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

Higher altitudes for sanctioned events.

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

Higher altitudes for sanctioned events.

Old 03-10-2023, 07:24 AM
  #26  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,457
Received 166 Likes on 142 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
Please cite the section of US Code or the FARs that require insurance. Oh, that's right, the insurance requirement exists only in your mind.


I'll give you that. But the fact remains, not all will be approved.


First, saying they're in the back of MA assumes facts not in evidence, that FAA receives copies of that magazine. I doubt that. But regardless, having their own internal list of them, via the approval process, does make it considerably easier to track them down. Plus, that altitude approval is a document of record, and binding, which AMA's rag - excuse me - magazine, is not.


I guess these clubs are awash in money? Also, don't forget that will add additional requriement that one or more club members become CDs/EMs (for which AMA also charges). Lastly, 30 days in advance ... plus FAA processing time. Even more admin overhead. How many clubs are going to jump through those hoops each and every time? Remains to be seen.


Citing two isolated examples does not define a national trend.

AMA's IRS990 filings do however show a trend. Over the last ten years, 2011 - 2021 (last year I have a 990), their charter club fees are down 10.5% in constant year inflation adjusted dollars. As to membership in general, those same IRS990 reports show that the only meaningful measure of membership - membership revenue - is down over 13% across the same period.
The waiver specifically states ď sanctions ď there is reason for that. Insurance. As in their eyes granting a higher altitude for the event brings a higher risk so the increase in insurance is required. It also means that the CD can be held responsible.

FAA can find event schedules if they really wanted to. The rest of that comment is toilet matter.

Clubs are doing better then you think. Again not being a club guy puts you out of the loop. Have you ever attended a club meeting? I have many, in fact just Wednesday. My wife even stepped up to organize the annual Christmas party and given a sizable budget to do so.

Yes the hobby is in a constant decline. We all know that. You keep preaching the obvious. However you are way off base as to why. Guys are aging out and aviation is not interesting to our youth anymore. The cost of admission has nothing to do with the decline.

Old 03-10-2023, 08:00 AM
  #27  
franklin_m
 
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 speedracerntrixie
The waiver specifically states ď sanctions ď there is reason for that. Insurance. As in their eyes granting a higher altitude for the event brings a higher risk so the increase in insurance is required. It also means that the CD can be held responsible.
Your argument is that if "A" then "B." Or "getting higher altitude" then "increase in insurance is required." Your word .. "required." Yet again, please cite US Code or FARs that says increased altitudes requires insurance. Or heck, for that matter, cite anywhere in US Code or FARs that says insurance is requried at all? We're all still waiting.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
FAA can find event schedules if they really wanted to. The rest of that comment is toilet matter.
Yet again, approved FAA sanctions are binding legal documents with the FAA.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Clubs are doing better then you think. Again not being a club guy puts you out of the loop. Have you ever attended a club meeting? I have many, in fact just Wednesday. My wife even stepped up to organize the annual Christmas party and given a sizable budget to do so.
Yet again, you cite a very small number of data points and say that reflects the greater situation. Whoopie do that your club had a big budget for a Christmas party. That IN NO WAY reflects the state of the 2000 clubs around the nation. What does? The AMA's IRS990 filings showing declinging cub revenue. Unless of course the AMA put incorrect information on their federal tax filing.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Yes the hobby is in a constant decline. We all know that. You keep preaching the obvious. However you are way off base as to why. Guys are aging out and aviation is not interesting to our youth anymore. The cost of admission has nothing to do with the decline.
Cost of admission has nothing to do? You might want to take up that issue with your beloved org's CFO .. particularly the january meeting minutes. Something about discretionary expense and recession. But I forget, you know way more than he does about economics and human behavior.
Old 03-10-2023, 08:24 AM
  #28  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,457
Received 166 Likes on 142 Posts
Default

Your assuming that the event waiver will require a FAR. Do you have supporting documents?

The AMA IRS filings have nothing to do with the individual clubs financial health.

Funny how you claim AMA staff so incompetent yet site their information whenever it suits you. Iím pleased that your audience isnít large enough to fill a Starbucks.
Old 03-10-2023, 08:39 AM
  #29  
franklin_m
 
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 speedracerntrixie
Your assuming that the event waiver will require a FAR. Do you have supporting documents?
"Require a FAR?" Where did I say anything about requiring a Federal Air Regulation (definition of acronym FAR). You continue to demonstrate how much a five-digit AMA noble like yourself DOES NOT KNOW about the regulatory structure under which you operate.

