Thread Tools
Jun 11, 2018, 10:13 AM
Registered User
Discussion

AMA, Clarify Your Position on Prosecuting Non-AMA Members


In defiance of the FAA's position that the hobby exemption does not require membership in the AMA, Pres. Rich Hanson called on Congress
to compel the FAA to prosecute non-AMA RC hobbyists as operating illegally under Part 107, in his January op-ed in The Hill website,

http://thehill.com/opinion/technolog...rule-followers

"If Congress wants to increase the safety of our skies, they should help recreational drone pilots understand that they
need to comply with Part 107. Congress should also task the FAA with increasing enforcement so that those who violate
Part 107 are held accountable for their actions."

Yes or no, is Hanson's call for prosecuting non-AMA members the official position of the AMA?
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Jun 11, 2018, 10:46 AM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBC
In defiance of the FAA's position that the hobby exemption does not require membership in the AMA, Pres. Rich Hanson called on Congress
to compel the FAA to prosecute non-AMA RC hobbyists as operating illegally under Part 107, in his January op-ed in The Hill website,

http://thehill.com/opinion/technolog...rule-followers

"If Congress wants to increase the safety of our skies, they should help recreational drone pilots understand that they
need to comply with Part 107. Congress should also task the FAA with increasing enforcement so that those who violate
Part 107 are held accountable for their actions."

Yes or no, is Hanson's call for prosecuting non-AMA members the official position of the AMA?
Well, I would say that if it isn't, then it would appear Mr Hanson is the rogue.

Since he was identified as the president of the AMA in his little op-ed, it can be argued that what he stated is AMA policy. Of course the AMA has had time to reconsider that stance in spite of the fact that his op-ed is still out there. But a formal statement from the AMA would be nice. Either officially offend (again) some 800,000 potential members. Or go back on the public statements of the AMA president. Guess it's time to see who's in charge in Muncie? My bet is JH.
Jun 11, 2018, 01:48 PM
Short bursts, Don't waste ammo
RCAV8R1964's Avatar
Sounds like he’s looking for the FAA to help him increase AMA membership by force.
Jun 11, 2018, 01:53 PM
Registered User
Has anyone heard of any congressman making reference to The Hill article? Just because the shot was fired doesn't mean it hit anything. Unless it was a foot in Muncie.
Last edited by fishflying; Jun 11, 2018 at 02:18 PM.
Jun 11, 2018, 03:31 PM
musk the pedo
How about a class action suit against hanson.How about the IRS take away the AMA 401 3 c for lobbying to hard.
Jun 11, 2018, 04:08 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK001
Well, I would say that if it isn't, then it would appear Mr Hanson is the rogue.

Since he was identified as the president of the AMA in his little op-ed, it can be argued that what he stated is AMA policy. Of course the AMA has had time to reconsider that stance in spite of the fact that his op-ed is still out there. But a formal statement from the AMA would be nice. Either officially offend (again) some 800,000 potential members. Or go back on the public statements of the AMA president. Guess it's time to see who's in charge in Muncie? My bet is JH.
Even an alleged PhD could see this thread, and it's title are about as disingenuous as it gets. We really have the scrape the low end of a barrel to come up with this stretch of the imagination, as well as to see what characters fall out. Nothing unexpected so far. Total clickbate. FAKE NEWS

Anyone who can read and put two sentences together knows what he's talking about. He's talking about the same thing all the AMA haters have been talking about, punishing MR pilots who KNOWINGLY or otherwise break the law. How are these people usually caught? Doing something STUPID like flying over a MLB team, or a building and then crashing into it, etc/etc/etc. I thought most of the right wing leaning conservative types love law enforcement and the rule of law. Not when it doesn't fit the narrative I guess. So no, instead, let's paraphrase and inject our own narrow jaded view and twist the narrative to make it sound like he wants everyone NOT in the AMA to get arrested. More grist for the base. Yummy.

And calling out the AMA to answer it here? LOL. AS IF.

