AMA Statement - Didn't even MENTION John Taylor!
06-27-2017, 04:07 PM
#51
Thread Starter
10+ years ago model airplanes were not regulated, and FAA saw no need to regulate them. FAA did see a need to regulate drones. Rich, representing AMA, and pretending to represent all modelers, participated in the Advisory and Rulemaking Committee for sUAS,intended to be a forum for stakeholders in drone operations, industry, etc. to discuss, prioritize, and resolve issues, provide direction for U.S. UAS operational criteria, support the NextGen Implementation Plan, and produce U.S. consensus positions for global harmonization. In the course of that meeting, the bases for the degraded freedom to enjoy model aviation ensued:
* Model aircraft regulation is now a fact of life, by FAA and by proxy AMA
* Our model aircraft and the hobbyists that operate them now carry a stigma in the public perception that is earned by irresponsible drone operators
* AMA no longer represents, or even recognizes, aircraft modeling modelers that are not dues-paying members
* AMA member's dollars are being spent on a cyclic schedule of lobbying tied to FAA Re-authorization, ostensibly to protect our right but apparently aimed at enhancing AMA's monopoly control over the privilege of operating a drone subtype formerly known as a model aircraft
Tell the people formerly flying in proximity to an airport we haven't lost anything. For that matter tell me that not losing anything is a reasonable goal for any organization. Is a zero sum game the best we can expect from AMA? If AMA had walked away from the sUAS ARC, we would in all likelihood have no regulation at all, just the advisory AC 91-57 as sufficed in the preceding 3 decades, and possibly an organization that looked out for the interests of modelers rather than empire building motivations that apparently have devolved to schemes for fiscal survival.
Back to your opening question, I will still enjoy flying model airplanes, whatever AMA and the pols in their pockets have and will come up with, as long as I'm physically able. I wish the same could be said for my grandchildren.
* Model aircraft regulation is now a fact of life, by FAA and by proxy AMA
* Our model aircraft and the hobbyists that operate them now carry a stigma in the public perception that is earned by irresponsible drone operators
* AMA no longer represents, or even recognizes, aircraft modeling modelers that are not dues-paying members
* AMA member's dollars are being spent on a cyclic schedule of lobbying tied to FAA Re-authorization, ostensibly to protect our right but apparently aimed at enhancing AMA's monopoly control over the privilege of operating a drone subtype formerly known as a model aircraft
Tell the people formerly flying in proximity to an airport we haven't lost anything. For that matter tell me that not losing anything is a reasonable goal for any organization. Is a zero sum game the best we can expect from AMA? If AMA had walked away from the sUAS ARC, we would in all likelihood have no regulation at all, just the advisory AC 91-57 as sufficed in the preceding 3 decades, and possibly an organization that looked out for the interests of modelers rather than empire building motivations that apparently have devolved to schemes for fiscal survival.
Back to your opening question, I will still enjoy flying model airplanes, whatever AMA and the pols in their pockets have and will come up with, as long as I'm physically able. I wish the same could be said for my grandchildren.
Well, if AMA was so concerned about safety and get out of jail free cards, why did they allow a large chartered club in PA to draw so much attention that courts shut them down? AMA "knew or should have known" that club and its members were regularly violating the AMA's beloved "code" by repeatedly overflying non-participants on private property, private farms, livestock, and farm employees. Yet AMA did nothing.
They're not in it for safety, it's all about the money.
06-27-2017, 05:39 PM
#52
Do you think, that if not for the efforts of the AMA, that you would enjoy the same flying rights that you did 10 years ago?
We haven't lost anything, about the only thing different was registration, that took 2 minutes and cost 5 bux for 3 years (less than my dog). Other than that, you're doing what you've been doing and thats not a happy accident, thats the result of the efforts of Rich and the AMA.
We haven't lost anything, about the only thing different was registration, that took 2 minutes and cost 5 bux for 3 years (less than my dog). Other than that, you're doing what you've been doing and thats not a happy accident, thats the result of the efforts of Rich and the AMA.
The last MAJOR thing the AMA did (IMO) to help the entire membership, was to advocate for protecting our frequencies........that was a while ago.......
Regards,
Astro
06-28-2017, 03:46 AM
#53
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
06-28-2017, 05:43 PM
#54
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, I think Franklin was referring to the 6/27 webcast that can be found at Academy of Model Aeronautics - Government Relations
06-29-2017, 04:45 AM
#55
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, I think Franklin was referring to the 6/27 webcast that can be found at Academy of Model Aeronautics - Government Relations
Mike
08-09-2017, 08:41 PM
#58
My Feedback: (20)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LaGrange,
GA
Posts: 544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You just can't see the forest for the trees, can you? Keep drinking the KOOL-AID! I believe that with the proper people and approach, the AMA could (SHOULD) have successfully protected its membership from ANY FAA or other regulations. That's what we pay them for........
