Blogs

AMA retratcs (?) statements.

Posted by Duane Brocious on February 9, 2011 at 3:30pm

3689388164?profile=original

 

 

 

 

 

An Administrator (shawng) on the AMA forum posted that the recent AMA posted documents were incorrect.

Is the AMA backtracking or incompetent?

Publish stuff then tell people it is meaningless?

These guys want to run recreational sUAS regulation for the entire USA?

I hope the FAA realizes the current people running the AMA are incompetent and should be kept away from any position of control or regulation.

 

Here is the AMA's  retraction statement:

 

" Below is a message from Dave Mathewson concerning these documents:

On Friday February 4th several threads began appearing on Internet forums concerning two documents posted on the AMA Website. The documents being referred to were created, in part, as position papers to help our lobbyist when creating awareness for our cause with elected representatives. They were created in late October, early November and came right on the heels of what we feel was a low point for us in the process - the September 29th meeting with the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Program Office.

Since that time, things have somewhat improved, and what was heard at the AMA/FAA open forum held at the AMA Expo in early January is more reflective of where we are today, making these documents obsolete. We do believe that some of the concerns expressed in those papers may still be issues that could appear in the proposed (default) rule, but we are working to address those particular issues in our standards.
For the most current, up-to-date information please visit the Government Relations page on the AMA Website at www.modelaircraft.org/gov. More detailed information will also be contained in the next issue of Model Aviation magazine due out in the next couple of weeks."

E-mail me when people leave their comments –
Follow

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

  • Duane Brocious February 17, 2011 at 6:26pm

    On Feb. 3rd the AMA poseted two new documents which were the subject of several threads on several forums.
    In a retraction statement on the AMA site they can't seem to get the facts right about their own site activities.

    " M U N C I E, I N - On February 4 several threads appeared on RC Internet forums
    concerning two documents posted on the AMA website archives several months ago."

    The documents were posted Feb. 3rd, not several months ago.

     

    Liars or idiots?

  • Duane Brocious February 10, 2011 at 3:39pm

    Don't explaon or apologize... just hide the evidence.

    Post from AMA Forum (put it here in case they decide to delete it):

    "It appears that the dated and controversial material has been removed. I noticed that first they put dates on it. I guess later on they decided to delete them all together.

    B---- --------
    Leader Member
    Distinguished Service Award (2007)
    District Service Award (2010)
    EX-AVP District X (Free Speech is Not Tolerated)
    ,,,,, CA "
  • Gary Evans February 10, 2011 at 9:01am
    There is no question they will give AMA the boot with all of the momentum to do so and two pages of federal regulations would be sweet. Just a simple line by line list of all of the things we can't do. I have my hopes up now!
  • Duane Brocious February 10, 2011 at 8:25am

    "the actual amateur modeling and FPV regulations."

    I would give 20:1 odds that will be less than three pages. even money on it being one page if they give AMA the boot two if they don't.

  • Duane Brocious February 10, 2011 at 8:22am

    My point is that the ARC, which is full of redundancy, is only 70 pages, the final regs should be much less. I am willing to take bets on what the NPRM will be. : )

  • Gary Evans February 10, 2011 at 8:07am
    I'm not talking about ARC sUAS recommendations of 2009 but the actual amateur modeling and FPV regulations. Those haven't published yet but rumor is they are trying to keep it small by using the tiny IRS type font.
  • Duane Brocious February 10, 2011 at 7:51am

    All the proposed UAS regulations are only 70 pages of pretty simple reading and can be viewed HERE

  • Gary Evans February 10, 2011 at 7:10am
    That for sure and since I'm already a licensed pilot my handy FAR book is right here on the shelf. I only hope that the new chapters can be velcro'd on to the existing 554 pages of regulations so I don't have to buy a new one. 
  • Duane Brocious February 10, 2011 at 7:04am

    The insanity is that of the AMA's recommendations to the FAA :

    1. Eliminate the use of recreational sUAS except for everyone except AMA members.

    2. Do what ever you want to non-AMA members but allow the AMA  to write its own regulations for its members.

     

    Yes, I would prefer the FAA and IRS over a bunch of selfish jerks ruining things.

     

  • Gary Evans February 10, 2011 at 6:55am
    An organization that wants to increase its membership and do things for the members? What kind of insanity is that? No way in hell that’s going to work. I’m all for AMA being out of the picture and FAA taking total control. It shouldn’t take much more than a couple of new chapters in the FAR and there will be no question about what you cannot do. Only an idiot wouldn’t see this is the way to go. The only possible improvement would be to involve the IRS.
This reply was deleted.