Crickets....
03-15-2022, 04:13 PM
#726
03-15-2022, 05:12 PM
#727
So let me get this straight, your crying because AMA doesn’t keep you informed, your not a member and you cut yourself off from any media outlets that could have the information you seek. Your also too lazy to search for this information yourself but will spend hours on RCU arguing with guys you’ve never met.
03-15-2022, 06:25 PM
#728
It's simple really, if for what ever reason you're not getting an answer one way then simply turn it around and ask from the opposite direction. I don't know how much simpler I could make it for you. That you read some kind of ill will in that line of thought, you may need to adjust your tinfoil helmet.
Originally Posted by Propworm
How many clubs have got any kind of exemption for altitude? Don't know, won't disclose, none of your business, what ever the reason, no definitive answer to your question. So going the other way has any club been refused an exemption and what were the reasons might give an indication if it's worth the effort. Sometimes a partial answer is all you're going to get, so try a different direction instead of whining about it.
Originally Posted by Propworm
Have you even tried your district rep?
Originally Posted by Propworm
Could it be your district rep is the one ignoring you.
Originally Posted by Propworm
After all, your rep is the first one you're supposed to ask these type of questions of.
Originally Posted by Propworm
Not many organizations disseminate the organization's business on an open form. Some organizations have none disclosure clauses that limit the type and scope of information which may be disclosed on forums like this one.
Astro
03-15-2022, 06:34 PM
#729
Does it though? Astro has already stated that his clubs have not applied for a higher altitude limit. A couple of my local clubs haven’t either. It would appear that they feel that flying above 400’ is not required by the bulk of their members. Certainly it affects pattern, IMAC, Jets and some giant scale but realistically those are the minority in most clubs.
Astro
03-15-2022, 06:46 PM
#730
To state that the apparent reason those clubs have not applied is because they feel that flying above 400' is not required by the bulk of their members is absolute speculation on your part and simply does not make it so. To use that as a basis to discredit Hydro's post, or to bolster yours is ridiculous, as you don't have any evidence that is actually the case.
Astro
Astro
03-15-2022, 07:01 PM
#731
Just more of your made up statements......
For you to claim you want to have adult conversations and then completely misquote what I have said to deflect from your baseless claims is not a good start. And you wonder why these threads derail....
Astro
Last edited by astrohog; 03-15-2022 at 07:04 PM.
03-15-2022, 08:39 PM
#732
Actually, Astro, he was quoting me. Several posts back, I threw out the suggestion that the AMA seems to like things kept secret and speculated that they had something to hide. Then again, when you look at the meeting minutes that don't really say anything and the financial statements that are made to sound fine, even though there's mounting information to the fact that the AMA is fiscally bleeding to death, it kind of shows things are same ol same ol.
03-16-2022, 02:39 AM
#733
For sake of argument, I'm going to Florida in May. I want to take a plane with me to the area I'm heading to. If I look up flying clubs in the district that covers Florida, I could find out if I would be altitude restricted or not. Alternately, I could google R/C flying clubs in the city in Florida I'm going to and find out the same thing just by looking at the club's website. Quick and easy, no needing to make phone calls or jumping through any of the other hoops you seem to deem necessary. And for the record, I do have a security clearance and know how the "need to know" works. If a club is so afraid of someone finding out they have a waiver that lets people fly over 400 feet, they can just lock the doors and shut down since I don't see the need to go to that club if they are that secretive. I have better ways to spend my time and money than to have to beg for information before going to a club that doesn't want me there to begin with.
03-16-2022, 02:59 AM
#735
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me get this straight, your crying because AMA doesn’t keep you informed, your not a member and you cut yourself off from any media outlets that could have the information you seek. Your also too lazy to search for this information yourself but will spend hours on RCU arguing with guys you’ve never met.
Mike
03-16-2022, 05:31 AM
#737
Excuse me? Where did I say that?
Just more of your made up statements......
For you to claim you want to have adult conversations and then completely misquote what I have said to deflect from your baseless claims is not a good start. And you wonder why these threads derail....
Astro
Just more of your made up statements......
For you to claim you want to have adult conversations and then completely misquote what I have said to deflect from your baseless claims is not a good start. And you wonder why these threads derail....
Astro
03-16-2022, 06:00 AM
#739
OK. I'm Leader Member and they don't keep us informed. Used to be a timely emails letting us know what was happening and information that we could share with our club members at meetings. I can't remember the last rime I received anything.. Harville did respond to my inquiry if I get his permission I'll share it here.
I can't speak to which of these individually, or combination of them, are the reason ... but it does not bode well. Anything in the "can't" category would be something that points to ineffective communication message or methods. Given the money they spend on staff, one could rightfully ask what is all that money buying? Anything in the "won't" category would be something that points to leadership culture at Taj-Muncie; the unwashed masses aren't important enough to be kept informed. And anything in the "don't have anything to share" to me would point to effectiveness, or lack of it, in the efforts. We've all seen how EC members won't provide straight answers about exactly how many panels have been held, how many clubs have received altitude waivers (vs. how many have asked), and what those waivers were as compared to what they could do before or what LAANC allows. Similarly, in the government affairs "report," we see language that touts "multiple" panels held, but total absence of hard numbers. To me, this all points to exceptionally slow pace and/or lack of effectiveness (again for the $$ we pay for staff).
03-16-2022, 07:08 AM
#742
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, that's really interesting. I suppose it boils down to three possible explanations: they can't, they won't, or they don't have anything to share.
