Originally Posted by
franklin_m
AMA appears to have learned a hard lesson: “Be careful whatyou wish for, as you just may get it.” They fought for specific language in the law, and they got “any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” as well as “strictly for hobby or recreational use.” Back in February 2011*, AMA praised this language. Now they’retrying to effectively say “that’s not what we meant.”
Unfortunately, the biggest sticking point for the hobby will be the phrase “strictly for hobby or recreational use,” as there’s every little room for interpretation in that language. As a dues paying member of AMA, I have to ask how much of my dues was wasted helping to craft the very language that the FAA is now using to help squeeze the hobby.
While the current discussion focuses on the FAA interpretation with respect to recreation and FPV, the larger looming problem is the FAA’s clearly established authority to regulate anything that flies in the name of safety. Sadly, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to make our case when there are so many instances of people are “handing the FAA the stick to beat us with.” Large aircraft crashes into or near spectators at AMA sponsored events is only handing the FAA yet more sticks. I believe that we have to either got to raise our game with respect to safety of our operations or risk having regulators and lawmakers do it for us.
* http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...om-suas-rules/
It looks to me like if the AMA gets their way with this fix they are requesting, then people will continue to do as they please. It will limit the FAA's authority to enforce their their part 91 rules on model airplanes, including FPV quad copters flying over 5,000 feet. Boy, won't it be fun when that amendment goes through!!