AMA and me

[Latenite]

Not only do I fly a Mavic Air, I also operate RC helicopters (and cars). I've been looking at some local flying club websites and all memberships to said clubs also require an AMA membership. In the past, I never had a need for a club membership, but I'm now starting to consider it for reasons that I didn't have a handful of years ago (although I'm seeing almost nill regarding drones in clubs). At the moment other than insurance and the requirements of a club, I don't see a reason for an AMA membership.

Could I get some input from the masses regarding the value of an AMA membership?

 

[EdM]

Maybe something simple like it's the largest organization fighting for your right to continue flying your Mavic Air.

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

Could I get some input from the masses regarding the value of an AMA membership?

The AMA lobby is really the only entity countering commercial groups trying to nix section 336, so I feel supporting them is a good thing.

You also get a couple nice magazines each month.

 

[NRRTRAINS]

Not only do I fly a Mavic Air, I also operate RC helicopters (and cars). I've been looking at some local flying club websites and all memberships to said clubs also require an AMA membership. In the past, I never had a need for a club membership, but I'm now starting to consider it for reasons that I didn't have a handful of years ago (although I'm seeing almost nill regarding drones in clubs). At the moment other than insurance and the requirements of a club, I don't see a reason for an AMA membership.

Could I get some input from the masses regarding the value of an AMA membership?

The AMA is good . if you belong to a RC club and you go to events or fly at your clubs field , you need the insurance coverage just in case you have an accident and someone gets hurt , you are covered .the AMA is starting to cover more drone activity's in the AMA magazine . Go online and give it a try .

 

[tcope]

The AMA lobby is really the only entity countering commercial groups trying to nix section 336, so I feel supporting them is a good thing.

You have confirmation of this? Truth is, there is nothing to back this up (no their blog post does not back this up).

 

[EdM]

You have confirmation of this? Truth is, there is nothing to back this up (no their blog post does not back this up).

tcope, you must not be an AMA member.

 

[tcope]

tcope, you must not be an AMA member.

I'm also not member of NASA but I know a lot about space.

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

You have confirmation of this? Truth is, there is nothing to back this up (no their blog post does not back this up).

Seriously? Where do think Section 336 came from and why do you think it's still there?

 

[Cybernaut]

You have confirmation of this? Truth is, there is nothing to back this up (no their blog post does not back this up).

Help the AMA protect 336 - sUAS News - The Business of Drones

AMA Requests Help to Protect Section 336 - Arvada Associated Modelers

As far as I can tell, the AMA has not yet been invited to the House Aviation Committee hearings. The Commercial Drone Alliance is trying to do away with Section 336.

 

[tcope]

Seriously? Where do think Section 336 came from and why do you think it's still there?

It came from Congress and it is still there because Congress would need to change it. It is a part of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. It was not created by the AMA.

 

[tcope]

Help the AMA protect 336 - sUAS News - The Business of Drones

AMA Requests Help to Protect Section 336 - Arvada Associated Modelers

As far as I can tell, the AMA has not yet been invited to the House Aviation Committee hearings. The Commercial Drone Alliance is trying to do away with Section 336.

Your first link.... did you even look at the page? Has _nothing_ (read, not one thing) to do with the AMA. None.

Your second link is the AMA asking people to voice their opinion. I don't see this as the AMA being the only entity working against the repeal of Section 336. Not even close. In that regard, this form is working toward that goal.

Does not really support a reason to join the AMA. Simply do what you can against people who want to change Section 336.

 

[EdM]

It came from Congress and it is still there because Congress would need to change it. It is a part of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. It was not created by the AMA.

And who do you think lobbied Congress to get it passed? It surely was not out of the goodness of their hearts.
If fact the case might be able to be made that if it was not for the AMA the only drone you might be flying would be a $20 toy from wallyworld.

 

[tcope]

And who do you think lobbied Congress to get it passed? It surely was not out of the goodness of their hearts.

I'll asking again... any proof of this? What there is would be a blog post from the AMA thanking a congressman for his help in adding Section 336. No indication that the AMA had anything to do with it. Ever seen the AMA shy away from taking credit for something?

 

[EdM]

When AMA was working on getting this thru originally I don't think blog post were quite as common as they are today.

 

[tcope]

When AMA was working on getting this thru originally I don't think blog post were quite as common as they are today.

Perhaps not... but it's in their blog:

Congress Passes Four-Year FAA Funding Bill | AMA Government Relations Blog

 

[Latenite]

Campers,
For the moment I would agree that I don't see any info on the AMA site suggesting active engagement of drone support. That is part of my reason for the question. Maybe I was missing something that others knew. So far, I seem to correct in my assessment.

