AMA / MAAC reciprocal agreement ends......
 

Anyone else get the AMA Email about this ? It appears than an AMA membership won't allow you to be flying in Canada anymore, you'll have to have a MAAC membership even as a visiting US flyer, to legally fly in Canada.

Not that I was planing to visit Canada, and even if I were it wouldn't be to go flying model airplanes, but it's still just another sad sign of the times we're living in.

PS, supposedly this is because of the Canadian air transport ministry and not because of any sort of rift between the AMA and MAAC, according to the AMA.......

Transport Canada, the Canadian equivalent of the FAA said you have to be a MAAC member to fly in Canada. Therefore they voided the reciprocal agreement, they have short term and full memberships available on both sides depending on how much you cross the border to fly

https://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/r...cs/en/3197.htm

They have required you to be a member of MAAC for the recreational exemption

So, for an MAAC member to fly in the US, are they going to be required to join the AMA?

The reciprocal agreement simply allowed the pilot in good standing of their home organization to fly in the other country under the insurance of the home country/organization. If you looked deeper into this agreement you would find that the visiting pilot had to adhere to the more restrictive of the rules of both countries. Canadians flying in the US would be under the same obligations when flying in the US. A prime example would be height restrictions of say 400 ft. In Canada we are exempt under MAAC but US flyers in Canada would still have to observe their rules to be considered covered by their AMA insurance. Canadians though exempt at home would have to follow the 400 ft altitude when flying in the US just like the AMA pilots. This reciprocal agreement was only between the US and Canada.

Transport Canada only granted exemptions for members in good standing of MAAC. Non Canadians would have to jump through hoops with Transport Canada to obtain permission to fly anything in Canada as well as fly under all current flight restrictions without exemption.

MAAC's work around was to offer memberships to non Canadians wishing to fly in Canada. You now would be a member in good standing and be allowed to fly under the MAAC umbrella with the same exemptions all MAAC members enjoy. The second bonus is you are covered by first party insurance of up to 7.5 million I believe but only while flying in Canada. I am not positive but it is my understanding you must be a member of your home organization (AMA) to be allowed to purchase MAAC associate membership.

Canadians on the other hand when flying in the US still enjoy their home insurance coverage of 7.5 million first party insurance however they must fly under the rules of the AMA and pass all the same requirements of any AMA pilot. MAAC members must join the AMA as an associate member.

This is the bulletin I received from MAAC today

Dear Member,

The Academy of Model Aeronautics has recently announced that starting January 1, 2022 MAAC members will need to get AMA affiliate memberships and must follow FAA regulations and requirements to be able to fly any category of model aircraft in the United States. An excerpt from their announcement is below. “Effective January 1, 2022, AMA will require MAAC members to join AMA as an affiliate member in order to fly at our fields and events. An affiliate membership for non-US permanent residents is $36(USD) per year and includes insurance and competitive privileges. Click here to sign up as an AMA Affiliate member. “Non-US citizens are required to follow the same model aircraft regulations that US citizens are required to follow, including registering at FAA’s Drone Zone and taking The Recreational UAS Safety Test at www.modelaircraft.org/trust.

a long overdue move, on whoever's part it was instigated.

The best part in my opinion is how it simplifies for the visiting pilot that you fly under the rules of the host country. The old reciprocal agreement was between the AMA and MAAC only. Now the way its worded at least in Canada it is my understanding that visitors from other countries as well can join MAAC and fly legally and with MAAC insurance.

I'm curious for a change for Franks opinion.

I mean Canadian law says you have to belong to a private, dues collecting (emphasis added) organization to comply with federal law and fly under the recreational exemption.

I see he hasn’t posted here since getting kicked out of RCG again.

Franks opinion????? MAAC is a private dues collecting organization. You have to apply for and be approved for membership. At the moment in Canada MAAC is the only recognized private dues collecting organization as far as model aviation goes. A few have tried to enter the arena but have been unsuccessful and never gotten close to being recognized.

Yes, I want Franks opinion.

One of his incessant points to Congress, the FAA, and anyone else that will listen is that it's illegal to require membership in a private dues collecting organization to use the public air space as a recreational user.

So I'm curious what he thinks of this happening in Canada.

I'm not taking a shot at anyone or organization, I'm just really wondering his thoughts.

sorry BH, but canada is NOT a constitutional republic, as the US is.
they do not have the freedoms we do, and it is displayed very well in matters such as this.

