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

AMA Mar Rationalization of Breaking Rules

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

AMA Mar Rationalization of Breaking Rules

Old 12-20-2022, 06:01 AM
  #1  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default AMA Mar Rationalization of Breaking Rules

Here's an example of how some of the most devoted AMA members rationalize their own actions in violation of both CBO rules and law. From an aviation safety standpoint, this is a very dangerous behavior.

FACT: 49 USC 44809 states six conditions required to operate under the "Exceptions for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft. One of those conditions, 49 USC 44809(a)(2) requires "The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization's set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration."

FACT: For AMA members, that "programming" and/or "safety guidelines" that were approved by the FAA is the AMA Safety Handbook, in which it states:

"As an AMA Member I agree:

- I will avoid flying directly over unprotected people, moving vehicles, and occupied structures (note 1), and

- I will use an established safety line to separate all model aircraft operations from spectators and bystanders (note 1)"

FACT: Additionally, in the "Radio Control" section of that same Safety Handbook it goes on to require members to:

- "Establish a safety line(s) behind which all spectators and bystanders must remain and in front of which all flying takes place. Intentional flying behind the safety line is prohibited (note 2), and

- Only personnel associated with flying the model aircraft are allowed at or in front of the safety line. Spectators must have a designated area away from the line (note 2)



With that in mind, consider the following dialog between three AMA members who openly admit that they're ignoring the CBO rules:
ADMISSION: AMA Member #1 - "{S}ay a field is on a shared-use property, both model flying and horse/walking trails are co-located on the property. Is this going to be a problem? The amount of equestrian and foot traffic is very limited and the parking areas are separated but the overfly area contains the trails (emphasis added).The club has a good relationship with the riders and the land is public property ... thoughts? Signage calls out the separation between the flying site and the trailer parking for horses."
RATIONALIZATION: AMA Member #2 - "It sounds like you're doing all the right things, with signage and communication with the trail riders. It's probably going to come down to perceived risk. A few operations per week by small park fliers over a small number of riders scares bureaucrats a lot less than a busy field with jets and big gassers flying over 20 person rides departing every half hour. (emphasis added)"
RATIONALIZATION: AMA Member #3 - (In reference to comment by #2 above): "This sounds reasonable and your comment on perceived risk hits the nail. (emphasis added)"

FACT: There is no CBO programming/safety guideline that permits violation of the other CBO programming/safety guideline items if they "post signs" or "have a good relationship." And there's no law, FAA rule/regulation, or policy that permits it either.



I submit these facts, their rationalization of their own blatant violation of explicit CBO programming/safety guidelines, and AMA's lack of enforcement of their own rules is what's going to tear down the hobby - not me noting them. AMA Member #1 knows they're violating CBO rules.

If they're so sure this overflight of people is ok, how about they write it up and send to Tony Stillman at AMA and ask? Surely he'd be a friendly audience and most likely to give them the answer they desperately want. But my money is they won't. Because they know that despite being an ally, they know what his answer would be.



Note 1: AMA Member Safety Handbook, page 3, column 2
Note 2: AMA Member Safety Handbook, page 9, column 2

Last edited by franklin_m; 12-20-2022 at 05:40 PM. Reason: Fix formatting
Old 12-20-2022, 06:30 AM
  #2  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,345
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I wonder how many THOUSANDS of times the 400’ rule has been broken since that became the rule, rather than an a “suggestion”.

I’m not saying I think it is necessarily dangerous to do so, but it breaks the law, and how many times do the AMA acolytes claim, “Nothing’s changed”.

LOL

Astro
Old 12-20-2022, 07:14 AM
  #3  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
I wonder how many THOUSANDS of times the 400’ rule has been broken since that became the rule, rather than an a “suggestion”.
Funny how "them" violating the law (in the case of the 400' thing), the other rules they're breaking like overflight of people, not following the safety line requirement, the AMA EC choosing not to notice, or AMA EC members encouraging others to provide false information isn't what's "tearing down the hobby" --- it's me for pointing it out on forums.

