AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

While AMA talks, FAA acts...

Reply

Old 01-01-2019, 12:23 PM
  #1  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default While AMA talks, FAA acts...

On an FAA website updated less than a month ago (12 December 2018), third bullet under step 2 says:

"Fly at or below 400 feet when in uncontrolled airspace (Class G)"
https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 12:52 PM
  #2  
Appowner
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 593
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Yeah! I always figured I'd rely on the FAA vice the AMA and their forum pundits for accurate information.
Appowner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 01:11 PM
  #3  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Appowner View Post
Yeah! I always figured I'd rely on the FAA vice the AMA and their forum pundits for accurate information.
What I just don't understand is the communications disconnect. If you remember the run-up to the FAA bill, the talk out of AMA was far from doom and gloom. Since the law passed, talk out of Muncie has again been largely positive, downright optimistic at times. Meanwhile, things like this are showing up on FAA site .. which shows FAA is to some extent marching forward per the specifics in the law.

Assuming one does not believe AMA would outright present falsehoods, is it possible they're just so out of touch they can't understand what's being said to them? Are they so entrenched in their thinking that they just can't fathom that things aren't going well?

I'm throwing it out there ... Why is what we hear from AMA so disconnected from what FAA is going (like this website)?
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 01:29 PM
  #4  
Appowner
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 593
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

No idea. Unless it goes with your eat, breath, live the hobby theory of yours. Could they be so blinded by their own misguided passions that they hear what they want whether that's what was said or not? Or is there a deeper scam going on somewhere? Another Hobbico type thing? I have no evidence there is but, until some questions get answered I don't see where we can rule out the possibility.

On the flip! I realized today that the 25 years of AMA dues I've saved by not joining has paid for my new OS 320 Pegasus flat 4 engine. Hmmm! Os 320? AMA bennies? OS? AMA?

Looks like the Japs won this one!
Appowner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 02:08 PM
  #5  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Appowner View Post
No idea. Unless it goes with your eat, breath, live the hobby theory of yours. Could they be so blinded by their own misguided passions that they hear what they want whether that's what was said or not? Or is there a deeper scam going on somewhere? Another Hobbico type thing? I have no evidence there is but, until some questions get answered I don't see where we can rule out the possibility.
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's not outright deception. That said, I do think the manner in which the EC and officers are selected leads to a rather homogeneous gene pool of thought. You can only be a VP if you're first a leader member. And good luck being a leader member w/o the support of the VP. That all but ensures that everyone is pretty much thinking the same ... that everyone eats, lives, and breathes model planes like they do. Thus the never (seriously) consider any other possibility.

Further proof would be to look at how dissenters are treated. Not long ago one VP dared to disagree with the strategic direction of the AMA, and the President and the EVP use the organization's official publication to attack the man! Worse yet, the rest of the VPs sat by and did nothing. What's even scarier is that the "Editor" allowed it as well!

The main question is whether it's too late to make the necessary changes. I personally don't think so. Their inability to face reality and be transparent with members is my main reason for lack of optimism. I'd hoped that by now some of the hard questions I've tried to ask would be addressed in the magazine etc., but no. They just keep doing more of the same and hoping for a different result.

So now they're heading into a stock market downturn with financial trends (from IRS990s) that show nothing but declines. The CFO's latest column seems to hang hopes on baby boomers as their kids are out of the house. Unfortunately, I don't think he's looked at census and economic data that shows baby boomers are MORE likely to be supporting their kids well into their mid to late 20s (or later). That's not a group that's going to have a lot of disposable income. But hey, when have the facts ever gotten in the way of AMA rhetoric.
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 02:26 PM
  #6  
Propworn
My Feedback: (3)
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,729
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Is not the AMA a corporation? As such members of the BOD are allowed to express, lobby for and support conflicting views from the other members of the board. However once a vote has been taken and a majority determined it is the duty of the members of the board to put aside their differences of opinion and support the direction the board has decided to take. If the member cannot support in good faith this majority decision and refrain from disruption of the board through action or vocally he should resign his position voluntarily. Other wise the board can call for his resignation by a predetermined majority.

