Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

Taylor Achieves what AMA could not - End FAA Registratation Rule

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

Taylor Achieves what AMA could not - End FAA Registratation Rule

Old 05-19-2017, 08:45 AM
  #1  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Taylor Achieves what AMA could not - End FAA Registratation Rule

Court issued their decision today (note 1).

"The FAA’s Registration Rule violates Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. We grant Taylor’s petition for review of the Registration Rule, and we vacate the Registration Rule to the extent it applies to model aircraft."

-
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT


Note 1: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FA6F27FFAA83E20585258125004FBC13/$file/15-1495-1675918.pdf
Old 05-19-2017, 12:28 PM
  #2  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Just how long before the AMA to claims it was their victory?

Here's the FAA response.

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=21674

"
FAA Statement Regarding US Court of Appeals DecisionWe are carefully reviewing the U.S. Court of Appeals decision as it relates to drone registrations. The FAA put registration and operational regulations in place to ensure that drones are operated in a way that is safe and does not pose security and privacy threats. We are in the process of considering our options and response to the decision."

Mike

Last edited by rcmiket; 05-19-2017 at 12:32 PM.
Old 05-19-2017, 02:24 PM
  #3  
HunkaJunk
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Maybe I don't have to practice rolling my registration paperwork up in a little roll anymore in preparation for shoving it up some government scamps pointy nose when they demand to see it! Sorry, my seething hatred for government is showing again.
Old 05-19-2017, 03:06 PM
  #4  
mongo
My Feedback: (14)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default not long

Originally Posted by rcmiket View Post
Just how long before the AMA to claims it was their victory?

Here's the FAA response.

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_relea...m?newsId=21674

"
FAA Statement Regarding US Court of Appeals DecisionWe are carefully reviewing the U.S. Court of Appeals decision as it relates to drone registrations. The FAA put registration and operational regulations in place to ensure that drones are operated in a way that is safe and does not pose security and privacy threats. We are in the process of considering our options and response to the decision."

Mike
got the email notice of this from the AMA at 1801 hrs. no mention that it was not their efforts that got it done.
Old 05-19-2017, 03:10 PM
  #5  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mongo View Post
got the email notice of this from the AMA at 1801 hrs. no mention that it was not their efforts that got it done.
Just saw mine. Amazing that one guy could accomplish in a short amount of time what our organization with all of it's resources could not............................................... .....Sad as I see it.
Dear members,

As you've probably heard by now, a federal appeals court today struck down the FAA's registration requirement for recreational model aircraft. Today's Court ruling is effective immediately. As such, if you have not registered with the FAA, you are no longer required under the law to do so. For those of you who have already registered with the FAA, you may be wondering what this means for you. We are currently working to obtain answers from the FAA and will share more information as it becomes available.

Please keep in mind that this is a fluid situation and there is always the possibility of a renewed push in Congress to compel federal registration for model aircraft. If that happens, rest assured that AMA will continue to advocate for your interests and keep you well informed every step of the way. We have repeatedly argued that federal registration for our community is duplicative and unnecessary, as our members already register their model aircraft with AMA. In addition, our 80-year history of safe and responsible flying demonstrates that we're not the problem. We shouldn't be burdened by overly broad regulations.

Today's ruling also bodes well for our pending court challenge to the FAA's interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (also known as the Interpretative Rule). That petition, which AMA filed in 2014, is currently before the same Court that today rejected the FAA's registration rule and affirmed the strength of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, otherwise known as Section 336. This gives us hope for our continued fight against the Interpretive Rule.

We understand that these policy and legal developments are sometimes dizzying and complicated, and they are rarely resolved quickly. We're nearly three years into our challenge to the Interpretive Rule, for example. We truly appreciate your sticking with us while we press on in the fight to protect your right to fly, free from unnecessary and burdensome restrictions. Sincerely,AMA Government Affairs





Mike
Old 05-19-2017, 03:30 PM
  #6  
w0mbat
My Feedback: (1)
 
w0mbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cape Coral FL
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Why are we paying the AMA?
Old 05-19-2017, 03:40 PM
  #7  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by w0mbat View Post
Why are we paying the AMA?
I though one of the MAIN reasons was to fight unnecessary goverment regulation........................................ ......................................... didn't realize I was just funding useless trips to DC for the good old boys.

Mike
Old 05-19-2017, 04:56 PM
  #8  
w0mbat
My Feedback: (1)
 
w0mbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cape Coral FL
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

From the AMA website:

"Please keep in mind that this is a fluid situation and there is always the possibility of a renewed push in Congress to compel federal registration for model aircraft. If that happens, rest assured that AMA will continue to advocate for your interests and keep you well informed every step of the way. "

Translation:
Please keep sending us your money even though we didn't represent you in this matter to the best of our ability. Instead, we relied on a private citizen to do the grunt work and accomplish things while we sat back and talked about all the things we pretended to do so people wouldn't quit our organization and so we could reap the benefits of more drone flying members.

