Originally Posted by
Thomas B
I have a different opinion that does not involve the $$$$ the way yours does.
When Hansen stated what you show in the first bold faced quote above, the FAA had much simpler policies concerning model aircraft that were outlined in AC 91-57. The newer policies that are causing the "beef" now had not been revealed or publicly established by the FAA at that time.
I have a flying buddy that works with a part of the FAA regularly. Back after the 2012 FAA Reauthorization bill was passed with 336 in it, he discussed it with his FAA counterpart, who was not involved with the sUAS section, but had contacts that were. The word was that the FAA was fairly pissed off about 336.
I have zero doubts gat the harsh interpretation of 336 by the FAA is as much about giving us our comeuppance as it about making the national air space safe.
The AMA thought that the FAA would follow its lead and allow FPV with an unaided line of sight spotter, under the umbrella of their CBO best practices and safety programming. The FAA blindsided them, unfairly. The other parts of the FAA letter are best described as petulant reactions that dig at us because they did not like 336.
That makes a lot of sense. AMA wasn't happy with what they were hearing from the FAA, and rather than work with them, they did an end around with the Senator - winning a battle but perhaps losing the war as they P'd off the regulators in the process. My experience is that bureaucracies don't like it when folks go behind their back, and it certainly is looking that way here. As for "hope" of a reasonable approach from this point forward, I recall words once said to me when I was a junior officer: "Hope is not a plan son."