Dennis
Propworn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 02:59 PM
  #7  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by Propworn View Post
Is not the AMA a corporation? As such members of the BOD are allowed to express, lobby for and support conflicting views from the other members of the board. However once a vote has been taken and a majority determined it is the duty of the members of the board to put aside their differences of opinion and support the direction the board has decided to take. If the member cannot support in good faith this majority decision and refrain from disruption of the board through action or vocally he should resign his position voluntarily. Other wise the board can call for his resignation by a predetermined majority.

Dennis
It wasn’t a vote for a policy, but rather an elected position. One VP was running for Executive Vice President and running on the platform that the AMA was going in the wrong direction (paraphrased). BEFORE all the votes were cast, the sitting President and sitting Executive Vice President used their monthly columns in the AMA’s official publication to attack the candidates platform. Thus many of us feel they improperly put their fingers on the scale of the election. For example, they can opine all they like, but what many of us felt was unfair was using the ORGANIZATION’s official publication to do it.
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 04:33 PM
  #8  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default



Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
On an FAA website updated less than a month ago (12 December 2018), third bullet under step 2 says:

"Fly at or below 400 feet when in uncontrolled airspace (Class G)"
https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/

As usual Franklin is misleading. Step 1 clearly has us agree to fly in accordance to section 336.

Last edited by speedracerntrixie; 01-01-2019 at 04:40 PM.
speedracerntrixie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 04:36 PM
  #9  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default


To calaborate this I went to Mark Radcliff and he states this.
speedracerntrixie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 04:38 PM
  #10  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

So, as of right now we are flying under section 336 which allows us to fly above 400'. That of course is subject to change and Im sure Franklin will be all over it when and if it goes into effect.
speedracerntrixie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 05:05 PM
  #11  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,232
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

With all due respect to this discussion , I'm not happy to post that I do believe it's the FAA's present intention that WHILE following the "safety guidelines of a community based organization" , a recreational (336) user must remain under 400 feet . I believe the FAA's intent is that to do things like fly above 400 feet one must be a part 107 operator with a filed flight plan for each flight over 400 feet .

What do I base my viewpoint on ? I base my interpretation of the FAA's communication on the fact that for 19 months , 8 hours a day 5 days a week , I studied ALL of the "FARs" (Federal Aircraft Regulations) while earning an A/P Mechanic's rating from the FAA . There really isn't much ambiguity in the quoted passage below , despite what's presently coming from AMA HQ .
init4fun is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 05:14 PM
  #12  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Again, information starting at step 2. Review the wording in section 336 again especially the title of 336 " exception for model aircraft". At best this action taken by the FAA that Franklin boasts about is simply putting conflicting information on the same page which has allowed Franklin to post only the section that supports his agenda.
speedracerntrixie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 05:25 PM
  #13  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default



In case you missed the first two times.
speedracerntrixie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 05:48 PM
  #14  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,232
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Again, information starting at step 2. Review the wording in section 336 again especially the title of 336 " exception for model aircraft". At best this action taken by the FAA that Franklin boasts about is simply putting conflicting information on the same page which has allowed Franklin to post only the section that supports his agenda.
Here's where we diverge ;

I am not happy in the least with what I read in the FAA's documents , but if you start reading at step one of the FAA's rules for #336 operation as the FAA intends , and read through the entire missive from beginning to end without parsing the specific subsections (to attempt to falsely interpret the inaccurate viewpoint that the FAA is presently OK with #336 operations above 400 feet) , then the logical reader simply must take at face value what has been published by the FAA themselves , that #336 has no authorization above 400 feet . Now I realize that you believe this is yet another "You VS Franklin" thing , but damn , it's right there in black & white with no ambiguity whatsoever , , , , just exactly whom do you , speedracer , think the FAA is addressing with the statement ; "Fly at or below 400 feet when in uncontrolled airspace (Class G)" ? (Hint , this sentence is lifted word for word from the FAA's #336 rules !!!!!)
init4fun is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 06:03 PM
  #15  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,232
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post


In case you missed the first two times.
PS , you can red underline that till the second kingdom comes , but it still says exactly nothing about "AMA members flying under #336 have an altitude exemption that the rest of #336 does not" as the AMA is attempting to lead us to believe . When a branch of the federal government and a hobby based organization differ in their interpretations of that federal government department's rules , I'll have to err on the side that can literally bring legal charges against me , VS an organization hinging it's very survival on a rather capricious interpretation of what the FAA intends .
init4fun is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 06:33 PM
  #16  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