"We have repeatedly argued that federal registration for our community is duplicative and unnecessary, as our members already register their model aircraft with AMA. In addition, our 80-year history of safe and responsible flying demonstrates that we’re not the problem. We shouldn’t be burdened by overly broad regulations."

Translation:
We told our members were were working on their behalf to get these regulation reversed but for some strange reason we were never able to accomplish that task even though one inexperienced stranger was able to do it easily. It's almost as if we didn't want to do anything because we secretly like the registration rule and think it will bring us more members in the future.

"Today’s ruling also bodes well for our pending court challenge to the FAA’s interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (also known as the Interpretative Rule). That petition, which AMA filed in 2014, is currently before the same Court that today rejected the FAA’s registration rule and affirmed the strength of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, otherwise known as Section 336. This gives us hope for our continued fight against the Interpretive Rule."

Translation:
Thanks to John Taylor, we can now spend our money on buildings, airfields that few people use, shows that nobody attends and trips to various locations instead of wasting it trying to defend our members from government overregulation.

"We understand that these policy and legal developments are sometimes dizzying and complicated, and they are rarely resolved quickly. We’re nearly three years into our challenge to the Interpretive Rule, for example. We truly appreciate your sticking with us while we press on in the fight to protect your right to fly, free from unnecessary and burdensome restrictions."

Translation:
Thanks again for giving us your money. We could have solved this issue 2 years ago but we are completely incompetent when it comes to issues regarding the FAA. Have a nice day!
Old 05-19-2017, 05:06 PM
  #9  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by w0mbat View Post
From the AMA website:

"Please keep in mind that this is a fluid situation and there is always the possibility of a renewed push in Congress to compel federal registration for model aircraft. If that happens, rest assured that AMA will continue to advocate for your interests and keep you well informed every step of the way. "

Translation:
Please keep sending us your money even though we didn't represent you in this matter to the best of our ability. Instead, we relied on a private citizen to do the grunt work and accomplish things while we sat back and talked about all the things we pretended to do so people wouldn't quit our organization and so we could reap the benefits of more drone flying members.

"We have repeatedly argued that federal registration for our community is duplicative and unnecessary, as our members already register their model aircraft with AMA. In addition, our 80-year history of safe and responsible flying demonstrates that we’re not the problem. We shouldn’t be burdened by overly broad regulations."

Translation:
We told our members were were working on their behalf to get these regulation reversed but for some strange reason we were never able to accomplish that task even though one inexperienced stranger was able to do it easily. It's almost as if we didn't want to do anything because we secretly like the registration rule and think it will bring us more members in the future.

"Today’s ruling also bodes well for our pending court challenge to the FAA’s interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft (also known as the Interpretative Rule). That petition, which AMA filed in 2014, is currently before the same Court that today rejected the FAA’s registration rule and affirmed the strength of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, otherwise known as Section 336. This gives us hope for our continued fight against the Interpretive Rule."

Translation:
Thanks to John Taylor, we can now spend our money on buildings, airfields that few people use, shows that nobody attends and trips to various locations instead of wasting it trying to defend our members from government overregulation.

"We understand that these policy and legal developments are sometimes dizzying and complicated, and they are rarely resolved quickly. We’re nearly three years into our challenge to the Interpretive Rule, for example. We truly appreciate your sticking with us while we press on in the fight to protect your right to fly, free from unnecessary and burdensome restrictions."

Translation:
Thanks again for giving us your money. We could have solved this issue 2 years ago but we are completely incompetent when it comes to issues regarding the FAA. Have a nice day!
The scary part is your right on target.

Mike
Old 05-19-2017, 05:17 PM
  #10  
Hydro Junkie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 8,039
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

Sounds like the double talk put out by many large company CEOs, "I/we did ......" when they had nothing to do with the solution, it was someone way down the chain or not even employed by the company to begin with.
Old 05-19-2017, 06:06 PM
  #11  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket View Post
The scary part is your right on target.

Mike
Agreed. AMA looks pretty feckless at this point.
Old 05-19-2017, 06:42 PM
  #12  
tailskid
My Feedback: (34)
 
tailskid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Tolleson, AZ
Posts: 9,466
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

"as our members already register their model aircraft with AMA"

We do ???
Old 05-19-2017, 11:09 PM
  #13  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,181
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I think if the AMA had not tried to get special exemptions for just AMA members instead of RC flyers as a whole things would have went smoother with the FAA.
Old 05-20-2017, 03:50 AM
  #14  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Maybe we should have elected Taylor to lead the AMA instead of Hanson as Taylor accomplished what Hanson could not while leading our goverment relations team that was to fix the registration issue.


Mike.
Old 05-20-2017, 06:03 AM
  #15  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I hope this is an eye-opener to all of the can'tseetheforestforthetrees, AMA-can-do-no-wrong, AMA-is-doing-everything-it-can, AMA-flag-waving-good-ole-boys!

