Dues increase coming? 1 million spent on government relations.....
10-20-2015, 08:17 AM
#1526
Just published this morning? Hardly, this data set has been out there for months. AMA could have done a geographic analysis instead of trying to nit-pick wording of a free text field collected by an air traffic controller from a pilot in flight.
"...albeit biased and not scientific" and "debunked" in the same sentence? Really? A biased and non-scientific analysis debunks nothing.
"...albeit biased and not scientific" and "debunked" in the same sentence? Really? A biased and non-scientific analysis debunks nothing.
10-20-2015, 08:19 AM
#1527
So for giggles I did some analysis of the FAA's sUAS report excel file. Using a vlookup table, I also added a column for the AMA districtl. So, some interesting numbers:
By district: 50% of the reports come from two districts: X and V.
By state: 50% of all reports come from just four states: California, Florida, New York, and Texas.
By city: 50% comes from just 33 cities: New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, Boston, Washington, Seattle, San Jose, Atlanta, San Diego, Orlando, Santa Ana, Houston, Newark, Burbank, Portland, Denver, Tampa, Mesa, Arlington, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Anchorage, Phoenix, Charlotte, Dallas, Van Nuys, Columbus, Ontario, Atlantic City, Santa Monica, and Palo Alto.
It seems that if we wanted to target efforts, might be a good place to start. Rather than "fighting" the data, why doesn't AMA use this data to focus education efforts and thus be seen by DOT/FAA as a partner in this rather than an opponent?
By district: 50% of the reports come from two districts: X and V.
By state: 50% of all reports come from just four states: California, Florida, New York, and Texas.
By city: 50% comes from just 33 cities: New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, Boston, Washington, Seattle, San Jose, Atlanta, San Diego, Orlando, Santa Ana, Houston, Newark, Burbank, Portland, Denver, Tampa, Mesa, Arlington, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville, Anchorage, Phoenix, Charlotte, Dallas, Van Nuys, Columbus, Ontario, Atlantic City, Santa Monica, and Palo Alto.
It seems that if we wanted to target efforts, might be a good place to start. Rather than "fighting" the data, why doesn't AMA use this data to focus education efforts and thus be seen by DOT/FAA as a partner in this rather than an opponent?
10-20-2015, 09:19 AM
#1528
As Ronald Regan once said, "there you go again". You're wrong, again. You've developed such a personal animus over a difference of opinion you'll go to any lengths to try to score some bizzare points, or should I say "exposure".
Regarding the COI, I simply asked a question of you and the hog to see if you would be consistent in your thought process. At the end of the day, you finally answered, so kudos to you. The other one of course won't, just continue to rant and deflect. That's his schtick, as will be his response to this.
I don't have a problem with people who are experienced in this hobby (in any way) being involved in governance at the AMA leadership level. The more experience they bring to the table, the better I say. Islandflyer might bring some great perspective to issues that others may not, the same with rcmiket. Trying to gin up some contrived controversy over Argenio was just another sad attempt at discrediting someone whos "message traffic" runs contrary to their own. It was old news, trotted out again to make some bizzare point about something that's already happened and won't be changed. Oh, and of course it fits the conspiracy narrative too, so there's that. 30 seconds of Googling the guy showed that he owned and ran a hobby shop for over 30 years, is knee deep in the hobby for the good of it, and aggressively fought against his states hamfisted attempts to legislate uAV issues. Don't know how long he's been a VP, and don't know if he ran unopposed etc. And last I've checked, he is one of MANY VPs...some of which also approved funding. No one VP operated in a vacuum.
Where you're flawed logic and animus comes out again though is in the assertion that I have tried to squelch any message traffic that goes contrary to my "stance". If that is the case, grab a mirror and take a good look, you have done the same thing, along with one personal attack after another. I've never said you or anyone else shouldn't express their opinion on something. God knows, at 18,978 you've done your fair share (I mean, according to you that has some sort of street cred right?). I haven't hit the "report" button a single time in this thread, nor would I just because someone's opinion was contrary to mine. Disagreeing with an opinion isn't trying to stifle discussions, and asking follow up questions certainly doesn't do that either. Everyone brings something to the table.
