Hi Horrace

It was becoming obvious, some time ago, that he AMA was no longer relying in the safety code as a tool to control the actions of modelers. Many of us surmised it was for legal reasons. Ultimately, I asked. That was when I found that the safety code had, in the polices under Royal, been an exclusion to the policy. When the policy was placed with Westchester a couple of years ago, two things of note happened. The preamble to the safety code was changed from "must" to "may", and the safety code was no longer an exclusion under the policy. Some items may be exclusions, while others may not. Which are which? I don't have a clue. I only know if I ask about a particular exclusion. This could change with the next policy in March. What I know now may not be true then.

Again, unless someone knows what is covered, the only safe assumption is to believe the safety code, in it's entirity, is an exclusion. Where the safety code is ambigious, as is the case with autonomous aircraft, the only way to know is to ask.

Why the change in the safety code as an exclusion to the policy? I don't know.

kingwoodbarney

You make the case for discrimination well, should the AMA leave the situation as it is. There is no across the board policy about these implants. If the AMA were to leave the situation in place where only one individual is involved, IMHO, that clearly shows discrimination against that individual.

The actions of the BOD are local to the individual as are the statutes.

The situation is a mess. I wish I had the faith you did in the AMA reversing the situation. I guess I veiw this a lot like throwing a case to a jury... anything can happen. It would be better if it could be resolved in some other way. I can't believe anyone wants to see this go to court, or even to an attorney.