RCU Forums - View Single Post - Seems to me
Thread: Seems to me
View Single Post
Old 11-02-2016 | 01:58 PM
  #101  
astrohog's Avatar
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,370
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
From: Bellingham, WA
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie
I know BarracudaHockey says he's looking in to it(and yes, I'm taking him at his word on this) but, for what that is worth, I doubt anything will be done by the AMA. To actually take action is to admit there is a problem. To admit there is a problem means that the self-policing policy the AMA and it's minions(yes, I'm finger pointing at some people in the forums, though not naming names since we all know who they are) are so proud of is not working and essentially admitting as much. To admit that self policing isn't working means "loss of face" and credibility as an organization when dealing with the FAA and Congress which basically negates the need for the AMA as a CBO. Lastly, since most people's home owners insurance will cover what might happen if someone does crash while flying, would we really need to pay for additional insurance through the AMA?
Does this bring the situation into focus for anyone other than me? My statement is based on a logical progression of what taking any kind of action means to the AMA's "White House" in Indiana. I would now challenge the AMA "cheerstaff" into providing a rebuttal statement that address's this with verifiable information that can prove me wrong. Any of the usual "spinning" and double talk will not be accepted as verifiable proof, so don't even bother to try that worn out tactic. Verifiable proof MUST INCLUDE A WORKING LINK to show where the information comes from, not just a "he said she said" line of bull we've seen so often
I agree. And is parallel to what I've been saying regarding separation and distance from those whom the AMA are unequivocally incapable of policing/enforcing our rules with.

Regards,

Astro