The waiver request, or whatever it's ultimately called, is a formal request by the AMA to the FAA. Even if that document is not official, the FAA's approval of a waiver to the applicable section of law IS a formal document. Thus it's binding.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
The AMA IRS filings have nothing to do with the individual clubs financial health.
It has a lot to do with the number of clubs, and the overall health of AMA's club system. And the health of an individual club, yours, has nothing to do with the health of clubs nationwide.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Funny how you claim AMA staff so incompetent yet site their information whenever it suits you (emphasis added).
A "site" is a location. I presume you refer to me citing their 990s. I CITE those because they are formal documents submitted under risk of criminal or civil prosecution. Yet again, just because they do one thing well (I'll give them that 990's are accurate) does not mean their overall processes are good. Witness people complaining about not getting ID cards. Cards sent to wrong location. Etc.
Old 03-10-2023, 09:13 AM
  #30  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,457
Received 166 Likes on 142 Posts
Default

Well one thing we agree upon. No I donít have the knowledge of a full scale pilot, why would I? Itís also obvious that the FAA does not require me to. They only require that I pass TRUST.

Old 03-10-2023, 09:27 AM
  #31  
franklin_m
 
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 speedracerntrixie
Well one thing we agree upon. No I donít have the knowledge of a full scale pilot, why would I?
I agree. Your knowledge of how US Code, the FARs, and regulations interact is matched only by your ability to use the word "site" (sic) properly.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Itís also obvious that the FAA does not require me to. They only require that I pass TRUST.
You brought it up. Where exactly in the TRUST materials does it say even use the word "insurance"?

Hint: It doesn't. Yet you keep intimating that insurance is somehow a requirement.
Old 03-10-2023, 10:31 AM
  #32  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,457
Received 166 Likes on 142 Posts
Default

Iíve already explained it. I suggest you educate what the term ď sanctioned event ď means in the model aviation world. Continuing to attempt to force manned aircraft requirements on model pilots is just an idiotic notion.
Old 03-10-2023, 10:59 AM
  #33  
franklin_m
 
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 speedracerntrixie
Iíve already explained it. I suggest you educate what the term ď sanctioned event ď means in the model aviation world. Continuing to attempt to force manned aircraft requirements on model pilots is just an idiotic notion.
With respect to toy planes, the only world that matters is the world of US Code, FARs, and applicable regulations.

BTW, with respect to your multiple intimations that insurance is required, did you ever find any reference to "insurance" as a requirement in US Code? In FARs? In Code of Federal Regulations? In the TRUST materials?
Old 03-10-2023, 11:13 AM
  #34  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,333
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

speedy seems to think that insurance is some kind of unobtanium, mystic thing that only the AMA can achieve! LOL

One can insure ANYTHING. I've bought insurance ro cover a free car that I pledged to give away at a golf tournament if someone achieved a hole-in-one on a certain hole. Brian Bosworth bought an insurance policy on his body parts. Insurance is a business of math, if one company offers it, there is another that will do it do it as well.

Astro
Old 03-10-2023, 11:54 AM
  #35  
franklin_m
 
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
speedy seems to think that insurance is some kind of unobtanium, mystic thing that only the AMA can achieve! LOL

One can insure ANYTHING. I've bought insurance ro cover a free car that I pledged to give away at a golf tournament if someone achieved a hole-in-one on a certain hole. Brian Bosworth bought an insurance policy on his body parts. Insurance is a business of math, if one company offers it, there is another that will do it do it as well.

Astro
True. He often speaks of insurance as a "requirement" in order to drive belief that only AMA is cost effective provider of insurance. But once one understands that there is no requirement for insurance in US Code, the FARs, or Code of Federal Regulations, then the argument for AMA is much less compelling. And yet despite multiple opportunities to "site" (sic) something in US Code, the FARs, or CFRs to support his assertion - he's yet to do it. Of course we know the reason, it's because it doesn't exist.

Last edited by franklin_m; 03-10-2023 at 12:57 PM.
Old 03-10-2023, 04:04 PM
  #36  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,457
Received 166 Likes on 142 Posts
Default

Letís give this one more shot to break it down to the point that a retired Naval Commander and his sidekick can understand.

The FAA and AMA work out a deal where ď Sanctioned ď events can apply for an altitude waiver.

AMA is the only CBO that sanctions events.

The key benefit of a sanction is insurance

So yes the event altitude waiver as put forth by the FAA requires a sanction which includes and additional layer of insurance.

