the "tweak"??
Mike
" Unfortunately, some people simply use the Special Rule as a get out of jail free card and do not fully engage or operate in accordance with a CBO program. This is part of the reason why we acknowledge that some tweaks may be necessary for the Special Rule. Nevertheless, we strongly believe that the option for hobbyists to operate in a CBO structure should remain. "
So is he suggesting mandatory membership as the "tweak"??
Mike
#11
#13
#14
You are correct about anyone following the safety rules but then comes the gray area because some feel you have to be a AMA member to included in the AMA programing. And of course the AMA want us to think that is the case that you have to be a member.
#15
#17
The letter you mention states
"...model aircraft may be flow consistently with Section 336 and agency guidelines at altitudes above 400 feet when following a community-based organization's safety guidelines."
Which is not a " AMA members only" exemption.
Mike
#19
#20
My Feedback: (11)
I'm not an EC member, just an AVP/LM
It's not you so much, but this has been hashed and rehashed so many times I'm not going to try to delve into it again.
Really in the end I'm not even sure it matters all that much, endanger the NAS by flying like a fool and causing an incident with a full scale and I don't really think it will matter if you're an AMA member or just an idiot, that person will be hung out to dry.
It's not you so much, but this has been hashed and rehashed so many times I'm not going to try to delve into it again.
Really in the end I'm not even sure it matters all that much, endanger the NAS by flying like a fool and causing an incident with a full scale and I don't really think it will matter if you're an AMA member or just an idiot, that person will be hung out to dry.
#21
I'm not an EC member, just an AVP/LM
It's not you so much, but this has been hashed and rehashed so many times I'm not going to try to delve into it again.
Really in the end I'm not even sure it matters all that much, endanger the NAS by flying like a fool and causing an incident with a full scale and I don't really think it will matter if you're an AMA member or just an idiot, that person will be hung out to dry.
It's not you so much, but this has been hashed and rehashed so many times I'm not going to try to delve into it again.
Really in the end I'm not even sure it matters all that much, endanger the NAS by flying like a fool and causing an incident with a full scale and I don't really think it will matter if you're an AMA member or just an idiot, that person will be hung out to dry.
Mike
Last edited by rcmiket; 06-22-2017 at 06:48 AM.
#23
Yes, but to fly by 336 you need to follow a CBO
There's only 1 CBO and that requires you to be a member to acknowlege the safety code.
So,.... you need to be a member to be compliant with 336 as written so if you're a member you're covered by the letter to the AMA.
There's only 1 CBO and that requires you to be a member to acknowlege the safety code.
So,.... you need to be a member to be compliant with 336 as written so if you're a member you're covered by the letter to the AMA.
While I'm sure the AMA would love mandatory membership there's no way it will happen.
Mike
#24
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's debatable and has been debated for a couple of years now.. Nowhere does the FAA state you MUST be a member of the AMA to be compliant nor can the goverment require membership in the AMA. Who's to say just what a CBO is and it's not spelled out anywhere.
While I'm sure the AMA would love mandatory membership there's no way it will happen.
Mike
While I'm sure the AMA would love mandatory membership there's no way it will happen.
Mike
#25
I think if the AMA has its way with mandatory membership enforced by law that could be a real concern , I am hoping that the FAA won’t ever go after anyone for not being a AMA member.