Does the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) fairly represent recreational UAV activities?
The problem as I see it is that the AMA managed to get their rulemaking "authority" into the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Senate Bill, Section 607(g).
Specifically in the preamble:
In this section the term ``nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions, government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members.
Since the only "nationwide community-based organization" is the AMA, they become the de-facto rulemakers for recreational UAV use. In fact, the quote above is similar to the AMA mission statement.
No, I don't think they do. The recent total miss on the new FPV/UAV code of conduct total miss is evidence of that.
I think we (well, you, I'm not in the US) need to form your own body.
I agree. I gave up on the AMA long ago.
I have send a email to AMA to tell them that I won't be renewing my membership next year without a real look at their new FPV/UAV rules. The VLOS just doesn't work for us.
The buddy requirement for FPV is what got my attention.
I really think that the AMA is intimidated by the advanced technology of autopilots like the APM.
The organisation was formed and is there, its called RCAPA and had a seat at ARC 1.0 The FAA have seen their ops manual.
You are going to get airworthy standards from ASTM F-38 and that might not be a barrel of laughs. BLOS won't happen without those being in place.
Crazy times over there.