Is the AMA trying to monopolize model aviation?

[z-8]

Originally Posted by Murocflyer

I found these informative. They should help.

Frank

Thanks, again. I listened to the whole thing and there was nothing specifically quoted from the FAA, nor was there anything mentioned that could be considered a threat. In the second audio clip they basically admit there is no FAA threat to RC modeling at all.

Also, this whole thing stems from their, quite unreasonable in my view, assumption that model RC airplanes must fit into the US airspace system. Maybe so, but there is no such stated requirement now. And if that is a correct assumption, then it applies right now, not only in the future, and there is almost no US airspace (perhaps 1%) that regulates flying anything, real or unmanned, below 1200' AGL. The only place where there is regulation is where certain classes of airspace extend all the way to the ground near busy airports.

The AMA representative tries to conjure up suggested changes to definitions of US airspace classes as some sort of new FAA attack specifically on RC models. No--that is regulation on all flying aircraft, and the US airspace system already exists, and in a very few areas, extends to the ground where full sized aircraft need to transit for landing, etc. Don't fly RC there! That's dumb. And the FAA probably should specify no model aviation in those low altitude areas where they already extend the same restrictions to operators of full size aircraft.

The AMA trying to link any suggested, potential encroachment of Class B, D, and E airspace on Class G (uncontrolled and unregulated below 1,200' AGL) pertaining to full sized aircraft, as some sort of FAA attack on RC modeling, is REALLY reaching.

Bottom line: The only threat here to modeling is the AMA's own suggested legislative language, which requests that lawmakers require AMA membership (or something unnamed that is extraordinarily similar to it) to legally operate an RC model. That law, if successful, would be an unsolicited add-on driven by the AMA, not the FAA.

[road king 97]

Originally Posted by z-8

Thanks, again. I listened to the whole thing and there was nothing specifically quoted from the FAA, nor was there anything mentioned that could be considered a threat. In the second audio clip they basically admit there is no FAA threat to RC modeling at all.

Also, this whole thing stems from their, quite unreasonably in my view, assumption that model RC airplanes must fit into the US airspace system. Maybe so, but there is no such stated requirement now. And if that is a correct assumption, then it applies right now, not only in the future, and there is almost no US airspace (perhaps 1%) that regulates flying anything, real or unmanned, below 1200' AGL. The only place where there is regulation is where certain classes of airspace extend all the way to the ground near busy airports.

The AMA representative tries to conjure up suggested changes to definitions of US airspace classes as some sort of new FAA attack specifically on RC models. No--that is regulation on all flying aircraft, and the US airspace system already exists, and in a very few areas, extends to the ground where full sized aircraft need to transit for landing, etc. Don't fly RC there! That's dumb. And the FAA probably should specify no model aviation in those low altitude areas where they already extend the same restrictions to operators of full size aircraft.

The AMA trying to link any suggested, potential encroachment of Class B, D, and E airspace on Class G (uncontrolled and unregulated below 1,200' AGL) pertaining to full sized aircraft, as some sort of FAA attack on RC modeling, is REALLY reaching.

Bottom line: The only threat here to modeling is the AMA's own suggested language, implying required AMA membership to legally operate an RC model.

LOL

[eye4wings]

Okay, so I'm the wrong side of the pond to be directly involved with this you might think - but we have just the same sort of thing going on between our BMFA and CAA.

Way back where I worked we used to have a union rep arguing that all us non-union members ought to join up out of moral responsibility because the union negotiated pay on behalf of all the staff, union or not. Our argument was that we would rather argue on our own behalf then those who were worth paying would get paid and the employer could say goodbye to those who weren't. That normally gave us peace and quiet to get on with our jobs for the next year.

I'm sure it has not gone without notice that this sort of thing has been going on for ages. As soon as you get a group of human beings together in a big club protectionism and self-interest attaches to the club to the detriment of other human beings. It's just human nature.
The church of Rome spent centuries killing the people it was supposed to be serving. Torturing them to death because they wouldn't say the 'right' words.
That lot realised that it was wrong, Stalin and then Hitler and his henchmen had a go, and now radical Islam is doing the same thing.
But you can't serve God by killing the people He made.