That being said, unless someone can provide links to show recent content of the AMA's involvement, I'll stand by my current assessment of the AMA.

The bickering, however, must end. Nothing kills interest more and prevents opportunity for understanding than wading through layers of crap to find value.

If your response can't help clarify my question, refrain from making it.

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

These are just some examples of the AMA's involvement in government / industry affairs. I could find a ton more, but frankly I don't think some people here would believe their lyin' eyes:

"The third legacy of the FMRA is Section 336 “Special Rule for Model Aircraft”.
Congress created this provision based on some effective lobbying from the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) that was needed (in their opinion) because the FAA was considering regulating model aircraft as a part of the overall small UAS rulemaking."
336: The Great Model Airplane Conundrum


How AMA Districts Influence UAS/model-aircraft Government Regulations
http://www.amadistrict-i.org/resources/Influence Government Regulations Rev 3 Jan 2018.pdf


News from The 2018 FAA UAS Symposium
"To no one’s surprise, the AMA, whose membership has soared thanks to the combination of drones and 336, is firing back with an aggressive multi-front campaign. I know people don’t like to hear it, but these guys are the only group that has big membership numbers. They also have a war chest and have been making friends on the Hill since 1936."
The 2018 FAA UAS Symposium issue of Dronin' On 03.10.17



FAA Safety Briefing May/June 2017
"Programs, Partnerships, and Initiatives
The FAA also continues to work closely with industry partners on several programs, partnerships, and initiatives. For example, the FAA partners with organizations like the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) and the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI). The AMA promotes the development of model aviation, and AUVSI is devoted to advancing the UAS and robotics community."
https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2017/media/MayJun2017.pdf



FAA Drone Advisory Committee Minutes
"Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team Briefing Paper by Ben Marcus (Co-Chair)
The Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team (UAST) is an industry-government partnership committed to ensuring the safety of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS). The UAST supports the safe integration of UAS with data-driven safety enhancements and collaboration among members of the UAS industry. The UAST provides industry and government the mechanism to work together to increase safety in a non-regulatory fashion. Over 60 organizations are members of the UAST, including UAS manufacturers, operators, modelers, safety experts, and members of the manned community as well. Some examples of industry members include Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA), Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), Helicopter Association International (HAI), Amazon, Boeing, DJI, Kittyhawk, Measure, MOTA, Yuneec, and Zipline. The team is co-chaired by one FAA representative and one industry representative, currently Earl Lawrence from the FAA’s UAS Integration"
https://www.faa.gov/uas/programs_partnerships/dac/media/DAC_Member_eBook.pdf

 

[Qoncussion]

Not only do I fly a Mavic Air, I also operate RC helicopters (and cars). I've been looking at some local flying club websites and all memberships to said clubs also require an AMA membership. In the past, I never had a need for a club membership, but I'm now starting to consider it for reasons that I didn't have a handful of years ago (although I'm seeing almost nill regarding drones in clubs). At the moment other than insurance and the requirements of a club, I don't see a reason for an AMA membership.

Could I get some input from the masses regarding the value of an AMA membership?

I may be wrong about this, but as I remember it - AMA insurance coverage only covers RC operators *at* AMA events, or when operating at a sanctioned AMA site. I do not believe that it is a blanket policy that follows you wherever you go. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on this...?

In spite of the bickering above, the 2012 Reform Act was enacted to protect the hobby of pre-drone model aircrafts, as drones were in their infancy then. The AMA was not going out of their way to protect drone operators back then. From everything I have seen, the AMA, and its crony members appear to be more for the protection of the pre-drone era of RC flying.

Someone, please prove me wrong...

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

I may be wrong about this, but as I remember it - AMA insurance coverage only covers RC operators *at* AMA events, or when operating at a sanctioned AMA site. I do not believe that it is a blanket policy that follows you wherever you go. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on this...?

In spite of the bickering above, the 2012 Reform Act was enacted to protect the hobby of pre-drone model aircrafts, as drones were in their infancy then. The AMA was not going out of their way to protect drone operators back then. From everything I have seen, the AMA, and its crony members appear to be more for the protection of the pre-drone era of RC flying.

Someone, please prove me wrong...

Nope. You need to prove yourself correct.

 

[ac0j]

The AMA is to drones, what the NRA is to BBguns.
it KIND OF represents drones as a matter of convenience. If drone owners will pay the dues, they will take you in. BUT all the AMA leaders and most of their members are about their conventional flying toys first, that what makes up the bulk of their membership. So if airspace use by model aircraft becomes a problem because of drones, I can see the AMA washing their hands of drones to save the rest of the RC hobby they have defended for years.