Originally Posted by
franklin_m
The question is not answerable when it includes the caveat: "...that takes into consideration the realities of the forces and agendas of the legal, social, commercial, and security organizations and entities arrayed against the hobby." Why? Because that statement is pretty much heat to light in its spectrum, and can mean different things to different people. What are the limits of the "realities" as you see them for each item in your list? As I'm not aware of any legal forces, save those that result from non-compliance. Nor am I aware of social factors that are specifically allayed against the hobby. The only ones I see that might be at play are commercial and security. I'll grant that commercial entities are looking to monetize the airspace, but if AMA assumed that they'd never face airspace competition, then that was probably the first step on the path that led them to where they are today. With respect to security, why should the hobby be immune from the security changes in a post 9-11 world? The hobby isn't even a Constitutionally enumerated right, and we've seen those impacted .. so why should toy planes be any different?
But moving forward. I think a "win" would have been FAA delegating authority to CBOs. I would have opposed that from the standpoint that regulation of airspace is inherently governmental, but I would have considered it a win. Other wins would have been allowing AMA number in lieu of registration, minor amendments to 336 instead of complete repeal, or no testing for CBO members.
But I maintain that any "win" must include remaining financially viable. For to get no testing for CBO members is worthless if the CBO cannot keep the lights on. Same for other things. I really think that the number one priority for AMA, far above all else, is reversing the financial trends. Policy wins are worthless if you're holding a going out of business sale at Muncie.
To be clear, what I meant by "legal" was laws that have been enacted related to the hobby (i.e.; USC 44809). What I meant by social, was the prevailing attitudes in social media and other public forms of discourse where there are often negative views related to "drones" invading privacy and/or engaging in reckless behavior, often sensationalized in the media. What I meant by commercial, as I suspect you understood, are those entities seeking to commercialize UAVs and who seem to feel that we are somehow in their way (to be honest, I still do not understand why they feel that way and why they would care, but apparently, they do). Of course, by security, which I also suspect you understood, are government security agencies who are seeking to control all that flies (and walks, runs, swims, or crawls for that matter) and were instrumental un forcing the RID agenda.
I do agree that had we been left with something like a modified version of 336, we would be in better shape, but there were so many aspects of that which were left up to interpretation that there was no way it would stand any longer, especially in light of the "realities" that I mentioned. What we ended up with is actually surprisingly similar to 336 in actual net impact. The rules are mostly the same (RID excepted) except now they are defined in black and white. What about 400' altitude limits which started this thread? Well that was always the FAA's intent, even back in the good old days of the original AC 91-57. It just now carries the weight of law UNLESS you get authorization. Ultimately, most people will be able to carry on with the hobby just like before.
RID is a bit of nuisance, but given that the security types were not going to let go of this one, I doubt that anything could have been done to prevent it (and that was the "limit" I had in mind there).
The knowledge "test" is another examp0le of a legal "limit" as it was written into law. I suspect it got into law because of a) the security types whispering bad things about "drones" to congress and b) constituents complaining to their representatives about renegade "drones", so another set of "limits".
Nowhere above do I reference the AMA and to be honest, I think that it is a good thing as I do not want to be dependent on the AMA explicitly in this area. Having clearly defined regulatory environment protects us from commercial actors, protects from renegade law enforcement types, protects from people who just don't like us doing our thing in their neighborhood (even when we have a right to be there). Even using our AMA number as a registration number with the FAA is potentially problematic as tends to codify the AMA's role in all this.
I think the AMA would have preferred a scenario in which they had ultimately more control too, but I believe that the FAA was never going to let that happen. Partly for the reasons I list above, but moreover because they would never cede authority to a civilian entity not under their control (another "limit" I suppose). But I do believe that the AMA had significant influence in ensuring that what we did end up with was for the most part livable.
Finally, I really don't care about the AMA remaining viable in the long run, because the basic framework that is in place is not dependent on the AMA or any other CBO. Do I want the AMA to use my money more effectively? Of course, but for me, that is totally separate issue. I think this is where you and find ourselves in frequent disagreement. I am compartmentalizing the AMA's financial behavior and do not mix it in with discussion of regulatory issues such as the 400 foot limit. I get that if the AMA implodes, then they are no longer there to advocate for us, but I am also happy that the framework that is in place is not totally dependent on them (or any CBO).
Sorry for the rambling response, I guess I am just a bit tired and didn't take the time to think this response through first