Regarding the COI, I simply asked a question of you and the hog to see if you would be consistent in your thought process. At the end of the day, you finally answered, so kudos to you. The other one of course won't, just continue to rant and deflect. That's his schtick, as will be his response to this.
I don't have a problem with people who are experienced in this hobby (in any way) being involved in governance at the AMA leadership level. The more experience they bring to the table, the better I say. Islandflyer might bring some great perspective to issues that others may not, the same with rcmiket. Trying to gin up some contrived controversy over Argenio was just another sad attempt at discrediting someone whos "message traffic" runs contrary to their own. It was old news, trotted out again to make some bizzare point about something that's already happened and won't be changed. Oh, and of course it fits the conspiracy narrative too, so there's that. 30 seconds of Googling the guy showed that he owned and ran a hobby shop for over 30 years, is knee deep in the hobby for the good of it, and aggressively fought against his states hamfisted attempts to legislate uAV issues. Don't know how long he's been a VP, and don't know if he ran unopposed etc. And last I've checked, he is one of MANY VPs...some of which also approved funding. No one VP operated in a vacuum.
Where you're flawed logic and animus comes out again though is in the assertion that I have tried to squelch any message traffic that goes contrary to my "stance". If that is the case, grab a mirror and take a good look, you have done the same thing, along with one personal attack after another. I've never said you or anyone else shouldn't express their opinion on something. God knows, at 18,978 you've done your fair share (I mean, according to you that has some sort of street cred right?). I haven't hit the "report" button a single time in this thread, nor would I just because someone's opinion was contrary to mine. Disagreeing with an opinion isn't trying to stifle discussions, and asking follow up questions certainly doesn't do that either. Everyone brings something to the table.
That is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy.
10-20-2015, 11:56 AM
#1529
That is the problem, I have read what you posted and nowhere is there anything that remotely resembled your alleged COI. In order to have a useful discussion, i am simply asking for you to qualify/clarify your statement of how Islandflyer and mike are involved in some sort of COI. Just for clarity's sake. Surely you can do that
Astro
Astro
10-20-2015, 12:08 PM
#1531
That is the problem, I have read what you posted and nowhere is there anything that remotely resembled your alleged COI. In order to have a useful discussion, i am simply asking for you to qualify/clarify your statement of how Islandflyer and mike are involved in some sort of COI. Just for clarity's sake. Surely you can do that
Astro
Astro
10-20-2015, 12:09 PM
#1532
Because everyone else welcomed the announcement without qualification. AMA wrote a luke-warm endorsement saying that they welcome it, but then complained about things being "burdensome." Nobody else did that. In Washington-speak...that's opposition.
10-20-2015, 12:54 PM
#1533
So then, is it fair to say then that that's just your personal opinion and you don't have any first-hand direct knowledge of the situation?
10-20-2015, 01:26 PM
#1534
Absolutely, it's my personal opinion...as is every post of yours here unless you're actually an agent of the AMA, DOT, or the FAA.
10-20-2015, 01:58 PM
#1535
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
There just aren't enough keystrokes you can type that will hide the fact that you declared Mike and Island Flyer's comments tainted because of what you call their COI, yet when Argenio is caught red handed with a REAL, HONEST TO GOODNESS COI, you became his apologist.
That is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy.
That is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy.
You're conflating different people with different discussions and comments, which is understandable give how many threads and comments we've all been in.
I'm not an apologist for Argenio, he hasn't been caught "red handed" with anything. The news is almost a year and a half old, and is not really relevant to his ability to be an AMA VP. You clearly no nothing about him, or what he did, how involved he is in the hobby etc, you just responded over something someone else said. 5 minutes of time spent brought up plenty of info. I didn't take the time to go back and see who else voted in the affirmative, but I would have no problem saying they didn't have a conflict either if they build and flew airplanes, helis or quads. Their added experience can only bring more to the table, not less. To assume he voted in the affirmative to somehow benefit a small side business he had shows a basic lack of respect, and a lack of understanding about that "side business". Again, I'm not sure what other VPs or even the president has been involved with, it doesn't really concern me as I see no direct evidence of foul play.