MILLION$ of our AMA dues could not accomplish this? ...............REALLY?

Regards,

Astro
Old 05-20-2017, 07:03 AM
  #16  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,514
Received 9 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by rcmiket View Post
Maybe we should have elected Taylor to lead the AMA instead of Hanson as Taylor accomplished what Hanson could not while leading our government relations team that was to fix the registration issue.


Mike.
Hi Mike ,

I agree 100% , the "signature issue" of our times and it took an independent lawyer (who is also an RC flyer) to "dopeslap" the FAA where our AMA obviously couldn't . Someone earlier in the thread , I believe it was wombat , so rightly said that despite the BS lip service the AMA has put out to us that they are "fighting the good fight" I really do believe they (AMA EC) WANTED the registration rule in effect to bolster the "AMA as CBO and the only path to the RC skies" that they tried to pull with the whole CBO farce .

Remember , that although I said at the time that I thought Rich Hanson is a personable fellow , and I still do think he's an ok guy , I voted for Frank Tiano because I believed he'd have been more effective in fighting the FAA exactly because he doesn't seem to be a "go along to get along" kinda guy .

To make a good cake , a few eggs are gonna have to get cracked ......
Old 05-20-2017, 07:30 AM
  #17  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 3,514
Received 9 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

Oh , and , I forgot to add that if this Taylor fellow wants to start a CBO , I'll be happy to join !!!!!
Old 05-20-2017, 10:15 AM
  #18  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
Hi Mike ,

I agree 100% , the "signature issue" of our times and it took an independent lawyer (who is also an RC flyer) to "dopeslap" the FAA where our AMA obviously couldn't . Someone earlier in the thread , I believe it was wombat , so rightly said that despite the BS lip service the AMA has put out to us that they are "fighting the good fight" I really do believe they (AMA EC) WANTED the registration rule in effect to bolster the "AMA as CBO and the only path to the RC skies" that they tried to pull with the whole CBO farce .

Remember , that although I said at the time that I thought Rich Hanson is a personable fellow , and I still do think he's an ok guy , I voted for Frank Tiano because I believed he'd have been more effective in fighting the FAA exactly because he doesn't seem to be a "go along to get along" kinda guy .

To make a good cake , a few eggs are gonna have to get cracked ......
I'm sure everyone on the EC along with those folks on the Muncie staff are " nice folks" I like nice just fine but I expect results not lip service like we've been fed over the last year about fighting this.. I've always believed till now that they were fighting for us but have serious doubts now. I will take some time to regain my trust after this.
Mike
Old 05-21-2017, 06:18 AM
  #19  
Terry Holston
My Feedback: (1)
 
Terry Holston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 3,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by tailskid View Post
"as our members already register their model aircraft with AMA"

We do ???

Don't you have your AMA number on on all your aircraft? That is the ANA Requirement for Registration...Just Sayin'.................
Old 05-21-2017, 12:14 PM
  #20  
tailskid
My Feedback: (34)
 
tailskid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Tolleson, AZ
Posts: 9,466
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

How is that registering with the AMA? And yes Terry, ALL my planes have my AMA number on them (cough, cough).

On another note, how is Phil's Hobby Shop going nowadays? I sure do miss Fort Wayne!

jerry
Old 05-22-2017, 11:26 AM
  #21  
mike1974
My Feedback: (1)
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canisteo, NY
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Glad I never registered!!!!!
Old 05-22-2017, 03:42 PM
  #22  
RACE 66
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: BELLINGHAM, WA
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I quickly perused through the above items and certainly overall reflects negatively to the AMA side, which may have some justification.
My question to this dilemma "When was Mr. Taylors brief submitted to the courts for review" The reason I asked is that IF it was applied prior to AMA's brief in defending the AMA membership / modelers,

Why is it the AMA members hadn't been notified of Mr. Taylors action to the membership if this was true? First I want to say that if they did, I am not aware of it, if so, where can I find that information.
I do get AMA's informational e mails regarding subjects and usually at least look at the titles of the articles. In addition I do read their governmental web site that is so active.
My concern is that AMA has not 'touched base" with Mr. Taylors legal council so that both sides could be on similar pages and maybe 'not re-invent the wheel", besides that, along with other "logistics" that may have been duplicated.
What do you think?
Old 05-22-2017, 05:14 PM
  #23  
flyinwalenda
My Feedback: (5)
 
flyinwalenda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Northeast, PA
Posts: 3,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Perhaps the AMA should fire their legal counsel and hire Taylor !
Old 05-22-2017, 05:16 PM
  #24  
rcmiket
 
rcmiket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 5,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by flyinwalenda View Post
Perhaps the AMA should fire their legal counsel and hire Taylor !
That what I thought. Go with the winning team, Taylor is a lawyer and a modeler.

Mike

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.