I think you're on to something.

I find it unfathomable that BC doesn't know more. AMA has noted more than once all the outreach they're doing to clubs on FRIA. If that is true, are we really expected to believe that the staff on one end of the phone aren't informing the EC? Or I suppose the outreach hasn't happened. Or, as you postulate, there's not nearly as many clubs as AMA says there are.

And of course there's the business aspect of this. Fewer clubs with FRIAs means even less reason to join AMA.

You are free to speculate all you want. However you, Astro, Mongo and Franklin have zero evidence to back up your wishful thinking.

It's not speculation that nearly 1/3 of AMA clubs didn't apply for a FRIA.

That's pretty significant wouldn't you say?

At the current rate AMA will end up with around 1,400 - 1,500 FRIA's out of 1,700 applications, and AMA lists 2,468 clubs on their website, correct?

Not really. Your bias has you looking to only one reason as to why the numbers are what they are. For one the numbers may be out of date, some clubs may be in “ wait and see “ mode, some may decide to use modules and stay off the FAA radar, some are gathering information before submitting an application. Some seeking written permission to overfly property adjacent to their flying field. Point is, it’s still too early to gauge how this is going to play out in the long term.

Talk about wishful thinking. "Gathering information" Since January? With back orders using modules likely means being grounded for a time barring an extension
of the deadline, which was only floated a couple of days ago. "Written permission to overfly" adjacent property. Are 2 locations even allowed for a FRIA?

I listed several possibilities, not one; lost leases, certain denial, clubs dwindling to a few members, and last but not least AMA keeping inactive clubs on the roster.

The blog post claims they are still filing applications. With only 2 weeks away the vast majority of those choosing to op-in would have.

All of your possibilities come from a negative attitude. Yes gathering information, FAA was not approving/denying FRIA applications back in January. Some clubs have held off applying so that they could learn from the experiences others have had during their process. Out of my 4 clubs, 3 have been approved, 1 had to resubmit because they did the circle as recommended initially by the FAA. The 4th just last week sent the paperwork in to AMA. They wanted to be thorough and make sure they provided accurate information. There are no doubt clubs out there that are in a holding pattern to see if this whole remote ID thing is even going to work out. IMO it requires the cooperation from law enforcement which have much better things to do then criminalizing model airplanes.

The Sep.16th deadline will likely not be extended but the FAA has hinted to having a soft start on enforcement but again, that requires cooperation that they may not get.

Where did you hear about this "soft start on enforcement"?

Out of thin air.

I missed that the last sentence in the sUAS article claims Flight Test's FRIA was approved.
https://www.suasnews.com/2023/09/ken...eid=0c805b84d1

The FAA has hinted about that for weeks but they have yet to put anything on the record.

Despite the YouTube video claiming "unnamed sources" but ya there's a lot of speculation on a deferred enforcement date or grace period.

I understand the concept of a "deferred enforcement" period or a "soft start on enforcement". In any case, even had there been a variety of RemoteId modules available by the 16th, I don't expect that the FAA was preparing to send a large group of RemoteId enforcers out to start enforcing the use of RemoteId on the 16th.

If there is a FRIA near you, fly there while we wait for supply to be available for modules. If not and you are flying in a reasonable and safe manner, I honestly don't believe there is going to be a problem. Order one or more of the pre order modules or one of those that may be available or wait until there is a better selection. If you are flying unsafely, an accident occurs or complaints are made I imagine with or without a RemoteId module there could be a problem.

Just my 2 cents

The issue I have is, if a club has applied for a FRIA so their members don't have to buy modules, and the FAA hasn't cleared out the backlog of requests, I think its unreasonable for them to require modules for a week or month until their FRIA comes back.

If there were no FRIA backlog and its the fault of the club for not applying that might be another matter.

Also, most modules are back ordered or not shipped yet.

The video claims the start date is cancelled, not an undefined "soft start on enforcement" while the official start date remains in place as per the OP:
"The Sep.16th deadline will likely not be extended ...", adding that supposed inside information making it an internal contradiction.

I'd rather hear about why 700 AMA clubs declined to apply for FRIAs.

AMA said last Tuesday that the FAA "has remained steadfast that the compliance date of September 16, 2023, will not be extended".
Looks like the drone community is more plugged in with the FAA. A commercial drone photographer received this from the FAA last Thursday:

UAS Support Center
Responding to your inquiry

The FAA is aware of the concerns. We are
considering options with respect to relief from the 16
Sept compliance date. We will have more to share
with you in the near future on FAA websites and
social media.

So it looks like there will be an extension though no announcement today.

No relief for AMA. Unless they're on the drone websites the FAA is letting them sweat it out.

It would seem that you are somewhat outside the loop.

Out of the loop, LOL. Your post #177. Didn't read it?

when they do have the option of delaying active enforcement of the regulation, why would they postpone the effective date of the regulation?

Ah, the "soft start on enforcement" conundrum. Because, uh, there would a new date on which enforcement would begin. Otherwise known as the postponement conundrum, to wit,
perhaps no announcement has yet been made because, by chance, said date for the discontinuation of the contemplated soft enforcement has not been decided on by our overlords.

mongo brought up an interesting point, that the reason some clubs did not apply for FRIA is because that want to keep out newbies. Something I've wondered, is an AMA club
generally open to the public and anyone can join, subject to vetting I know some clubs have, but not, for example, to disqualifying someone based on the type of aircraft they fly?

That’s pretty far fetched.

mongo just put that out as a possibility. The club he posted about that received a Flight Test FRIA appeared to be closed, no cyber presence, though not AMA previously.

So what's the deal with AMA clubs, I can see a cap on membership to prevent overcrowding but can they limit membership any way they want, for example no foam planes?

Or arbitrarily: "We are not accepting new members at this time".

I’ve never seen membership denied based on aircraft. In my 44 years I’ve only seen one club with a membership cap. Of the 4 clubs I have membership in I’ve not seen nor experienced any discrimination based on aircraft. I’ve even been allowed to fly my 700 size helicopter at our sailplane field. When I started helicopters in ‘83, there were some that complained about it, same with those of us flew 150cc powered stuff but eventually that faded. Only time I have ever seen anyone denied membership or had membership revoked was due to safety issues or potentially violent outbursts.

The question was whether or not they could do so under the AMA charter.

I think before that question can be answered you would need to find a club that discriminates in that fashion. IMO it’s daft to ask if they can when you have no evidence that they are.