STEVEB

An e-mail received from AMA today indicates the AMA is now offering to members commercial "drone" liability insurance. What a tremendous step away from the core values and intent of the academy. I am concerned this (perceived) shift of focus to commercial activities may impact our (tenuous) relationship with the FAA, opening the door to even greater legislative intervention in what was once a hobby. This is a direction that does not give the proverbial warm and fuzzies.

Steve Barnett
Crownsville, MD

init4fun

At what point do we loose our 501c status now that were entering into for profit commercial operations ?

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Man am I ever glad our organization in Canada chose to stay a completely hobby organization. They made it clear from the get go they had no interest in any for profit/commercial direction that rc equipment/operators may take.

Dennis

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

NFP orgs are allowed to make all the profit in the world. they are just not allowed to distribute that profit to administration, board, or members.. it must be re-plowed into the operation of the org, or held in reserve for future needs.

rgburrill

The FAA exception for AMA members is based on NO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. I'm glad I stopped flying.

rgburrill

Perhaps you should talk to a lawyer before making such statements.

049flyer

My Feedback: (18)

FPV/Drones, the gift that keeps on giving.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

To be clear, the AMA isn't insuring commercial drones. They are offering a program that is available for purchase by members that get a discount because they are AMA members, same as the Nationwide Insurance Discount or Enterprise Car Rental affinity program. Its not member supported, and its not leveraging the in-house insurance that we get as modelers/members.

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

Anyone dare to check out what it would cost to get some of that 'drone' insurance?

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

i sit on 3 NFP(501.XXX) boards and have for many years..
profit aint illegal for them, distribution of that profit is the catch.

Hydro Junkie

I know EVERY square dance club in the state of Washington had a 501 C certificate and, having that certificate, they are limited on how much money they can make. If the club is audited by the IRS and has made too much in net profit, they lose their certificate

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Thats funny because the IRS spent 6 months crawling all over the AMA books so I'm guessing if you were right they might have found something.

init4fun

I will not live to see it , but you youngsters watch , 25 years from now our AMA will have pretty much turned into something more closely resembling AAA (yes , the one catering to automobile drivers) than the HOBBYIST organization it was first conceived to be .

And when history looks back , you all won't be able to blame ol init4fun , I voted for Frank .......

rcmiket

What rocket scientist came up with this idea? Haven't seen it in the EC minutes I don't recall even a peep from the organization asking for opinions on this.
Way to go guys further alienate your core base.

Mike

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

I don't see your consternation. Did the car insurance alienate anyone? Why would this? It's available if you want it, it's not being forced upon you or using your membership money so I don't see what the uproar is.

rcmiket

The AMA is constantly bombarding it's membership with communication that they are advocating for the "hobbyist" from goverment intervention. This is a obvious venture into the commercial end of things. Toss in the Drone Expo the AMA was evolved in recently that was only for commercial drone users. There's a very fine line here.
Looks as if we are crossing it and why was the membership ( or at least the LM's) not consulted? .
Mike

init4fun

My guess would be that they (the EC) wouldn't have liked the answer .

rcmiket

Were was the AMA was this little tidbit was sliding by their ever watchful eyes in DC?

Drone Registration Included In DOD Authorization Bill | Aero-News Network

""Congress finalized legislation that will reverse the earlier court ruling in the John Taylor case and restore the FAA’s UAS registration requirement, including for AMA members," the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) said in a statement emailed to Aero-News."We expect this legislation – the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018 – to go through final passage in the House and Senate, and to the President’s desk, soon. We ask all AMA members to please comply with the registration rule once it is in effect again. We will update you when this happens." Mike

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Fighting it every step of the way but pretty much everyone knew that the Taylor decision was pointless.

rcmiket

Where was the "call to arms" on this ? We keep getting emails on how they are in the loop and at this meeting and that meeting and fighting for us in DC. Seems like this little tidbit deserved at least a hey guys email............but what do I know.

Mike

jester_s1

The consternation is from backwards thinking people who are angry that it's not 1978 anymore with all the bad parts of those memories removed. They'll never be happy because they don't like new, they don't like different, and they want the AMA to be 100% focused on their interests and no one else's. Perhaps the AMA should create a new type of membership for old guys who spend most of their hobby time complaining at meetings and at the flying field instead of flying!

init4fun

edited by me

init4fun

...

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Or MAYBE, just MAYBE, the consternation is not from "backwards thinking people" (NICE touch! classy stereotype right there!), but rather from those who understand that drones are so distinctly different than any other type of craft that we fly, that they deserve and need different rules than those we currently abide by. Flying clubs and fields across the country are all facing regulation and insurmountable attacks like no other time in the history of our hobby (regardless of what Rich Hanson states in his November column of Model Aviation. (LOL)).

This regulation is not born from the "traditional" modelers as we have been operating our models in largely the same way for 80 years (regardless of propulsion system, blade configuration, etc). It was not until flying camera platforms and autonomous guidance systems became prevalent that we started to face public outcry and Government regulation. You can choose to deny it, but it just doesn't change the facts.

Regards,

Astro

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Many of the same arguments and "consternation" came about when helicopters first started to become popular. I think the difference was the heli group was willing to compromise and work with so called traditional modelers to achieve a common ground. I think this was due to many more heli fliers being from a traditional modeling background and understanding the mechanics of safety and common sense needs.

A much higher percentage of the mulirotor and FPV Drone crowd lack this link to traditional modeling and are not willing to compromise but instead insist that we must change to accommodate them. The many years of safe and responsible operation means nothing to them, as does our needs/wants. All I ever seem to hear is we must change or die.

How stupid to expect us to throw everything out that has laid the groundwork for what you want to do today. No mater what you say flying models, drones or multirotors is not a right its a privilege and you have to earn and work at keeping those privileges or they can be taken away.