Is the AMA trying to monopolize model aviation?
 

In a highly advertised campaign, the AMA claims the FAA is about to end or in some way regulate model aviation. Any time an organization says, if you don't pay me money the Boogeyman will get you, I question them. Here is the AMA claim:

"The FAA is developing new regulations that may place onerous and unnecessary restrictions on the hobby, sport and educational pursuit of model aviation.

It is extremely important that all aeromodeling enthusiasts stand up and tell Congress to protect model aviation from pending federal regulation by the FAA.

This form provides a sample letter that will be emailed to your district Representative and state Senators. Congress requires that all electronic forms of communication include your name, address and email to verify you as a constituent. Your information will remain private and confidential"

Yet, in all of these AMA ads and petitions, I can't find any proposed FAA language. One thing that is easy to find is new AMA-sponsored legislative language, where they attempt to partner with big government to shut down non-AMA flying...

“Special Rule For Model Aircraft” that provides an exemption from regulation for model aircraft operating within the following parameters: Flown specifically for recreational, sport, competition, or academic purposes; operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization."

...essentially forcing everyone to pay the AMA protection money or stop flying their models. I doubt their is any FAA language that pertains to radio operators standing on the ground, that is solely the domain of the FCC, but by cleverly inserting a model aviation "exemption" the AMA extends an FAA bill to all of us by implication. This smells an awful lot like a scam to trade AMA-votes for a government-sponsored, legal monopoly.

When organizations get too big, they develop minds of their own and often turn on The People who created them. Stop the AMA from trying to send non-AMA fliers to prison. This is just a money-making scam by an organization that values it's own proliferation more than your freedom. These actions are un-American.

I canceled my AMA membership and you should do the same. Private, blanket liability insurance is cheap and a real Umbrella Policy protects you from all liability claims resulting from any contingency--inadequate auto coverage, flying, boating, guests slipping down your staircase, legal defense costs from charges of slander, liable, or any other law suit filed against you--not just one type of claim resulting from a particular hobby when conducted in a particular way.

Not this again.

Yup looks like another AMA fray starting up.:(

Be the day I cancel my membership to a great organization.

That is not intelligent discourse - is there another thread dedicated to stopping the AMA for making a government-sponsored play on your wallet (i.e. a tax increase on freedom)? If so, I apologize for duplicating it.

There have been threads by some expressing the same unfounded fears and they usually get locked after a short time because they serve no purpose. The AMA is not the enemy of non member flyers. Never has been and never will be.

As discussed in other threads - I see nothing that requires membership in the AMA in the bill.

They are talking about operating "within the programing" of a national based org to me does not infer required membership, rather recognizing the safety guidelines of the AMA and use those as a safe operating structure.

Essentially we are saying users who are doing this for fun or sport don't need the regulation the FAA is recommending.

This is what happens when law makers right stuff (with the help of their law degrees or lawyers). The wording is interesting.

Mike

I haven't seen one, but I'm not saying they don't exist. Do you have a link so I can check to see if this new AMA-sponsored legislative language (the red text) has been discussed before?

It is interesting, because of what possible benefit is requiring the "programming of a national based organization" if not requiring membership? I might support the addendum (through it would seem to accomplish nothing but to extend FAA jurisdiction to ground-based radio operators) without the red "programing of a national organization" clause. That is just self-serving to the AMA, not about flying models, as there is no way to argue that an organization needs to collect dues from a national base to be safe. Further, if following national safety guidelines was enough to be safe, there would be no need to charge money for narrow insurance.

Another way to "assuage unfounded fears" would be to make any government-required national membership, government-mandated as free to those with existing, proper umbrella insurance. Private insurance companies would love that bill, so it would be very easy to slide through. But personally, I prefer no government meddling, so I would leave the FAA to its stated mission:

"We work so all air and space travelers arrive safely at their destinations."

Here's one:

http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57537

Some similar viewpoints expressed in this one too:

http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59100

Neither makes mention of AMA introduced legislation that could force a national membership to continue flying RC models.

The second link expresses a related concern - that since no FAA bill exists, the AMA can't possibly know what is in it. That was a related fear of mine, too. Also, someone made the case that the FAA has never regulated RC flying and has not expressed interest in doing so. Still, I think that is different than my post, which takes issue with the AMA introducing FAA legal language in the form of an extension to a law with no current jurisdiction.

I think mine is a valid and different concern about a heightened level of legal action potentially resulting in the restriction of freedom of RC moders, not imposed by the government (though they are always happy to trades new laws for votes), but by the AMA themselves.

For the record, I am not anti-AMA for those who see value in club membership. To each his own: have fun. But introducing new government restrictions where none exist, in exchange for money and/or power, is over the line.

Where do you find any suggestion that the AMA wants legislation requiring membership?

The red part of the OP, while strangely worded, seems to require that we all must be programmed by a nationwide, but non-government, organization in order to fly.

Hmm really? Your recomnmendation reads differently to me:

You are reccomending pilots isolate themselves from sanctioned fields, and dedicated areas set up to provide a safe place to participate in RC activities.
That to me does read as anti-AMA, in a backhanded way, and is bad advice. (IMO bad advice is something you seem to share a lot of).

Simple - for use of their well defined safety code, that in direct reference of the context of the quote by the way.

It is not constitutional to require membership or insurance as we are about to find out nationally with our health care bill.

No Senator is that unwise.

Again I see no provision for requiring AMA membership. You are reading to much into those words.

Mike

Well, you are right, I am clearly against the AMA attempting to introduce a government sponsored legal monopoly requiring paid membership. I am fine with them existing for the benefit of voluntary members.

