AMA, finances, and "agility"

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

03-05-2021 | 04:31 PM

#51

franklin_m

Thread Starter

Joined: Nov 2005

Posts: 4,608

Likes: 0

Received 1 Like on 1 Post

From: State College, PA

Quote:

Originally Posted by franklin_m

It was no accident that question was asked that day. I sent the letter that got the initial determination, and I orchestrated that question being asked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Propworn

SURE YA DID got proof????

Thank you. I've got friends all over aviation world. When I found out who was attending, I asked if they'd do me a favor and ask a quetion at that event. They did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ECHO24

You're right, it was in response to the question. What's rich, is for all the talk of AMA having an inside track at the FAA, Hanson had to ask the UAS help line about it, and he then posts the response in his column, the same one you got way back when, "The FAA does not interpret ..."

AMA still has a lot going for it as far as clubs are concerned, but when I reread Hanson's Model Aviation column today, it struck me how negative Hanson has been for the hobby of RC flying. He basically killed it for everyone else.

Actually I asked the question initially. I'll post the letter below. The question at CES was to just seal it by getting it on record at a public event. But the fact that Hanson commented later that the FAA's interpretation was wrong seals the logic that they intended 336 to force membership. For if they didn't, why would he care that FAA interpreted it as not requiring membership? And yep, asking the FAA to enforce on all the "rogues" didn't earn AMA any browning points with the MR crowd ... the very people they were trying to recruit!

Talk about pi**ing where you eat!