franklin_m

I agree completely.

My issue is that in an effort to be relevant, AMA is building BAD habits in its members. They're "training" members NOT to check THE authoritative source, but rather trust that AMA will do it for them. The problem is, as demonstrated rather handily yesterday, is that AMA is incapable of responding quickly. This is just the latest, as AMA has famously decided not to publish or notify members of NOTAMS and TFRs that are applicable to to "ALL aircraft" (note 1), but choosing instead to limit distribution and publishing to only those that specifically say "model aircraft." That's dangerous. The fact that it hasn't caused an issue yet is no way a predictor of the future.

What AMA should do is what the other CBOs do. And that is point members to the FAA site, and get out of the business of deciding what does and doesn't apply. If members can't understand what they're reading, then that's topics for the "education" they tell FAA they give their members. But I don't think they have the talent at HQ in the education department to do that credibly. Perhaps they don't want to start, as they'll quickly find out just how much the AMA's members don't know (back to Dave M's comment of 28 April 2017 in an email to me and Mark R:

Note 1: Per a discussion with FAA, any NOTAM or TFR applicable to "all aircraft" is, by definition, applicable to "model aircraft."