While AMA talks, FAA acts...
On an FAA website updated less than a month ago (12 December 2018), third bullet under step 2 says:
"Fly at or below 400 feet when in uncontrolled airspace (Class G)" https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/ |
Yeah! I always figured I'd rely on the FAA vice the AMA and their forum pundits for accurate information.
|
Originally Posted by Appowner
(Post 12490139)
Yeah! I always figured I'd rely on the FAA vice the AMA and their forum pundits for accurate information.
Assuming one does not believe AMA would outright present falsehoods, is it possible they're just so out of touch they can't understand what's being said to them? Are they so entrenched in their thinking that they just can't fathom that things aren't going well? I'm throwing it out there ... Why is what we hear from AMA so disconnected from what FAA is going (like this website)? |
No idea. Unless it goes with your eat, breath, live the hobby theory of yours. Could they be so blinded by their own misguided passions that they hear what they want whether that's what was said or not? Or is there a deeper scam going on somewhere? Another Hobbico type thing? I have no evidence there is but, until some questions get answered I don't see where we can rule out the possibility.
On the flip! I realized today that the 25 years of AMA dues I've saved by not joining has paid for my new OS 320 Pegasus flat 4 engine. Hmmm! Os 320? AMA bennies? OS? AMA? Looks like the Japs won this one! :) |
Originally Posted by Appowner
(Post 12490152)
No idea. Unless it goes with your eat, breath, live the hobby theory of yours. Could they be so blinded by their own misguided passions that they hear what they want whether that's what was said or not? Or is there a deeper scam going on somewhere? Another Hobbico type thing? I have no evidence there is but, until some questions get answered I don't see where we can rule out the possibility.
Further proof would be to look at how dissenters are treated. Not long ago one VP dared to disagree with the strategic direction of the AMA, and the President and the EVP use the organization's official publication to attack the man! Worse yet, the rest of the VPs sat by and did nothing. What's even scarier is that the "Editor" allowed it as well! The main question is whether it's too late to make the necessary changes. I personally don't think so. Their inability to face reality and be transparent with members is my main reason for lack of optimism. I'd hoped that by now some of the hard questions I've tried to ask would be addressed in the magazine etc., but no. They just keep doing more of the same and hoping for a different result. So now they're heading into a stock market downturn with financial trends (from IRS990s) that show nothing but declines. The CFO's latest column seems to hang hopes on baby boomers as their kids are out of the house. Unfortunately, I don't think he's looked at census and economic data that shows baby boomers are MORE likely to be supporting their kids well into their mid to late 20s (or later). That's not a group that's going to have a lot of disposable income. But hey, when have the facts ever gotten in the way of AMA rhetoric. |
Is not the AMA a corporation? As such members of the BOD are allowed to express, lobby for and support conflicting views from the other members of the board. However once a vote has been taken and a majority determined it is the duty of the members of the board to put aside their differences of opinion and support the direction the board has decided to take. If the member cannot support in good faith this majority decision and refrain from disruption of the board through action or vocally he should resign his position voluntarily. Other wise the board can call for his resignation by a predetermined majority.
Dennis |
Originally Posted by Propworn
(Post 12490171)
Is not the AMA a corporation? As such members of the BOD are allowed to express, lobby for and support conflicting views from the other members of the board. However once a vote has been taken and a majority determined it is the duty of the members of the board to put aside their differences of opinion and support the direction the board has decided to take. If the member cannot support in good faith this majority decision and refrain from disruption of the board through action or vocally he should resign his position voluntarily. Other wise the board can call for his resignation by a predetermined majority.
Dennis |
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...f78c160b0b.png https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...4df0a5e969.png
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12490134)
On an FAA website updated less than a month ago (12 December 2018), third bullet under step 2 says:
"Fly at or below 400 feet when in uncontrolled airspace (Class G)" https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/ As usual Franklin is misleading. Step 1 clearly has us agree to fly in accordance to section 336. |
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...a29b0648e9.png To calaborate this I went to Mark Radcliff and he states this. |
So, as of right now we are flying under section 336 which allows us to fly above 400'. That of course is subject to change and Im sure Franklin will be all over it when and if it goes into effect. |
With all due respect to this discussion , I'm not happy to post that I do believe it's the FAA's present intention that WHILE following the "safety guidelines of a community based organization" , a recreational (336) user must remain under 400 feet . I believe the FAA's intent is that to do things like fly above 400 feet one must be a part 107 operator with a filed flight plan for each flight over 400 feet .
