Originally Posted by
ElectriMan
So how is it any different than it was before TRUST?
I am certainly not a lawyer, but in my (uniformed) opinion this really does not change anything at all. Ultimately, this would come down to a situation where it can be proven that the AMA knew, or should have known that there was a "pattern of unsafe conduct" at an AMA sanctioned event and did nothing about it. The fact that the AMA members (along with all recreational flyers) now must publicly attest to the fact that they know the rules via TRUST does not change anything. The rules exist with or without TRUST and "ignorance of the law" is never an excuse. And even if ignorance was an excuse, is it really credible for the AMA to stand up and say "I didn't know that" about any of the concepts or ideas presented in TRUST? Sure, it might make for a dramatic line of questioning in a courtroom TV drama, but I still don't see how it actually increases liability.
The whole point of TRUST is an attempt to drag the "careless and clueless" (e.g.; who bought a drone at Best Buy on a whim) through minimal education in the hopes that they will have at least some idea of what is required to safely operate their new toy before launching it and letting it fly away. That is why it is really more of a training course than an actual test.