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

For my NPRM response - how "big" is this hobby?

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

For my NPRM response - how "big" is this hobby?

Old 02-25-2020, 02:40 PM
  #26  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,240
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
Six days left. There'll be plenty of time for weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth later. Get 'em in while you can!
In six days you will find out that the ship sailed YEARS AGO.

Astro
Old 02-25-2020, 04:12 PM
  #27  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
In six days you will find out that the ship sailed YEARS AGO.

Astro
In six days I expect to have found out that age 60 feels just about like age 59.

But I could be dead from coronavirus.

Neither is a reason to stop living TODAY.
Old 02-25-2020, 06:09 PM
  #28  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,240
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by grognard View Post
Neither is a reason to stop living TODAY.
Lord, NO! Hope nobody is doing that!
Happy Birthday!

Astro
Old 02-26-2020, 01:18 PM
  #29  
Steve Collins
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St.Charles, MO
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

If the FAA is so all fired up to control drones, this video is the way and they can leave the rest of us alone! Let the FAA foot the bill for the control they so desire!

Old 02-26-2020, 04:34 PM
  #30  
FUTABA-RC
 
FUTABA-RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 869
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Default

See my comments in one of the other threads/forums you have posted this.
Old 02-26-2020, 07:05 PM
  #31  
RCUer75345
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Four days left to make comments. Don't waste time arguing here when you could be posting material the FAA has to at least read and consider.
Old 03-07-2020, 12:06 PM
  #32  
fliers1
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lockport, NY
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Recent AMA EC minutes

Rich Hanson stated that the future of the organization is in new member acquisition. He would like to see more focus on a strategy for new member acquisition. Eric stated that if clubs aren’t doing as they had in the past and growing their clubs, AMA needs to find a new gateway to attracting new members. The committee is enthused about entertaining all possibilities and sharing them.
Old 03-07-2020, 12:51 PM
  #33  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,240
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by fliers1 View Post
Recent AMA EC minutes

Rich Hanson stated that the future of the organization is in new member acquisition. He would like to see more focus on a strategy for new member acquisition. Eric stated that if clubs arenít doing as they had in the past and growing their clubs, AMA needs to find a new gateway to attracting new members. The committee is enthused about entertaining all possibilities and sharing them.
Embrace the droners? Oh, wait.......
How about FORCED membership? Oh, wait......

Clubs have always been the gateway to membership. Sure hope when this FAA stuff is sorted out that clubs are still viable........

Astro
Old 03-07-2020, 02:05 PM
  #34  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog View Post
Embrace the droners? Oh, wait.......
How about FORCED membership? Oh, wait......

Clubs have always been the gateway to membership. Sure hope when this FAA stuff is sorted out that clubs are still viable........Astro
I saw that too in the EC minutes. What? Has that not been "the future" of the AMA for the last five years or so? If not, then what the heck has been "the future?" Unbelievable. They think that just by saying it makes it come true. Did you also note that in some areas they "HOPE" things will get better? Like that's a great plan! And although they hired a new group to perform a specific task, did you note that despite poor performance they're going to give them more time? And they wonder why this year's problems become next year's problems. Time is not on their side. Yet they act like it us.

I've seen better managed elementary school bake sales.
Old 03-07-2020, 02:32 PM
  #35  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

If the proposed rules are fully implemented as the FAA wants I think the AMA will be pretty munch gone in about 5 years.
Old 03-10-2020, 07:03 AM
  #36  
dionysusbacchus
My Feedback: (25)
 
dionysusbacchus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: McQueeney, TX
Posts: 2,488
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Read enough of the BS on here from those with an agenda, DJI actually posted an awesome response based on facts, something a certain individual on here purposefully avoids because they don't serve his purpose. These are amazing, thoughtful responses:

https://www.regulations.gov/document...019-1100-51823

And Google depended us, the traditional line of sight modeler:

https://www.regulations.gov/document...019-1100-51456
Old 03-10-2020, 07:31 AM
  #37  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by dionysusbacchus View Post
Read enough of the BS on here from those with an agenda, DJI actually posted an awesome response based on facts, something a certain individual on here purposefully avoids because they don't serve his purpose. These are amazing, thoughtful responses:

