Wow I've not heard so much pointless bitxhing since the last time Franky has taken a break from posting. I guess its what happens when Grue leaves the minions in charge of the banana pile. LOL

Old old rehashed material there junk in the trunk might have to change your name to Rerun unless you can come up with something new.

Let me see, what can I come up with.......................OH YES, how about trying to force the FAA in to requiring anyone that flies anything to be an AMA member, regardless of what it is the people fly.
Needless to say, the FAA didn't agree and made things harder on the AMA

Sorry to disappoint, but have been busy working other issues...

Yes indeed , the various three letter government agencies have been in the business of wielding total power and control all by themselves for a long time now , and for the FAA's part it has obviously gotten really good at spotting/crushing #336+CBO = AMA or you can't fly types of encroachments on it's monopoly of power . A private entity having total control over anything that flies in the FAA's skies , even if it's only our lowly "toy airplanes" ? I knew that wasn't gonna fly back when I first read #336 and the AMA's interpretation of it ;)

Of that I have no doubt. LOL

You shouldn't stop posting without leaving a script for poor Junk in the Trunk with out anything new he starts to repeat himself from your previous posts. Grue you should know by now you cannot leave the Minions on their own..

That licking button they want again.

How about some supporting documents. Don't get me wrong, I can see where if you have a bias against the AMA that would be the logical conclusion. Set aside the bias and you may realize that it was Hanson interpreting what the FAA had already put out there. He was wrong of course and his mistake was not getting clarification from the FAA prior to writing his peice. However if you have a copy of an official document ( or anyone else for that matter ) from Hanson to the FAA that states all recreational R/C pilots NEED to be AMA members then I would be happy to admit that I am wrong. Of course it's easy to come to the conclusion that when a government agency states " within the programming " that it could very well mean membership. The root cause of the confusion lays within the verbiage of what the FAA originally put out there. Compounded by Hanson not getting clarification prior to making assumptions. That is one point I think everyone on this forum can agree on, Hanson needs to be replaced.

Model Aviation is one of the official publications of the AMA, as it meets the criteria set forth in Article XIII of the AMA bylaws. And it was in that OFFICIAL publication, a "document" if you will, where Hanson states that "The Special Rule for Model Aircraft, enacted by Congress, requires that you 'operate in accordance with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization' in order to be afforded the provisions of the rule. In order to operate within the programming of the AMA, you must be a participant in AMA's safety program." So riddle me this Batman... How can one be a PARTICIPANT IN AMA's safety program if membership is not required?

Uhm... review timeline again. Almost TWO YEARS prior to Hanson's article quoted above, the FAA made their interpretation absolutely clear in their email to me, a copy of which I provided to AMA for their convenience.

2014 (Feb) : PL112-95 becomes law, which includes "Special Rule on Model Aircraft" (note 1)

2014 (Jun) : FAA issues their "Interpretation of the Special Rule on Model Aircraft" (note 2)

2014 (Aug) : AMA sues FAA over the FAA interpretation (note 3)

2016 (Jul) : I ask FAA if "...and within the programming..." requires membership; FAA responds two days later that it does not interpret "...and within the programming..." to require membership (copy attached)

2018 (Mar) : Hanson publishes column stating that "The Special Rule for Model Aircraft, enacted by Congress, requires that you 'operate in acccordancce with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" in order to be afforded the provisions of the rule. In order to operate within the programming of the AMA, you must be a participant in AMA's safety program." And I can't help but note that one cannot be a PARTICIPANT in AMA's safety program w/o membership.

2018 (Oct) : PL115-254 becomes law. Section 336 repealed, and language now says "...or within the programming..." (note 4)


Note 1: https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-...ew=closed#tabs
Note 2: https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...model-aircraft
Note 3: https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/...model-aircraft
Note 4: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...ew=closed#tabs

Franklin, all that does is back up my statement that Hanson misinterpreted what the FAA put out there. I have already conceded that. Hydro's claim ( and you have made the same claim as well ) was that Hanson attempted to force the FAA into making membership nessesary to be within the programming. So far you nor anyone else has presented a strong enough case for that to be factual. Like I said earlier, I understand where you are coming from but remove the bias and to this point in time there is not enough evidence to support your claim that Hanson tried to use the FAA in order to boost AMA membership. All it does is back up the desire to have Hanson replaced. It also backs up the policy to be tight lipped about their dealings with the FAA.

