Originally Posted by
astrohog
Please explain how they could have been blindsided by this?
The same way DJI was evidently blindsided? They went out "on risk" and developed the Aeroscope system, hoping for some nice fat contracts once the FAA came out with Remote ID specs. Well, surprise, surprise! Aeroscope won't qualify and they've been left holding the bag.
How could this happen? Well, maybe some senior manager at FAA, or a political appointee, put pressure on the FAA to deliver an NPRM by the end of the year. No arguments; cease research; "bring me a rock, NOW". Well, gee, "if you want it real bad, you get it REAL BAD".
Originally Posted by
astrohog
You are spending a lot of your personal time and effort to respond to the FAA’s proposal, I think you should spend the few minutes necessary to watch the video and see for yourself how the paid AMA staff are representing our modeling interests.
Sorry, that won't help me write comments to the NPRM. If the AMA issues additional guidance before the deadline I will of course read it closely. I'm not bound to conform to it however.
OIOW: I'm more interested in finding a life raft than worrying about whose fault it was that we hit the iceberg...