I am also fine with the government requiring compliance with some basic safety standards where it may pertain to protecting non-fliers from fliers. But not if it is for the purpose of revenue production - i.e. I would not be in favor of licensing fees, which is where this AMA action could lead--and the gov can smell that fresh meat a mile away.

I have not given any advice to beginners in this post. But I do recommend everyone flying RC models should have proper liability insurance or the ability to self-insure. I don't think AMA coverage is enough, as their total assets are limited, their listed limits are very low, and the application is narrowly extended. So again, you are right that I have a concern that AMA members might think they are insured by way of AMA membership, but in fact they have no significant insurance. But on that issue, I don't really care, that is their problem, not mine.

The AMA certainly has demonstrated benefits in sponsoring and organizing club events. I'm fine with that. I think that is what they should do, not collude with government to grow dues.

Bogosity abounds.

Again, playing the agent provocateur on your own behalf... rubbish. You have legitimate concerns about the AMA's behavior - fine. The moment you advocate cancellation however, you step over the line.

If you feel this post was defamatory in any way, please, be my guest and file a liable suit.

We'll see how far that gets in court.


GRU :rolleyes:

Yep, my concern is about AMA behavior as it pertains to the above. And that would be funny "z-8 vs groundrushesup." Ha ha ha! Good one.

Ther use to be a ferret with a flying cap on around here and he sounded just like you ! If you dont like the ama do us a favor and dont join up . If you want to take the gov on for your self go ahead, i want my ama to do it . There are free fields and parks you can go fly in ,happy flying . joe

It seems to me that z-8 and others have a legitimate concern with the possibility of required AMA membership, I think they put the cart before the horse. It looks much more to me like it is the government dangling the carrot of AMA monopolized RC and the AMA resisting that, knowing full well that they are and have been on a downhill slide ever since the parkflier revolution made them anachronistic unless you want to fly larger planes.

Do you think it is a coincidence that a parkflier membership carries no voting rights? Perhaps it is just an oversight. No, it is simple self-defense against the transformation of the hobby and they natural reaction of any organization to resist change. Change also means necessary change in leadership, and the present leaders are going to fight tooth and nail against that. It's only natural.

Knowing that they have a huge public relations problem inside and outside the AMA, the last thing they need is to find out what kind of whirlwind they would reap by requiring all RC fliers to join AMA! First of all, it would immediately cancel the plans to keep parkfliers in their place by denying voting rights. The feds would make short work of that. Secondly, they know that most of us would just choose to be outlaws. We'd not join and continue flying as usual. But the AMA would suffer greatly as they would be seen as making some ineffective kind of power play as RC fliers laughed.

No, the AMA has nothing to gain by any attempt to require all RC fliers to join. They have much to lose and I believe they know that. It is the federal government who is holding out the possibility. I don't know how much stronger language the AMA could use than what they already have. They want none of it.

Thoughtful comment.

I would only take issue with "the AMA has nothing to gain by any attempt to require all RC fliers to join." Are you suggesting there would be a free membership level offered in the event the government adopted their language--that one must be subject to the programing of a national community based (which sounds to me like lawyer-speak for "non-governmental") organization--in order to fly models?

Even if so...

1) Why not limit the proposed AMA legislative language to “Special Rule For Model Aircraft” that provides an exemption from regulation for model aircraft." (stop)

That language would be bullet proof, instead of the self-serving sieve they seem to want to propose.

2) Why not quote the exact, offensive FAA language that they so strongly imply exists? That would allow people to make a truly informed decision. Simply saying "the FAA is out to get you" makes me think there may not be existing FAA language seeking to restrain ground radio operators. Instead, by not quoting any specific threat, they leave themselves open to criticism that this could be an AMA scare campaign or monopoly play that they can recycle whenever there is recessionary impact on the bank statement.

3) Why not propose a basic set of government safety guidelines? That would better protect citizens, including AMA members, from any non-AMA member activities.

I am not going to get started in this ,you guys have a nice arguement .[popcorn] I have been a AMA member for 34 years and i will always be one till i die. Good luck with your witch hunt. lol joe

Similar thread with info here: http://www.wattflyer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60335

It's good to have these kind of discussions to make sure everyone is on the same page and fully understand what is happening in model aviation.

There are some folks here that may not understand the complexities of the upcoming FAA regulations since they can be at times very confusing. Check out the link above since it contains a number of links and even a podcast that explains the current events that effect us.

Frank

Thanks Frank! Count me as one who doesn't understand "the complexities of upcoming FAA regulation" because I went through that entire thread and found nothing quoted from any future FAA regulation. The only text is from the AMA's own suggested language.

Perhaps even worse, one poster pointed out something I missed: that in order to fly RC models under the AMA's own language, we would all be required to participate in an "operational safety program currently administered by a community-based organization." That was piggybacked behind the quote I provided, above, that said organization must be nation-wide.

Interesting, since there is no such restriction on flying actual airplanes.

I was happy to see all those who agreed with the position I am taking here, and objected to the "No AMA dues -- no flying" actions written by the AMA to wedge unsolicited legislation onto any new FAA bill. According to the thread, that bill (apparently, but is never quoted) might be used to regulate the commercial application of UAVs used to take pictures and video. That of course, has nothing to do with the RC hobby unless the AMA is successful in linking the two.

I found these informative. They should help.



Frank

I don't see that wording anywhere, but having belonged to a few different clubs over the years I have never met one that doesn't require an AMA membership for you to be one of their members, and that is the clubs are covering their own rears. Makes perfect sense to me.