In the Pentagon, we had a saying "Form follows funding." In the case of this committee, as was the case with the registration committee, which stakeholders represent high dollar and tax revenue producing industries? AMA? Uh...no.
I'll be the first to say it's better they're involved than not. But I'm not naïve about their ability to influence compared to other stakeholders. It's my opinion that the AMA is there for no reason other than to add legitimacy to the process, so FAA can point back and say "they were involved."
Yep all it does is give them a out.
I also disagree with the AMA's internal communication strategy. I was taught that it's always better to under promise and over deliver. I feel much of the AMA internal communication does the opposite. I read many AMA releases and they're in such a rush to show members what they're doing that they're failing to see that it's creating unrealistic expectations of the organization's ability to influence among other much more powerful members in this group.
Never any content more like cheer leading for themselves. My favorite will always be every communication had they were always " happy but unhappy"
They were involved in the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Registration Task Force (RTF) Aviation Rulemaking Committee, and we see how that turned out. In the end, all AMA could do was release statements that
"AMA wanted to include dissenting comments in the final task force report, but was prevented from doing so." Which looked like nothing more than whining. This November, it'll be two years since that release, and we're still registering.
Yep "whining" ia just what it was. Nothing more and registration will never go away. I doubt using your AMA numbers will ever take the place of the FAA number either. Why should they?
AMA's "Dissenting Opinion" release:
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/med...-registration/