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

Franklin's Big Chance

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

Franklin's Big Chance

Old 09-20-2023, 05:10 AM
  #1  
R_Strowe
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
R_Strowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Vermont
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default Franklin's Big Chance

Here you go. Time to put up or shut ip:

https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/blog/ama-is-seeking-a-cfo/

R_Strowe
Old 09-20-2023, 12:24 PM
  #2  
mongo
My Feedback: (15)
 
mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Midland, TX
Posts: 3,517
Received 81 Likes on 71 Posts
Default

he has said it before, and i 100% agree, it is not worth the move to muncie...
Old 09-20-2023, 03:41 PM
  #3  
R_Strowe
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
R_Strowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Vermont
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by mongo
he has said it before, and i 100% agree, it is not worth the move to muncie...
Read through the job description, it doesn’t look like one would have to do so. Only have to be there for actual meetings.

R_Strowe
Old 09-20-2023, 04:27 PM
  #4  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Not to sound too much of a stickler but I think a thread trolling an individual is against forum rules.
Old 09-20-2023, 04:41 PM
  #5  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

"shut ip"

Maybe just really happy today
Old 09-21-2023, 02:02 AM
  #6  
BarracudaHockey
My Feedback: (11)
 
BarracudaHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 27,032
Received 357 Likes on 287 Posts
Default

It's not a Muncie based job.
Old 09-21-2023, 05:52 AM
  #7  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Barracuda, this is a franklin troll thread.
Old 09-21-2023, 06:20 AM
  #8  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,524
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by R_Strowe
Read through the job description, it doesn’t look like one would have to do so. Only have to be there for actual meetings.

R_Strowe
Originally Posted by ECHO24
Barracuda, this is a franklin troll thread.
Hit the report button. Andy doesn’t moderate this forum.
Old 09-21-2023, 07:30 AM
  #9  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

I'm going to report anyone. It will work itself out. It was a heads up that he was chiming in on an attempt to bait franklin into responding.
Old 09-22-2023, 07:20 AM
  #10  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,564
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by R_Strowe
Here you go. Time to put up or shut ip:

https://amablog.modelaircraft.org/bl...seeking-a-cfo/
If you'd bothered to look at the job quals, it requires bachelors or higher in finance.
Old 09-22-2023, 10:19 AM
  #11  
speedracerntrixie
My Feedback: (29)
 
speedracerntrixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Happy Valley, Oregon
Posts: 9,524
Received 177 Likes on 152 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
If you'd bothered to look at the job quals, it requires bachelors or higher in finance.
He must have missed the thread where you posted your resume. Maybe after years of you posting about financial trends and unsustainable spending it was thought that you had the education to back up your assessments.

Last edited by speedracerntrixie; 09-22-2023 at 10:21 AM.
Old 09-22-2023, 11:04 AM
  #12  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

On second thought, maybe I will report it.
Old 09-22-2023, 11:05 AM
  #13  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Hey franklin, here's some better bait. You are responsible for that FAA letter demolishing AMA's forced membership scheme. With your gov witness experience you are the natural choice to bring up FAA's "unable to comply" gambit at the FAA RID webinar, and why it does not pass muster under the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation.

You could also bring up the last paragraph and ask why it misrepresents how RID works (the whole thing reads that way). I don't care about the FAA but I've already had someone try to expose my home address to the world (not speed before he furiously types back).

Old 09-22-2023, 01:47 PM
  #14  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,564
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24
Hey franklin, here's some better bait. You are responsible for that FAA letter demolishing AMA's forced membership scheme. With your gov witness experience you are the natural choice to bring up FAA's "unable to comply" gambit at the FAA RID webinar, and why it does not pass muster under the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation.

You could also bring up the last paragraph and ask why it misrepresents how RID works (the whole thing reads that way). I don't care about the FAA but I've already had someone try to expose my home address to the world (not speed before he furiously types back).
I'll be honest, I've not read all that much on what you call the unable to comply gambit, so I then can't comment about whether it passes muster with rules of construction and interpretation. What I can so though is that at least until SCOTUS over-rules Chevron, federal agencies are given pretty wide latitude. Yes, SCOTUS is chipping away at it with some recent decisions, but big parts of Chevron are still in place.
Old 09-22-2023, 02:27 PM
  #15  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

You don't have to put anyone on the spot. Just say you saw it on a discussion forum and after reading the quoted text it does appear that the FAA overstepped its authority claiming they can bring an RID action against someone without clearly defining what "unable to comply" means, for example, "Exceptions include, 1) A drone pilot does not have the financial means at this time, etc." Or, "Financial ability is not a valid reason for non-compliance." (remember, this is aimed at not just adults). As such, ... [the] enactment is void for vagueness [because] its prohibitions are not clearly defined.

