Hydro Junkie

If we aren't, Rich Hanson is trying to make it so that we are. This is a cut and paste from the AMA Government Relations Blog, written by everyone's bud, Rich Hanson:
According to the current laws, recreational drone pilots are only eligible to fly under Section 336 if they fly in accordance with the safety guidelines and within the safety programming of a community-based organization, such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics. By our estimate, only about 200,000 people fall into this category, most of them are academy members.

To put this in perspective, according to the FAA, around 900,000 recreational users have registered their drones with the agency so far. The math from here is easy — about 200,000 people fly under Section 336 and the remaining 700,000 are required to operate under Part 107. Those that aren’t flying under Part 107 are in violation 14 CFR § 107.12, the requirement for a remote pilot certificate.

The truth is Section 336 is not to blame for rogue flyers. Those people are Part 107 violators — and should be treated as such.

If Congress wants to increase the safety of our skies, they should help recreational drone pilots understand that they need to comply with Part 107. Congress should also task the FAA with increasing enforcement so that those who violate Part 107 are held accountable for their actions.

Since the only CBO presently in existence is he AMA, Rich is saying that anyone that isn't an AMA member is breaking the law and should have the book thrown at them. I can only read this as a pressure tactic to force Congress and the FAA into a position where they become recruiting agents for the AMA. Once again, is he supporting us, the hobby flyers, or making a grab for power and increased revenue. Here's the address to the blog so you can all read it for yourselves:
Punish rogue recreational drone pilots ? not the rule followers | AMA Government Relations Blog

Just one more note. Mongo was the one that posted a new thread on this. I'm just bringing it to this thread since the line between commercial and hobby just got blurred even more since Rich didn't say anything to differentiate between those that build/fly aircraft, helicopters or quad copters. He just lumped everyone together as good(AMA members) and bad(everyone else).

rcmiket

Hydro,I believe your right on target.

Mike

jester_s1

He's saying every RC pilot, regardless of the type of vehicle, should operate under the guidance of a CBO. I agree with him. The AMA has a stellar safety record, and we'd see a lot less RC in the news if they did. Sure, this is coming from a guy who represents the CBO they'd be a part of if they complied. Did it not occur to anyone that Hanson maybe just believes in the benefits of the AMA for this hobby and wants to advance its mission? I fail to see the problem here.

Hydro Junkie

It's not what he believes in but how he said it. He has basically called anyone with a flying R/C that doesn't belong to the AMA a criminal. Why do any of us have to have a membership with the AMA? You are just as legal if you comply with Part 107 and deal with the FAA directly, are you not? If you read the entire post he made, he's calling for the FAA, Congress and the court system to slam anyone that isn't an AMA member due to being in violation of Part 107. That's a pretty bold statement, considering how the AMA is getting closer and closer to bankruptcy. He is, in short, trying to force Congress and the FAA to make being in the AMA a requirement to fly anything. What if I have an FAA R/C certificate? Do I still need to join the AMA? NO!!!!! But to read Hanson's comments, he's basically tried 700,000 people and convicted them without proof of wrongdoing due to the fact he's not seeing 700,000 new members feeding the AMA's check book so that the EC can have their pet projects in "Taj Muncie" paid for

franklin_m

One only needs to look at AMA's financials to understand the motivation for Hanson's statement... decline of 20.5% from peak in 2004

tailskid

My Feedback: (34)

And the cause of the sharp increase two years ago, led to the sharp decline because of the '2 for 1 deal....how did that work out?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

What Rich Hanson is saying is essentially the same as if the AAA (American Automobile Association) were to say, ‘you can obey all traffic laws, speed limits, etc., but unless you are an AAA member, you are not in full compliance of the law and should be charged to the full extent of the law.”

it is just wrong.