As for other others you and I have both referenced, I would have absolutely no issues with either of them being more involved in the AMA, even at a VP level. In fact I've repeatedly said they should get more involved knowing full well we disagree on some basic issues. The more people that express an interest in doing more to improve the AMA, the better.
10-20-2015, 04:20 PM
#1537
You're conflating different people with different discussions and comments, which is understandable give how many threads and comments we've all been in.
I'm not an apologist for Argenio, he hasn't been caught "red handed" with anything. The news is almost a year and a half old, and is not really relevant to his ability to be an AMA VP. You clearly no nothing about him, or what he did, how involved he is in the hobby etc, you just responded over something someone else said. 5 minutes of time spent brought up plenty of info. I didn't take the time to go back and see who else voted in the affirmative, but I would have no problem saying they didn't have a conflict either if they build and flew airplanes, helis or quads. Their added experience can only bring more to the table, not less. To assume he voted in the affirmative to somehow benefit a small side business he had shows a basic lack of respect, and a lack of understanding about that "side business". Again, I'm not sure what other VPs or even the president has been involved with, it doesn't really concern me as I see no direct evidence of foul play.
As for other others you and I have both referenced, I would have absolutely no issues with either of them being more involved in the AMA, even at a VP level. In fact I've repeatedly said they should get more involved knowing full well we disagree on some basic issues. The more people that express an interest in doing more to improve the AMA, the better.
I'm not an apologist for Argenio, he hasn't been caught "red handed" with anything. The news is almost a year and a half old, and is not really relevant to his ability to be an AMA VP. You clearly no nothing about him, or what he did, how involved he is in the hobby etc, you just responded over something someone else said. 5 minutes of time spent brought up plenty of info. I didn't take the time to go back and see who else voted in the affirmative, but I would have no problem saying they didn't have a conflict either if they build and flew airplanes, helis or quads. Their added experience can only bring more to the table, not less. To assume he voted in the affirmative to somehow benefit a small side business he had shows a basic lack of respect, and a lack of understanding about that "side business". Again, I'm not sure what other VPs or even the president has been involved with, it doesn't really concern me as I see no direct evidence of foul play.
As for other others you and I have both referenced, I would have absolutely no issues with either of them being more involved in the AMA, even at a VP level. In fact I've repeatedly said they should get more involved knowing full well we disagree on some basic issues. The more people that express an interest in doing more to improve the AMA, the better.
11-01-2015, 08:49 AM
#1538
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
As tempting as it is to let the thread drift off with that last bit of deeeply thoughtful commentary, I couldn't resist give the correspondence that landed in my e-mail box today:
I preside over the Drone User Group Network, an advocacy group dedicated to
safe and responsible use of UAS (Unmanned Autonomous Systems) for personal
and commercial purposes.
Our members represent a wide swath of the community from STEM students to
senior citizens and encompass all professions from tradespeople to CEO's.
Our demographic is multicultural and varied.
We agree that their use needs to be approached with responsibility and
safety in mind and as such, favor UAS registration in principle. However,
the time period allowed for comment is too brief and is not in accord with
a standard practice in Federal Aviation Rulemaking. There are factors that
need to be considered: what constitutes a UAS? At what weight class or
dimension are they required to be registered? Who will be responsible for
their registration at point of sale? What about aircraft that are handbuilt
by hobbyists?
The proposed rulemaking asks more questions than it answers. As one of the
largest UAS related community based organizations we take exception at
language related to "traditional" model aircraft. The Academy of Model
Aeronautics, while a venerable association, does not have the interests of
responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its mission.
