Originally Posted by
franklin_m
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.
I think highlighting the issues in the language is great, and helpful at the end of the day. Rewording and word-smithing is going to be needed, and would be best done by a group of interested parties, rather than individually, imo. Can't disagree that the results to date haven't been optimal, even with the AMA's involvement, but I think the best hope still lies with them, not one off reports and actions meant solely (or for the most part) to gum up the bureaucracy. Not that I think there would be an overwhelming amount of them....based on the recent voting results, we can't even get 10% of the membership to vote!
