Dick T.

My Feedback: (243)

Mike, I agree being proactive by asking the governing body to reconsider proposed regulations is a far better approach. If they agree to changes benefiting our model aviation hobby/industry other outside interpretations become a non issue. Waiting until a rule is cast in stone then fighting the agency is risky.

Research on Bob Hoover’s FAA fiasco turned up a very simple truth. A partial quote from an article on Pilot Medical Solutions web site, “In fact, the document trail reveals that the FAA process became much more adversarial once legal process was initiated by Hoover and his attorney F. Lee Bailey. While Hoover's litigation was initially successful, the favorable decision was quickly reversed by the NTSB and did not result in FAA medical approval for Hoover. Bailey and Hoover filed appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court and lost.”

AMA’s initial dealings with the FAA seemed to progress positively and AMA should have independently maintained that approach. Attaching us to Sen. Inhofe’s personal crusade against the FAA, which was already poking a stick in the beehive, was a risky and possibly unnecessary move as it put us in an ‘adversarial’ light.

However our comments to FAA during this review period may help reduce the perceived conflict and illustrate we have common air space safety in mind. Initial factual AMA presentations to the FAA were well received. Our direct positive comments and suggestions may serve as a reminder the AMA was working towards that common goal with no intent to become an adversary.

In my opinion the FAA proposal as written only needs a little clarification in the area you outlined. AMA’s early influence clearly shows and that we have been following those guidelines for some time. I see no other chicken little moments on its surface.