AMA Statement - Didn't even MENTION John Taylor!
 

I'm appalled at AMA's lack of even a modicum of professional courtesy. They didn't even mention John Taylor in their statement, let alone have the decency to thank him!

“AMA is encouraged to see the Court affirm the strength of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, otherwise known as Section 336, under which our members operate. For decades, AMA members have registered their aircraft with AMA and have followed our community-based safety programming. It is our belief that a community-based program works better than a federally mandated program to manage the recreational community. “We have long held that federal registration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) makes sense at an appropriate threshold of weight, capability and other safety-related characteristics. However, federal registration shouldn’t apply at such a low threshold that it includes toys. It also shouldn’t burden those who have operated harmoniously within our communities for decades, and who already comply with
AMA’s registration system.”

Attachment 2216175

But Franklin, they can't mention him. To say anything about John Taylor is to admit they basically got their asses kicked or that they didn't do what they claimed they were. To use an Asian statement, to acknowledge John would make the AMA executive board lose face in the eyes of the members

I agree. What's disappointing is that whoever is in charge back in Muncie should never have let this be released. And who's that? Oh yeah, Dave Mathewson is in charge of the staff (including Chad). As I've pointed out, DM is getting a salary that puts him in the top 5% of all earners in the entire state. Yet DM let the staff release this --- hardly top 5% performance from the staff, let alone top 5% performance from him.

They do mention John Taylor in the video that was just released. I agree with the OP as that was my first reaction upon reading it.

I also agree this isn't the end of the issue but I did register, put the numbers on my flying machines where they will remain.

To those who got their knickers in a knot defying the registration, get over it. The Feds already know everything about you so if having registered keeps the FAA at bay while I enjoy my hobby it is worth it. Abandoning your hobby and sitting if front of the TV in a snit to prove defiance only affects you. Go fly rather than melting your brain.

I suffered through the video, manufactured looks of concern and clearly reading from something (could see guy on the right continuously turning body right but looking left and down to read). In over five minutes, they mentioned Taylor four time, three pretty quickly at the beginning, followed by long period of them telling us how much they're doing (despite fact they spent money and case has gone nowhere) - then a token mention at the end.

After watching the video my impression was "Us too! Us too!"

I think this will ultimately prove to by a pyrrhic victory. I think FAA will go to Congress and say they can't do the safety job so long as they're not able to regulate a big segment of users.

Everyone get this last week?

Mike

I did.

Two things in Rich''s OP- ED stuck out to me. The AMA has always claimed to be the driving force behind SEC. 336 but that's not mentioned. This got my attention.

" Unfortunately, some people simply use the Special Rule as a get out of jail free card and do not fully engage or operate in accordance with a CBO program. This is part of the reason why we acknowledge that some tweaks may be necessary for the Special Rule. Nevertheless, we strongly believe that the option for hobbyists to operate in a CBO structure should remain. "

So is he suggesting mandatory membership as the "tweak"??

Mike

probably

I don’t think the AMA is interested in stopping RC’s from operating in a CBO structure if they choose to, I do think they would like to stop special rules or privileges for those that belong to a CBO.

Just what " privileges" are those?

Mike

For one thing AMA members can fly higher than 400 ft.

Really ? Hows that? Seems like anyone following the "Safety Rules" can do the same. As far as I can tell there are no "special " privileges associated with being member. Maybe I'm wrong.

Mike

You are correct about anyone following the safety rules but then comes the gray area because some feel you have to be a AMA member to included in the AMA programing. And of course the AMA want us to think that is the case that you have to be a member.

Thanks
Mike

The 400 foot exemption was specifically addressed to the AMA

The letter you mention states

"...model aircraft may be flow consistently with Section 336 and agency guidelines at altitudes above 400 feet when following a community-based organization's safety guidelines."

Which is not a " AMA members only" exemption.
Mike

LOL Ok, have it your way.

I'm disappointed as a AMA EC member you find humor in this. All I was doing was clarifying what that letter contained. I read your post as it was a "members only" exemption.

Mike

I'm not an EC member, just an AVP/LM

It's not you so much, but this has been hashed and rehashed so many times I'm not going to try to delve into it again.

Really in the end I'm not even sure it matters all that much, endanger the NAS by flying like a fool and causing an incident with a full scale and I don't really think it will matter if you're an AMA member or just an idiot, that person will be hung out to dry.

Ok a AVP ( my mistake) but my reply stands. Who said anything about "endanger the NAS by flying like a fool and causing an incident with a full scale " where did that come from? My point is that the 400 ft letter pertains to everyone ( not just AMA members) who follows SEC 336. As far as "hung out to dry" involving a full scale it hasn't happened to date. Now the FAA has fined a number of people for stupid stuff but those fined plea bargained them down to pennies on the dollar. A far cry from "hung out to dry"

Mike

Yes, but to fly by 336 you need to follow a CBO

There's only 1 CBO and that requires you to be a member to acknowlege the safety code.

So,.... you need to be a member to be compliant with 336 as written so if you're a member you're covered by the letter to the AMA.

That's debatable and has been debated for a couple of years now.. Nowhere does the FAA state you MUST be a member of the AMA to be compliant nor can the goverment require membership in the AMA. Who's to say just what a CBO is and it's not spelled out anywhere.
While I'm sure the AMA would love mandatory membership there's no way it will happen.

Mike

If AMA dies (not a real stretch) do model airplanes die with it? I hate to think the existence of the hobby hangs on that star.

I think if the AMA has its way with mandatory membership enforced by law that could be a real concern , I am hoping that the FAA won’t ever go after anyone for not being a AMA member.