What do I base my viewpoint on ? I base my interpretation of the FAA's communication on the fact that for 19 months , 8 hours a day 5 days a week , I studied ALL of the "FARs" (Federal Aircraft Regulations) while earning an A/P Mechanic's rating from the FAA . There really isn't much ambiguity in the quoted passage below , despite what's presently coming from AMA HQ .https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rcu...321f5cf97e.jpg |
Again, information starting at step 2. Review the wording in section 336 again especially the title of 336 " exception for model aircraft". At best this action taken by the FAA that Franklin boasts about is simply putting conflicting information on the same page which has allowed Franklin to post only the section that supports his agenda. |
|
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12490224)
Again, information starting at step 2. Review the wording in section 336 again especially the title of 336 " exception for model aircraft". At best this action taken by the FAA that Franklin boasts about is simply putting conflicting information on the same page which has allowed Franklin to post only the section that supports his agenda. I am not happy in the least with what I read in the FAA's documents , but if you start reading at step one of the FAA's rules for #336 operation as the FAA intends , and read through the entire missive from beginning to end without parsing the specific subsections (to attempt to falsely interpret the inaccurate viewpoint that the FAA is presently OK with #336 operations above 400 feet) , then the logical reader simply must take at face value what has been published by the FAA themselves , that #336 has no authorization above 400 feet . Now I realize that you believe this is yet another "You VS Franklin" thing , but damn , it's right there in black & white with no ambiguity whatsoever , , , , just exactly whom do you , speedracer , think the FAA is addressing with the statement ; "Fly at or below 400 feet when in uncontrolled airspace (Class G)" ? (Hint , this sentence is lifted word for word from the FAA's #336 rules !!!!!) |
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12490227)
|
What this says is that all recreational R/C pilots are currently flying under section 336 which does not allow the FAA to intruduce new laws. Section 336 goes back to AC 91-57 that makes the 400' altitude limit nothing more then an advisory. The new Reauthorization act can not go into affect until the FAA can come up with a plan to enforce the new regulations and demonstrate that plan to congress. In the meantime section 336 and AC-91-57 is what we are currently bound to. This is not me against Franklin a you put it, Im simply doing what I feel is best for the hobby. Spreading false or heavily bias information is not what is best for the hobby. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12490245)
What this says is that all recreational R/C pilots are currently flying under section 336 which does not allow the FAA to intruduce new laws. Section 336 goes back to AC 91-57 that makes the 400' altitude limit nothing more then an advisory. The new Reauthorization act can not go into affect until the FAA can come up with a plan to enforce the new regulations and demonstrate that plan to congress. In the meantime section 336 and AC-91-57 is what we are currently bound to. This is not me against Franklin a you put it, Im simply doing what I feel is best for the hobby. Spreading false or heavily bias information is not what is best for the hobby. Ok. I guess we have to go back to basics. So first a little civics refresher. Your beloved 336 was part of the 2015 FAA Reauthorization act. Yes, it did prohibit the FAA from making rules for "Model Aircraft." When the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act was passed, it explicitly REPEALED section 336 of the 2015 law. Let me repeat. It R E P E A L E D Section 336. Thus the moment the President signed the new law, Section 336 of the old law and it's prohibition of FAA making new rules, CEASED TO EXIST. It's gone ... as if it never existed. Another provision of the 2018 law was the EXPLICIT statement that the exception for recreational sUAS was contingent on remaining at or below 400 feet in class G. Again, it was EXPLICITLY spelled out in the bill, passed by Congress and signed by the President. It's law of the land. So you need to face the fact that the Section 336 prohibition against FAA making rules for "model aircraft" no longer exists. And the FAA page, one updated just days ago, repeats the explicit provision passed by Congress and signed by the President .. that recreational sUAS need to stay below 400 feet in class G. So underline to your heart's content. Quote AMA to your heart's content. But the fact remains that the law is clear and explicit. And it is the FAA, not the AMA, that enforces. And the FAA has explicitly said to remain at or below 400 feet in Class G. So, as usual, you're reading what you WANT it to say vs. what it ACTUALLY says. Nowhere in the operatational limits of the repealed section 336 does it say flight above 400 feet is allowed. Not once. As for referring to the beloved safety code of a CBO (note 1), I can't help but notice that NOWHERE does it say flight over 400 feet is allowed either. As to Radcliff's comment. What we know is what we have in writing from the Executive Department agency empowered to enforce the very specific law, and what that agency's website says is 400 feet. What Radcliff says is what would be called hearsay. It's second hand info at best. So it remains that what IS actually written, and written on an official website, is that to stay at or below 400 feet in class G. Doesn't get much more plainly worded than that. Note 1: Attachment 2263105 |
To be perfectly honest, I would beleive all,of that IF and that's a huge if the FAA page did not reference section 336 on the previous step to the one that you published. |
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12490261)
To be perfectly honest, I would beleive all,of that IF and that's a huge if the FAA page did not reference section 336 on the previous step to the one that you published.