We can go back and forth over this but its not worth my time or effort. First you have to get it straight the differences between rights and privileges. Flying model airplanes never has been a right but like driving a car are privileges that can be removed if you abuse them. As far as freedoms consider this, our small organization of less than 14000 members have so far been able to avoid all the restrictions the AMA are under through a negotiated agreement in writing with Transport Canada, exemptions that allow us to continue to fly as we always have. In fact Transport Canada has left the door open to extend those same privileges and exemptions to the US pilot who joins MAAC and on top of that you will be covered with MAAC first person insurance to the tune of 7.5 million as long as you are flying in Canada and follow MAAC rules. When we fly in the US we have to join the AMA, follow the rules of the AMA, have an FAA number and pass the Trust test same as any other AMA member. They offer your third party insurance but our insurance will still cover us when flying in the US.

I'm kinda shocked you're even asking this, as you know or should know that US laws must comply with the US constitution. Likewise, you know or should know that Canadian law has absolutely zero influence over that. What Canadians do or do not do in their laws has zero bearing on what would be constitutional or not in the US.

It just goes to show how helplessly polarized these folks are.

I've been saying it for years, we have a few old men whose complete lives, ego and persona are tied to toy airplanes, therefore, they can't see the forest for the trees.

Heck, In Canada, they can legally compel you to call a man a woman if that man so chooses. No surprise the private dues-collecting organization thing doesn't bother them.

As you can clearly see from his post above, worn-out-prop is so polarized, he thinks that those who oppose him are arguing that flying toy airplanes is a right........I thought we had covered this many times and many pages ago.......

Same old tired narrative. Lather, rinse, repeat.....

Regards,

Astro

Careful Astro, you only live 30 minutes or so from Canada so............
Anyone that has taken a legitimate US history course knows the only "rights" we have in the US are those specified in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution and, unfortunately, those have been under constant attack by the "radical left" for years. As far as using the air goes, we have the "right" to breathe it but only the privilege to do anything else in or with it.

What scares me is that it was an EC member that asked the question about Canadian compulsory membership ... Shows just how little they actually understand of how the world works.

Not only that, I believe he was a career member of the US military........(I could be wrong, but I think that is what I recall..)

Astro

Yes I was military and yes I do understand.

Frank it think it's awesome how you can twist a simple question about what you thought about a subject into a personal slam, I will refrain from engaging you in the future

So what was untrue?

Are you not a member of the EC?
Does the question not show a lack of understanding of US Constitution vs. Canadian law?

And if you did indeed understand the difference between Canadian citizen rights under Canadian law vs. US citizen rights under the US Constitution, why in the world would you even worry about my thoughts on Canadian compulsory membership?

I don't think he was career. I seem to remember reading that he was enlisted P3 Aircrew. Whether he was an E1 or an E9, I'll leave that up to him to share...

Membership is not compulsory only if you wish to enjoy the exemptions MAAC has negotiated for its members. Those who dont have to fly under the general rules as laid out by Transport Canada.

Nowhere did I say flying toy airplanes was a right. LIke driving a car or full size airplane its a privilege.

So now I can't be career because I was enlisted?

Nice

As I'm sure you remember from your elementary school English class, a sentence is a complete thought.

You'll note in my earlier quote, included above for your convenience, I said "I don't think he was career." Note the PERIOD at the end of that statement. The following sentence is another complete thought, not related to the first given it also ends with a period of it's own and set apart from the earlier sentence by a ... wait for it ... a PERIOD. Thus two complete and INDEPENDENT thoughts. For the record, I do not know whether or not you were career, hence the simple declarative statement to that effect in the first sentence.

One can be career and enlisted. One can be career and not enlisted. And in fact one can be careeer and both enlisted and not enlisted. You know that. I know that. And you know or should know that as an O5 I likely have more than a passing understanding of Navy personnel processes - to include retirement.


Oh, and one more thing. "I was a Navy Petty Officer flying on the P-3 Orion patrol aircraft..." (Note 1). No mention of retired status. One would think if he was indeed retired, it would have been noted in his campaign statement.

Note 1: https://www.modelaircraft.org/2019campaign

I have to watch what I say here because…..hate speech nazi’s…..other forums I belong to make it much easier to communicate effectively, because if someone is an idiot, you can call him an idiot, here, not so much because feelings come first.

I never said that YOU said it was a right, I said you inferred that is what those who oppose you were saying. Again with the basic reading and comprehension struggles? I see a commonality between those of you on the wrong side. I have to wonder if lack of comprehension is the real difference for the divide……

Astro