franklin_m

Ok. If you're going to insist, I'll answer your question directly.

I think two AMA representatives are taking a document that's over two years old and combine that with unverified conversations they're having with FAA and desperately trying to weave a narrative to convince folks that what the law says is not what it says. And why? Because AMA desperately needs to find some reason for joining in the post "400 or below in class G" world.

Did you not read the CFO's January MA article that they lost more members in 2018? That's on top of the PAYING members they lost nearly every year for the past decade. He can see the numbers. He knows what they mean. He stated it as bluntly as he dare in the group think world that is "Taj-Muncie."

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

init4fun

Fair enough , we all owe it to the moderation staff to remember we're addressing fellow hobbyists here and to treat each other with the respect we'd like to be treated with ourselves .

I'll add to the conversation that although I've believed for years that the FAA's intent of 91-57 was that we were to stay under 400 feet , the FAA never enforced it because outside of the guy who bounced one off of the Goodyear blimp there really wasn't any kinds of big problem with RC models getting in the way of full scale ..... Till the invention of the hobby based flying camera , that is .....

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Appowner

Then maybe you should do the same? Think about it.

I have as much right here as you do. I can interject my opinions anywhere and as often as you do. Whether asked for them or not. Unless of course you wish to violate my 1st Amendment Rights?

Appowner

So what are they claiming the numbers are now?

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

Hydro Junkie

Looks to me like this thread has opened up a lot of the old crap. The way I see it, and yes, I will be blunt since I can is:
1) You fly over 400 feet, you risk getting busted by the FAA, regardless of what the AMA says
2) YES, THE AMA OFFICE IS TRYING TO DECEIVE EVERYONE TO KEEP THEMSELVES RELEVANT IN THE EYES OF THE MEMBERSHIP
3) You want to fly over 400 feet, you probably need to qualify under part 107
DOES THIS WORK FOR YOU SPEED?

Appowner

I'm not trying to silence anyone. I'm just trying to show that the door swings both ways. YOU are the one who on more than one occasion has told me not to respond. It is YOU who is trying to silence me. While following me around the forum and jumping in on most every conversation I join. Not always but, too often to simply be coincidence.

And of course, over the years I have probably provided the AMA with more free advice than you ever will. But don't let that stop you.

Appowner

But! But! Officer! The AMA said I could........................

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

franklin_m

I haven't seen their latest claims. Generally, they claim "over 200,000" members, but that's got a huge asterisk that they never mention ... namely around 1/4 of them are free youth members. Members like my three kids who never have flown AMA and never will (zero interest in aviation despite living on Naval Air Stations their whole lives). So what really matters, and what the AMA never discusses, is the number of paying members.

Luckily we have a window into that, since they have to report membership revenue data on their IRS 990s. Here's the data through 2016. I've sent them a formal request for their 2017 forms. They had 30 days to respond and ... drum roll ... they're late. The excuse on the fifth day past the deadline when I asked? "The person doing that isn't here today." Really? Not there for over 30 days? Yeah right. It's deliberate delay.

franklin_m

How is the following deceptive?

- Quoting what the law ACTUALLY says?
- Quoting what the FEDERAL agency responsible for enforcing it ACTUALLY says?

To be clear, when you've accused me of deception, it's based largely on one issue. That I do not accept the "opinion" of a random staff member of a private organization, based on a two year old very carefully worded letter - when there's been more recent laws passed and more recent statements by the FAA.

I've attached the actual letter for your convenience. As has been a consistent theme many times, you need to read the actual words for what they say and not what you want them to say. IF you do that, you will notice that the FAA never explicitly says that they approve AMA flight above 400 feet. They only say that Section 336 does not prohibit it. You think that's an accidental omission? Of course not. It's deliberate. The FAA answered AMA's letter w/o really saying anything. AMA, and those staffers you quoted, are reading for what you want it to say and not what it actually says.

I read documents for what they actually say. Ironically, that's the same way the courts read them ... so I think I'm in good company.

By the way, even if 336 did not prohibit it as the letter says, the law has changed since this letter. For at least the second time, Section 336 no longer exists. It has been repealed. The 2018 FAA reauthorization does exist. And what do the words in that LAW ACTUALLY say? Oh yeah, "In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level..."

Appowner

Obviously you have trouble with sarcasm.

So are you now saying the AMA has recanted on their stand with the 400 foot limit?

If they have, then yes. My comment is 100% sarcastic. But if the AMA still insists they can go above 400 feet, then my comment is no doubt a defense some poor sucker will use at some point.

Appowner

So you admit to stalking me? Second time for an admission I believe.

