I am waiting for Abel's comments. Although he lets a substantial amount of sarcasm enter his posts, and does not like some of the folks at AMA, he
usually gives a good two sided analysis of issues such as these. He often brings questions to the table that no one else has thought of. I don't always
agree with him, but, I do value his opinion
JR-
Thanks for the kind words. I do wish I could say something in reply that is what you would like to hear, but try as a I might, I don't think will be the case. Here are the thoughts regarding the replies to your queries to AMA that were provoked in my mind, jaundiced regarding this issue as it may have become (hey, you asked...):
Homeland Security has contacted the AMA and asked for help with information and for input in putting together a program. Not the other way around.
Not sure why this relevant, as to who contacted who first. It says OHS and TSA asked for information. They did not ask for redefinition of 'model airplane.' They did not ask for a ban on autonomous operation of R/C model airplanes. If they had, the ludicrous rationalizing for a ban on autonomous R/C model airplanes stated in the minutes would'nt have been dreamt up. The statement seems intended to infer that AMA was just being responsive to OHS and TSA. Such an inference would be misleading - this didn't come from outside AMA.
The AMA was up against the publishing deadline for the Safety Code that must be printed and goes out with the membership cards.
This infers that was some imperative to get it into the Safety Code in the first place, and it was so urgent a matter as to compel the EC to bypass all the normal protocols for putting motions on the agenda and allowing for EC representives and the members they represent to consider, discuss and comment before voting on it. There is no such imperative to change the Safety Code except in the minds of certain EC members, and the published facts are that there was nothing urgent about it. Brown and the MA Editor had made it the central topic of their respectative columns over a year (MA, Aug 02) before it became 'urgent.' Both the need and the urgency of it were manufactured by its sponsor's sitting on it until it could be presented in 'crisis mode.'
It was admitted that the definition of a model sounded reasonable while they were sitting around discussing it. They have since realized that your position is correct: they must now define autonomous as it applies to model airplanes. There is concern that the definition needs to get out to modelers ASAP. It will be a topic of discussion at the next EC meeting. The mechanism and the media are uncertain at this point. They have never been in the position of having to define a word in the Safety Code, without the ability to change the code itself. Again, the time constraints come into play.
So they don't know what autonomous means, but while sitting around discussing it, it seemed like a good idea to ban it. Now, realizing that they knee-jerked in response to a crisis manufactured by their leader, they're going going to pull a Bill Clinton and redefine the concept, as Slick Willy redefined sexual relations rather than admit his screw-ups. It's just too obvious that that the right course of action to correct this thing is to acknowledge that it was ill-considered and enacted in haste, and dump it altogether. No, have to flail around with redefining common, unambiguous English words for the sake of having another arbitrary rule that will prompt the usual response to anyone that questions what it means: "go ask Maroney for AMA's interpretation of it."
The bottom line IMHO is that no matter how long you stir and massage a bucket of BS, you still end up with a bucket of crap.
In my discussions, the topic of representing all modelers was touched on. The view is that the AMA will try to represent all modelers, but, ultimately, the responsibililty of the AMA is to their membership. An example that was used was the situation were Homeland Security raises the alert to the highest level. The AMA is suggesting that at that level, and at that level only, that flying be allowed only at the fields of AMA chartered clubs.
I have no doubt whatsoever that in their contacts with the federal agencies, AMA officials are presenting themselves as the voice of model aviation in the USA, that is, all modelers. It is on this same premise that AMA is granted special tax exemption as a non-profit corporation operating for 'the public good.' Yet somehow it is okay and perfectly understandable that they look out for their own dues-paying members first. Actually, they're not even doing that, since half of their own membership doesn't belong to AMA chartered clubs.
I really do appreciate your making contact with individuals involved in this dubious action to try and find some kind of sense in it. The answers you got fail to do that. I remain very uncomfortable with the thought of having people whose thinking is so flaky and motives so self-interested claiming to represent me and my interests to government agencies they are lobbying. From what I am seeing, they do not.
Abe