Originally Posted by
jester_s1
The best the AMA could do is show the benefits of aeromodeling and ask the FAA not to slash and burn it away with regulations. It was an uphill battle all the way, and at the AMA's size and level of funding, we weren't going to get much more than a chance to ask for what we wanted.
The AMA could have spent considerably more on lobbying than they did ... which we have to acknowledge was a CONSCIOUS decision of the EC. The CONSCIOUSLY decided to keep losing money on the magazines that they could have spent on lobbying for example. There were other places where they CONSCIOUSLY decided to put money elsewhere in lieu of lobbying - a consistently losing money trade shows are others that come to mind. Folks, in the business world those are not called "the best they could," they're called "bad business decisions." Let's call them what they are shall we?
Originally Posted by
jester_s1
step 1: AMA saw a threat and responded to protect members' interests
Did they? Or were they trying to drive toward compulsory membership? The language of 336 and the FRIA proposal would seem to indicate their true motivations. There was plenty of opportunity, but AMA refused to COMPROMISE and work WITH the FAA instead of saying "NO" to everything (and going around them to Congress - something agencies HATE - the AMA took the risk, lost in the end, AND burned the very agency that regulates their interest). Another example of bad business decision by EC. I'd argue a horrible one.
Originally Posted by
jester_s1
step 2: AMA saw that drone flying was the cause of FAA concern, and so moved to try and integrate drones into AMA flying rules. (would have been great had it worked)
Uh... they did this, a MAJOR strategy change, on a split vote! That's generally a big flag that it may not be the best business decision. Yet the EC CONSCIOUSLY decided to do it. Another bad business decision.
Originally Posted by
jester_s1
step 3: FAA didn't go for requiring drone pilots to be AMA members. Big backlash from members accusing AMA of trying to profit from drones instead of attacking them.
The fact that AMA tried to push mandatory membership was a major strategic mistake that's worth noting. First, it shows a fundamental ignorance of law and constitutional issues like forced association. The AMA knew (or should have known) this would never work, yet the EC CONSCIOUSLY did it anyway. Second, it put on stark display for the FAA that AMA wasn't being up front about the language they pushed with Congress and with FAA (latest FRIA proposal). And when dealing with government, credibility is something you have to EARN, and this ruined credibility from FAA's perspective. Yet another bad business decision.
Originally Posted by
jester_s1
step 4: AMA pushes for separation of drones from "traditional" models. FAA isn't having it.
And all that did was show FAA that AMA is not serious and only opportunistic. Again, speaks to credibility of AMA and whether AMA will be a dependable partner or just quit something (drones) when it gets hard.
Originally Posted by
jester_s1
step 5. FAA does what it had already decided it was going to do anyway. AMA members blame AMA leadership.
That's an easy talking point, but it's not accurate IMO. The FAA is responding to the requirements put on it by the national security agencies. Blaming FAA for this is merely going to give away more credibility. AMA would be wise to acknowledge these factors, stop whining about them, and figure out how to COMPROMISE or risk losing it all.