If you want something to REALLY get worried about take a look at what is coming out of the Global Warming conferences... they're talking of a new world government (them of course) with the power to over-rule all present national governments and impose financial levies and.... Hopefully it will all blow over and go away. For now news is a bit scarce though - makes me wonder what IS going on behind those closed doors.
Makes this subject look pretty small beer though.

Human nature eh? Not a pretty sight - get us in a big enough bunch and things always have the potential to get ugly.
Meantime you COULD always write to your elected representatives, even using the form suggested by your AMA... maybe. Or maybe we won't bother... ?

Perhaps we should just enjoy our great hobby and carry on trying to encourage others to do the same. Hopefully a smile will always work better than a scowl.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by z-8

Are you suggesting there would be a free membership level offered in the event the government adopted their language

Nope. Without the income realized from all these new members the "offer" would cease to be an offer. It would then be a government strong arm proposal to pervert the purpose of a voluntary private organization.

No, I see this as a carefully worded, deniable, meant to be attractive offer from the government to the AMA to transition them from being monopoly controller of who flies at nearly all RC club airfields in the country to monopoly controller of all RC flight in the country even if the flight does not take place at an AMA affiliated flying field. It would be a normal thing for a government authority to see this as a great opportunity to delegate regulatory power to a private subcontractor which would not cost the government a penny. And the bait would be increased membership dues from the people who presently see no usefulness in the AMA. Without the dues the whole scheme is unworkable.

Originally Posted by z-8

Why not quote the exact, offensive FAA language that they so strongly imply exists?

That makes sense except that in these days of "government in the sunshine" and "all legislation will be posted on the internet in its entirety for public evaluation" secrecy is becoming even more prevalent than before. Neither the FAA nor AMA is allowed to disseminate any information regarding the actual content of any meetings they have had. Gives you loads of confidence, eh? You are assuming that "operational safety program currently administered by a community-based organization." is AMA language. However, based on language contained in hundreds of bills regarding special tax breaks and incentives, it's easy to see that this is classic hill rat language. Instead of giving Boeing a billion dollar payoff, they will instead say something like "this tax shall apply except for companies beginning with the letter "b", having corporate offices in area code 60606 and having designed a military bombing aircraft designated partially by the number "17" used between the years 1941 to 1945." This language is intended to conceal, not communicate and is classic governmentese. The AMA doesn't seem to have that kind of linguistic ability (or inability if you prefer). They would merely say "the AMA."

Originally Posted by z-8

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.

Because in this age of intense government overexpansion I believe they see the possibility of subcontracting the job on the cheap. I don't believe the AMA is disposed to take the implied bait. Even with the dues, the AMA sees that the result would be widespread resentment of the AMA and a reduction in membership as a great many of us hoist the jolly roger. Since RC pilots are not the real object of the bill any enforcement efforts would be confined to commercial applications and RCers foolish enough to call attention to themselves by stupid operations, the pirates would carry on unhindered while the AMA would fall into an unrecoverable tailspin.

[Turner]

Originally Posted by z-8

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.

Originally Posted by z-8

...Bottom line: The only threat here to modeling is the AMA's own suggested legislative language, which requests that lawmakers require AMA membership (or something unnamed that is extraordinarily similar to it) to legally operate an RC model. That law, if successful, would be an unsolicited add-on driven by the AMA, not the FAA.

Not the way I read it. I see no implication of a membership requirement.

You overlook what is probably the most important part of the language that you fear so much.

...operated in accordance with...

[Rabbitcreekok]

Originally Posted by z-8

Thanks, again. I listened to the whole thing and there was nothing specifically quoted from the FAA, nor was there anything mentioned that could be considered a threat. In the second audio clip they basically admit there is no FAA threat to RC modeling at all.

Also, this whole thing stems from their, quite unreasonable in my view, assumption that model RC airplanes must fit into the US airspace system. Maybe so, but there is no such stated requirement now. And if that is a correct assumption, then it applies right now, not only in the future, and there is almost no US airspace (perhaps 1%) that regulates flying anything, real or unmanned, below 1200' AGL. The only place where there is regulation is where certain classes of airspace extend all the way to the ground near busy airports.

The AMA representative tries to conjure up suggested changes to definitions of US airspace classes as some sort of new FAA attack specifically on RC models. No--that is regulation on all flying aircraft, and the US airspace system already exists, and in a very few areas, extends to the ground where full sized aircraft need to transit for landing, etc. Don't fly RC there! That's dumb. And the FAA probably should specify no model aviation in those low altitude areas where they already extend the same restrictions to operators of full size aircraft.