What this says is that all recreational R/C pilots are currently flying under section 336 which does not allow the FAA to intruduce new laws. Section 336 goes back to AC 91-57 that makes the 400' altitude limit nothing more then an advisory. The new Reauthorization act can not go into affect until the FAA can come up with a plan to enforce the new regulations and demonstrate that plan to congress. In the meantime section 336 and AC-91-57 is what we are currently bound to. This is not me against Franklin a you put it, Im simply doing what I feel is best for the hobby. Spreading false or heavily bias information is not what is best for the hobby.
speedracerntrixie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 06:53 PM
  #17  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
What this says is that all recreational R/C pilots are currently flying under section 336 which does not allow the FAA to intruduce new laws. Section 336 goes back to AC 91-57 that makes the 400' altitude limit nothing more then an advisory. The new Reauthorization act can not go into affect until the FAA can come up with a plan to enforce the new regulations and demonstrate that plan to congress. In the meantime section 336 and AC-91-57 is what we are currently bound to. This is not me against Franklin a you put it, Im simply doing what I feel is best for the hobby. Spreading false or heavily bias information is not what is best for the hobby.

Ok. I guess we have to go back to basics. So first a little civics refresher.

Your beloved 336 was part of the 2015 FAA Reauthorization act. Yes, it did prohibit the FAA from making rules for "Model Aircraft."

When the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act was passed, it explicitly REPEALED section 336 of the 2015 law. Let me repeat. It R E P E A L E D Section 336. Thus the moment the President signed the new law, Section 336 of the old law and it's prohibition of FAA making new rules, CEASED TO EXIST. It's gone ... as if it never existed.

Another provision of the 2018 law was the EXPLICIT statement that the exception for recreational sUAS was contingent on remaining at or below 400 feet in class G. Again, it was EXPLICITLY spelled out in the bill, passed by Congress and signed by the President. It's law of the land.

So you need to face the fact that the Section 336 prohibition against FAA making rules for "model aircraft" no longer exists. And the FAA page, one updated just days ago, repeats the explicit provision passed by Congress and signed by the President .. that recreational sUAS need to stay below 400 feet in class G.

So underline to your heart's content. Quote AMA to your heart's content. But the fact remains that the law is clear and explicit. And it is the FAA, not the AMA, that enforces. And the FAA has explicitly said to remain at or below 400 feet in Class G.


So, as usual, you're reading what you WANT it to say vs. what it ACTUALLY says. Nowhere in the operatational limits of the repealed section 336 does it say flight above 400 feet is allowed. Not once. As for referring to the beloved safety code of a CBO (note 1), I can't help but notice that NOWHERE does it say flight over 400 feet is allowed either.

As to Radcliff's comment. What we know is what we have in writing from the Executive Department agency empowered to enforce the very specific law, and what that agency's website says is 400 feet. What Radcliff says is what would be called hearsay. It's second hand info at best.

So it remains that what IS actually written, and written on an official website, is that to stay at or below 400 feet in class G. Doesn't get much more plainly worded than that.

Note 1: 105.pdf
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 07:13 PM
  #18  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

To be perfectly honest, I would beleive all,of that IF and that's a huge if the FAA page did not reference section 336 on the previous step to the one that you published.

Last edited by speedracerntrixie; 01-01-2019 at 07:19 PM.
speedracerntrixie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2019, 08:42 PM
  #19  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
To be perfectly honest, I would beleive all,of that IF and that's a huge if the FAA page did not reference section 336 on the previous step to the one that you published.
Please show us where in section 336 it says flight above 400 feet is allowed? Oh that's right. It doesn't. And it doesn't say it's allowed in your beloved AMA code either.

But what is actually in writing, both in the law of the land and on the FAA official website ... one updated just days ago ... is if you want to fly recreationally, you need to stay below 400 feet in class G.
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 05:18 AM
  #20  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
What this says is that all recreational R/C pilots are currently flying under section 336 which does not allow the FAA to intruduce new laws. Section 336 goes back to AC 91-57 that makes the 400' altitude limit nothing more then an advisory. The new Reauthorization act can not go into affect until the FAA can come up with a plan to enforce the new regulations and demonstrate that plan to congress. In the meantime section 336 and AC-91-57 is what we are currently bound to. This is not me against Franklin a you put it, Im simply doing what I feel is best for the hobby. Spreading false or heavily bias information is not what is best for the hobby.