I can't speak to which of these individually, or combination of them, are the reason ... but it does not bode well. Anything in the "can't" category would be something that points to ineffective communication message or methods. Given the money they spend on staff, one could rightfully ask what is all that money buying? Anything in the "won't" category would be something that points to leadership culture at Taj-Muncie; the unwashed masses aren't important enough to be kept informed. And anything in the "don't have anything to share" to me would point to effectiveness, or lack of it, in the efforts. We've all seen how EC members won't provide straight answers about exactly how many panels have been held, how many clubs have received altitude waivers (vs. how many have asked), and what those waivers were as compared to what they could do before or what LAANC allows. Similarly, in the government affairs "report," we see language that touts "multiple" panels held, but total absence of hard numbers. To me, this all points to exceptionally slow pace and/or lack of effectiveness (again for the $$ we pay for staff).
I can't speak to which of these individually, or combination of them, are the reason ... but it does not bode well. Anything in the "can't" category would be something that points to ineffective communication message or methods. Given the money they spend on staff, one could rightfully ask what is all that money buying? Anything in the "won't" category would be something that points to leadership culture at Taj-Muncie; the unwashed masses aren't important enough to be kept informed. And anything in the "don't have anything to share" to me would point to effectiveness, or lack of it, in the efforts. We've all seen how EC members won't provide straight answers about exactly how many panels have been held, how many clubs have received altitude waivers (vs. how many have asked), and what those waivers were as compared to what they could do before or what LAANC allows. Similarly, in the government affairs "report," we see language that touts "multiple" panels held, but total absence of hard numbers. To me, this all points to exceptionally slow pace and/or lack of effectiveness (again for the $$ we pay for staff).
https://www.nar.org/high-power-rocketry-info/
Mike
03-16-2022, 07:57 AM
#744
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"FRIA: Recreational fliers can fly at fixed sites that have been named as a FAA-Recognized Identification Areas (FRIA). The process to apply for FRIA status for flying sites has not yet started. The final rule states that this process will begin in September 2022. At this time, the requirements to be approved as a FRIA are unknown, so we are unsure which sites will be approved. As the time nears and we find out more information, we will inform our members of next steps."
Mike.
Last edited by rcmiket; 03-16-2022 at 08:00 AM.
03-16-2022, 08:01 AM
#745
"§ 89.205 Eligibility.
Only the following persons are eligible to apply for the establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area under this subpart:
(a) A community-based organization recognized by the Administrator.
(b) An educational institution, including primary and secondary educational institutions, trade schools, colleges, and universities. (emphasis added)"
Quoted section is explicit; ONLY CBOs recognized by the administrator are eligible. It does not say "CBO chartered" organizations or any such language that points to the club rather than the CBO itself. Ironically, that will make AMA responsible for attesting to the accuracy of the information. I just hope they're ready to play in the big leagues, as the consequences for their legendary administrative lack of discipline will now have real consequences (lying on federal forms is a felony).
03-16-2022, 09:56 AM
#746
Last I heard they were going to assist clubs. I haven't heard anything since but time will tell. I pulled this off the AMA site today. .
"FRIA: Recreational fliers can fly at fixed sites that have been named as a FAA-Recognized Identification Areas (FRIA). The process to apply for FRIA status for flying sites has not yet started. The final rule states that this process will begin in September 2022. At this time, the requirements to be approved as a FRIA are unknown, so we are unsure which sites will be approved. As the time nears and we find out more information, we will inform our members of next steps."
Mike.
"FRIA: Recreational fliers can fly at fixed sites that have been named as a FAA-Recognized Identification Areas (FRIA). The process to apply for FRIA status for flying sites has not yet started. The final rule states that this process will begin in September 2022. At this time, the requirements to be approved as a FRIA are unknown, so we are unsure which sites will be approved. As the time nears and we find out more information, we will inform our members of next steps."
Mike.
03-16-2022, 10:24 AM
#747
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: El Paso,
TX
Posts: 5,277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-16-2022, 11:19 AM
#748
03-16-2022, 11:50 AM
#749
So as the AMA is going to do all the applications, per BC above, an interesting consequence is that AMA will now be the focus of any complaints that are passed to FAA. All along AMA has been loathe to enforce it's own rules, let alone the FAA's. As a result of their efforts, they may well have ... one again ... proven themselves too smart by half.
FAA will I'm sure be happy to forward complaints to AMA initially. And if AMA continues it's passive approach to compliance, they will be handing the FAA reason to go to Congress and say "See, this self regulation via CBOs is not working..."
So AMA got what it asked for, unfortunately they thought about only the step in front of their nose. They didn't think three, four, fives steps down the line
FAA will I'm sure be happy to forward complaints to AMA initially. And if AMA continues it's passive approach to compliance, they will be handing the FAA reason to go to Congress and say "See, this self regulation via CBOs is not working..."
So AMA got what it asked for, unfortunately they thought about only the step in front of their nose. They didn't think three, four, fives steps down the line
03-16-2022, 12:54 PM
#750
So as the AMA is going to do all the applications, per BC above, an interesting consequence is that AMA will now be the focus of any complaints that are passed to FAA. All along AMA has been loathe to enforce it's own rules, let alone the FAA's. As a result of their efforts, they may well have ... one again ... proven themselves too smart by half.
FAA will I'm sure be happy to forward complaints to AMA initially. And if AMA continues it's passive approach to compliance, they will be handing the FAA reason to go to Congress and say "See, this self regulation via CBOs is not working..."
So AMA got what it asked for, unfortunately they thought about only the step in front of their nose. They didn't think three, four, fives steps down the line
FAA will I'm sure be happy to forward complaints to AMA initially. And if AMA continues it's passive approach to compliance, they will be handing the FAA reason to go to Congress and say "See, this self regulation via CBOs is not working..."
So AMA got what it asked for, unfortunately they thought about only the step in front of their nose. They didn't think three, four, fives steps down the line