The AMA trying to link any suggested, potential encroachment of Class B, D, and E airspace on Class G (uncontrolled and unregulated below 1,200' AGL) pertaining to full sized aircraft, as some sort of FAA attack on RC modeling, is REALLY reaching.

Bottom line: The only threat here to modeling is the AMA's own suggested legislative language, which requests that lawmakers require AMA membership (or something unnamed that is extraordinarily similar to it) to legally operate an RC model. That law, if successful, would be an unsolicited add-on driven by the AMA, not the FAA.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying.

We know that the FAA is going to regulate Unmanned aircraft in any airspace they choose to regulate. The aircraft we fly in our hobby-sport are unmanned aircraft that will fall under the FAA's proposed regulations.

You would have us throw ourselves on the mercy of the FAA, a government agency, and let them develop said regulations and we just meekly follow along. I don't know about you but I don't trust the FAA to regulate our hobby-sport in a way that is acceptable to me. The AMA is the only representative to the panel that is working on the proposed rule making that represents my interests and those of model aviation.

This was a non problem for many years because the model aviation hobby were basically the only folks flying unmanned aerial vechicles of any sort. Now the airspace is being filled with commercial UAV's and the FAA will regulate them and we don't want to fall under those regulations.

If you choose to not belong to the AMA that is your choice, but you should not display your ignorance concerning the upcoming NPRM and the AMA's long standing participation with the FAA and the FCC in protecting our being able to continue participating in model aviation.

[z-8]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

No, I see this as a carefully worded, deniable, meant to be attractive offer from the government to the AMA to transition them from being monopoly controller of who flies at nearly all RC club airfields in the country to monopoly controller of all RC flight in the country even if the flight does not take place at an AMA affiliated flying field. It would be a normal thing for a government authority to see this as a great opportunity to delegate regulatory power to a private subcontractor which would not cost the government a penny. And the bait would be increased membership dues from the people who presently see no usefulness in the AMA. Without the dues the whole scheme is unworkable.

You lost me at controlling all fliers. The FAA doesn't do that now and they don't want to. They don't even regulate ultralight manned aircraft. I see no desire for the FAA to control RC hobbyists, only the AMA seems to want that.

That makes sense except that in these days of "government in the sunshine" and "all legislation will be posted on the internet in its entirety for public evaluation" secrecy is becoming even more prevalent than before. Neither the FAA nor AMA is allowed to disseminate any information regarding the actual content of any meetings they have had. Gives you loads of confidence, eh? You are assuming that

"operational safety program currently administered by a community-based organization." is AMA language. However, based on language contained in hundreds of bills regarding special tax breaks and incentives, it's easy to see that this is classic hill rat language. Instead of giving Boeing a billion dollar payoff, they will instead say something like "this tax shall apply except for companies beginning with the letter "b", having corporate offices in area code 60606 and having designed a military bombing aircraft designated partially by the number "17" used between the years 1941 to 1945." This language is intended to conceal, not communicate and is classic governmentese. The AMA doesn't seem to have that kind of linguistic ability (or inability if you prefer). They would merely say "the AMA."

Because in this age of intense government overexpansion I believe they see the possibility of subcontracting the job on the cheap. I don't believe the AMA is disposed to take the implied bait. Even with the dues, the AMA sees that the result would be widespread resentment of the AMA and a reduction in membership as a great many of us hoist the jolly roger. Since RC pilots are not the real object of the bill any enforcement efforts would be confined to commercial applications and RCers foolish enough to call attention to themselves by stupid operations, the pirates would carry on unhindered while the AMA would fall into an unrecoverable tailspin.

Well, I think if they came right out and said, "our new AMA-suggested legislative language requires that everyone pay AMA dues in order to fly RC," then everyone would cancel.

At least I hope so, as an American who believes that all People are inherently free with the right to, as a minimum, a God-given (not government given) right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness--with the last two apparently under attack by the AMA, not by the FAA.

[Larry3215]

All this hot air about the AMA wanting to take over the world is based on one very false assumption - that the AMA is a PROFIT based organization.

