Originally Posted by
porcia83
I'm guessing both suggestions are made in jest, or hope they are. Does anyone really think pitting agencies against each other is a wise move at this point, or trying to bury an agency in paperwork? In addition to it not really being realistic, do we really want to poke that dog? For better or worse, our collective efforts could probably be better directed to something more constructive via the AMA no?
It seems that is what we've been doing for the last couple years. I've lost count of how many times MA has carried glowing reports of meetings, talk of relationship building, favorable language in law, and optimism about eventual outcomes, yet we've see the issuing a restrictive interpretation of the law and the NTSB ruling today. Seems the group hug approach isn't working so well, despite MA's reports otherwise. What counts is results, and to date they've been poor. Even the legal language they touted only handed FAA an additional opportunity to create a new interpretation...a second bite at the apple if you will. So I fail to understand how using the FAA's own waiver request authority to ask for a waiver -- as one would expect any full scale pilot to do -- is somehow going to provoke them?
All I'm doing is highlighting the overly broad blanket FAA NOTAM and the implications of the language within it. Rewording it wouldn't be difficult.