We request a lengthening of the time period for response to this very
important issue and request further study of what constitutes a danger to
the National Airspace and public safety. Without this we fear that
recreational hobby modelers interested in UAS will be unduly burdened and
in some ways criminalized for their interest and pursuit of modern methods
and tools to explore UAS.
Lastly, we welcome the opportunity to participate in the process of
rulemaking and gladly offer our experience, knowledge, and subject matter
expertise in the hopes of crafting safe and realistic guidelines for all
UAS users.
Regards,
Steven Cohen
President, Drone User Group Network
meetup.com/NYCDUG
dugn.org
That's an interesting perspective he has there as a president of the drone advocacy group. Specifically;
"....The Academy of Model Aeronautics, while a venerable association, does not have the interests of
responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its mission...."
It's ironic given the commentary in this and other threads from some that feel the AMA has gone out of their way to pander and cater to the "drone" crowd as some way to increase income and membership.
It is nice though to see that this guy doesn't want legislation to be unduly burdensome to the hobbyists. Right!
I preside over the Drone User Group Network, an advocacy group dedicated to
safe and responsible use of UAS (Unmanned Autonomous Systems) for personal
and commercial purposes.
Our members represent a wide swath of the community from STEM students to
senior citizens and encompass all professions from tradespeople to CEO's.
Our demographic is multicultural and varied.
We agree that their use needs to be approached with responsibility and
safety in mind and as such, favor UAS registration in principle. However,
the time period allowed for comment is too brief and is not in accord with
a standard practice in Federal Aviation Rulemaking. There are factors that
need to be considered: what constitutes a UAS? At what weight class or
dimension are they required to be registered? Who will be responsible for
their registration at point of sale? What about aircraft that are handbuilt
by hobbyists?
The proposed rulemaking asks more questions than it answers. As one of the
largest UAS related community based organizations we take exception at
language related to "traditional" model aircraft. The Academy of Model
Aeronautics, while a venerable association, does not have the interests of
responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its mission.
We request a lengthening of the time period for response to this very
important issue and request further study of what constitutes a danger to
the National Airspace and public safety. Without this we fear that
recreational hobby modelers interested in UAS will be unduly burdened and
in some ways criminalized for their interest and pursuit of modern methods
and tools to explore UAS.
Lastly, we welcome the opportunity to participate in the process of
rulemaking and gladly offer our experience, knowledge, and subject matter
expertise in the hopes of crafting safe and realistic guidelines for all
UAS users.
Regards,
Steven Cohen
President, Drone User Group Network
meetup.com/NYCDUG
dugn.org
That's an interesting perspective he has there as a president of the drone advocacy group. Specifically;
"....The Academy of Model Aeronautics, while a venerable association, does not have the interests of
responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its mission...."
It's ironic given the commentary in this and other threads from some that feel the AMA has gone out of their way to pander and cater to the "drone" crowd as some way to increase income and membership.
It is nice though to see that this guy doesn't want legislation to be unduly burdensome to the hobbyists. Right!
11-01-2015, 10:58 AM
#1539
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(snipped)
That's an interesting perspective he has there as a president of the drone advocacy group. Specifically;
"....The Academy of Model Aeronautics, while a venerable association, does not have the interests of
responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its mission...."
It's ironic given the commentary in this and other threads from some that feel the AMA has gone out of their way to pander and cater to the "drone" crowd as some way to increase income and membership.
It is nice though to see that this guy doesn't want legislation to be unduly burdensome to the hobbyists. Right!
That's an interesting perspective he has there as a president of the drone advocacy group. Specifically;
"....The Academy of Model Aeronautics, while a venerable association, does not have the interests of
responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its mission...."
It's ironic given the commentary in this and other threads from some that feel the AMA has gone out of their way to pander and cater to the "drone" crowd as some way to increase income and membership.
It is nice though to see that this guy doesn't want legislation to be unduly burdensome to the hobbyists. Right!