Astro

Hydro Junkie

Which brings up a simple question:
Does the AMA have a process to remove "elected" officers?
I put the word elected in quotation marks since, after the last election, I'm not so sure that vote was legit since there was a bunch of things that just didn't seem "kosher", such as one candidate being allowed to belittle his opponent in the AMA publications. the way the votes were "counted" and how the "winner" was notified before it was announced to the general membership. I don't really think it was an election as much as it was just going through the motions to make it look good and making an appointment into the office by one Rich Hanson

franklin_m

I do not think so. I think it's going to take members really getting pointed with their EC rep. I do not think it's a good strategy to browbeat people into joining, and instead focus on created clear perceived value in joining. And if they can't do that, then it's well past time for AMA cut costs (staff and magazine account for HALF of all AMA expenses).

jester_s1

Actually, what he's referencing is the original statement put into law several years ago that all RC pilots must operate within a CBO. He's arguing a point of law, not trying to force a law to be made. It's a matter of interpretation as to whether or not paying for AMA membership is a requirement to be in compliance of that law. Certainly that was what the AMA was going for when they were a part of the talks that produced that legislation. Chances are the FAA, possibly even the courts, will go with a less restrictive interpretation and decide that simply following the AMA safety code is enough to meet the requirements. But let's not miss the point that Hanson's statement is based on a law that already exists, pushing for an interpretation that would be very good for the AMA.

And to astrohog's comment- If it were law that drivers all are required to be members of some type of car organization, then AAA leadership would be fully justified in making statements like this too. It's not obviously, but Hanson does at least have a legal leg to stand on for calling on the government to require RC pilots to pay for membership to a CBO.

franklin_m

Except that the FAA has interpreted the "...within the programming..." statement. In a 12 July email in response to my question, the FAA UAS Integration office said:

"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO, nor does the FAA list any CBOs. You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO."

For those that are interested, I've attached a copy of my question and their response.

init4fun

Simply amazing the amount of misinformation some here are willing to spread to try to bully everyone in the hobby into joining the AMA . I am a member because all these years I WANTED to be , but now that I see the monster that has been created , a disgustingly bloated self important entity that puts it's own survival above even that of the hobby that created it , I am disgusted at the desperate actions of my organization's "survival at all costs" attempt to FORCE membership on anyone .

For shame that the AMA's final footnote should be one of selfish self aggrandizing bullying instead of trying to offer SOME relevant reason of why folks should want to be members .

PS , anyone still wonder why I voted for Frank Tiano ?

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

+1

Well said!

Astro

Luchnia

My Feedback: (21)

+2

Stickslammer

I guess we`re going to have to hold on to our hats. Mandating membership in the AMA? "the question of a membership requirement was left unanswered" and "this is an important ambiguity to be resolved". It doesn`t sound too promising to me.

The government mandate that we all have to buy health insurance "or else", really infuriated me.

I hate to think that anyone in the AMA would be advocating sticking their hands in our pockets to make up for poor management decisions. But the more I read, that's what it`s starting to look like.

Hydro Junkie

We all saw what President Trump and Congress did to the health insurance requirement, it's going by the wayside.
As for the AMA requiring membership to fly anything R/C, Franklin got the direct answer on that from the FAA:
"The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO, nor does the FAA list any CBOs. You must only follow the guidelines of a CBO."
As for the poor management, the way that can be taken care of is to have the membership demand the resignation of Rich Hanson and his board of "Yes Men" immediately or they will drop their membership and really put the AMA's treasury into a world of hurt

franklin_m

I sent this to my EVP, Mark Radcliff (district III). I'd encourage all like minded folks to register their displeasure with their EC member.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark,

I was extremely disheartened to read Rich Hanson’s recent OpEd in The Hill. His column was a blatant attempt to force membership in AMA by criminalizing those who are neither 107 holders nor AMA members.

Furthermore, it is utterly foolish for the organization to imply that membership is required to be “within the programming.” The reason is simple. On 13 January 2014, the AMA agreed to “[m]aintain Safety Programming documentation on the public section of the AMA website in order to promote safety throughout the entire aero-modeling community, even among non-AMA members.” A copy is attached for your convenience.