Last edited by franklin_m; 12-20-2022 at 10:13 AM.
Old 12-20-2022, 09:35 AM
  #4  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,524
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

But Franklin, we all know it's "Rules for thee but not for me". It's like Nancy and Paul Pelosi and insider trading. It's totally fine for them but not for Martha Stewart, who spent three years in jail for it. We also know it will keep on happening until the FAA cracks down on it.
This is where I get slightly "salty". When we race our boats, if a dog or person gets too close to the water, we are required to bring them in and shut them down. To not do so would violate APBA, H-1, NAMBA and IMPBA rules and could cost us our sanction AND race site. For the AMA, they think it's a "no harm no foul" situation until someone gets hurt. At that point, it becomes a "finger pointing drill"

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 12-20-2022 at 10:05 AM.
Old 12-20-2022, 12:22 PM
  #5  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie
But Franklin, we all know it's "Rules for thee but not for me".
I wonder if I should nudge things along? Send the CBO guidelines, the description of the overflying of people on the trails, and then ask "Is this compliant?" of regulator and CBO.
Old 12-20-2022, 04:19 PM
  #6  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,524
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Would that be safe? You already have the AMA "loyalists" on the verge of putting you into an "iron maiden" for the "sacrilege" you supposedly post about all of the wrongdoings of AMA members. For the record, however, I'm not saying you're wrong since I pretty much agree with a good majority of your posts

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 12-20-2022 at 04:45 PM.
Old 12-20-2022, 04:43 PM
  #7  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,358
Received 49 Likes on 43 Posts
Default





Sorry, I just HAD to.......
Old 12-20-2022, 05:34 PM
  #8  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Hydro Junkie
Would that be safe? You already have the AMA "loyalists" on the verge of putting you into an "iron maiden" for the "sacrilege" you supposedly post about all of the wrongdoings of AMA members. For the record, however, I'm not saying you're wrong since I pretty much agree with a good majority of your posts
If they're so sure what they're doing is fine, then why fear the attention? Of course we know the answer to that.

They're fearful of the facts and their own admissions seeing the light of day...

Old 12-20-2022, 06:09 PM
  #9  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,524
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
If they're so sure what they're doing is fine, then why fear the attention? Of course we know the answer to that.

They're fearful of the facts and their own admissions seeing the light of day...
And that, unfortunately, is the same thing happening with "Sleepy Joe" and "Hyena Harris", they refuse to go to the Texas border. If they were to go to the Rio Grande valley, the mainstream news would follow them down and would then have to show what's really going on, something the Biden administration can't let happen. It would undermine their position that the southern border is secure, something we all know isn't true

Last edited by Hydro Junkie; 12-20-2022 at 06:33 PM.
Old 12-20-2022, 10:06 PM
  #10  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Fact: Franklin is the military version of Chicken Little xjet/Bruce Simpson except that xjet puts out some entertaining videos in between his bursts of fear mongering and misinformation. xjet also has 186,000 subscribers. Field Marshal Franklin has only 2.
Old 12-21-2022, 12:06 AM
  #11  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,504
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

now, you should really know better than to label something as "fact" when there is NO WAY POSSIBLE to either prove it or disprove it.

and for the record, i have known a few seriously x-jet types in my life, and frank don't even come close.
Old 12-21-2022, 03:18 AM
  #12  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

True to form, when individuals can't engage on the merits, they resort to name calling.
Old 12-21-2022, 04:33 AM
  #13  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,504
Received 80 Likes on 70 Posts
Default

kinda surprised at how everyone has "gone dark" on the MAAC thing...
Old 12-21-2022, 06:19 AM
  #14  
Propworn
My Feedback: (3)
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,481
Received 29 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mongo
kinda surprised at how everyone has "gone dark" on the MAAC thing...
Could it be we don't have a bunch of podunks like you guys and we trust our leadership when told they have become aware of a problem that possibly could jeopardize our excellent relationship with Transport and Nav Canada and until they resolve said problem all outdoor flying has been suspended and they have asked the membership not to speculate on social media or contact the government agencys on our own.

Last edited by Propworn; 12-21-2022 at 06:41 AM.
Old 12-21-2022, 06:28 AM
  #15  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,524
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mongo
kinda surprised at how everyone has "gone dark" on the MAAC thing...
Since it doesn't really affect the AMA faithful, they don't care. If it directly affected them or their access to flying, you KNOW they would have been screaming by now.
Old 12-21-2022, 10:59 AM
  #16  
jcmors
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Yankton, SD
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Propworn
Could it be we don't have a bunch of podunks like you guys and we trust our leadership when told they have become aware of a problem that possibly could jeopardize our excellent relationship with Transport and Nav Canada and until they resolve said problem all outdoor flying has been suspended and they have asked the membership not to speculate on social media or contact the government agencys on our own.
So it would appear that the hobby organization (MAAC) became aware of a problem, and while they work out the issues with the Canadian Government regulatory agency they have suspended flying by their members and asked them all to comply. It would appear that the members are doing just that.

Seems like MAAC is doing the responsible thing here and that the members are following the requests in order to maintain the trust between MAAC and the government agency!

Looks like a good model to emulate to me.
Old 12-21-2022, 11:28 AM
  #17  
Tailspin
 
Tailspin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Snohomish, WA
Posts: 124
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

A lot better than the AMA's attitude of "just fly as you always have" in the not too distant past.