This states it all, since the re authorization act has NOT gone into effect YET we are flying to section 336 which refers us to the wording in AC-91-57 that states 400' altitude is an ADVISORY. We have been flying traditional R/C since the early 1980's under AC-91-57 and well above 400'. Show me where anyone has been convicted or even sited for flying over 400'
speedracerntrixie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 05:28 AM
  #21  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
This states it all, since the re authorization act has NOT gone into effect YET...
Wrong. Civics 101. It became law of the land, i.e. "gone into effect," the moment it was signed. FAA is already implementing parts of it, hence the 400 foot in class G note on their official website. It's very explicit ... in the LAW itself and on FAA's page.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
...we are flying to section 336 which refers us to the wording in AC-91-57 that states 400' altitude is an ADVISORY.
For your convenience, I've attached a complete copy of PL 112-95 Section 336 below. Please show us where it "refers us to the wording in AC-91-57." Oh, that's right. You can't, because it doesn't. Yet again, you're quoting what you want it to say vs. what it actually says. Some would call that "misleading..."

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
We have been flying traditional R/C since the early 1980's under AC-91-57 and well above 400'.
Times change. The law has clearly changed. What happened before is largely irrelevant in light of the SPECIFIC requirement to be at or below 400 feet in class G. Again, READ THE WORDS.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
PL112-95 Section 336.pdf (35.4 KB, 6 views)
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 05:50 AM
  #22  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 6,317
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Then time to put our money where our mouths are. Give me your email address and I will send you a video of me flying well above 400’. You can then report me and we can see what happens.
speedracerntrixie is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 06:00 AM
  #23  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 2,913
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie View Post
Then time to put our money where our mouths are. Give me your email address and I will send you a video of me flying well above 400’. You can then report me and we can see what happens.
If I report it's second hand ... especially if done from out of state. Why don't you call the local FAA office, cite what it says on the FAA website, and then tell them what you're doing? I mean you're so certain that they don't have the authority to do anything, so why not put yourself on report and test that theory?
franklin_m is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 06:07 AM
  #24  
Appowner
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 593
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's not outright deception. That said, I do think the manner in which the EC and officers are selected leads to a rather homogeneous gene pool of thought. You can only be a VP if you're first a leader member. And good luck being a leader member w/o the support of the VP. That all but ensures that everyone is pretty much thinking the same ... that everyone eats, lives, and breathes model planes like they do. Thus the never (seriously) consider any other possibility.

Further proof would be to look at how dissenters are treated. Not long ago one VP dared to disagree with the strategic direction of the AMA, and the President and the EVP use the organization's official publication to attack the man! Worse yet, the rest of the VPs sat by and did nothing. What's even scarier is that the "Editor" allowed it as well!
Ah! The 1984 group think.

And I too don't think any deception is intentional. However, I don't think we've seen sufficient evidence to totally rule the possibility out. Not yet anyway. No doubt some, perhaps many consider Muncie to be pure as the driven snow. And will insist on killing any and all messengers in spite of evidence supporting the message.

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
The main question is whether it's too late to make the necessary changes. I personally don't think so. Their inability to face reality and be transparent with members is my main reason for lack of optimism. I'd hoped that by now some of the hard questions I've tried to ask would be addressed in the magazine etc., but no. They just keep doing more of the same and hoping for a different result.
Ah! The definition of insanity!

I also do not think it's too late for changes. But the changes enacted now will have to be more severe and drastic than they would have say, 10 years ago. Takes a strong leadership to do something like that and keep the members happy. I don't see such leadership in any of the rank and file. So unless and until the membership starts asking these questions in greater numbers. Nothing will change and the decline will continue.

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
So now they're heading into a stock market downturn with financial trends (from IRS990s) that show nothing but declines. The CFO's latest column seems to hang hopes on baby boomers as their kids are out of the house. Unfortunately, I don't think he's looked at census and economic data that shows baby boomers are MORE likely to be supporting their kids well into their mid to late 20s (or later). That's not a group that's going to have a lot of disposable income. But hey, when have the facts ever gotten in the way of AMA rhetoric.
Back to the old group think again. It's a shame really.
Appowner is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2019, 06:23 AM
  #25  
Appowner
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 593
Gallery
My Gallery
Models
My Models
Ratings
My Feedback
Default

But! But! Officer! My cousin Buh-Buh of the almighty AMA said I could............
Appowner is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service