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?

Marke Gibson at the AMA expo this weekend around the 24 minute mark plus many more statements..

So who is Mark Gibson?

A rep from the FAA. If you watch the video you'll know as much as me ;)

Just got to the rich Hanson part. He says that the AMA no longer suggests waiting on registration. The hold was only on the chance that the AMA and FAA database could share information in the hope that you could use the AMA number as a registration number and they would handle the registration for the AMA members.

I will never register, matters not what Rich Hanson says.

They can tell you that you must HAVE insurance, or that you must purchase insurance, but they can not tell you that you must buy it from a single, specific provider. Also, having insurance, or requiring insurance, is different than forcing membership in an organization... which is why section 336 says CBO, not "AMA" and says "follow the safety rules of" and not "be a member of"...

Bob

Rich also says that "AMA says that you need to be compliant with all laws and regulations." Effectively that you need to go ahead and register. It's at the 1.00 point

lol, "then you'll see that by joining the AMA, remaining an AMA member, you will effect registration and continue to enjoy flying our model airplanes like we have in the past"

Actually the SCOTUS ruled that they can make you purchase from a single provider, because in some cases only one insurance company may be available. Also this is a non profit provider, so it is not the same.

Rich Hanson is not the AMA. I would think the President would listen to their lawyers. Not a hack.

Y'all might want to read this: http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...ked-questions/

...jim

Section 336 says "the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization"

Nowhere does it say that you must be a member of the CBO, or which CBO that might happen to be...

The point is, people keep saying that the AMA counted on "forced membership" to boost their coffers, and from the beginning, it was clear that membership in the AMA would not be "forced" by the law (and I still content that membership can not be forced by a law - membership in an organization is not health insurance) and AMA never counted on "forced" membership.

Yes, they did believe that AMA membership would rise by including multirotors and things like FPV in their rules, and it has done so. It is also true that many long-term, existing AMA members have taken up multirotors and FPV - safely, by following the AMA safety code...

Bob

I saw that. I wonder if they are going to send out an email blast on their new position?. It does say that you do not have to have your FAA registration number in your aircraft, only your AMA number - as before. You just have to have your FAA registration card with you.

Also note what they say there about the "400-foot altitude limit"...

Bob

Bob, I asked AMA if they require membership to certify aircraft >=55lbs under PL112-95 section 336 (a)(3). That's the part that for something in excess of 55lbs to be considered a model under the law, it has to be certified etc. by a CBO.

AMA said explicitly in the response to my question that they will not certify non-member aircraft. So at least for a part of it, AMA is taking advantage of that portion of the law to require membership.

And it also looks like the FAA is going to require AMA membership to fly over 400' as the AMA has said the FAA will change it web site to reflect this. http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...ked-questions/

It says those "not operating within the safety guidelines". must stay below 400 feet. It does not say you must be an AMA member.

Franklin,

That situation is a bit different. For LMA certification, you have to get other AMA members involved in the inspection/signoff process and they have to be either Leader Members or CD's. For LMA-2 certification, they have to be designated LMA inspectors. As an LMA inspector myself, I would not want to do a signoff that is outside the AMA membership ranks - if for liability reasons if nothing else.

Of the 180,000 (or whatever it is) AMA membership, the LMA signoffs number right around 120, so you can be pretty sure that the AMA isn't holding that back for fund raising reasons...

Bob

I will admit that both the AMA and the FAA are not being as clear as could be in their wording and that does leave room for mis interpretation but maybe at some point they will get it together. I really want to see how it will read
when the FAA updates their website. Personally I think it would be wrong for the FAA to require AMA membership to do anything and laws they have should apply to everyone no matter if you are a AMA member or not.
But I said it looks like they will require membership kind of hard to say for sure one way or another at this point.

It is the same language in the 2012 bill, nothing new. It is pretty clear to me.

Agree, impact at this point is small, but what about the future? There's also the issue of equal protection under the law. I will be commenting on that with the FAA, making sure they're aware that allowing AMA to require membership to do such things is equivalent to making private pilots join AOPA in order to do certain things in the airspace. They don't do that anywhere else in government, for reasons you cited above.

Now, if AMA is saying that the $5 registration fee is potentially a member benefit (remember OMB has to approve any deal to reduce fees), then they're incurring $5 x 180,000 in costs after just raising dues. I'd argue if they've got that kind of money to throw around, then they could pay some AMA folks to inspect IAW that section of law w/o requiring membership.

Just my 2cents.

Not to mention, if Chad B's comments on the AMA blog are accurate, AMA is trying to get FAA to state on their website that AMA members can operate above 400'. That does, in a sense, make AMA membership mandatory for many types of sUAS flight.

I'm happy to comply with their safety guidelines, but the moment they make membership a requirement to operate in the people's airspace, they (AMA) loses my support.

I went ahead and registered. I don't have a problem with 400'. I just don't want to show up to my club to have a safety officer ground me. That would have permanent consequences which are unnecessary.

Why would a safety officer ground you? Registration has nothing to do with safety.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM3Ede2hgaw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi91aFdKd9Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_jps2vN1oQ

That is not what the FAA nor the AMA has said in any press release, nor in the discussion noted in the Youtube video.

Right...the involvement of commerical use. Not exactly the one or two off situations of some average Joe flying blos or an errant DJI phantom here and there. In other words...Amazon, Google, Walmart...etc etc etc.

For not following AMA guidelines? pretty basic. You will all face the same. Some folks have a hard on and live to police like that.

As RC Pilot of any kind you should be thankful the AMA does anything. like it or not with out it the FAA would run us all over.

I am, right up until the point they start using sections of the law to require membership. If they're really so altruistic about model aviation as they contend, ALL model aviation, then why require you to be a member just so you can fly a "model aircraft" under PL112-95 section 336 (a)(3)?

I registered. The registration requirement is not legal, but the courts will have to challenge it first.

Not wrong in the least. In my opinion, there's no doubt that's what they tried to do. They have failed everyone and the current "legal actions" don't matter. BV's letter to the AMA almost 2 years ago was spot on and they ignored it. What other conclusion can be gained other than that the AMA leadership has been and still is clueless with this situation. We who safely operate model aircraft will eventually have to sever ourselves from the AMA and start over with a new organization that can truly impress the AMA that we are model airplane pilots and not "drone operators".