rgburrill

I wonder if this personal vendetta hijacking was planned to divert attention from the intent of this thread It's a shame, too, because the subject is an important one.

That word "should" in the AMA rules is the reason for the mini-lawyering and needs to be replaced with "shall".

Hydro Junkie

Most times, it probably is. Get everyone sidetracked and riled up and the original subject vanishes from the discussion. Bad part is that you're right, this is important though those that will support the AMA to the death don't realize that this is a very important issue and it's one that needs to be corrected despite certain people in Muncie that will fight it tooth and nail

ECHO24

If AMA had a professional board of directors they would have removed Hanson for cause for his November article in
Model Aviation or even earlier for his op-ed in The Hill. Hanson is unfit for office but has entrenched himself so deep
in AMA that no one there has the cajones to overrule him.

This is what happens when one person effectively takes over an organization and runs it on their personal whims.

jcmors

There are many issues and problems with getting Hanson voted out. There are only two other candidates allowed to run, splitting the vote for non incumbents. We saw in the last election that he has no qualms using his column in the magazine to disparage a potential opponent. However I believe that the biggest thing that prevents the membership from ousting him is that, if you take the last election as an example, by and large the membership just doesn't know or care. A very small percentage of the membership even bothered to vote. Most of the membership are members only because they have to be in order to fly at club fields, participate in events, or maybe for the insurance and pay no attention to the politics, management or inner workings of the organization. Those of us who read these forums can see some of the issues and problems, the mismanagement of finances, the push to try to force membership using the law and regulations carefully worded. The majority of the membership, in my humble opinion, just doesn't pay attention or care.

init4fun

Yep , the pitiful voter participation in AMA votes shows that your right , to many members it seems the AMA is just an insurance policy so they can fly at the local club field

init4fun

RG , I agree on both counts , the thread derailment and the soft language of the word "should" . It would be fine with me to see "shall" or even the more blunt "must" replace "should" ....

jcmors

Exact, purposeful wording can indeed make a subtle difference in the perception of meaning. Nothing wrong with making things perfectly clear. To some extent, I think it may be a generational thing. You "should" follow the law. When I was younger that told me that it was mandatory but these days everything is considered to be just a suggestion unless there is some threat of punitive action.

franklin_m

I think that if AMA has any hope of regaining credibility with the other aviation stakeholders, they must change "should" to "shall" and, more importantly, mean it. You don't see any other aviation stakeholders looking at the FARs and using excuses like "it's not enforced" or similar rationalization to break the LAW. What's shocking is that AMA is so blatant about it. And I'm sure that point is not lost on those other groups, especially DoD, DHS, and Federal LE.

I strongly suspect that FAA is going to make an example out of an AMA event when it gets the opportunity. They'll wait until some turbine, IMAC, or other large heavy and fast thing goes out of control and lands somewhere really scary. And yet these communities feel they have some God given "right" to roll the dice with the future of the hobby each and every time they fly. All because AMA is content with members breaking the law. Which, they do, and they do repeatedly in front of AMA EC members and other direct representatives of the AMA (CDs).

It will make for a compelling "pattern of behavior" argument to use as justification for a severe clamp down after that one scary event. By then, AMA may say "oh, but we'll change." But it will be too late.

ECHO24

Changing a few words in the safety code is pointless when AMA is already ignoring federal law.
It's going to take losing a couple of FRIAs for AMA to wake up.

@Franklin
Not that it matters to AMA, "shall" can mean may or will. "Must" makes clear it's mandatory.

franklin_m

Copy. My experience is with NATOPS publications, were at the beginning there is always a section called "WORDING" that reads like this:Until AMA takes a similar approach, I believe NONE of the other aviation stakeholders, particularly DoD and DHS, will take them seriously.

ECHO24

"Shall" is clearly defined there, but it can mean other things in different contexts. This from the FAA gives some
history on the subject and current usage,
https://www.faa.gov/about/initiative...les/mandatory/

"Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word "shall" is confusing because it can also mean "may, will or must."
Legal reference books like the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer use the word "shall." Even the Supreme
Court ruled that when the word "shall" appears in statutes, it means "may."

franklin_m

It works in NATOPS because it's so clearly defined. The word chosen doesn't matter so much as making sure the definition is stated and use consistent. Whatever the FAA considers for "mandatory" would be the best word to use. USA, USAF, and USN aviation aligned on "shall" decades ago, so they've retained it for all their manuals.

I just want the AMA to decide to follow the law. It has the advantage of being an approach they've not tried yet!

Hydro Junkie

Okay, in NAMBA, if you want to make a rule change, you submit it to your district VP who sends it to the equivalent of Muncie where it is given a one year trial before being voted on to make it a hard change with the rules updated. Does the AMA have a similar process and, if so, would it work to get the vaunted Safety Code updated to make it mandatory rather than just a suggestion that should be followed? I can already see Rich Hanson fighting this one by not putting it in the AMA's money pit of a magazine as it's something that would undermine his power as now he would have to tell the members the FAA's word is law, not something that is an option.
Then again, I see a lot of CDs and event organizers that still ignore the change, if it's approved, until an FAA rep shows up and shuts down an event or two due to failure to follow the law.
Okay, let the "Muncie Minions" attack me now as I know it's coming.

edit
Just had a thought, the FAA can shut down any event they want right now for violation of the law(altitude limit) whether the rules/safety code is changed or not. I guess my whole post is a mute point as the law is the law, REGARDLESS of what the safety code, EC or Rich Hanson say to the contrary

FUTABA-RC

I tend to agree with this.