Perhaps you missed discussion of AMA's UAS program that $250K seed money was earmarked for, either in this group or here from the horses mouth http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/organization/ec/0714ecminutes.aspx
11-01-2015, 11:30 AM
#1540
Whatever you fly. Wherever you fly. Dronz R Us has you covered.
Perhaps you missed discussion of AMA's UAS program that $250K seed money was earmarked for, either in this group or here from the horses mouth http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/organization/ec/0714ecminutes.aspx
Perhaps you missed discussion of AMA's UAS program that $250K seed money was earmarked for, either in this group or here from the horses mouth http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/organization/ec/0714ecminutes.aspx
11-01-2015, 02:34 PM
#1541
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Whatever you fly. Wherever you fly. Dronz R Us has you covered.
Perhaps you missed discussion of AMA's UAS program that $250K seed money was earmarked for, either in this group or here from the horses mouth http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/organization/ec/0714ecminutes.aspx
Perhaps you missed discussion of AMA's UAS program that $250K seed money was earmarked for, either in this group or here from the horses mouth http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/organization/ec/0714ecminutes.aspx
Clever, dronz r us.
That's a new one. Well, it is good to know that AMA coverage is there even when not flying at a chartered field, amiright? No, I sure didn't miss the discussion here or from the good folks here, heck every thread in the AMA forum is about them. But ya, that was coming up on a year and a half ago now. Not that I got to vote on the issue, but I'm glad they did what they did. Education, best practices, training etc etc...sounds good to me. And we already know there are tons of MR and quads that fall squarely withing the hobby realm, so it would have been odd to single them out and exclude them. It would be interesting to get some membership numbers as 2015 nears an end. They noted 3500 as a break even number, wonder how close they got.
11-01-2015, 02:53 PM
#1542
"....The Academy of Model Aeronautics, while a venerable association, does not have the interests of
responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its mission...."
It's ironic given the commentary in this and other threads from some that feel the AMA has gone out of their way to pander and cater to the "drone" crowd as some way to increase income and membership. It is nice though to see that this guy doesn't want legislation to be unduly burdensome to the hobbyists. Right!
responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its mission...."
It's ironic given the commentary in this and other threads from some that feel the AMA has gone out of their way to pander and cater to the "drone" crowd as some way to increase income and membership. It is nice though to see that this guy doesn't want legislation to be unduly burdensome to the hobbyists. Right!
Last edited by franklin_m; 11-01-2015 at 03:08 PM. Reason: Left out quote
11-01-2015, 03:26 PM
#1543
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clever, dronz r us. That's a new one. Well, it is good to know that AMA coverage is there even when not flying at a chartered field, amiright?
No, I sure didn't miss the discussion here or from the good folks here, heck every thread in the AMA forum is about them. But ya, that was coming up on a year and a half ago now. Not that I got to vote on the issue, but I'm glad they did what they did. Education, best practices, training etc etc...sounds good to me. And we already know there are tons of MR and quads that fall squarely withing the hobby realm, so it would have been odd to single them out and exclude them. It would be interesting to get some membership numbers as 2015 nears an end. They noted 3500 as a break even number, wonder how close they got.
That's a new one. Well, it is good to know that AMA coverage is there even when not flying at a chartered field, amiright? No, I sure didn't miss the discussion here or from the good folks here, heck every thread in the AMA forum is about them. But ya, that was coming up on a year and a half ago now. Not that I got to vote on the issue, but I'm glad they did what they did. Education, best practices, training etc etc...sounds good to me. And we already know there are tons of MR and quads that fall squarely withing the hobby realm, so it would have been odd to single them out and exclude them. It would be interesting to get some membership numbers as 2015 nears an end. They noted 3500 as a break even number, wonder how close they got.
FAA doesn't have a "gray area." As every GA pilot knows, the demarcation between recreational and commercial operation of an aircraft is black and white and the line is minutely detailed and rigid. The only thing gray about this marketing scheme to bring in the commercial UAS operators' $$$ is the smoke and mirrors of the pitch to both the target community and internally to AMA dues paying members that are paying for it. Six members of EC were possessed of half a brain each and voted against it. The others plus the president couldn't see past the lipstick on this pig.