You're thinking they are a BIG CORPORATION trying to get our money.

Horse pucky.

The AMA is NON-profit and the vast majority of the people running it are volunteers who get NO pay what so ever.

Also, every single member - from the president on down are RC modelers just like the rest of us.

They are not evil corporate money mongers out to rip you off at every chance.

Get real please.

[z-8]

Originally Posted by Rabbitcreekok

Let me see if I understand what you are saying.

We know that the FAA is going to regulate Unmanned aircraft in any airspace they choose to regulate. The aircraft we fly in our hobby-sport are unmanned aircraft that will fall under the FAA's proposed regulations.

The FAA doesn't even regulate manned aircraft in the form of ultralights. For manned aircraft, Class G airspace is unregulated, that is everything below 1,200 ft AGL, with the exception of airspace attached to busy airports and some special use, like prohibited airspacearound the White House and Nuke plants.

You would have us throw ourselves on the mercy of the FAA, , a government agency

Classes of airspace exist now. So we are already at the mercy of gov't.

It is silly to suggest that RC flying falls into airspace classes as participants, and not as obstacles, because if we do then we have some serious minimum altitude problems, like staying at least 2000 ft AGL over a congested area, forget about maximum alt requirements.

and let them develop said regulations and we just meekly follow along. I don't know about you but I don't trust the FAA to regulate our hobby-sport in a way that is acceptable to me. The AMA is the only representative to the panel that is working on the proposed rule making that represents my interests and those of model aviation.

This was a non problem for many years because the model aviation hobby were basically the only folks flying unmanned aerial vechicles of any sort. Now the airspace is being filled with commercial UAV's and the FAA will regulate them and we don't want to fall under those regulations.

There are no gov restrictions on ultralights or any civil aircraft operating below 1,200 ft, with a very few (and generally smart) exceptions.

If you choose to not belong to the AMA that is your choice, but you should not display your ignorance concerning the upcoming NPRM and the AMA's long standing participation with the FAA and the FCC in protecting our being able to continue participating in model aviation.

I hope anyone who reads the AMA's suggested new government requirements of belonging to a national club, and thus paying their private dues, is wrong and must be stopped in its tracks. The AMA's suggested legislation is far more restrictive than FAA regulations to operate manned aircraft in the same airspace.

[z-8]

Originally Posted by Larry3215

All this hot air about the AMA wanting to take over the world is based on one very false assumption - that the AMA is a PROFIT based organization.

Organizations don't need to turn a profit to meet payroll and capitalize their business. Most corporations, including some of the largest and most lucrative, zero out annually and officially make nothing after pay and expenses quite on purpose. Indeed, that is the central beauty of incorporation - no taxes after paychecks and bonuses. A non-profit organization simply signs up to it, which removes the potential to shield carry over money a lower tax rate, in exchange they get other benefits and special government status, like exemption from most forms of taxation.

But I really don't care why they want the government to require membership in some paid national club in order to enjoy the RC hobby, it is wrong no matter what the motivation even if high minded. As they say about the road to h#$%, it is paved with...

[rcers]

I think the bunny with a pancake on his head is trying to take over the world.

Just look at those eyes....

[Don Sims]

FYI the reason we closed the other threads was people resorted to name calling and violations of our TOS despite several warnings from the mods. As long as the discourse remains civil, the threads remain open.

[Turner]

Originally Posted by z-8

...I hope anyone who reads the AMA's suggested new government requirements of belonging to a national club, and thus paying their private dues, is wrong and must be stopped in its tracks. The AMA's suggested legislation is far more restrictive than FAA regulations to operate manned aircraft in the same airspace.

Just like with much of your technical rambling you invent your own facts. There is no AMA suggestion that the FAA require RC modelers to belong to the AMA or any other organization.

[Big Johnny]

<--------------AMA Member since 1976 & Loving It!!!!!

[Rabbitcreekok]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by z-8

The FAA doesn't even regulate manned aircraft in the form of ultralights. For manned aircraft, Class G airspace is unregulated, that is everything below 1,200 ft AGL, with the exception of airspace attached to busy airports and some special use, like prohibited airspacearound the White House and Nuke plants.

First of all, there is no such thing as Class G airspace, so we know you made that up. The airspace FAR's do not mention 1,200 feet in any of the rules.