If the two of you canít follow that then there is little hope.


While on the subject of insurance, I have never claimed it to be unobtainable. I have claimed that you couldnít find a policy that is comparable in coverage and price and that any R/C club will accept. If you can show proof of such a policy that a club has currently accepted as a suitable substitute then by all means bring it forward and I will gladly put the subject to bed.
Old 03-10-2023, 04:24 PM
  #37  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,333
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
Letís give this one more shot to break it down to the point that a retired Naval Commander and his sidekick can understand.

The FAA and AMA work out a deal where ď Sanctioned ď events can apply for an altitude waiver.

AMA is the only CBO that sanctions events.

The key benefit of a sanction is insurance

So yes the event altitude waiver as put forth by the FAA requires a sanction which includes and additional layer of insurance.

If the two of you canít follow that then there is little hope.


While on the subject of insurance, I have never claimed it to be unobtainable. I have claimed that you couldnít find a policy that is comparable in coverage and price and that any R/C club will accept. If you can show proof of such a policy that a club has currently accepted as a suitable substitute then by all means bring it forward and I will gladly put the subject to bed.
LOL. You still don't get it.....

Astro
Old 03-10-2023, 04:38 PM
  #38  
franklin_m
 
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 speedracerntrixie
Let’s give this one more shot to break it down to the point that a retired Naval Commander and his sidekick can understand.

The FAA and AMA work out a deal where “ Sanctioned “ events can apply for an altitude waiver.
AMA is the only CBO that sanctions events.
And any of the other CBOs can easily created an administrative process to "sanction" events as well. There's no federal definintion of the word sanction, so it can be whatever the CBO wants it to be.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
The key benefit of a sanction is insurance
And yet, nowhere is it required. So while it may be of value to AMA members, that does not mean it's of the same value to other CBOs.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
So yes the event altitude waiver as put forth by the FAA requires a sanction which includes and additional layer of insurance.
The FAA is approving the altitude waiver. They could care less about insurance.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
If the two of you can’t follow that then there is little hope.
If you STILL can't follow that NOWHERE in the US Code, nor FARs, nor Combined Federal Regs is there ANY requirement for insurance. Just because AMA includes insurance in a sanction does not make it a requirement for the Feds. If you can't understand that, there's no hope for you.

Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
While on the subject of insurance, I have never claimed it to be unobtainable. I have claimed that you couldn’t find a policy that is comparable in coverage and price and that any R/C club will accept. If you can show proof of such a policy that a club has currently accepted as a suitable substitute then by all means bring it forward and I will gladly put the subject to bed.
Again, just because AMA includes insurance in a sanction does not mean the feds require it.
Old 03-10-2023, 04:54 PM
  #39  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,457
Received 166 Likes on 142 Posts
Default

Iím done, you two enjoy your alternative reality.
Old 03-10-2023, 04:58 PM
  #40  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,333
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Franklin is much more patient than I am to explain it once again for speedy, though I doubt it will do any good to the indoctrinated, too punch drunk on their own kool-aid, so much so that they claim others can't see the forest for the trees! Good spin on speedy's part though, I can't help but wonder if he actually believes what he types? LOL

Astro
Old 03-10-2023, 05:26 PM
  #41  
franklin_m
 
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 speedracerntrixie
Iím done, you two enjoy your alternative reality.
Hardly alternative ... as this reality is one where there's nothing in US Code requiring insurance, nothing in the FARs requiring insurance, and nothing in the Code of Federal Regulations requiring insurance!
Old 03-11-2023, 04:38 AM
  #42  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 26,776
Received 322 Likes on 258 Posts
Default

Yes yes, of course Frank is right. There's nothing in the US code or FAR's that (to my knowledge) even mention the word insurance.

But from a practical standpoint, if you want to have an event at somewhere other than a club's fixed site, or you want to establish a new fixed site or new club the first thing out of the controlling authority or land owners mouth is "insurance?"

Nobody ever claimed you can't find other insurance. What has been established is that its difficult to get the coverage AMA offers, at the price we pay because of the bulk rate we get. Also, from a land owner or from someone's perspective that is verifying insurance its easy to prove, if you have a non-expired AMA card you're insured. That's it. We all have heard of the trick where someone pays the first payment of xyz insurance, gets a card, then never makes the 2nd payment so while they may have "proof of insurance" they could indeed be operating with no coverage, it happens all the time with car insurance which is why car insurance companies started reporting to DMV's, now if my insurance lapses I risk getting my DL suspended unless I can show I have current insurance from another source.

