Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
DoJ Issues Guidance for Counter Drone in US >

DoJ Issues Guidance for Counter Drone in US

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

DoJ Issues Guidance for Counter Drone in US

Old 05-20-2020, 05:57 PM
  #226  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
I would say it would depend on the property owner. Would they want to stick with a carrier with a proven track record or be willing to accept something new in addition to AMA coverage along with the additional records keeping.
Only one CBO can apply for a FRIA for a specific site, insurance or otherwise.


Old 05-20-2020, 06:00 PM
  #227  
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,538
Received 85 Likes on 75 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
So out of 2,500 AMA clubs over a 10 year period there is not a single document that is able to prove that AMA threatened clubs not to accept SFA coverage?
i can only speak to things i was involved with, you will have to ask the other 2499 clubs yourself for any information they may have.
Old 05-20-2020, 06:01 PM
  #228  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
So out of 2,500 AMA clubs over a 10 year period there is not a single document that is able to prove that AMA threatened clubs not to accept SFA coverage?
This is a direct quote:

Like the unicorn, loch ness monster, and big foot—dual chartering, using the same club name, is a myth. The same name cannot be used to charter a club with both the AMA and any other organization. An AMA chartered club is a unique, identifiable entity which is composed exclusively of AMA members and is protected by AMA insurance. An AMA chartered club is protected by AMA insurance because all club members must be members of AMA, and all members must follow the current Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code. AMA club insurance does not extend to non AMA members except under the siteowner’s provisions and the special instruction programs. An AMA member may belong to other organizations*, but an AMA club must be chartered only with the AMA and cannot be chartered with any other organization

The full document is available on the AMA web site as document 909 under the club documents section.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf
909.pdf (25.2 KB, 17 views, Original Link)

Last edited by jcmors; 05-20-2020 at 06:04 PM.
Old 05-20-2020, 06:19 PM
  #229  
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,536
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mongo
i can only speak to things i was involved with, you will have to ask the other 2499 clubs yourself for any information they may have.


Thats exactly my point. This thing about the AMA threatening clubs has been kicked around for years yet not a single shred of evidence. Taking people's word for things works both ways.
Old 05-20-2020, 06:25 PM
  #230  
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,536
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
So yes, it is plausible. Whew! You really don't like being wrong, do you?

Astro

It was the $6 Billion figure that Franklin put out there that I was disagreeing with as his whole statement was obtuse.
Old 05-20-2020, 06:28 PM
  #231  
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,536
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jcmors
This is a direct quote:

Like the unicorn, loch ness monster, and big foot—dual chartering, using the same club name, is a myth. The same name cannot be used to charter a club with both the AMA and any other organization. An AMA chartered club is a unique, identifiable entity which is composed exclusively of AMA members and is protected by AMA insurance. An AMA chartered club is protected by AMA insurance because all club members must be members of AMA, and all members must follow the current Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code. AMA club insurance does not extend to non AMA members except under the siteowner’s provisions and the special instruction programs. An AMA member may belong to other organizations*, but an AMA club must be chartered only with the AMA and cannot be chartered with any other organization

The full document is available on the AMA web site as document 909 under the club documents section.
I don't think that SFA was attempting to co charter any clubs with AMA, simply selling insurance. Still not the " Drop SFA or loose your charter " that is being claimed.
Old 05-20-2020, 06:40 PM
  #232  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

This is a direct quote:

Like the unicorn, loch ness monster, and big foot—dual chartering, using the same club name, is a myth. The same name cannot be used to charter a club with both the AMA and any other organization. An AMA chartered club is a unique, identifiable entity which is composed exclusively of AMA members and is protected by AMA insurance. An AMA chartered club is protected by AMA insurance because all club members must be members of AMA, and all members must follow the current Official AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code. AMA club insurance does not extend to non AMA members except under the siteowner’s provisions and the special instruction programs. An AMA member may belong to other organizations*, but an AMA club must be chartered only with the AMA and cannot be chartered with any other organization

The full document is available on the AMA web site as document 909 under the club documents section.


The question is then, if by some miracle someone applies and is accepted as a CBO, who in their right mind
would pass on AMA and go with a brand new CBO and risk losing a flying field over some mistake they made:

"... the FAA would be able to terminate an FAA-recognized identification area for any reason"

"Nationwide" was dropped from the CBO definition in 2018, so Flight Test could theoretically comply with their
one field and might do so just for the added credibility. But any other CBOs are out of the picture, IMO.
Old 05-20-2020, 06:55 PM
  #233  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
I don't think that SFA was attempting to co charter any clubs with AMA, simply selling insurance. Still not the " Drop SFA or loose your charter " that is being claimed.
Mongo mentioned dual charters with another organization were not allowed. Isn't that what documented proof was being asked for? To me this document shows that what Mongo recalled was, and is, indeed true.
Old 05-20-2020, 07:10 PM
  #234  
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,536
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mongo
that was one of the problems with SFA.
AMA threatened to cancel the charter of any club that tried to dual charter with both orgs.

i have seen nothing that would indicate a softening of that position.

I don't see anything there that amounts to a threat of charter cancellation or an ultimatum.
Old 05-20-2020, 07:54 PM
  #235  
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,346
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
I don't see anything there that amounts to a threat of charter cancellation or an ultimatum.
Really? Based on the wording presented, what do you think would happen if an AMA chartered club were to also affiliate with another organization such as the SFA (if it were to still exist)?
It is pretty clear to me that it would not be allowed. (I think that is called an ultimatum). Do you practice a special kind of English that would interpret it another way?

