franklin_m

AMA gets the blame because they've been the front piece for the lobbying efforts on the hill. I suspect they saw the CBO language in section 336 as way to encourage membership ($$$$), but did not understand how this would be interpreted by regulators. What regulators have seen is that despite the AMA, despite it's safety code, and despite all the talk from the hobby community, outreach, letters of agreement, etc., the incidents have not stopped. There's a lot of reasons for that, but when AMA injected itself as the face of the hobby to the FAA, they pretty much painted a target on themselves to actually do something about it that helps the FAA. When the incidences continued, some of which are undoubtedly AMA members, the regulators have little choice but to step in since we've demonstrated we can't do it ourselves.

As for the comment that we should have to create "us" vs. "them", that is an unfortunate consequence of public policy making and implementation as influenced by mass media. It's about creating a clear public perception difference. That difference comes by aggressively coming out on one side of the issue - and unfortunately on FPV the AMA tried to play both sides of the fence - now the hobby will now pay the price for that. Why do I think that? Well, imagine if AMA had not endorsed FPV operations in any form. Do you think Horizon Hobby, DJI, and other commercial vendors would have developed the technology for mass use? I think it might have influenced their decision to be sure. But AMA did support it, which made the technology available to AMA members - and all the others as well. The latter being the major source of the incidents that have the attention of the public and of regulators.