https://www.regulations.gov/document...019-1100-51823

And Google depended us, the traditional line of sight modeler:

https://www.regulations.gov/document...019-1100-51456
Pretty encouraging to see Google come out in favor of relaxing the ID requirement so the need for FRIAs is reduced. By my count, there are four lines of reasoning to say FRIAs, as written, don't work:
  1. "Constitutional" : forced association for 800,000 non-CBO members
  2. "Permission" : puts CBO in position of granting permission to fly from their sites; law prohibits FAA from requiring permission
  3. "Capacity" : not enough FRIAs to support over 1 million non-CBO members
  4. "Time out" : not in perpetuity

It will be interesting to see how FAA resolves these comments. The easiest thing would be to expand option to fly w/o equipment retrofit. That would solve all three issues. Then the AMA folks can continue to go their fields, and those who are largely not going to them now can continue flying as they've been flying - perhaps with some operational limits. On the latter, I'd support no autonav, "LAANC-like" notification, and below 400 in class G or permissive altitude in controlled.
Old 03-10-2020, 11:31 AM
  #38  
mach5nchimchim
Member
 
mach5nchimchim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Penn State, PA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Why is Mellott so against CBO based frias, especially if it's AMA based fria? He wants his cake and ice cream when it benefits him...
Old 03-10-2020, 01:20 PM
  #39  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mach5nchimchim View Post
Why is [franklin_m] so against CBO based frias, especially if it's AMA based fria? He wants his cake and ice cream when it benefits him...
I've been very consistent. I oppose granting of privileges in PUBLIC airspace (or airwaves, or waterways or roadways) to members of PRIVATE DUES COLLECTING organizations that are not available equally to all citizens that are NOT members.
Old 03-10-2020, 01:30 PM
  #40  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 2,240
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I've been very consistent. I oppose granting of privileges in PUBLIC airspace (or airwaves, or waterways or roadways) to members of PRIVATE DUES COLLECTING organizations that are not available equally to all citizens that are NOT members.
Donít bother trying to explain your stance AGAIN, if he doesnít understand it by now, he wonít. You have been very clear and consistent.

on another note, his buddy grognard will happily take AND eat the cake, whether it is granted to him or not, so Iím not sure why he is casting shade on you. Apparently, that is perfectly acceptable to these folks......

Astro
Old 03-11-2020, 07:13 AM
  #41  
mach5nchimchim
Member
 
mach5nchimchim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Penn State, PA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I've been very consistent. I oppose granting of privileges in PUBLIC airspace (or airwaves, or waterways or roadways) to members of PRIVATE DUES COLLECTING organizations that are not available equally to all citizens that are NOT members.
Consistent in bashing the AMA nonstop... Yep you are correct there... Everyone knows how you feel about the AMA, but yet; you still go out of the way to "Consistently" bash them every minute of your existence...

Last edited by mach5nchimchim; 03-11-2020 at 07:43 AM.
Old 03-11-2020, 07:40 AM
  #42  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mach5nchimchim View Post
Consistent in bashing the AMA nonstop... Yep you are correct there... Everyone knows how to feel about the AMA, but yet; you still go out of the way to "Consistently" bash them every minute of your existence...
I oppose ONE aspect of AMA's policy goals, and that is any use of rule or law to force association with a PRIVATE dues collecting organization as a condition for exercising a privilege in the PUBLIC airspace. They tried with 336, with the ED himself saying that "We believe membership is required..." and now they're trying it again with the FRIA concept ... knowing they enjoy a near total monopoly on FRIA sites.

They can require membership to participate in their reindeer games (competitions) all day long, as I could care less. But requiring membership to just exercise the privilege in PUBLIC airspace is wrong on many levels, and I will do all I can to ensure it does not happen.
Old 03-11-2020, 08:00 AM
  #43  
mach5nchimchim
Member
 
mach5nchimchim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Penn State, PA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I oppose ONE aspect of AMA's policy goals, and that is any use of rule or law to force association with a PRIVATE dues collecting organization as a condition for exercising a privilege in the PUBLIC airspace. They tried with 336, with the ED himself saying that "We believe membership is required..." and now they're trying it again with the FRIA concept ... knowing they enjoy a near total monopoly on FRIA sites.

