ECHO24

When someone takes a position they aren't interested in "facts". In the case of model aircraft politics it's easy to put out any view regarless
of whether it would hold up to scrutiny since there are so few people actually in the know. Facts are merely a tempory inconvienence to be
swept away with the next bloviatingly false claim.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

LOL Klingons I'm talking about are the little balls of stuff that kling on the short hairs just behind a Scotsman's Sporran

Hydro Junkie

Just like the dirt a worm eats, it's meaningless in the subject at hand

Tailspin

April 5th 2063 will be my 110th birthday.
I'll make sure to be in Bozeman.
😁

R_Strowe

I will happily admit that the AMA may have a bad interpretation (which is immaterial now because of the demise of 336), if you will also admit that the FAA interpretation may not be what Congress intended:

Section 336(a)(2) requires model aircraft to be operated within a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization. Congress explained that it intended “nationwide community-based organization” to mean, in part, a “membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community within the Unites States; [and] provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground . . . .”

U.S. House, FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Conference Report (to Accompany H.R. 658), 112 H. Rpt. 381 (Feb. 1, 2012) (discussion of special rule for model aircraft). Based on this language, which provides context to Congress’ use of the term “nationwide community-based organization,” the FAA expects that model aircraft operations conducted under section 336(a) will be operated according to those guidelines.7

7 “[C]ommunity-based organizations,” for example, would include groups such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics and others that meet the statutory definition.

If Congress did not intend to require membership in a CBO, then why did they not state "in accordance with the programming" instead of "within the programming"?

If Congress did not mean to require membership in a CBO, why was footnote #7 placed in 112 H Rpt 381? (where these quotes came directly from)

Just like when the FAA instituted registration, in what turned out to be a violation of 336 (as intended by Congress), it is entirely possible that they also did not actually follow Congress's intentions here.

Again, a moot point since 336 no longer rules the land.

And if it makes you all happy, under the current FAA interpretation, the AMA, and Mr. Hanson, have falsely stated that membership is required. And if Mr. Hanson's intention was to force membership in the AMA, then that too is wrong and he should be immediately removed from his position, flogged, drawn and quartered, and then shot at dawn. Happy?

R_Strowe

Hydro Junkie

Not really. Just get him out of office and get someone that is honest and knows how to run an organization in his place. The fact that a few of you that are advocates of the AMA are willing to agree that the AMA powers that be tried to use the FAA and Congress to force membership or be in violation of the law is a step in the right direction. Now, if we could only get the laws changed to be flyer friendly, all would be good

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

That question would best be posed to Congress, no? Simple oversight? If they intended to require membership in a CBO, why did they not just state, "be a member of"?

To give an example of an organization that met their definition of a CBO that had an acceptable Safety code?

Thank-You. Why did it take you so long to admit that? Mr. Hanson has stated that even AFTER the FAA clearly stated that membership was not required. Do yu think Mr. Hanson is stupid, or do you think he meant to force folks to join?

Are you admitting that was his intention or not? If not, what other explanation is there?

I'm always happy!

Astro

R_Strowe

Which has kinda been my point all along. Right now Rich Hanson isn't going anywhere, even if he should. At the present time that's a fool's errand.

I would rather see everyone shelve that crusade for now and actually band together, with real solidarity, to go to Congress as well as the FAA and work to get this whole mess fixed. The key I believe is Congress and the agencies; get them on your side and we have a chance. But I've said this before (and will not waver from this), we need to speak as ONE VOICE. PERIOD. Without the negativity. And whether one likes it or not, there really is only one group right know that is set up for that: the AMA. Maybe Flite Test, someday. As well as PMA. But for right now, we need to work with the AMA, and use them as our voice.

R_Strowe

Hydro Junkie

Okay, I will agree with you on what I didn't post. Where I won't agree with you is using the AMA as our voice. As long as Rich Hanson is on the EC, we can't trust them to do what the modelers want and need. Here is what I said yesterday in a previous post:
You want to save the hobby? As someone has already said, take the AMA out of the equation. We have an election in just over 90 days. For those in Congress that are not up for re-election, contact them now. For those that are up for re-election, let them fight it out with their challengers and, when that's over, contact the winner. Let them know that their are more people out here than the AMA legal team that need to be heard and that WE are not the problem. Contact your local FAA offices and let them know that we are here and see how they react. The problem, as I see it and as Echo put in a previous post, is that the AMA(aka Rich Hanson) misrepresented the hobby to the FAA and now we are paying for his deception. We also need to be contacting our local governments to change the way they see the hobby. It may be as simple as getting the city to allow us to fly in a local park with park flyers. I know, in my town, there is a sport field area that is outside of the main residential area that would be perfect for flying aircraft as there are only a few houses in the vicinity. If you can get the local government to allow that, let the local FAA office know and give the location and see what they say. The results may surprise you
Now, with that said, I agree, we need to get the message across to everyone that we need to be united. IF we use a unified message and don't try to show up anyone else, we should be able to get things headed in the right direction. If, however, someone tries to make them self the "go to", like the AMA, we don't need to bother as we will all look foolish

ECHO24

Another key fact in AMA's forced membership scam, which Hanson is well aware of, is that going on 8-plus years now the FAA still has
not defined the term "CBO". The term has no legal meaning nor claim to it. Hence, AMA has lobbied for a definition in every bill since 2012.