If the OP had a real question, and not a tempest in a teapot to stir up yet another round of AMA bashing, he/she could have asked the right people. I mean, even the Chartmaster general gets responses from the AMA brass, just not the ones he wants.
Jun 11, 2018, 04:17 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourtech
How about a class action suit against hanson.How about the IRS take away the AMA 401 3 c for lobbying to hard.
Brilliant idea. Let's get the lawyers involved. That will solve everything.

Oh wait, that would require actual work. And better yet a cause of action. And oh ya, standing.

But other than that ya, lets demonize the head of an organization and try to gin up outrage for a suit.

The best part of this suggestion though is the thought of someone actually thinking they know what this process is all about, and how timely and cost intensive it is. I'm begging someone to actually look into it and come back to the thread to discuss it. I think someone's been watching to many Law and Order episodes or watching the ads during Jerry Springer. "We'll FIGHT for your rights!". hahaha. What a hoot.

And a great idea on the IRS being involved too. That should be no problem. Just a quick call.

Seems appropriate and timely to sit on a website hidden behind a keyboard and thinking up ways to try to hurt an organization most people here are members of. That will help out tremendously!

They can't quite explain why they hate it so much, but gosh a few others do so lets join in.

Courts, oh man that's funny. Almost as funny as someone else here prattling on about court, and defendants etc. etc.
Jun 11, 2018, 04:21 PM
Registered User
Another AMA-bot shooting from the hip and not bothering with the source:

"To put this in perspective, according to the FAA, around 900,000 recreational users have registered their
drones with the agency so far. The math from here is easy — about 200,000 people fly under Section 336
and the remaining 700,000 are required to operate under Part 107. Those that aren’t flying under Part 107
are in violation 14 CFR 107.12, the requirement for a remote pilot certificate."

Hanson spells it out quite clearly. You're joined at the hip with the same ill-will. Bloviating won't help.
Jun 11, 2018, 05:22 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishflying
Has anyone heard of any congressman making reference to The Hill article? Just because the shot was fired doesn't mean it hit anything. Unless it was a foot in Muncie.
No doubt there were some people at the Taj that groaned when they saw that comment in writing. At the end of the day the article really didn't do much, nor will it. Other than for the usual anti AMA folk to use it as fodder. In this case it's warranted. A ham fisted way of beating his chest to show the constituency he's got their back. The Hill is a lefty Rag that doesn't really resonate.

Other than here, anyone hear anything else about it? Nope.
Jun 11, 2018, 05:29 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBC
Another AMA-bot shooting from the hip and not bothering with the source:

"To put this in perspective, according to the FAA, around 900,000 recreational users have registered their
drones with the agency so far. The math from here is easy — about 200,000 people fly under Section 336
and the remaining 700,000 are required to operate under Part 107. Those that aren’t flying under Part 107
are in violation 14 CFR 107.12, the requirement for a remote pilot certificate."

Hanson spells it out quite clearly. You're joined at the hip with the same ill-will. Bloviating won't help.
The broad brush anti anti AMA has lost it's luster, not effective here. Context makes all the difference and if ya can't see if after reading the WHOLE article and following everything else going on, well, that's that. Doesn't matter one way or another, anything he says or does gets the big thumb down.

Not that it matters, it was the main reason I didn't look back after dropping the AMA. He could have been more clear, ie crystal clear on what he was getting at, but wasn't so now he'll deal with it.

Still an absolutely ridiculous and misleading title to a thread. Spurious even.
Last edited by ppiperz; Jun 11, 2018 at 05:35 PM.
Jun 11, 2018, 09:09 PM
Registered User
To prosecute is to bring legal proceedings against someone, which is what an FAA enforcement is. As soon as you receive a letter
you are in the tank, a warning, a fine or action against your flying privileges is coming. When it does, comply or ask for an
administrative hearing: you, your lawyer, a judge, and FAA's lawyers.

Of course Hanson was just looking for the heavy hand of FAA intimidation: 107 or join the de facto CBO, AMA.

If you weren't so much into being an insult performance artist and actually followed this, yes, there were probably some groans at AMA.
This was in January, and probably more groans when he said essentially the same in February. The Sanford Amendment, sometime in
April, I believe, gives the AMA an out with the new category for non-AMA members and leaving it up to FAA.