They can require membership to participate in their reindeer games (competitions) all day long, as I could care less. But requiring membership to just exercise the privilege in PUBLIC airspace is wrong on many levels, and I will do all I can to ensure it does not happen.
That would be coming from the law on the books, just because the AMA would benefit from said law; you hold it against them to. You just don't want to see them benefit from anything the AMA, was the AMA the big bully in school who took away your balsa glider as a kid in school and not give it back, cause you didn't want to go play on their playground?
Old 03-11-2020, 09:16 AM
  #44  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
I oppose ONE aspect of AMA's policy goals, and that is any use of rule or law to force association with a PRIVATE dues collecting organization as a condition for exercising a privilege in the PUBLIC airspace. They tried with 336, with the ED himself saying that "We believe membership is required..." and now they're trying it again with the FRIA concept ... knowing they enjoy a near total monopoly on FRIA sites.

They can require membership to participate in their reindeer games (competitions) all day long, as I could care less. But requiring membership to just exercise the privilege in PUBLIC airspace is wrong on many levels, and I will do all I can to ensure it does not happen.
Originally Posted by mach5nchimchim View Post
That would be coming from the law on the books, just because the AMA would benefit from said law; you hold it against them to. You just don't want to see them benefit from anything the AMA, was the AMA the big bully in school who took away your balsa glider as a kid in school and not give it back, cause you didn't want to go play on their playground (emphasis added)?
Please cite such law. Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble. There is no such "law on the books" as you say.

Again, I oppose just ONE aspect of AMA's policy goals, and that is any use of rule or law to force association with a PRIVATE dues collecting organization as a condition for exercising a privilege in the PUBLIC airspace. They tried with 336, with the ED himself saying that "We believe membership is required..." and now they're trying it again with the FRIA concept ... knowing they enjoy a near total monopoly on FRIA sites.
Old 03-11-2020, 09:20 AM
  #45  
mach5nchimchim
Member
 
mach5nchimchim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Penn State, PA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Please cite such law. Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble. There is no such "law on the books" as you say.

Again, I oppose just ONE aspect of AMA's policy goals, and that is any use of rule or law to force association with a PRIVATE dues collecting organization as a condition for exercising a privilege in the PUBLIC airspace. They tried with 336, with the ED himself saying that "We believe membership is required..." and now they're trying it again with the FRIA concept ... knowing they enjoy a near total monopoly on FRIA sites.
That would be comiing from the law on the books when the fria is required, the laws are not on the books yet; but as you like to point out the NPRM will probably pass the way it's currently written...
Old 03-11-2020, 09:35 AM
  #46  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mach5nchimchim View Post
That would be comiing from the law on the books when the fria is required, the laws are not on the books yet; but as you like to point out the NPRM will probably pass the way it's currently written...
It's not a "law" as you call it, it's rule. Even after adopted, it's not a "law," but a "rule."

Secondly, I don't think I've ever said that it will "probably pass the way it's currently written..."
Old 03-11-2020, 09:41 AM
  #47  
mach5nchimchim
Member
 
mach5nchimchim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Penn State, PA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
It's not a "law" as you call it, it's rule. Even after adopted, it's not a "law," but a "rule."

Secondly, I don't think I've ever said that it will "probably pass the way it's currently written..."
semantics buddy..
Old 03-11-2020, 09:53 AM
  #48  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mach5nchimchim View Post
semantics buddy..
Yeah, just like someone jumping on the use of "USAF property" vs. "Federal property".
Old 03-11-2020, 11:40 AM
  #49  
mach5nchimchim
Member
 
mach5nchimchim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Penn State, PA
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
Yeah, just like someone jumping on the use of "USAF property" vs. "Federal property".
Well, in your mind; you think you know it all, so of course you get what we are all trying to convey.

Last edited by mach5nchimchim; 03-11-2020 at 12:35 PM.
Old 03-11-2020, 12:20 PM
  #50  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 3,622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mach5nchimchim View Post
Well, in your mind; you think you know if all, so of course you get what we are ll trying to convey.
In the end, it matters not whether I used the term USAF, DoD, or Federal property, as ultimately it's all the same.

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.