IMO, the AMA EC's key mistake was believing their own rhetoric. They spent so much time chest thumping on their safety management system, their influence, the idea that every pilot ever created started with toy planes, they hundreds of millions they raise for every charity in the US, and their unmatched scientific expertise when it comes to aviation, etc. Of course, none of the above is true, but the EC spent so much time parroting it, they they actually started to believe it.
The problem is, the other aviation stakeholders saw them for what they are. A bunch of rather fumbling old fogies who play with toy planes and have an overly inflated view of their hobby that just isn't match by reality. Then, in a desperate effort to stem a decade of declining revenue, rather than compromise with the FAA and other stakeholders, they did a Congressional "end-around" the FAA and got 336. I can say that bureaucracies don't appreciate those sort of stunts, and the FAA's reaction was predictable and obvious. For example, the EC complained about how FAA wouldn't send decision makers to meetings with them, and they complained that FAA had not acted on their CBO petition despite having it for years. That was the FAA bureaucracy flipping AMA the bird over the 336 stunt. What's tragic is that AMA could not see it.
And then of course there's the reality. Congress and FAA saw clearly what AMA was trying to do with 336, "order" the FAA to let them do whatever they want while simultaneously using the law to try and compel membership. Again FAA reacted predictably, jumping at the first chance to say for the record (in response to my email I might add) that they did not interpret 336 as requiring membership Meanwhile, FAA slow rolled AMA. Smiling to their faces, while doing nothing substantive in response to AMA. And of course, AMA was OBLIVIOUS to this.
And other aviation stakeholders don't take AMA seriously for more tangible reasons. AMA says they have a "Safety Management System (SMS)," but the other stakeholders (and FAA) know otherwise. It exists in name only, and it's apparent. IF it was a genuine SMS, there would be centralized AMA compliance monitoring of club operations, Large Model Aircraft inspections, turbine waiver signoffs, etc. That would mean centralized HQ people, in a systematic way, checking clubs, inspectors, and CDs to ensure that they're executing the program in a consistent way ... the way AMA wants it done. Instead, AMA merely writes a rule and "assumes" everyone follows it. Similarly, when there's a near miss, they actually hold people accountable. For example, a 100lb plane nearly misses the crowd at a major event. Not only were safety standoffs waived (who, why, under what authority, supported by what risk analysis), aggressive maneuvers close to the crowd were allowed (same questions), but also it was the third total loss mishap from the same operator / builder. The latter raises questions about skill, safety mindset, and even who inspected the aircraft and determined it was safe for signoff as LMA? The point is, other aviation stakeholders hear AMA's rhetoric and see, quite easily, that AMA is TALKING a good game, but DOING virtually nothing they say they do.
Fast forward to now. AMA has spent months, desperately trying to maintain that romanticized image of themselves. As we've seen, the reality is much different. They're NOT the source of all pilots in the US. They make money for charity, but tiny in comparison to other sources. And their STEM "education" pales in comparison to what Flite Test does. Yet they keep thumping their chests. Again, "Believing their own rhetoric."
Now they are trying to do another Congressional end-around on the FAA. Tyler Dobbs' interview the other day was embarrassing. It was him saying (picture toddler stomping feet) "Waaah ... waaah ... waaah ... the meanies at the FAA won't give us what we want, when we want it, exactly as we've always done it." The FAA Air Traffic Control people will be hammered by NTSB if they allow AMA above what Congress said and there's an issue with a manned aircraft. It is baffling that anyone at AMA actually thinks the FAA air traffic people are going to stick their professional necks out any more than what 349 requires. And for a small organization, that doesn't even have a serious safety program? Yeah right. "FAA allows commercial operators waivers...." as noted by by Tyler. Well yes, because unlike toy plane flyers, those folks are actually FAA LICENSED! The level of incompetence in dealing with FAA is comical.
So I predict that FAA will either tell them flatly no, or will say "Ok, we'll put your requests out as a Notice of Proposed Rule Making." FAA knows how to play this game. That NPRM will allow all the other stakeholders, DoD, DHS, ALPA, etc. to comment. And those folks will not support AMA's "wants." Those comments will give FAA all the ammo they need to formally tell AMA no in a way that Congress won't touch. Checkmate.