08-10-2017, 04:28 AM
#59
When you join AMA you sign that you agree to abide by the safety code, thats what the AMA considers "within their programming" not simply reading the safety code.
Also membership allows you to sign up for email alerts for TFR's and other educational content
Also membership allows you to sign up for email alerts for TFR's and other educational content
08-10-2017, 04:54 AM
#60
Thread Starter
The law already requires you to follow the code, so attesting to AMA that you'll follow the same code is irrelevant. As to their "programming," AMA can and does say that THEY believe that to be within their programming you have to be a member. Ok. But that's no different than me BELIEVING that you do not. Why? Well, simply put the AMA has zero authority to enforce in the nation's airspace. Who does? FAA. And they've said that they do not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336(a)(2) as requiring membership in a CBO. Just follow the guidelines, which as I said the law already requires. A copy of that interpretation is attached.
So if the agency with enforcement authority for that law says you don't have to be a member, what AMA believes is, as I said earlier, immaterial.
You can check TFRs (and other NOTAMS) directly yourself - and I encourage you to. If you want websites where you can retrieve much better and more thorough information that AMA provides, PM me and I'll send you some.
So if the agency with enforcement authority for that law says you don't have to be a member, what AMA believes is, as I said earlier, immaterial.
You can check TFRs (and other NOTAMS) directly yourself - and I encourage you to. If you want websites where you can retrieve much better and more thorough information that AMA provides, PM me and I'll send you some.
08-10-2017, 05:00 AM
#61
Thread Starter
I have to agree with this. With all the squirming the AMA has done, I'm reminded of the old saying, "Playing both sides against the middle." I'm still debating whether I will renew this year and if I do it will ONLY be to remain a member of my club, which of course, requires AMA membership.
08-10-2017, 08:27 AM
#62
My Feedback: (20)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LaGrange,
GA
Posts: 544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That makes sense to me about the TFR's and NOTAMs..... if I fly, it is my responsibility to know what's going, not the AMA's. Just like I don't have to join AAA to be responsible for knowing the laws of the road when I drive. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just don't understand how being a member of the AMA makes me a more responsible flyer. When all is said and done, if I am *forced* to join the AMA, that will never happen. I will shred my membership card and mail it back to them along with a letter stating my opinion on the matter.
08-10-2017, 08:57 AM
#63
Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you want to fly under the protections of 336 then you need to comply with 336 including flying under the safety programming of a CBO
Otherwise you get certified and fly under 107
At this time there's only one CBO and that CBO says you need to be a member to be under their programming.
Personally I support the AMA because they are the reason there is a 336 and an option to fly that doesn't require a difficult certification exam.
Note that other users here disagree with that interpretation, thats fine for him but not accurate as I read the law
Otherwise you get certified and fly under 107
At this time there's only one CBO and that CBO says you need to be a member to be under their programming.
Personally I support the AMA because they are the reason there is a 336 and an option to fly that doesn't require a difficult certification exam.
Note that other users here disagree with that interpretation, thats fine for him but not accurate as I read the law
08-10-2017, 10:22 AM
#64
Thread Starter
So despite what AMA "believes," or despite what someone thinks is accurate "as they read the law," the agency who's opinion does matter is the FAA. And the FAA has said you do not have to be a CBO member to comply with The Special Rule for Model Aircraft, PL112-95 Section 336 / 14 CFR 101.41.
Last edited by franklin_m; 08-10-2017 at 02:32 PM.
08-21-2017, 04:46 PM
#67
Thread Starter
But if you're content with EDFs (which perform quite well) and don't have a need to fly >55lbs, you don't have to be a member.
08-21-2017, 07:29 PM
#68
I think most people that fly turbines are AMA members because almost any flying site they can operate from will require AMA. That being said I would bet if a bunch of options opened up where AMA was not
required there would be a lot of turbines flyers that would not be AMA members.
required there would be a lot of turbines flyers that would not be AMA members.
08-23-2017, 04:08 AM
#69
Thread Starter
I think most people that fly turbines are AMA members because almost any flying site they can operate from will require AMA. That being said I would bet if a bunch of options opened up where AMA was not
required there would be a lot of turbines flyers that would not be AMA members.
required there would be a lot of turbines flyers that would not be AMA members.
08-23-2017, 04:34 AM
#71
Thread Starter
Are they not waiving the rule for their own event? Please grace us with an explanation of how this is NOT an example of "do as we say, not as we do."
