You didn't bother to read the article you linked:

"The math from here is easy — about 200,000 people fly under Section 336 and the remaining 700,000 are required to operate under
Part 107. Those that aren’t flying under Part 107 are in violation 14 CFR § 107.12, the requirement for a remote pilot certificate."

I read it through 3 times while trying to find the same thing you did. I could not.

At the time Hanson was under the impression that flying under 336 required membership ( within the programming). He clearly gives an option of being a member of AMA to fly under 336 OR hold a part 107 cert.

It's crazy that we're still talking about this. With that position from Hanson and AMA where else
was there to go but FRIAs? Hanson has effectively destroyed the RC flying hobby.

What's even more crazy is denying something stated in plain English. Hanson's column in Model Aviation the following
month is essentially Hanson talking to himself about being befuddled why the FAA doesn't see things his way. Writing the
new rules the FAA just finally had enough of Hanson's crap.

What part don't you get that Hanson has no legal authority to interpret the law?

That's not even the topic. The topic is whether or not Hanson tried to force the FAA into making membership maditory.

I have already stated that Hanson's interpretation was wrong. BTW, you nor Franklin have legal authority to interpret the law either right?

No, but the FAA does. And they interpreted it for Hanson and anyone else who can read the English language. They clearly ... and unambiguously ... said:


I give Hanson credit for being able to read. I also give him credit for having a room temperature IQ or higher. So it's impossible to (not) see his column in March 2018 as a deliberate attempt to gaslight and / or spread disinformation.

Note 1: 12 July 2016 email from FAA to the author of this post, an email that was forwarded to the AMA ED and others

Franklin was the first to post the only legal opinion on madatory AMA membership that matters, from the FAA. Hanson babbled
on for two or three years more before he was shut down publicly by the FAA on forced membership. This, incidently, was in
the lead-up months to the repeal of 336, after Hanson's colosal blunder op-ed in The Hill.

Quiz: Hanson stated non-AMA members were in violation of Part 107 and should face sanctions.
There is only one entity with authority to enforce such violations. Which one is that?

Fixed it for ya , I figure while we're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic we might as well have em all in nice neat rows ......

You are off topic again with this. You guys have a habit of doing this when somone makes a valid point. That point is that NOBODY has proof that Hanson attempted to use/influence law to boost membership numbers. If Franklin had it he would have posted it by now.

As for your other babble, Op-Ed.......OPINION EDITORIAL. I will however agree that only one entity has the authority to enforce violations and it sure as s... ain't you or Franklin. But what the hell since you brought it up. Where are these violations? Can anyone show me a violation/citation handed out to a LOS airplane pilot? Anyone? Bueller? What about the hobby being dead as you stated earlier? Hmmm I flew in a pattern contest ( and won! Hiya Astro ) two weeks ago, sport flying yesterday a sailplane contest this weekend and another pattern contest at the end of next month. Not bad for a DEAD HOBBY. 😂

LOL where's the band?

To tie a ribbon on it, Hanson's op-ed was Jan 1, 2018. A week later, at the 2018 Consumer Electronics Shown in Las Vegas, then-director of
FAA's UAS Integration Office, Earl Lawrence, stated during his remarks that Section 336 did not require membership in a CBO. It was a direct
rebuke of Rich Hanson and his op-ed and it finally put an end to AMA's forced membership scam.

To speedracertrixie, a con man doesn't use the law he uses false statements, which is what Hanson and AMA did trying to dupe those who didn't know better.

;) Hopefully enjoying their last Martinis at the bar before , , well , , , , , hey that's what they get for tempting God with that whole "unsinkable" nonsense .

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...-drone-flights

And here's a bit of something interesting I found while following a link from nowhere , If I read it right it sounds like some Senator was trying to protect landowner's rights as to low altitude drone flights over their property , and failed . Big business again assuring Amazon will be able to deliver it's widgets unhindered by the protestations of us who don't want delivery drones zipping only 200 feet or less over our property ?

I can agree to part of this. What Hanson said was indeed false. Now prove it was intentional and not just some overconfident bald guy talking out his butt.

Additionally, if other would bother to actually READ THE LETTER, no where does it say you MUST join AMA.

What it does say is that you must join a CBO SUCH AS AMA.

And regarding the ‘within the programming’ phrase, that is for AMA to determine, not the government. If I wish to enter an SCCA Autocross event and will follow all of SCCA’s rules and safety procedures, but am not and will not join the SCCA, they will NOT allow me to run. Period.

All many of you are doing is inserting your own biases.

R_Strowe

big difference in entering a sanctioned scca event, and just having a suitable car and driving a course for fun, one does not require membership to just drive the sports car.

At that time, the AMA had sued every other potential CBO out of business.......

UMMM....NOPE. That was the Governments language, not the AMA's. The AMA has zero authority to interpret that, as was proven by the FAA.

Astro

I don't know if you are trying to get a rise out of me with that comment, but as I stated clearly before, I could give a hoot if one flies over 400'. We have done it for literally DECADES without incident and I don't think it is any more dangerous now than it ever has been.

My issue with YOU flying over 400' is that you are such a staunch AMA fanboi, yet you choose to follow (or break) the rules as YOU see fit. It just speaks to your moral integrity.....

Astro

That has to be about the dumbest thing you have ever said.

The beautiful thing is that the language has been changed so that AMA's interpretation just doesn't matter anymore:

I wouldn't expect you to get it. :)

Hanson quotes the FAA's statement about memership in his Feb 2018 column in Model Aviation.

Why are we still talking about this?

- He chose the words in the article (a deliberate, intentional act)
- He chose to quote nearly word for word the FAA's interpretation (a deliberate, intentional act).
- He passed it to the publications department for publishing (a deliberate, intentional act)
- As President of AMA, he permitted it to be published under his name (a deliberate, intentional act)
- To date, he has not issued a correction (a deliberate, intentional act of omission)

So please explain how this is not intentional on Hanson's part?

So let's rewind this thing a little here. Here is Hydro's original statement. Who here has proof that Hanson tried to force the FAA into making it mandatory to be an AMA member? So far we have covered many things such as Hansons OPINION editorial ( not really what would be used to force an action by a government agency ) to Astro being OK with HIS good ole boys flying above 400' but not me ( not sure how he came to the conclusion that he has any authority ) to Hanson telling members that it's OK to fly as we always have ( many of us do just that and once again ZERO citations given to LOS pilots).