BTW, just found out that you can get access to all the legal documents filed in the case via the US Federal "PACER" system. Case number is 14-1158. Note, you have to pay to access documents. But it looks like as of July 2015 Brendan Schulman is no longer on the case.

For lack of better wording, what I was trying to say is that both registering with the FAA and AMA membership require personal information about the person registering/becoming a member has to be provided. I wasn't saying that you have to have one in order to have the other.

So if the store is paying for one, the other, or both, what information are they providing to either the FAA and/or the AMA? If that store is paying for a year of AMA membership, I should go and buy a drone there so they can pay for my next year of AMA membership dues. I could always use a drone for target practice down at the range.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGgEFOD8Jlo

But the AMA won't give out your address. And they don't have the Chinese hacking their systems.

And why a dues increase now when we here about all the donations they are making giving our money away ????? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM :(

Lawfirms to sue in Federal Court don't come cheap.

I'm 64 years old . I've been an AMA member since 1966. I'll be retiring this year hoping to enjoy my RC airplanes more than ever. Now I'm wondering where our awesome hobby is heading! Having worked in the airline industry got 30 years, I could see what was coming when moronic quad flyers post videos on YouTube flying past airliners on approach! The AMA should be livid with the FAA but more importantly the irresponsible quad flyers who are( or have) ruined our hobby! I hope a solution can be reached so we can continue flying as we have for decades. Maybe what I've said is nothing new, but I just had to express my view.

The AMA has deluded itself into believeing that the FAA's involvement will be a boon for them. Starting with the hope AMA will be recognized as the only CBO for modeling, turning them de-facto into the semi-official regulator for all model airplane (and drone) activity at the hobby level. And of course, pandering to drones in the hope of increasing membership, to replace all the old-school modelers that are going extinct.

Neither will come to pass.

As for the FAA - 332 is clear in the limits of their authority. They have no jurisdiction over aeromodeling activity and they have no legal authority or basis for requiring aeromodelers to register themselves or their craft. Of course, as with any federal agency in the reign of Emperor Obama, they simply ignore the law and hope no one will notice that they have blatantly overstepped their authority.

Same with the EPA, the DOJ, and even NASA. Don't even get me started on NASA and "climate science".

Putting a whole group of people into one category isn't really fair, nor is it generally accurate. Also, noting what "those people" consider fun isn't fair either unless you've spoken to them, or perhaps flown with them. There is a whole spectrum of MR use that is completely relevant in this hobby, and doesn't always involve a camera. If someone becomes an AMA member and enjoys flying a quad at a club field, how is that a bad thing.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TktTO-ePsoc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IRmlX6rrs2w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think I missed the boat on this But, I'll be outta town this weekend anyway. Would have liked to take a bunch of t-shirts with this image to the convention and make sure the Feds see them since they'll be holding hands with AMA. I would have asked each one to let Me know when They get My point.http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2140111:cool:

Unless you represent your self and are a lawyer.

That one has happened.

I have still yet to see that in writing from anyone other than the AMA.
Please post a link or source, Please.
Just because the AMA says they are "THE" CBO does not make them one in the eyes of congress or the FAA or any other leagal entity.

Flying mr's at clubs isn't what got the FAA involved. "Those people" flying mr's over residential areas, in final landing approaches to airports, over city buildings, people, roads, landmarks, etc. etc. are the ones who got the FAA involved. I'm sure you can post some youtube videos of camera footage of those who did exactly these things. That's the bottom line. Matter of fact, the r/c hobby didn't have this issue before mr's became involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgXd0nIo784

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfwD7BIgm-M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d5Co-6KtLI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9rnTk6FBzs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FNVT00aPkE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ilb2XH-p1PY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U0LlchxGTA

CBO is a legal term listed in the USC. It does not need recognition. The AMA meets the requirements of the definition. The FAA does not give out recognition notices to CBO';s. Not even for the EAA or the USUA. However the FAA has mentioned them in some of their publications. Someone has posted such but I cannot find it.

