Originally Posted by
porcia83
LoL..I must have missed the part where I said I 'like" it. Try putting the word in my mouth game with others eh? I'm sure the language would have been perfect had you written it. (sarcasm)
It is what it is. The language isn't perfect, it's never going to be. Is what you see above horrendously damaging to the hobby? Is being asked to remain clear of surrounding obstacles completely outrageous? Oh the humanity. I guess the ATC facility should just let anyone who wants to fly a 50 pound MR linger at the end of a runway to get those great shots of arrivals and departures?
To some degree what you see there isn't that much different than what we are doing now, and won't adversely affect a disproportionate amount of hobbyists who are more than likely operating that way now anyway. Yes yes, I know about soaring and pattern and IMAC etc etc.
And although you are no doubt aware, their are waivers too that can be applied for.
Ok, to be fair you didn't say you like it, but neither did I include those words in quotes. However, you did call attention to that language, and point out that it might not be there for the efforts of the AMA. And in no way indicated disapproval.
Ok, so then am I to believe that the AMA worked to get language limiting sUAS to 400' AGL everywhere? Because that's what a plain language read of 9.c.(2)(a) says. Am I to believe that the AMA worked to get language limiting sUAS (including "models') to no more than 55lbs? Because that's what a plain language read of 9.c.(2)(f) says. Am I to believe the AMA worked for language that allowed airport operators and ATC facilities the ability to deny operations of sUAS? Because that's what a plain language read of 9.c.(3) says. Lastly, I don't see anywhere in there about these being limited to MRs.
Now, while you say this isn't perfect, and challenged me to identify what is "horrendously damaging to the hobby." Personally, I don't think it is, but there have been many in these pages that have said a 400 foot limit would kill jets, kill soaring, kill pattern, and in general result in the end of life on earth as we know it.
Lastly, as for my perceived pleasure at AMA failures. IMO, including MRs, FPV, and autonomous or semi-autonomous navigation (return to origin for example) as part of "us" enabled the technology to flourish, and as a result, has enabled the behaviors by many that are so problematic now. With that in mind, the only way organizations are consequenced for poor decisions is when things go poorly. That consequence can be loss of influence, loss of revenue, loss of members, or all of the above. If indeed I believe the AMA made a bad decision, which I do, then yes, I do want to see AMA consequenced for that decision. Only by suffering consequences will the organization change, which I believe is necessary.