Ultralights are mentioned as follows:

g. Ultralight Vehicles. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace. (See 14 CFR Part 103.)

Ultralight rules have no bearing on the discussion of Model aviation anyway. This is just a misdirection on your part.

Classes of airspace exist now. So we are already at the mercy of gov't.

It is silly to suggest that RC flying falls into airspace classes as participants, and not as obstacles, because if we do then we have some serious minimum altitude problems, like staying at least 2000 ft AGL over a congested area, forget about maximum alt requirements.

There are no gov restrictions on ultralights or any civil aircraft operating below 1,200 ft, with a very few (and generally smart) exceptions.

The FAR's require a minimum altitude of 1000 feet over congested areas and 500 feet agl over uncongested areas. Again you are making up rules that don't even exist.

I hope anyone who reads the AMA's suggested new government requirements of belonging to a national club, and thus paying their private dues, is wrong and must be stopped in its tracks. The AMA's suggested legislation is far more restrictive than FAA regulations to operate manned aircraft in the same airspace.

This makes no sense at all. What are you doing comparing FAR's governing aircraft with any proposed rules governing model aircraft. Do you not know that you must have a pilots license to operate a manned aircraft in national airspace. Do you want to be required to be licensed to fly model aircraft?

You are simply posting data that is incorrect so we will respond to it like I have. I fully believe you are posting this inherently misleading information so your threads will be active in order to promote your blog as listed in your signature.

[NJSwede]

Yet another thread I should probably have stayed out of, but here we go.

Full disclosure: I'm not a lawyer, but as the manager of a consulting practice, I have to read contracts almost daily, and I think I speak legalease pretty well.

Don't read between the lines. There's nothing there!
There's a common mistake people who aren't familiar with legal language make. Most people seem to think that there is some hidden message that lawyers sneak in between the lines in legal language, when in reality it's quite the opposite. The whole purpose of legal language is to make it so that it is NOT open for interpretation. If there are things that can be read between the lines, you can be sure your counter party is going to try to find them and use them against you, so lawyers take extreme care to make sure the text says one thing only.

So when the text from AMA fails to mention a membership requirement, it means that there's no membership requirement. Simple as that!

Being "explicitly vague" doesn't mean someone is screwing with you
Sometimes, you can't be crystal clear, simply because you're talking about things that you don't have all the details about yet. I have an example from last week, where a client didn't like a support contract where we said something like "We will make our best effort to fix bugs in a timely manner". The customer thought we were trying to screw them on support. In fact, it's quite the opposite: We can't guarantee how long it's going to take fix a bug. It can take 5 minutes, it can take 5 months. Therefore, we can't put that in a contract. We're being "explicitly vague" by saying that we're going to do our best, but we can't guarantee anything. Again, there's nothing between the lines there. It's just the truth.

So when the proposed legislation says "in accordance with rules developed by a community organization" (or something similar), the reason they don't mention an organization by name isn't because they are referring to the Secret Illuminati Nazi RC Council. My guess is that they're being explicitly vague because in 10 years the AMA may be replaced by something else or called something else and they want to make sure the legislation covers such an event.

Compliance doesn't require membership
There are many examples where you have to comply with rules made up by an organization you're not affiliated with. One example is if you go on vacation to a foreign country, say Sweden, for example. When you're there, you're required to comply with Swedish law, but there's no one forcing you to become a Swedish citizen when you cross the border. You just happen to find yourself in a situation where Swedish laws apply.

But what about enforcement?
But how can AMA enforce these rules? The answer is, they can't and they don't have to. It would be both illegal and impossible for the AMA to have inspectors at every park in the country that checks if my plane is 3mph too fast and 5oz too heavy. I'm not entirely sure how the rules are going to be enforced, but I'm guessing it's some kind of "indirect enforcement". If I crash my 200lbs turbine monster into a house at 250mph and get sued, the plaintiff can say "NJSwede clearly disregarded well-established safety rules" and the judge and jury will most likely take that into consideration when determining punitive damages, for example.

But how am I to know the rules if I'm not a member?
This is actually a non-issue. You are ALWAYS required to keep yourself informed of what rules, laws and regulations apply to you. Paying your taxes is an excellent example. The tax code isn't handed down from God to every person on golden tablets. Yet, we are supposed to know we have to declare our income and pay taxes. When we fly, it is our responsibility to familiarize ourselves with what safety rules exist. I'm sure they're pretty easy to find with google.

