Originally Posted by
jcmors
Exact, purposeful wording can indeed make a subtle difference in the perception of meaning. Nothing wrong with making things perfectly clear. To some extent, I think it may be a generational thing. You "should" follow the law. When I was younger that told me that it was mandatory but these days everything is considered to be just a suggestion unless there is some threat of punitive action.
I think that if AMA has any hope of regaining credibility with the other aviation stakeholders, they must change "should" to "shall" and, more importantly, mean it. You don't see any other aviation stakeholders looking at the FARs and using excuses like "it's not enforced" or similar rationalization to break the LAW. What's shocking is that AMA is so blatant about it. And I'm sure that point is not lost on those other groups, especially DoD, DHS, and Federal LE.
I strongly suspect that FAA is going to make an example out of an AMA event when it gets the opportunity. They'll wait until some turbine, IMAC, or other large heavy and fast thing goes out of control and lands somewhere really scary. And yet these communities feel they have some God given "right" to roll the dice with the future of the hobby each and every time they fly. All because AMA is content with members breaking the law. Which, they do, and they do repeatedly in front of AMA EC members and other direct representatives of the AMA (CDs).
It will make for a compelling "pattern of behavior" argument to use as justification for a severe clamp down after that one scary event. By then, AMA may say "oh, but we'll change." But it will be too late.