ORIGINAL: fly24-7

I understand that, but I think the definition is too broad and needs more work. I have some history in combating government legislation. I found that the path to success is not in fighting the legislation, it's in getting the scope narrowed such that you're excluded. Then you get a win-win. You're out of the cross-hairs and the legislators get their victory for ''advancing the ball.''

In my mind, the key is getting our models as far away from the word ''drone'' as possible. The AMA doesn't seem to be doing a good job of that. The word is plastered all over their website. You've got an AMA member talking about the ''rise of the personal UAV.'' Talk about muddling the issue. If I was consulting the AMA, I'd say do everything possible to distance model aircraft from any terminology like UAV, UAS, Drone, etc... We fly models. They're different in their purpose and application from these other machines. Models have operated within a prescribed set of rules for may decades with a favorable safety record and on balance, with a positive community impact.