Originally Posted by franklin_m

The challenge for the modeling community is that we can't conclusively prove that these aren't our members. Any number of us have seen AMA members violate one or more safety rules at fields, and I'm talking substantial rules like intentionally flying behind the flight line, distance to spectators, etc. So I for one would not go on record and say none of them are AMA members. The F4 sighting down in Florida (I believe) was concerning enough to the AMA that they sent a communication to their clubs in the area. Again, if you're so confident that your members follow the rules, no need for the note from HQ. On the other hand, the note from HQ indicates they're not 100% sure it wasn't a member.

The problem in all this is that local law enforcement will be the most likely to respond, and lawmakers will want to give them easy to use and easy to interpret tools. Geographic is easiest. Heck, even FAA is producing an app to help with that. The next most difficult is altitude. There's a couple ways that could be handled, but easiest is a laser range finder. For less than $100 you can get one good to over 500yds, more than enough to determine altitude. Obviously there will be some need to catch folks in the act, but that problem will exist with any enforcement method, so it's not a discriminator. Unfortunately, if it turns out to be too difficult to define and enforce where you can't fly, then the only other method available to lawmakers (save expensive technology solutions) would be to define where you can fly sUAS. That way, any sUAS ops outside defined areas is, by definition, not lawful.

Now I don't know about you, but I don't want to see that happen. So I think we AMA members have all the incentive in the world to solve this ourselves lest the solution be taken out of our hands.