Astro
Old 05-20-2020, 08:10 PM
  #236  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
So out of 2,500 AMA clubs over a 10 year period there is not a single document that is able to prove that AMA threatened clubs not to accept SFA coverage?
I don't know what documents may or may not be in existence but if you can call any AMA chartered club you want and ask them if you can fly at their site, tell them you have insurance with proof
of coverage and tell me what they say.
Old 05-20-2020, 08:33 PM
  #237  
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,537
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Maybe not, Speed, but the line "An AMA member may belong to other organizations*, but an AMA club must be chartered only with the AMA and cannot be chartered with any other organization" sure sounds that way to me. If an existing AMA club were to approach Flight Test for a charter, the AMA would tell them to cancel the idea or be dropped by the AMA per the line shown above, one that happens to come from the AMA itself. Conversely, A Flight Test club would be told to drop their affiliation with Flight Test to join the AMA, again per the above line. Tell me I'm wrong on this one, AND THEN PROVE IT TO ME.
Old 05-20-2020, 08:51 PM
  #238  
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,538
Received 85 Likes on 75 Posts
Default

yeah,
the backhoe operator is telling me that he has pretty much run out of places to move the goalposts to.
Old 05-21-2020, 02:24 AM
  #239  
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
In a weird kind of way, I think that is what Franklin has been saying all along...……

Astro
It is exactly what I'm saying. FRIAs in current form compel membership in one PRIVATE dues collecting organization because one PRIVATE organization enjoys a near total monopoly on likely FRIA sites nationally. While technically possible for additional CBOs, it will be extremely unlikely they can establish anything close to a competitive number of sites nationally before NPRM goes into effect. Which in layman's terms, means if the 80% of non-cbo members want to fly non-compliant equipment legally, in all but a few rare instances, they MUST join ONE particular CBO. That folks amounts to compulsory membership.

As stated elsewhere, AMA spends at most $14 a year per member on insurance. All FAA would have to do is tweak the NPRM to require FRIAs to allow flight for not more than $14 annually AND agreement to follow the FAA safety guidance. As for club costs to maintain the field, that's going to be a problem for AMA. On one hand they want to be the CBO to apply for FRIA status for all fields. That makes them "Single Point Accountable." But they don't want to be SPA for enforcement etc. I don't think FAA is going to let them have it both ways.

If the AMA makes the FRIA application as the CBO, then when there's issues the FAA or other regulators or law enforcement will go to AMA to resolve issue. On the other hand, if AMA doesn't want to be accountable for the actions at 3,000 individual fields, then the clubs make the FRIA application - which means THEY are the CBO and not the AMA. Again, language of rule says the CBO makes the application.
Old 05-21-2020, 02:42 AM
  #240  
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

You said:
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
While I agree with this in concept, it brings us back to the issue where property owners at this time ONLY recognize AMA insurance.
To which I challenged with a hypothetical:
Originally Posted by franklin_m
So are you saying that if someone approaches "property owners" and offer a $6 billion dollar general liability coverage (yes, billion with a "b"), the "property owners" will refuse because it's not "AMA insurance?"
To which you did not answer the question in either of two subsequent posts:
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
We both know that is not going to happen.
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Franklin's statement references 6 BILLION in liability coverage, do you really see that as plausible?
Finally, you doubled down but moved the goal posts. Now it's not merely "AMA insurance," but something new called a "proven track record." But wait, haven't we been told about some impeccable safety record? If so, there should be few if any claims and thus little if any "proven track record." In fact, at any given potential FRIA, there's a very good chance there's been zero claims, and thus NO "proven track record." So which is it? AMA insurance because it's AMA or because of some track record that may or may not exist at all at that field - unless of course there's more claims than we've been led to believe, thus establishing a track record.
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
I would say it would depend on the property owner. Would they want to stick with a carrier with a proven track record or be willing to accept something new in addition to AMA coverage along with the additional records keeping.
Again, not addressing the issue, but insulting instead:
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
It was the $6 Billion figure that Franklin put out there that I was disagreeing with as his whole statement was obtuse (emphasis added).
No, it's called a hypothetical. Which I note you did not answer directly. Rather moved goal posts from not accepting because not AMA insurance to an issue of proven track record (which if claims are as low as you want us to believe, there's very little 'track record'),

So yet again:
Originally Posted by franklin_m
So are you saying that if someone approaches "property owners" and offer a $6 billion dollar general liability coverage (yes, billion with a "b"), the "property owners" will refuse because it's not "AMA insurance?"
Old 05-22-2020, 09:39 AM
  #241  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Remote ID hasn't been implemented yet. Apps cost money to develop. There will be updates along the way that will also cost money. Pulling electronic records to prosecute will cost money.
AirMap, the largest LAANC provider, already has a remote ID app as part of AirMap for Drones mobile app.
AirMap is also remote ID USS ready.

https://www.airmap.com/airmap-wing-o...s-switzerland/

AirMap and the other 7 developers selected will work on building out the system as a whole. It will be based on grids
to keep business practices private. An observer will only be able to access information necessary for a particular flight.

Last edited by ECHO24; 05-22-2020 at 09:42 AM.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.