The 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act required the FAA to define CBO by a certain time, but the FAA has put it off ever since, no
doubt due to the legal ramifications of forcing someone to pay dues to a private organization to comply with some genric rules (which
have to be approved by the FAA anyway).

336 passed because AMA had friends in Congress and RC flying was viewed favorably. That's over. "CBO" is to be definined when the
final rule is published.

@R_Strowe, The FAA has taken over and there is nothing left to negotiate. The swindlers at AMA have destroyed the hobby.
(We had to listen to the cumbia "let's all work together" talk from the droners for how many years?)

R_Strowe

R_Strowe

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

Congratulations on your accomplishment!

Astro

R_Strowe

R_Strowe

franklin_m

Some of us understand that AMA had a heavy hand in writing 336, to include the accompanying Congressional intent document. Like it or not, very little legislation is written only by the staffs / principals. So AMA put in that what they hoped to see. They were smart enough to know that OVERT mandatory membership would not pass, so they put language in there they could later use to IMPLY (at first) that's what Congress meant. At some point, as we see most directly from Stillman's quote above, they started saying the quiet part out loud.

I view Hanson and his protege Budreau as the principal architects of this effort. Hanson for obvious reasons, Budreau since he was Gov Affairs while it was being worked / pushed. They were of course aided by a feckless EC that saw nothing but $$, and didn't contemplate second or third order effects. One thing for sure they didn't contemplate, that is someone actually asking FAA how THEY interpret that section. Never saw that coming did they?

So this started when I mentioned where AMA crossed a clear bright line for me. AAA doesn't try and use law to compel membership. Neither does AOPA, ARRL or other things that look a lot like CBOs. Additionally, because of that weak EC that won't challenge the dynamic duo, we see mismanagement and the obfuscation that were the other major issues for me. So in my mind, as long as Hanson and Budreau are in place, I will continue to highlight the poor leadership, reckless and irresponsible spending, and horrible management that is leading this organization into financial ruin.

By every measure I can gather from their IRS filings, it's clear that time is not on their side. Spending is too high, and the magazines continue doing what they do best ... lose money. Yet no major staff reductions. No firings for lack of performance. And no major slashing of spending. Hence my efforts to keep highlighting these in the hopes that the group of people saying "Enough is enough" will grow -- and the dynamic duo will leave -- hopefully before it's too late. I refuse to be part of "fix things after we get past this issue." We heard that with registration ... speak with one voice now, then fix AMA later. We heard that with 336 under threat ... speak with one voice now, fix AMA later. And we're hearing it yet again on this issue. Forgive me if it's evident that those saying "speak with one voice now and fix AMA later" never ever get around to the fix AMA part.

init4fun

Very well said Mr. Strowe !

I'm happy that we're on the same page as the to the "forced membership" thing , I truly believe it's the reason we're where we are today with the FAA . Do I think Hanson is a power mad fool who needs to be taken out and shot at dawn ? of course not , I believe he thought forcing all who fly RC to be AMA members would secure the AMA's future against the ever dropping membership numbers , and that he didn't mind trampling on folk's personal liberties to get there as long as the AMA survives . Now , since we all know the power play failed , the next move should be the replacement of the AMA top brass and as you say a fresh unified approach to the FAA to try to rebuild the lost trust that our past interactions have wrought . Tell ya what , if you & Franklin want to run for AMA pres and VP , ya got my vote .

PS Congratulations on the Captain upgrade , that's great news indeed !

ECHO24

What difference does it make who runs AMA now that the FAA is dictating all the terms of how the hobby will be conducted, which under the proposed
rule is pretty well defined as the FAA phasing out the traditional hobby in a few years: no new flying fields, no replacing fields rejected, no retrofitting
remote ID, no home-built remote ID compliance, etc., etc. AMA no longer has any say in the hobby.

franklin_m

Regardless of what ED and other say about flat membership numbers, what matters is membership revenue.
And the trend is undeniable; in fact, it appears it's declining faster since 2016.