Ok, but then why did AMA send the FAA a letter asking to be recognized as a CBO? Obviously the AMA thought they needed that. Unfortunately, the FAA has not responded. Perhaps because AMA is suing them?

I am always surprised at this type of critisim of the AMA. "Dump the AMA, just get our own insurance" I first joined the AMA in 1952 and have been a member since then except for dropping out for a couple of years while in USAF pilot training in 1955.

In my opinion we might not even have a hobby of flying remote controlled models if the AMA had not been fighting to keep the frequencies we had and fighting for more frequencies in the 1970's. As pointed out a group tried to form an organization to primarly provide liability insurance and that failed.

I am not defending the current approach the AMA is taking with the FCC but they are the only hope we have at present to defend our hobby. If you have a better approach tell it to the AMA. The FAA has a big problem but requiring the registration of fixed wing models will not fix the problem.

Just one AMA members opinion.

Not sure if that ever happened.

I think what is being said is that the AMA's strategy with respect to drones is wrong-headed, for the reasons stated in my post above. It was based on a fantasy that the AMA would be recognized as an official sanctioning body for all aeromodeling activities, including drones, and would benefit from the forced sign-up of those drone "hobbyists". This will not happen, because the FAA will never recognize a private association as anything official. It ain't official unless it's govt.

That said, I think the AMA is doing the best they can under the circumstances, and I agree that we modelers would be in a much worse pickle with the FAA without the AMA being involved. I will always be an AMA member as long as I am active in the hobby. The long list of projects in my "hangar" ensures that there is no end in sign to that...

It's a fantasy to give the AMA ...ANY...credit here. if they had distanced themselves from the beginning....THEN....the lawsuits that would follow might have some teeth. Now, any judge would see the AMA as a "participant" in the drone community, because they "embraced" all this from the start! It should have been ignored from the beginning!!!! Talk to a cop about being a "willing" participant" involving a crime.......still....it is correct to say that the FAA will NOT listen to reason. (just my opinion)

That's one of the first things that you've posted that I've read that is at least partially correct.

The Federal Government can not "force" or even be seen to "force" or "encourage" membership in a private organization. The AMA has never counted on any "benefit from forced signup" of members. From the beginning, the AMA has said that modelers (even drone guys) can follow their safety code without being members. There was some talk way back when of perhaps a nominal fee for non-members to "access" the the AMA programming, but as of this point, the AMA's safety documents are posted on the public web site - free for all that can download them...

Bob

Bob, I'm curious what else I've posted on this topic you find to be incorrect. I'll say one thing - the discussion has certainly been illuminating in showing how little people actually read or understand about do's and don'ts. We have supposed CDs in the other thread not knowing basic AMA rules for turbines...

That is incorrect. The government can and insurance especially health insurance is a prime example. The SCOTUS upheld that the government can indeed force one to buy insurance from a private for profit corporation, and I assume that would include membership in a non profit organization

The AMA has been a participant in the drone community since Walt Good flew his radio controlled Guff. The AMA does not use the word drone in their regulation, its called sUAV and those flown recreationally are called "model aircraft. Basically anything flown for fun and is flown LOS. BLOS is illegal so there is nothing to the AMA embracing drone conspiracy theory.

FAA at the AMA Expo this Weekend....


He says first up front that a lot of it was about the commercial $ aspect..



FAA. "336 says no new laws or regulations basically, the point of the FAA is
that it's pre existing. We already had the statutory authority to compell
registration of aircraft. UAS are now called, termed aircraft. It was
discretionary before that we didn't before this, but now with the numbers and
incidents we figured it was only going to continue to grow. So the idea of
accountability and giving the support back and to educate the masses frankly,
that haven't come up through the aviation community. So that's kind of the
rational, we can talk later whether it was a sledgehammer or not... That was the
idea, Especially kind of force, into some time constraint because of the
holidays coming up and there was going to be another 400,000 out there and it
was timely to get it done. That's why we were able to do it rather quickly
because of the pre existing capability"



In my opinion none of which accomplishes any goals he claims they set..


http://youtu.be/fOeoHJZdwuw

Who in the FAA made that rambling statement?