Old 03-11-2023, 06:19 AM
  #43  
franklin_m
 
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 BarracudaHockey
But from a practical standpoint, if you want to have an event at somewhere other than a club's fixed site, or you want to establish a new fixed site or new club the first thing out of the controlling authority or land owners mouth is "insurance?"
I routinely allow people to participate in flying activities (and other higher risk stuff) on my land, never once mentioned insurance. Same for the person who owns the neighboring land. My Dad and Uncle similarly allow things on their farm, no mention of insurance.

My point is that some present it as an absolute truth that every land owner requires insurance. What is accurate is to say that some do, but some do not.
Old 03-11-2023, 06:31 AM
  #44  
astrohog
My Feedback: (1)
 
astrohog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 3,333
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I always find it entertaining that the same folks who preach how safe this hobby is on one hand, preach the necessity, importance and uniqueness of AMA insurance on the other.

Astro
Old 03-11-2023, 07:05 AM
  #45  
franklin_m
 
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 always find it entertaining that the same folks who preach how safe this hobby is on one hand, preach the necessity, importance and uniqueness of AMA insurance on the other.
Yep, meanwhile, their own actions are flouting the AMA's own guidance to members. In the March Model Aviation, EVP Randy Cameron says "AMA feels that a person must be an AMA member to fly under the safety code, because when you are a member, you agree to follow AMA Safety Guidelines. ' I agree to comply with the AMA Safety Code,' which is included on the enrollment form which requires your signature (emphasis added)."

How feeble minded and delusional it is to claim that somehow a signature on an AMA form carries more obligation to comply than force of law! The fallacy of this is easily demonstrated by our intrepetid member in these pages, a five-digit AMA noble, who readily admits he violates 400 AGL in class G despite his signature as Cameron notes above. And what's worse? Our esteemed EC member says NOTHING when a member admits violating the law and violating the Cameron's sacred signature oath.

Talk about undermining the organization's only talking point, albeit a weak one, but undermining it none the less.

Last edited by franklin_m; 03-11-2023 at 07:29 AM.
Old 03-11-2023, 07:27 AM
  #46  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,457
Received 166 Likes on 142 Posts
Default

I find it entertaining that a known liar ( SterlingD ) feels he is entitled to point fingers and is too arrogant to realize that flying over 400’ a few seconds at a time is far safer then flying at an uncontrolled environment such as “ the schoolyard down the street from his house “.
Old 03-11-2023, 07:36 AM
  #47  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,561
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

So the most beloved organization's main justification for membership as opposed to simply following the code is that somehow a signature promise to AMA carries more weight. And here we have someone who's already rationalizing their failure to abide by that oath by saying the violations are only a "few seconds."

I will note that the last person to get a serious injury while flying in a park was the vice president of an AMA club.
Old 03-11-2023, 07:53 AM
  #48  
speedracerntrixie
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,457
Received 166 Likes on 142 Posts
Default

And as usual the liar leaves out details. This taken from a news article.

The park, on Shore Parkway near Bay 44th Street, is a sanctioned flying field by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) and popular spot for model flyer aficionados.

Shows that flying in too close can be a safety issue as well. Appears he was also flying alone.


I’m curious as to how you know for certain that this was the last serious injury? Or is it the last one that made the news?
Old 03-11-2023, 08:11 AM
  #49  
franklin_m
 
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 speedracerntrixie
And as usual the liar leaves out details. This taken from a news article.

The park, on Shore Parkway near Bay 44th Street, is a sanctioned flying field by the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) and popular spot for model flyer aficionados.

Shows that flying in too close can be a safety issue as well. Appears he was also flying alone.


I’m curious as to how you know for certain that this was the last serious injury? Or is it the last one that made the news?
Oh you're right. It wasn't the last one. The last serious one, also fatal, was when a sailplane flown by an AMA member hit Taiwanese woman carrying her child while walking in a park.

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3809731
Old 03-11-2023, 08:23 AM
  #50  
R_Strowe
Senior Member
 
R_Strowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Vermont
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Yes. And last time I checked, the site in Tailand was not an AMA-sanctioned flying site, did not have a safety line, and was not an AMA sanctioned event.

The pilot being an AMA member was immaterial. That's like saying an airline pilot who commits a regulatory violation flying through Europe thinks they should get away with it because they are a member of ALPA.

R_Strowe

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.