Here's a challenge for you: Cite one example of these programs that have been cooked up by paid AMA staff that produced anything that benefits modelers.
Last edited by cj_rumley; 11-01-2015 at 05:31 PM. Reason: elided wording
11-01-2015, 08:02 PM
#1544
"There are threats to AMA out there, and those organizations are looking to step into this ‘gray area’ opportunity which is somewhere between the true recreational modeler and the other end of the scale (that AMA is not interested in) the true commercial operator. Someone is going to fill that gray area."
FAA doesn't have a "gray area." As every GA pilot knows, the demarcation between recreational and commercial operation of an aircraft is black and white and the line is minutely detailed and rigid. The only thing gray about this marketing scheme to bring in the commercial UAS operators' $$$ is the smoke and mirrors of the pitch to both the target community and internally to AMA dues paying members that are paying for it.
FAA doesn't have a "gray area." As every GA pilot knows, the demarcation between recreational and commercial operation of an aircraft is black and white and the line is minutely detailed and rigid. The only thing gray about this marketing scheme to bring in the commercial UAS operators' $$$ is the smoke and mirrors of the pitch to both the target community and internally to AMA dues paying members that are paying for it.
11-01-2015, 11:20 PM
#1546
As tempting as it is to let the thread drift off with that last bit of deeeply thoughtful commentary, I couldn't resist give the correspondence that landed in my e-mail box today:
I preside over the Drone User Group Network, an advocacy group dedicated to
safe and responsible use of UAS (Unmanned Autonomous Systems) for personal
and commercial purposes.
Our members represent a wide swath of the community from STEM students to
senior citizens and encompass all professions from tradespeople to CEO's.
Our demographic is multicultural and varied.
We agree that their use needs to be approached with responsibility and
safety in mind and as such, favor UAS registration in principle. However,
the time period allowed for comment is too brief and is not in accord with
a standard practice in Federal Aviation Rulemaking. There are factors that
need to be considered: what constitutes a UAS? At what weight class or
dimension are they required to be registered? Who will be responsible for
their registration at point of sale? What about aircraft that are handbuilt
by hobbyists?
The proposed rulemaking asks more questions than it answers. As one of the
largest UAS related community based organizations we take exception at
language related to "traditional" model aircraft. The Academy of Model
Aeronautics, while a venerable association, does not have the interests of
responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its mission.
We request a lengthening of the time period for response to this very
important issue and request further study of what constitutes a danger to
the National Airspace and public safety. Without this we fear that
recreational hobby modelers interested in UAS will be unduly burdened and
in some ways criminalized for their interest and pursuit of modern methods
and tools to explore UAS.
Lastly, we welcome the opportunity to participate in the process of
rulemaking and gladly offer our experience, knowledge, and subject matter
expertise in the hopes of crafting safe and realistic guidelines for all
UAS users.
Regards,
Steven Cohen
President, Drone User Group Network
meetup.com/NYCDUG
dugn.org
That's an interesting perspective he has there as a president of the drone advocacy group. Specifically;
"....The Academy of Model Aeronautics, while a venerable association, does not have the interests of
responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its mission...."
It's ironic given the commentary in this and other threads from some that feel the AMA has gone out of their way to pander and cater to the "drone" crowd as some way to increase income and membership.
It is nice though to see that this guy doesn't want legislation to be unduly burdensome to the hobbyists. Right!
I preside over the Drone User Group Network, an advocacy group dedicated to
safe and responsible use of UAS (Unmanned Autonomous Systems) for personal
and commercial purposes.
Our members represent a wide swath of the community from STEM students to
senior citizens and encompass all professions from tradespeople to CEO's.
Our demographic is multicultural and varied.
We agree that their use needs to be approached with responsibility and
safety in mind and as such, favor UAS registration in principle. However,
the time period allowed for comment is too brief and is not in accord with
a standard practice in Federal Aviation Rulemaking. There are factors that
need to be considered: what constitutes a UAS? At what weight class or
dimension are they required to be registered? Who will be responsible for
their registration at point of sale? What about aircraft that are handbuilt
by hobbyists?