My biggest issue: Why?
So if we assume that it's all an evil plot by AMA, the question is WHY? Why would they want to put restrictions on the hobby, limit the number of participants and starve the hobby industry they claim to support?

But then again, I'm just a lowly Swedish immigrant who just started my addition to this lovely hobby. What do I know? Not much about the AMA, it turns out. But there's just too much in this reasoning that goes against common sense.

[z-8]

[QUOTE=Rabbitcreekok;788509]

First of all, there is no such thing as Class G airspace, so we know you made that up. The airspace FAR's do not mention 1,200 feet in any of the rules.

That's because ALL airspace below 1,200' AGL is defined by the FAA as uncontrolled. That is why it is called "government free"




Like I said above, the only exception is Class B, C, D, and some E which is around and in the lowest approach corridors of busy airport, and then there is a tiny bit of special use airspace that aircraft cannot fly through, around stuff like the White House and Nuke plants. This exists now, so the saying this is some new legislative threat that merits requiring everyone to pay AMA dues certainly makes no sense to me.

Ultralights are mentioned as follows:

g. Ultralight Vehicles. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace. (See 14 CFR Part 103.)

Ultralight rules have no bearing on the discussion of Model aviation anyway. This is just a misdirection on your part.

That is because nothing can legally fly down the middle of Denver International's RWY, including a baseball. Ultralight's require no licensing and no registration because, like RC planes, they operate in uncontrolled and unregulated airspace which is defined by the FAA as EVERYTHING below 1200 AGL that is not Class B, C, D, or E or special use. Aka Class G airspace.

This makes no sense at all. What are you doing comparing FAR's governing aircraft with any proposed rules governing model aircraft. Do you not know that you must have a pilots license to operate a manned aircraft in national airspace. Do you want to be required to be licensed to fly model aircraft?

My point exactly! The AMA representative in the audio clips linked above said that proposed FAA airspace changes, specifically to the radius requirements around busy airports that make up B, C, D, and E, were the "FAA threat" the AMA is supposedly concerned about. Those Classes exist now, and changing the radius around busy towered airfields won't change life for modelers much, if at all.

Personally, I think that should happen, the AMA shouldn't fight that in the name of increasing revenue or for any other reason. RC models probably could pose an obstacle threat to low flying aircraft trying to land or take-of at busy Class B, C, D, or some E airspace fields.

But again, that is because we are unregulated - we are obstacles, not participants in FAA airspace classifications. So I am in complete agreement with you, the argument the AMA is making that everyone should join to avoid FAA airspace modifications allegedly affecting unregistered models flying as obstacles in completely unregulated airspace is a non-argument.

In fact, civil and military aircraft flying in class G airspace accept complete responsibility for seeing and avoiding obstacles. If they hit your property, including a tower, windmill, roof-line, your pet turkey vulture, and presumably your model airplane, they have to pay you.

You are simply posting data that is incorrect so we will respond to it like I have. I fully believe you are posting this inherently misleading information so your threads will be active in order to promote your blog as listed in your signature.

If you were right about Class G not existing, when in fact you fly in uncontrolled FAA Class G airspace everyday and thus no FAA regulation applies to your model and never will, your point, and the AMA's case to mandate membership to fly RC, would have more merit in my view

[Rabbitcreekok]

Again I state that there is no such thing as uncontrolled FAA Class G airspace.

Your 1200 AGL "government free" airspace does not exist. You obviously are not a pilot. I am a CFI. You need to get your facts correct.

As usual, you are making up data and passing it off as fact.

[z-8]

Originally Posted by NJSwede

My biggest issue: Why?
So if we assume that it's all an evil plot by AMA, the question is WHY? Why would they want to put restrictions on the hobby, limit the number of participants and starve the hobby industry they claim to support?

I completely agree with you NJSwede, "Why?"

Why is the AMA concerned about FAA rules when the FAA specifically designates ALL airspace in the United States below 1,200' AGL as unregulated, uncontrolled, and "government free" (except when in close proximity to a busy airport or other special use prohibited areas like around the White House).