But what is actually in writing, both in the law of the land and on the FAA official website ... one updated just days ago ... is if you want to fly recreationally, you need to stay below 400 feet in class G. |
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12490245)
What this says is that all recreational R/C pilots are currently flying under section 336 which does not allow the FAA to intruduce new laws. Section 336 goes back to AC 91-57 that makes the 400' altitude limit nothing more then an advisory. The new Reauthorization act can not go into affect until the FAA can come up with a plan to enforce the new regulations and demonstrate that plan to congress. In the meantime section 336 and AC-91-57 is what we are currently bound to. This is not me against Franklin a you put it, Im simply doing what I feel is best for the hobby. Spreading false or heavily bias information is not what is best for the hobby. This states it all, since the re authorization act has NOT gone into effect YET we are flying to section 336 which refers us to the wording in AC-91-57 that states 400' altitude is an ADVISORY. We have been flying traditional R/C since the early 1980's under AC-91-57 and well above 400'. Show me where anyone has been convicted or even sited for flying over 400' |
2 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12490353)
This states it all, since the re authorization act has NOT gone into effect YET...
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12490353)
...we are flying to section 336 which refers us to the wording in AC-91-57 that states 400' altitude is an ADVISORY.
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12490353)
We have been flying traditional R/C since the early 1980's under AC-91-57 and well above 400'.
|
Then time to put our money where our mouths are. Give me your email address and I will send you a video of me flying well above 400’. You can then report me and we can see what happens. |
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
(Post 12490360)
Then time to put our money where our mouths are. Give me your email address and I will send you a video of me flying well above 400’. You can then report me and we can see what happens.
|
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12490168)
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's not outright deception. That said, I do think the manner in which the EC and officers are selected leads to a rather homogeneous gene pool of thought. You can only be a VP if you're first a leader member. And good luck being a leader member w/o the support of the VP. That all but ensures that everyone is pretty much thinking the same ... that everyone eats, lives, and breathes model planes like they do. Thus the never (seriously) consider any other possibility.
Further proof would be to look at how dissenters are treated. Not long ago one VP dared to disagree with the strategic direction of the AMA, and the President and the EVP use the organization's official publication to attack the man! Worse yet, the rest of the VPs sat by and did nothing. What's even scarier is that the "Editor" allowed it as well! And I too don't think any deception is intentional. However, I don't think we've seen sufficient evidence to totally rule the possibility out. Not yet anyway. No doubt some, perhaps many consider Muncie to be pure as the driven snow. And will insist on killing any and all messengers in spite of evidence supporting the message.
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12490168)
The main question is whether it's too late to make the necessary changes. I personally don't think so. Their inability to face reality and be transparent with members is my main reason for lack of optimism. I'd hoped that by now some of the hard questions I've tried to ask would be addressed in the magazine etc., but no. They just keep doing more of the same and hoping for a different result.
I also do not think it's too late for changes. But the changes enacted now will have to be more severe and drastic than they would have say, 10 years ago. Takes a strong leadership to do something like that and keep the members happy. I don't see such leadership in any of the rank and file. So unless and until the membership starts asking these questions in greater numbers. Nothing will change and the decline will continue.
Originally Posted by franklin_m
(Post 12490168)
So now they're heading into a stock market downturn with financial trends (from IRS990s) that show nothing but declines. The CFO's latest column seems to hang hopes on baby boomers as their kids are out of the house. Unfortunately, I don't think he's looked at census and economic data that shows baby boomers are MORE likely to be supporting their kids well into their mid to late 20s (or later). That's not a group that's going to have a lot of disposable income. But hey, when have the facts ever gotten in the way of AMA rhetoric.
|
But! But! Officer! My cousin Buh-Buh of the almighty AMA said I could............
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:48 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.