If membership is required to be within programming, and the only “programming” the FAA cares about is “safety programming,” then requiring membership is an admission that not all “safety programming” is on the website – a violation of the agreement. On the other hand, if AMA is complying with the MOU, then the only “programming” received by members that is not available to non-members is -- by definition -- NOT safety programming. Both of these conditions cannot be true, so which is it? If AMA wants to make membership mandatory, then break the agreement with the FAA and put the safety code and safety programming in a members only area.

Like others who’ve written to their EVPs, I see great risk to long term of the organization by forcing people to become members. “Rogue” operators aren’t scared of the FAA, so what makes anyone think they’d be more scared of AMA? But say they’re forced, and they pay AMA $75 and fly under 336. Does anyone really believe that all of them are going to change their wicked ways? As Madison said, “men are not angels.” Therefore some of these already problematic people will undoubtedly continue their dangerous behavior. But now when they’re caught, it’ll be an AMA member on the news.

By forcing membership as Rich implies in his OpEd, all we’re doing is setting the conditions that will eventually hand our critics the stick to beat us with.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Franklin,

I’ve been saying that for years. The only reason the AMA and its members have had any reasonable credibility with the Feds in the past is due to the fact that the AMA membership has been made up of hobbyists who are passionate and who care and are willing to teach and self-police the AMA safety code at our flying fields. The AMA “jumped the shark” introduced the Park Flyer program, as they simply do not have the infrastructure necessary to assure that AMA members are or will follow the safety code when not flying at a club facility where the other members can teach and enforce best practices. In my opinion, the AMA has further crossed tthe line by advocating to be THE CBO for all droners by forcing them to join. The AMA will be forced to throw those droners under the bus who join because they have to but have no desire to follow any rules and are “caught” doing something illegal or make the six o’ clock news doing something stupid. It will only take a couple of these instances for the Feds to realize that the AMA is woefully equipped to police its own membership and strip them of their coveted CBO status.

I would much rather see the AMA die by attrition and “natural” causes than to die due to their lust for membership and $$ and desperation.

Unfortunately it is clear that our current leadership has lost focus on their current membership.

Leadership change is necessary

Regards,

Astro

Hydro Junkie

Leadership needing to be changed was blatantly obvious at the last election when you look at how it was handled. We don't really know if the "winner" was elected by those that voted or was appointed by Rich Hanson. It's obvious, to me anyway, that what is going on at "Taj Muncie" is bordering on corruption and some are doing anything and everything they can to hide that fact.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

I'm tired of hearing that crap about a rigged election. It just doesn't happen that way.

franklin_m

A. The president and EVP used their columns in an official AMA publication to undermine a candidate for the EVP position.

B. Since the Executive Director is responsible for preparation of official publications (note 1), this could only be done with his explicit or tacit approval.

C. And the people who count the votes work for the same Executive Director (note 2).


So the same guy who approved using an official pub to attack a candidate also supervises the vote counters? That is more than enough to question the integrity of the process....


Note 1: AMA Bylaws, Article XIII: "The official AMA publications shall be prepared and distributed under the supervision of the Executive Director."

Note 2: AMA Bylaws, Article X, Section 8: "The Executive Director shall be the Chief Operating Officer of the AMA. He shall be directly responsible to the Executive Council for the operation of the AMA Headquarters staff and for the conduct of AMA business."

rcmiket

You cannot deny that the President and EVP used their columns in MA to undermine Tougas. Anyway you can spin it it's unethical.

Mike

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

I'm not talking about the columns.

I'm talking about the serious accusation of rigging the vote or calling it an appointment. If you want to look at something in the election look at the percentage of members that cast votes.

The people that count the votes don't even know the candidates.

rcmiket

I am and I call it influencing a election.

Mike

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

BUT....... there is no law that says one must be a member..........

Astro