And yet, curiously minimal in the Composites Fabrication And Repair forum.

And BTW, what's an "adhisive"?

franklin_m

Since this whole "letter from FAA" thing seems to be an issue with some, let's just boil it all down to the facts:

- 2012. PL112-95 was signed into law. It contained Section 336, which among others did two things: Prohibited the FAA from making rules for "model aircraft" and did not explicitly prohibit flight above 400 feet.

- 2016. The FAA responded to an AMA letter in which the FAA acknowledged that 336 did not prohibit flight above 400 feet and that the FAA is aware that CBOs may have safety guidelines that permit it (note 1).

- 2018. The FAA reauthorization act was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. Among other things, it specifically REPEALED PL112-95 Section 336 (note 2). It also specifically limited the recreational exemption for sUAS operations to flights at or below 400 feet in class G airspace (note 3).

- 2018. After the FAA Re-Authorization Act is passed with the 400 foot restriction, the AMA says, without providing any documentary proof, that "they've been told" by the FAA that members can continue to fly as they have been until such time that the FAA implements the 2018 law and it's changes for recreational sUAS (note 4).

So. I operate based on what I can prove, not what I believe. What I can prove is that 336 no longer exists. What I can also prove is that the 2018 law exists, and it clearly and explicitly says for recreational sUAS to remain at or below 400 feet in Class G. What I cannot prove is that someone at the FAA has told AMA members can continue flying based on a law that no longer exists.

So I'm going to follow what I can prove and what the current law actually says. Which is to remain at or below 400 feet in class G.


-----------------------------------------------------
Note 1: FAA ltr to AMA dated 7 July 2016, page 1, paragraph 1.

Note 2: (2) REPEAL .—Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) and the item relating to that section in the table of contents under section 1(b) of that Act are repealed. - Bills-115hr302enr.pdf, page 115. Signed into law on 5 October 2018.

Note 3: (6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions. - Bills-115hr302enr.pdf, page 113. Signed into law on 5 October 2018.

Note 4: AMA Roundtable Discussion on FAA Authorization Bill AMA Government Relations Blog

Hydro Junkie

What I see is Franklin quoting the FAA and giving document numbers(with links) so that we can all look if we want.
What I also see is you quoting the AMA's party line without anything to back it up. A letter, email or verbal response from the AMA home office basically means nothing as the AMA doesn't have any clout when it comes to enforcing it's own rules, let alone those enacted by the FAA or Congress. As I said in another post in a different thread, the AMA's a dead horse and not the be all end all they are trying to portray to everyone

Stickslammer

It makes me chuckle to think of another forum where the emojie selection was bigger and you`d see the dead horse getting beaten often. Speed, I think to those paying attention here have already made up their minds about all of this. You claim that Franklin is merely attempting to "divide the ranks", but I don`t think that's true. He`s stating facts and displaying figures that clearly show a declining trajectory that the AMA refuses to act on. The issue for me is the lack of options being offered. The "one size fits all" fee that is being charged does not work for me.
I know $75.00 isn't a lot of money for a whole year, but the fact is that a lot of it is being squandered and that`s really not ok. I`ll throw out a figure, say $35.00. I don`t want the magazine, I don`t fly competitively, I`m not interested in supporting an indoor flying arena or The Foundation. All I want is a nice site to fly on and coverage in the rare chance it`s needed. Also more support for existing and future flying sites. The "Old Boy Network" seems to hold true the more and more as time goes on.
I too am one of those who feel the AMA has "lost their way". I used to entertain the idea of someday coming up with the money for a lifetime membership, and who knows, I might eventually in spite of all this.
One last quote: "Walk softly and carry a big stick". I think Franklin does that in this argument. He has not resorted to any name calling and has been more than civil. The point is gotten across clearly, concisely and in fact quite eloquently. I`m not kissing up, just calling it as I see it.

ira d

I get the idea that AMA knows the law has changed but feels the FAA is not ready to enforce the law at this time. I also think the AMA feels they can negotiate some type of carve out for its members
before enforcement starts. I do wish the FAA would come and say if the they are in negotiations with the AMA and if they intend to enforce the 400' rule at present.

franklin_m

As of 2016, fully one-third (1/3) of ALL AMA SPENDING is on "Taj-Muncie" staff. And the trend has done nothing but go up since 2001.

franklin_m

Two ominous signs:
- AMA has not produced even one document that supports what they say the FAA is telling them.
- FAA's site was updated on 12 December with the "at or below 400 in class G" language.

ira d

I see your point and I am inclined to agree, however I still think the FAA could clear up any confusion by stating if they told the AMA what the AMA claims they did.