R_Strowe

So again, how does the ED raise revenue? Cutting the magazine eliminates a cost, selling off the Muncie facility eliminates a cost, reducing salaries in Muncie eliminates or reduces a cost, but none of these generate revenue. The only way for AMA to substantially increase revenue is to either A: Increase dues (we all know where that'll get them), or B: Increase membership #'s.

So I would love to hear how to increase revenue for AMA. Not reduce cost, because that falls under the theory of 'shrinking to profitability' (which doesn't work). Actual, viable revenue increase.

R_Strowe

R_Strowe

Actually, my thought is to not go to the FAA, as they are only there to interpret the law as written. What is needed is a change to the law, and the people to speak to about that is Congress. If they change the law, then the FAA has no choice but to follow suit. This was how the AMA got us sec.336 (through Sen.Inhofe). And when the law is written correctly, then we have potential recourse through the courts, as Taylor proved. That is the tact to take. I'm working that angle right now through my Senators and Representative. We all need to be doing the same.

R_Strowe

R_Strowe

I appreciate the vote of confidence. Maybe when I retire, you'll have less than 10 years to wait!
As long as I can do it from Vermont, all will be good!

R_Strowe

ECHO24

I'd have to look closer but the graph appears to track AMA's indirect legal wins and losses (AMA itself has never sucsessfully prosecuted anything other than getting 336 passed),
in particular regarding the 3 Taylor vs. FAA cases. The most devistating for AMA was Taylor III in 2018 with the US Court of Appeals rejecting Taylor's claims that the FAA's actions
were arbitrary and capricious with regard to, among other things, that the FAA was unreasonable in declining to define,

"what makes an organization a “nationwide community-based organization,” what qualifies as “programming,” and what activities “endanger the safety of the national airspace.”

The decision refers back to the FAA's interpretation of 336 in 2014:

"In the notice accompanying the Small UAS Rule, the FAA stated that “issues concerning the specific meaning of section 336 (such as what makes an
organization a nationwide community-based organization) are beyond the scope of this rule.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 42,082. The agency explained that it was
“considering the specific meaning of section 336 provisions in a separate regulatory action,” and that, “in order to avoid duplication, [it] limited the scope
of the model-aircraft component of th[e] rulemaking simply to codifying the FAA’s enforcement authority over model-aircraft operations that endanger the
safety” of the national airspace."

"Contrary to Taylor’s complaint, it was not unreasonable (or unconstitutional) for the FAA [in 2014] to use the instant rulemaking merely to codify section
336 and to consider the specific meaning of section 336’s provisions in the separate regulatory action that it had already begun. “An agency enjoys broad
discretion in determining how best to handle related, yet discrete, issues in terms of . . . priorities” and “need not solve every problem before it in the
same proceeding.”

In other words, AMA's belligerence and defiance of the FAA (and forced membership scam) ended on that day and AMA was screwed from that point on -
336 was repealed, the FAA took over, and I'll be interested in seeing that graph in 2 more years.

astrohog

My Feedback: (1)

I don't know abut everyone else, but budgeting 101 tells me that as my income decreases, my expenses need to decrease as well, so trimming the budget is absolutely necessary as our membership numbers decline.

I think the writing is on the wall that our hobby is slowly becoming "obsolete", not because of declining membership necessarily, but because flying just isn't all that interesting to the younger generations, not to mention they really don't like "doing" stuff with their own two hands (beside holding a phone or a video game controller!). What the AMA really needs to establish (as the largest and longest-standing modelers' group), is how big the "market" actually is, and how do they remain solvent, viable and relevant with however many members that turns out to be. They don't need to focus on bringing in volumes of members (just for the sake of volumes of members), they need to make sure that every MODELER that is left out there sees value and WANTS to be a member. If they do that, they will ensure their longevity and livelyhood, and might have a chance at being respected by the Feds again. We need to be a focused and cohesive group in order for that to happen. We do not need to artificially increase our ranks by trying to woo photographers and videographers and/or perverted peeping Tom's and "hold my beer while I film this" types.

Astro

flyboy2610

My Feedback: (1)

You can campaign while hiding out in your basement. You wouldn't be the first one to do that.

ECHO24

What law are you lobbying for?

Taylor and his brother struck out 3 times. 4 if you count the one that promissed us damages of $1,000 each for our $5 registration fee.

The only so-called victory was Taylor (1) vs. FAA over registration. Congress reinstated registration a few months later. Who you gonna call now?

R_Strowe

Well, one reason we are where we are now is due to the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2017. I believe they (Congress) either are or are getting ready to put together the next Reauthorization bill. Properly influencing that piece of legislation could get us back some of the lost privileges from 336, or change FRIA's to permanent status, etc. The FAA doesn't write that legislation, Congress does. We need to influence THEM.

R_Strowe