Originally Posted by franklin_m

Well, given that the AMA president used his column to say that the interpretation was wrong and not what Congress intended, then I was happy to play a role in getting the ambiguity removed once and for all.

Originally Posted by hondaflyer

The ambiguity was reserved for those dim enough to believe forced membership was possible. If that includes AMA leaders, then so be it. But it obviously includes several members here, as well.

Well, then it was "Dear Leader" himself that was 'dim enough to believe forced membership was possible," as he said in an OpEd in a major paper that non-members were in violation of 336 and called for FAA to go after them.

Originally Posted by hondaflyer

IMO, it was, and is still, just something for the Franklins, mikes, abels and mongos to keep beating the dead horse with.
If any of you had any guts, you would actually do something—like run against the current admin. But, no, of course, you all are content to sit behind the keyboard and lob cheap shots at the ones who do actually do something.

I can't speak for Mike, Abel, and Mongo, but I'd remind you that to run for office, you have to be a leader member. And since I'm unwilling to kiss the "Taj-Muncie" ring to become an LM, then running for office isn't going to happen. Besides, why? I'm of the belief that it's past saving. The 700 foot / 1200 foot thing is going to happen, and that will render "Taj-Muncie" as nothing more than an expensive financial millstone around AMA's neck. It will be all but useless for it's intended purpose. That means no reason for that bloated staff and buildings in Muncie to house them. When combined with their decade long declining revenue, declining assets, and inability to slash costs - their fate is sealed.

Originally Posted by hondaflyer

You people know AMA can’t and won’t respond to the constant attacks here, and so are just like the low class play ground bullies. There was once an informal little underground organization , started years ago by some members of that other forum. What was it called? Something about bottom-feeders, I think. Abel and mongo would know, in case of interest.

If one cannot engage on the facts of AMA's declining finances, ineffective "influence" efforts, lack of results, etc. i.e. the facts, the go to is an ad hominem like we see here.

Could it be the end?

The Doors - The End (6 min 29 sec)

If AMA is past saving then why continue to beat the dead horse?

Don't kid yourself. AMA is wrapping itself in the "doing it for you flag..." but here's the real reason. "Taj-Muncie" sits under 700 foot class G airspace. Even with the best possible outcome likely, that FAA allows recreational sUAS in class G up to floor of class E, "Taj-Muncie" becomes all but unusable for its intended purpose. No reason to hold NATS there with altitude limits. CL and other below 700' activities won't generate enough use to justify the expense. And without that facility, no reason for big staff, no reason for HQ building. Heck, no reason for museum building, as even member visits will drop like a stone.

Originally Posted by exf3bguy

If AMA is past saving then why continue to beat the dead horse?

Because it there is a slim chance, that what's left might focus on core competencies, "traditional model aircraft" and start over. Plus, I'd like to see some accountability for the failed strategy that's WASTED tens of millions of members' dollars --- and that's just on the magazine.

Originally Posted by hondaflyer

Then why don’t you quit your bitching and start a grass roots campaign yourself?
Shut up and do it!

Don't flatter me. I pay enough people now that do nothing already. If you like my idea join me. See how you Rep voted and post the result.

Originally Posted by fliers1

Our discussion was after his bio was printed. Don't know if he can change his bio. It could be he doesn't want the others to steal his plan. Just guessing here.

Interesting way to get the word out. Seems like he and Jim are buddies why not use that?

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...tial-Candidate

Mike

Even if 700 or 1200' become the absolute limit, an Altitude Limited NATS could still be held at Muncie. It would be better than a location with a 400' ceiling.

CD

Originally Posted by Captain Dunsel

Even if 700 or 1200' become the absolute limit, an Altitude Limited NATS could still be held at Muncie. It would be better than a location with a 400' ceiling.

CD

Most likely and the FAA would likely overlook any altitude requirements.

ATO is the problem as I understand the matter and between now and the next Nats perhaps ATO will be reigned in. At this point I think they are being influenced by outside commercial forces more than anything else. Sometimes folks just need to lawyer up and this is one of those time that AMA
should just flat go after ATO.

Originally Posted by Lufo

Most likely and the FAA would likely overlook any altitude requirements.

ATO is the problem as I understand the matter and between now and the next Nats perhaps ATO will be reigned in. At this point I think they are being influenced by outside commercial forces more than anything else. Sometimes folks just need to lawyer up and this is one of those time that AMA
should just flat go after ATO.

and you know that because?

Mike

Simply speculation on my part. The FAA may take a "stand back" approach for the Nats, the Nats being what they are. But I will not get drawn into a long bashing of the subject as it is only speculation on my part.

Of course, this time next year we may all be selling our gear on European and Canadian hobby sites.

Originally Posted by Lufo

Your prolific use of the sarcasm image in so many of your posts, so makes my point about the lack of intellectually driven replies in this thread and others that concern the FAA matter.

You must have the wrong guy.......