Chevron or not, the FAA cannot just make it up on the fly.

(LOL, I forgot you haven't met a regulation you didn't like.)

Serve it up as a softball, "I saw this on a forum, doesn't sound right. What do you think?' "We here at the FAA are in control of all airspace down to a blade of grass. Don't believe anything that doesn't come from official FAA sources."

Tell that to John Taylor (at least on the first one, on the second he got massacred.)

What I quoted IS from the US Supreme Court, Mr. Chevron.

Like I said, the trick the FAA is using is the same the governor of New Mexico tried, the short time frame. Go ruffle some feathers. Your current law-and-order persona has you in an RC army of one.










Last edited by ECHO24; 09-22-2023 at 02:52 PM.
Old 09-23-2023, 04:43 AM
  #16  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,564
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24
You don't have to put anyone on the spot. Just say you saw it on a discussion forum and after reading the quoted text it does appear that the FAA overstepped its authority claiming they can bring an RID action against someone without clearly defining what "unable to comply" means, for example, "Exceptions include, 1) A drone pilot does not have the financial means at this time, etc." Or, "Financial ability is not a valid reason for non-compliance." (remember, this is aimed at not just adults). As such, ... [the] enactment is void for vagueness [because] its prohibitions are not clearly defined.
Source for EVERYTHING in quotes above? When you want someone to help, generally best to do the research for them. Tell me exactly where each phrase in quotes came from, and provide link to source document.


Originally Posted by ECHO24
(LOL, I forgot you haven't met a regulation you didn't like.)
If you want someone to help, generally doesn't help to level untrue insult when asking.
Old 09-23-2023, 07:43 AM
  #17  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

It's hyperbole genius, You are obviously not up to this. I looked and I think I can register under a pseudonym. Something has to be said. Even FAA's statement, "We will consider all circumstances". What circumstances? The FAA isn't a star chamber.
Old 09-23-2023, 07:48 AM
  #18  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

we insist that laws give the Person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited (bold and underline in original text that they considered it so important)

****
It just now occurred to me you didn't bother reading the thread. The entire 44 pages of the section are in the PDF.

"Re: "Unable to comply". I knew it was bunk when I first saw it. Now I've found it. The FAA is breaking the law by threatening to bring enforcement action against people for RID non-compliance in the interim September 16, 2023 to March 16, 2024.

Supreme Court of the United States
Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation

(underline and bold in original text)

It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the Person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning.

Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates [408 US 109] basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.

[Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408,U.S. 104 (1972)]

Does "unable to comply" mean that a person has to buy the first module available? Does unable to comply mean on the original enforcement date of September 16, 2023? Does unable to comply mean that a person cannot afford a module? And probable that a few others could be found.

This would not survive a first administrative hearing. Of course the FAA knows that, therefore it's never going to happen.
Attached Files

Last edited by ECHO24; 09-23-2023 at 08:10 AM.
Old 09-23-2023, 08:27 AM
  #19  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,564
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by ECHO24
It's hyperbole genius, You are obviously not up to this. (emphasis added)
That makes that easy ... do it yourself.

Originally Posted by ECHO24
This would not survive a first administrative hearing. Of course the FAA knows that, therefore it's never going to happen.
If it's such a slam dunk, then you do it.

Last edited by franklin_m; 09-23-2023 at 08:29 AM.
Old 09-23-2023, 09:02 AM
  #20  
ECHO24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,344
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m
That makes that easy ... do it yourself.

If it's such a slam dunk, then you do it.
franklin getting snarky, now that's a first! But he cut off "I looked and I think I can register under a pseudonym." It might not be the right venue and might get brushed off. But it's something.

"If it's such a slam dunk, then you do it". You even quoted it! "Of course the FAA knows that, therefore it's never going to happen."

The FAA is not technically "breaking the law" with the tough talk like "The FAA expects drone pilots to comply" (outside of the postponement by the way) only when they bring an action, again, not a chance in the hot place it's going to happen. Now, if someone crashed into someone or something or some other offense that got them there the FAA could tack that on but it would be the least of that person's troubles.

I sent in a question to the FAA UAS Support Center:

"
The FAA issued a postponement of Remote ID until March 16, 2024, provided that person is "unable to comply". Does that mean if a person is unable to comply for financial reasons at this time?

Thank You,"

That might be the best it's going to get. Keep asking the FAA questions between now and March 16th then mock them over the answers.

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


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.