cj_rumley,
Highlighted above you make some blanket statements about the AMA that are just not true.

Thirty seven years ago in Jan 1976 then AMA Executive Director, John Worth wrote in part:

F.A.A. REQUESTS AMA COOPERATION AGAIN

A few years ago, in 1972, the Federal Aviation Administration responded to some reports of near misses between models and full-scale planes by asking AMA cooperation to alert modelers to the need for vigilance in their operations. At the time, much controversy arose because it appeared that the FAA was trying to limit model flying to altitudes less than 400 feet.

That was cleared up when AMA-FAA discussions indicated that the altitude figure was not a limit but a warning point. What it boiled down to was the fact that the FAA was (and still is) concerned about any model flying over 400 feet, to the extent that they wanted to be informed when and where such flying might take place particularly if this was within 3 miles of an airport.

Once the air was cleared on this point there began a general movement toward dialogue between modelers and FAA personnel on the local scene. The FAA was pleased by this because they gained a much better idea of the location and nature of model flying actives and they also got to know many modelers and gained an appreciation for their activities. At the same time, many modelers got to know about FAA problems concerning aircraft traffic control and the need to be conscious of full-scale activity near their flying sites.

The FAA record since 1972 has been noticeably free of any incidents between models and full-scale aircraft...

It was because of those discussions in the 70’s between the AMA and FAA that the AMA safety code has had some version of it that we see today. AC 91-57 was published in 1981 and several AMA officials have discussed it since then.

It was mentioned in Mar 1977 by then AMA President, John Clemems
It was mentioned in Jan 1981 by then AMA President, Earl Witt
It was mentioned in MA articles by AMA PR representative Geoffrey Styles in Jun 1982, Jan 1990 and Jan 1992.

More recently I quote;

You are correct in that a difference does exist between the language in the current FAA Advisory Circular, AC 91-57, and AMA's implementation of this guideline in the AMA Safety code. AMA believes the only significant risk to the manned aviation community posed by aeromodeling is when model aircraft are flown in close proximity to an airport. As such, the AMA Safety Code advises modelers to remain at or below 400' AGL when within 3 miles of an airport. AMA believes this meets the intent of the Advisory Circular in creating a means by which model airplanes can operate in a safe and cooperative manner without imposing an undue restriction on the modeling community.

AMA's experience has shown that the risk posed by model aviation diminishes significantly at distances greater than 3 miles and any residual exposure can be mitigated almost entirely by proper safety training and the modelers ability to see and avoid the manned aircraft when a conflict exists. This has been AMA's position since the AC was published in June, 1981, and this is AMA's position going forward.

That having been said, there are some unique aeromodeling activities such as thermal soaring and Free Flight where additional risks do exist due to the nature of the operations. In these incidences AMA is considering additional means for mitigating the risks while essentially allowing the modelers to continue to enjoy these activities. We will work directly with the modelers, the Special Interest Groups and the FAA in developing these procedures. Once the concepts are developed and put forward for consideration more information will be made available through this forum and the AMA web site.

Though there are as yet no guarantees, AMA is confident we will be able to work through these issues, resolve any remaining concerns and ultimately provide a safe and effective program that allows the modelers to continue to enjoy the hobby in much the same way as they have in the past. “

Rich Hanson
AMA Government and Regulatory Affairs

We can discuss the merits of the issues quoted above but to say that the AMA ignores the FAA or that the AMA has been “silent” on the 400’ issue is patently false.

Regards
Frank