Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins
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.