Hanson's op-ed says what it says, more than once: "... ensure that those that fly under Section 336 are educated, trained and managed
by an established community-based organization — and that everyone else operates under Part 107". Hanson probable lost his target
audience in the first paragraph with the incomplete sentence and the incorrect link. He's referring to a another article.

There is something rotten within an organization that would have anything to do with this in the first place,
Jun 12, 2018, 07:34 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourtech
How about a class action suit against hanson.How about the IRS take away the AMA 401 3 c for lobbying to hard.
For what? What were the damages. I supposed he is not entitled to free speech if you don't like what he says?
Jun 12, 2018, 07:41 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBC
To prosecute is to bring legal proceedings against someone, which is what an FAA enforcement is. As soon as you receive a letter
you are in the tank, a warning, a fine or action against your flying privileges is coming. When it does, comply or ask for an
administrative hearing: you, your lawyer, a judge, and FAA's lawyers.

Of course Hanson was just looking for the heavy hand of FAA intimidation: 107 or join the de facto CBO, AMA.

If you weren't so much into being an insult performance artist and actually followed this, yes, there were probably some groans at AMA.
This was in January, and probably more groans when he said essentially the same in February. The Sanford Amendment, sometime in
April, I believe, gives the AMA an out with the new category for non-AMA members and leaving it up to FAA.

Hanson's op-ed says what it says, more than once: "... ensure that those that fly under Section 336 are educated, trained and managed
by an established community-based organization and that everyone else operates under Part 107". Hanson probable lost his target
audience in the first paragraph with the incomplete sentence and the incorrect link. He's referring to a another article.

There is something rotten within an organization that would have anything to do with this in the first place,
Technically the initial charge is not prosecution. If you pay the fine or give up you license there is no legal proceedings. Only if you don't pay the fine or protest a suspension will they prosecute. BTW Prosecute literally means to bring up legal proceedings.
Jun 12, 2018, 08:21 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sport_Pilot
Technically the initial charge is not prosecution. If you pay the fine or give up you license there is no legal proceedings. Only if you don't pay the fine or protest a suspension will they prosecute. BTW Prosecute literally means to bring up legal proceedings.
The initial charge is just the initial charge. It is also not really a "charge", it is just a notification of enforcement action. It is quite possible that it is resolved without punitive action by the FAA.

For instance, say you got tagged for violating controlled airspace with your quad. If you can explain to the FAA that the incident was due to a malfunction that you could not resolve, you're likely to have no consequences, especially if nothing particularly bad happened.

Also, I would think that people operating under FAA regulations (particularly 107) should be able to report incidents via the NASA ARSA system. This can mitigate any enforcement action proposed by the FAA if you self report your operational errors (before the FAA comes knocking).
Jun 12, 2018, 09:04 AM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssobol
The initial charge is just the initial charge. It is also not really a "charge", it is just a notification of enforcement action. It is quite possible that it is resolved without punitive action by the FAA.

For instance, say you got tagged for violating controlled airspace with your quad. If you can explain to the FAA that the incident was due to a malfunction that you could not resolve, you're likely to have no consequences, especially if nothing particularly bad happened.

Also, I would think that people operating under FAA regulations (particularly 107) should be able to report incidents via the NASA ARSA system. This can mitigate any enforcement action proposed by the FAA if you self report your operational errors (before the FAA comes knocking).
Yes, but the actual charge is also not prosecution. That only happens if you fail to pay the fine, refuse to surrender your ticket, or request judicial review.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion AMA Wants to Kick Out Non-AMA Members from the Hobby Exemption SFBC Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 272 Jun 11, 2018 04:56 PM
Discussion AMA is counting on its members ignorance abel pranger Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy 38 Apr 27, 2018 07:15 AM
Discussion AMA members and non-members please take our survey by April 12 AMA AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) 8 Apr 04, 2013 07:23 PM
Discussion AMA Official position on FCC non certified equipment bradpaul Xtreme Power Systems 6 Jun 18, 2010 08:57 PM
Poll NON-AMA members would you more likely join if... PLATINUM Micro Helis 100 Jul 08, 2007 01:55 AM