cj_rumley

Yes, it does appear that FAA has rejected the AMA objective that FAA have only one tier with AMA (or of course all those other Community Based Organizations.....) making rules to 'regulate by non-regulation' the millions of modelers that do not belong to said CBO(s). AMA will hopefully be able to prepare a plan the FAA will approve to accommodate a small minority of "we," i.e., those that cannot operate within the 'advised' bounds of AC 91-57, without creating a spillover of unneeded regulation that will impact all the rest of. AMA's novel approach to accomplishing this is from the member's view limited to passing down FAA issued TFRs, as there is nothing of any more substance to be found in the designated medium for informing members of AMA's response to the ARC memo. Even the makeup of the published working group that is supposed to be addressing the issue is weirdly improbable - naming an FAA employee in a (the) key position for making the government policy AMA is trying to influence.

OP said "The objective is to discuss where we all stand individually and why we stand where we do. Also, my goal is to get a pulse on just how many of our fellow hobbyists are tuned in to the happenings of the AMA/FAA/sUAS 'hubbub'; either for or against." You say "FAA will not tell us...." and AMA is redundantly feeding us TFRs. What the hell is there to be for or against? If pushed to take a position, I'll align against the smoke and mirrors show. There is faction that is 'for' anything AMA does, and some others that want to know just what AMA is after ("saving the hobby" hysterics don't cut it) before getting behind it or being against it. Sorry OP, you aren't going to get any meaningful answers, 'cause the folks you're asking are all in the mushroom farm.