So you would have us believe that Hanson misinterpreted "The FAA does not interpret PL 112-95 Section 336 (a) (2) as requiring membership in a CBO..."?? Or --- Is it more likely that he was gaslighting to make people believe that membership was required?

To quote Richard Dawson ... "And the survey says...!"


As for evidence, if you look at AMA membership revenue vs. timing of 336, it's abundantly evident why AMA pushed for the "...and within the programming..." language:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...eeca4d2c60.jpg

Still speculation based on bias instead of proof. I was under the impression that facts were required in this forum. You keep saying that Hanson tried to force the FAA into requiring membership. If you can show me some real proof I will happily accept it.

Seriously? Hanson put it out in black and white in The Hill, a nation publication, CALLING ON CONGRESS TO MAKE IT A LAW, and Hanson repeated
it the following month in his column in Model Aviation. The claim that membership in AMA was required for compliance with the law was also repeated
numerous times by AMA spokespeople in videos posted here by Franklin.

And all of this I'm sure you are well aware. So I don't know what's up with this other than playing some kind of game trolling Franklin.

I'm glad to see someone else, other than Franklin and those being called "Franklin's Minions", can actually read and understand what the AMA and, specifically Rich Hanson, was trying to do. Now that Speed and his pet, the dirt sucking fishbait from Canada, have to argue with someone else, let's see how they try to spin this one

Gee, this is ineresting. Both Speed and the dirt eater are logged in and yet neither one has tried to refute ECHO? You guys are slipping, it's been 40 minutes since ECHO posted and over 20 since I did and no response?

In that article this is the only mention of Congress.

Congress wants to increase the safety of our skies, they should help recreational drone pilots understand that they need to comply with Part 107. Congress should also task the FAA with increasing enforcement so that those who violate Part 107 are held accountable for their actions.


Here is the link to the entire peice. https://thehill.com/opinion/technolo...rule-followers


Once again, this was Hanson misunderstanding that " within the programming " meant being a member and if you weren't a member you needed to hold a part 107 cert. There is nothing there that indicates that Hanson tried to force the FAA into stating that membership was a requirement of flying under 336. Make no mistake, I have no love for Hanson and had hopes that he would not get re elected.

Unless your signing my pay checks you have ZERO claim to my time. We have been pretty cool with one another for the past few weeks, you want to blow that over wanting to look like a badass on a nothing forum?

Not really, that was more for the other person mentioned than you

Cool, I was hoping you would you would say something like that. We have been pretty helpful in the Kit building forum and I was hopeful that we can continue with that. I feel thatvwe found some common ground and would like to stay there.

Get real.

I have said this before but I think it bears repeating and that is I really believe had the AMA continued to work with the FAA and not have come up with the 336 rule we have a much better relation with the FAA.
Also I think if the FAA had a better relation with the AMA the FAA may have taken a different approach with the RID system.

Ira am I missing something? AMA not being a government regulatory agency is not able to come up with any rules/laws. Honestly I don't know where 336 actually came from but AMA simply pointed out to the FAA that they were not allowed to regulate model aircraft when they came up with registration. That is why registration went away for a while. FAA ran to congress and congress/Trump repealed 336 and now the FAA is legally able to regulate us.

Now I will agree that we could have been represented better. As far as continuing to work with them, it has been stated that there are constant talks between the FAA and AMA, I have no reason to doubt that.

UMMMM...I don't know......suing them seems rather forceful to me.......


Astro

I think we all know that the AMA lobbied congress to get the 336 rule and we know just from the language in the bill it came from the AMA.

- Timing of AMA efforts (336 push vs. revenue decline history)
- ED's comments that membership required (in videos)
- Field coordinator's comments that membership required (on web interview)
- EVP's comments that membership required (his March 2018 MA column)
- Hanson's own comments that membership required (his March 2018 MA column)

And as Hanson is indeed president of AMA, which means he is in a position to drive comments by subordinates (ED, EVP, and field coordinator), none of this would be happening w/o his approval.

Ample evidence. Circumstantial perhaps, but circumstantial evidence is used all the time to prove much more substantial allegations.

Sure, AMA lobbied congress to get 336. 336 stated that FAA could NOT regulate model aircraft. So FAA could then not force membership and AMA not being a regulatory agency also could not force membership. Still nothing concrete. Franklin admits that himself stating that all the evidence that AMA tried to use the FAA to force membership is circumstantial.

We all know the saying if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck enough said. Some people may not know a duck when they see one but we can't help that.