FUTABA-RC

The Board of Directors for the AMA is called the Executive Council. It is also made up of elected volunteers.

You can review the bylaws to see what actions must be taken to remove an officer or member

001bylaws.pdf

FUTABA-RC

Yes, the AMA Bylaws have a clearly defined methodology for making new rules, or changing existing rules.

The EC has sole authority and discretion over the Safety Code. Members are not involved in the process.


As I have tried to point out numerous times, the 8 conditions set forth in Section 349 are just that, conditions. They define what actions a person must take to be exempt from the FARs and specifically Part 107. So it is not "illegal" in and of itself to disregard any of the 8 conditions. If it were the law would define the nature of the violation and the associated punishment. Section 349 has no such provisions. All that does is move your operation from being an exempt recreational flight to being a non-exempt flight subject to Part 107. Part 107 applies ONLY to the PIC, so it might be difficult to shut down an entire event. What they could do is observe and record actions that fail to meet the 8 conditions and then issue citations to individual pilots for violating Part 107.

This is exactly what happened about a year ago when a young kid and his father received a number of Part 107 violations because they failed to register their DJI Spark. As such their flight was deemed subject to Part 107 and that is what they were cited for. The failure to comply with 336 (which was active at the time) moved them into the FARs and Part 107. But they were not cited for "violating" Section 336.

mongo

My Feedback: (15)

one of the few posts i have ever wanted to "like"

Hydro Junkie

Be that as it may, Bill, if the FAA starts "ticketing" participants for breaking the rules(or law), due to being told they weren't required to follow them by the EC(more specifically, following what Rich Hanson has put in writing, not once but twice), I'm sure the members would get the message that the days of being able to fly when/where/how they want are over and that the rules will be followed or there will be consequences. As I see it, the event organizers can either work with the FAA or follow Hanson's written word of doing what they want and see how it all plays out. As I see it, it should get interesting if the FAA sends officers to watch an event and sees several people violating the rules. I'm sure Hanson's reputation will end up in the toilet before too long if it happens at several events.

edit
I found proceeding information on expelling members and complaints about CDs, but only a single one word reference applying to EC officers. I found one place where the word "impeachment" was used. I found nothing about how that was to be performed but, what I found interesting, is that any complaint against any member that couldn't be handled at area VP or by the AMA office staff had to be reviewed by the Executive Director, President and Vice President. That tells me that any complaint directed at Rich Hanson has to go through Rich Hanson's hands, thus making any such complaint DOA. If I'm wrong, please tell us where to find "impeachment procedures" or "complaints against elected officers" are located.

FUTABA-RC

Again, there is no mechanism for doing this directly based on 349. The citations MUST be based on the FARs and the most likely is Part 107.

And all of you act like the FAA does not know what is going on and have decided it is your job to shed light on the darkness. The FAA is fully cognizant of the situation. So far they have demonstrated little interest in enforcing their own regulations except is specific circumstances where public safety has been jeopardized.

FWIW, I fully agree that the AMA should cease sending out mixed messages. But at the end of the day it is on each of us to either follow the law or not.

ECHO24

I said "professional".

FUTABA-RC

Ah, I get it. We're playing "Let's pretend". Lots more fun than dealing with reality.

ECHO24

Cute.

AMA bylaws spell out the procedures for removing members but only mention succession if the president is
"impeached or removed". Any officer can be removed for cause. A president encouraging members to violate the
law would certainly qualify, as well as Hanson's "punish all non-AMA members" diatribe in The Hill.

However, AMA is a pretty much a closed shop. I'm guessing AMA co-leadership bought into Hanson's legal deception
on 400' (until the ruler across the knuckles from the FAA anyway) as well as the forced membership scam.

So I don't imagine there is any dissent at HQ. I was talking about a board that wouldn't just sit back while the
organization swirls down the drain.

FUTABA-RC

Again, wishes and dreams on an internet forum are pretty much meaningless. If you really want to get rid of Hanson you are going to have play their game, making it a really tough hill to climb. As you are finally recognizing, he is not acting in a vacuum.

ECHO24

Even if the EC was like a typical non-profit board with ultimate oversight, after 336 was repealed there is no way
Hanson would be removed short of a major scandal. AMA was and still is in crisis mode and Hanson means stability
if nothing else. And now with everything going forward dictated by the FAA anyway, Hanson is as good as anyone.
There's not much left to screw up.

Hydro Junkie

The question now isn't how much more is there to screw up. The question now is how much time does the AMA have left due to his maneuvering and duplicity while trying to get the FAA to do his bidding. We all know the FAA doesn't trust the AMA and that makes the AMA nothing but a hinderance that's going to be put out of its misery, kind of like a mosquito. The question is, to be blunt, how much more blood will the AMA faithful be willing to feed the mosquito before it gets "swatted"?