franklin_m

First, you're acting as the policy is fully developed. It's not. I have a general concept, a total energy based risk measure. I continue to develop the concept and the back and forth is actually good to further develop the concept. As to potential differences.

I see that that a FEDERALLY recognized site could rationally be held to a higher standard given the locus of activity there, and the presence of larger numbers of larger, faster, and higher flying sUAS. I could also see a rational reason that the standards are higher when there is a public event at such sites. Ultimately though, what I can see is classes of sUAS based on total energy, with "crash no closer than" distances according to those energy totals. Obviously electrics will enjoy a big advantage, as loss of power or signal means immediate loss of motive power. Also, the park flyers are smaller (less mass), limited to 60 MPH (less kinetic energy), and limited to 400 AGL or lower (less potential energy). Combination of all three of those means much smaller bubbles.

There are vastly more operators who's sUAS are closer to these parameters than those who fly large, fast, and high flying types. AMA has 110,000 paying members. Already outnumbered by the approx 2.2 lb group by 8:1. And that subset of AMA members that fly large, fast, and high flying stuff is even smaller. I just don't see public policy being centered on a small minority of a small minority.

Well, they apparently do exist lest AMA have no need for the Park Flyer program.