Surely, the AMA knows that 99.99% of the airspace RC modelers fly in is unregulated FAA Class G airspace. And surely they know that the 0.01% that isn't Class G probably needs FAA regulation to keep airborne passengers safe.

So the question is, why?

Why is the AMA trying to use the FAA to scare up business, when they know we operate virtually entirely in unregulated FAA airspace?

[z-8]

Originally Posted by Rabbitcreekok

Again I state that there is no such thing as uncontrolled FAA Class G airspace.

Your 1200 AGL "government free" airspace does not exist. You obviously are not a pilot. I am a CFI. You need to get your facts correct.

As usual, you are making up data and passing it off as fact.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...3/aim0303.html

Section 3. Class G Airspace

3-3-1. General
Class G airspace (uncontrolled) is that portion of airspace that has not been designated as Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace.

Or, see the FAA diagram on page 3, below, along with the definition of Class G on page 2:

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...apter%2008.pdf

Or look at any and every Victor Airways chart, all Class G airspace is shown in brown (that is, all the Class G that's above 1,200 AGL) and assumed to be everywhere below 1,200 AGL that isn't in an airport or special use ring that extends below 1,200 AGL.

[Larry3215]

[QUOTE=Rabbitcreekok;788509]

snip

You are simply posting data that is incorrect so we will respond to it like I have. I fully believe you are posting this inherently misleading information so your threads will be active in order to promote your blog as listed in your signature.

Bingo

[Mode One]

Is the AMA trying to monopolize model aviation? No.

I'm sure you have your point of view, from which you will not consider mine, so what's your point? Do you think your point of view is going to change any of the opposition's point of view? This is highly unlikely as people have come to their point of view, of there on accord, the same way you have come to yours! This whole thing boils down to spending $58.00 per year; or $20.00 per year for you Park Flyers. Seems like a pretty Mox Nix thing to argue about!

[road king 97]

I agree with mode one ,it burns some guys that they just cant go fly where they want to without paying dues. I dont know if they are broke and living on a fixed income or just to cheap. These are the types i am glad that wont pay and join my club because they wont help with any thing at our clubs either because they say they payed there dues and its not needed to take turns to cut the grass at the field or help out. Let him keep talking its funny to see people who have no real facts just ramble on . Next time just say you need some cash to join, and us ama members might have helped you out. lmao joe

[z-8]

Originally Posted by road king 97

I agree with mode one ,it burns some guys that they just cant go fly where they want to without paying dues. I dont know if they are broke and living on a fixed income or just to cheap. These are the types i am glad that wont pay and join my club because they wont help with any thing at our clubs either because they say they payed there dues and its not needed to take turns to cut the grass at the field or help out. Let him keep talking its funny to see people who have no real facts just ramble on . Next time just say you need some cash to join, and us ama members might have helped you out. lmao joe

Wow, you know I really thought it would be harder to reach agreement that this is just a scam for money. Even though I think it is wrong on principle to intentionally hurt the hobby to help refill AMA coffers, I do respect your honesty.

[NJSwede]

Originally Posted by z-8

Wow, you know I really thought it would be harder to reach agreement that this is just a scam for money. Even though I think it is wrong on principle to intentionally hurt the hobby to help refill AMA coffers, I do respect your honesty.

Did your propeller experiments hit a dead end so you had to resort to this kind of crap in order to drive traffic to your blog? The prop stuff was a lot more entertaining...

Word of the day is "non sequitor". Look it up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

You're jumping to a completely illogical and unsupported conclusion that is in no way supported by facts. As I've said before, I don't know enough about the AMA to form an opinion on whether they are out to scam modelers out of money and take over the world. That may very well be true. However, such a theory is in no way supported by any facts you've presented.

Your reasoning seems to be "Since RC models are unregulated today, there's no risk they will ever be, therefore the AMA campaign is a scam". If I have understood things correctly, the issue is that the FAA have announced that they may impose NEW regulations on sUAV. So, the fact that there's no regulation today is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT as to whether the FAA may implement regulations in the future.

You are making some pretty serious accusations. Keep in mind that the more serious the accusation, the more evidence people are going to demand. Throwing these kind of unsubstantiated accusations around just makes you look like a troublemaker. It does not support your seemingly desperate struggle to be taken seriously.

Any new aerodynamic breakthroughs we can discuss instead of this nonsense? Please?