The proposed rulemaking asks more questions than it answers. As one of the
largest UAS related community based organizations we take exception at
language related to "traditional" model aircraft. The Academy of Model
Aeronautics, while a venerable association, does not have the interests of
responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its mission.
We request a lengthening of the time period for response to this very
important issue and request further study of what constitutes a danger to
the National Airspace and public safety. Without this we fear that
recreational hobby modelers interested in UAS will be unduly burdened and
in some ways criminalized for their interest and pursuit of modern methods
and tools to explore UAS.
Lastly, we welcome the opportunity to participate in the process of
rulemaking and gladly offer our experience, knowledge, and subject matter
expertise in the hopes of crafting safe and realistic guidelines for all
UAS users.
Regards,
Steven Cohen
President, Drone User Group Network
meetup.com/NYCDUG
dugn.org
That's an interesting perspective he has there as a president of the drone advocacy group. Specifically;
"....The Academy of Model Aeronautics, while a venerable association, does not have the interests of
responsible and dedicated UAS operators at the core of its mission...."
It's ironic given the commentary in this and other threads from some that feel the AMA has gone out of their way to pander and cater to the "drone" crowd as some way to increase income and membership.
It is nice though to see that this guy doesn't want legislation to be unduly burdensome to the hobbyists. Right!
11-02-2015, 04:07 AM
#1547
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Or applying the principle of Occam's Razor; that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected; perhaps they're just trying to create an alternative to the AMA for MRs in an effort to make some money? If we're talking membership dues, $75 x estimated 700,000 to be sold between now and Christmas, that's roughly 52 million reasons why they might be interested. If they get just 10%, even at half the price, that's still 2.6 million reasons why they might be interested in carving away some of those possible members for themselves.
11-02-2015, 04:24 AM
#1548
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Apparently you did miss out on the discussion, because the program isn't about MR and quads within the hobby realm. What is singled out, for inclusion rather than exclusion, is a class of UA that does not exist, and likely never will. Hanson says of them and this program "There are threats to AMA out there, and those organizations are looking to step into this ‘gray area’ opportunity which is somewhere between the true recreational modeler and the other end of the scale (that AMA is not interested in) the true commercial operator. Someone is going to fill that gray area."
FAA doesn't have a "gray area." As every GA pilot knows, the demarcation between recreational and commercial operation of an aircraft is black and white and the line is minutely detailed and rigid. The only thing gray about this marketing scheme to bring in the commercial UAS operators' $$$ is the smoke and mirrors of the pitch to both the target community and internally to AMA dues paying members that are paying for it. Six members of EC were possessed of half a brain each and voted against it. The others plus the president couldn't see past the lipstick on this pig.
Here's a challenge for you: Cite one example of these programs that have been cooked up by paid AMA staff that produced anything that benefits modelers.
FAA doesn't have a "gray area." As every GA pilot knows, the demarcation between recreational and commercial operation of an aircraft is black and white and the line is minutely detailed and rigid. The only thing gray about this marketing scheme to bring in the commercial UAS operators' $$$ is the smoke and mirrors of the pitch to both the target community and internally to AMA dues paying members that are paying for it. Six members of EC were possessed of half a brain each and voted against it. The others plus the president couldn't see past the lipstick on this pig.
Here's a challenge for you: Cite one example of these programs that have been cooked up by paid AMA staff that produced anything that benefits modelers.
I'll pass on the challenge thanks, at this point I'm fairly certain the only thing we would ever agree upon is the fact that nothing I could put out there would be agreed upon. Just more fodder for useless argument. The decisions were made, albeit by the ".. Six members of EC were possessed of half a brain each and voted against it. The others plus the president couldn't see past the lipstick on this pig..." Amazing that this crew can get anything done I guess.
11-02-2015, 04:45 AM
#1550