Steve
Old 12-21-2022, 11:33 AM
  #18  
franklin_m
Thread Starter
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Tailspin
A lot better than the AMA's attitude of "just fly as you always have" in the not too distant past.
Not only has the EC pushed the "just fly as you always have" as you noted, they've also chosen to "not notice" failure to follow AMA safety rules (note 1), you have EC members telling clubs that on an official document sent to the USG, "boundaries don't matter" (i.e. provide false info).

Note 1: flying over trails, turbine lack of flight discipline, overflight of non-participating neighbors, high speed dives at busy highways, flight above legal minimums at numerous SANCTIONED events, etc.
Old 12-21-2022, 11:38 AM
  #19  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,524
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jcmors
So it would appear that the hobby organization (MAAC) became aware of a problem, and while they work out the issues with the Canadian Government regulatory agency they have suspended flying by their members and asked them all to comply. It would appear that the members are doing just that.

Seems like MAAC is doing the responsible thing here and that the members are following the requests in order to maintain the trust between MAAC and the government agency!

Looks like a good model to emulate to me.
Sounds to me like MAAC is using common sense on how to deal with an identified problem. I see too many organizations that resort to finger pointing and blaming every one else for said problem rather than trying to resolve the problem. Have to give the powers that be, as well as the membership, some serious credit for working together with the government agencies required to solve whatever problem they have. I have to agree with jcmors. The AMA needs to watch what MAAC's doing and try to learn from it, if they can
Old 12-21-2022, 03:51 PM
  #20  
ira d
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Maricopa County AZ
Posts: 3,249
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

I can understand that MAAC did right thing to own their problem and take steps to work it out but it does no good that I can see to ask the flyers that are not part of the problem
not to fly.
Old 12-21-2022, 06:17 PM
  #21  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Tailspin
A lot better than the AMA's attitude of "just fly as you always have" in the not too distant past.

Steve
It shouldn't need explaining that means per AMA's rules as usual. That was put out in response to the FAA's final rule on Remote ID.

If Franklin was talking about AMA refusing to to enforce their own rules for the 1,000,000 drones owners they were trying to force into joining AMA, then yeah, AMA was being negligent. But Franklin's crusade over AMA field safety is a laughable farce. I don't know know many millions of flights occur at AMA's 2,400 flying fields per year. Whatever the number it puts the lie to Franklin's claim there is a safety problem when he can only scrounge up a couple of anecdotes, some over 10 years old.

Only a moron would claim RC flying at a dedicated field was "unsafe" in the context of any other outdoor activity. Want zero risk? Stay in bed.
Old 12-21-2022, 06:43 PM
  #22  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,345
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24
Only a moron would claim RC flying at a dedicated field was "unsafe" in the context of any other outdoor activity. Want zero risk? Stay in bed.
And only a moron would claim that it was "safe" because of the AMA. Guess it works both ways......

Astro
Old 12-21-2022, 07:51 PM
  #23  
Propworn
My Feedback: (3)
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,481
Received 29 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ira d
I can understand that MAAC did right thing to own their problem and take steps to work it out but it does no good that I can see to ask the flyers that are not part of the problem
not to fly.
Due to circumstances and multiple documents issued to check navigable airspace, errors may have occurred. As a result the only sure way to guarantee compliance would be to check each and every club against the latest documents. By the way these are published quarterly with the latest updates and changes. We can receive exemptions allowing flight into navigable airspace, but it must be requested from the local authority. Heck, most jet events are held on actual full size airports and exemptions and NOTAMS are issued to 1800 ft on a regular basis. Our maximum altitude without exemption is 700 ft. How does that stack up against yours.

Personally I wish MAAC to remain on the good side with Transport Canada and if it means having to hold off on flying outside in the winter months I have no problem with their request.

Last edited by Propworn; 12-21-2022 at 07:54 PM.
Old 12-21-2022, 08:43 PM
  #24  
Hydro Junkie
 
Hydro Junkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 10,524
Received 130 Likes on 123 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Propworn
Personally I wish MAAC to remain on the good side with Transport Canada and if it means having to hold off on flying outside in the winter months I have no problem with their request.
I like it, for once we agree on something
Happy Holidays
Old 12-21-2022, 09:45 PM
  #25  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astrohog
And only a moron would claim that it was "safe" because of the AMA. Guess it works both ways......

Astro
Before slinging snot try reading for a change. I didn't give AMA credit. It wouldn't matter who's running it, RC flying is a safe hobby, especially at dedicated fields.

"Only a moron would claim RC flying at a dedicated field was "unsafe" in the context of any other outdoor activity. Want zero risk? Stay in bed."

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - 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.