Originally Posted by rcers
As discussed in other threads - I see nothing that requires membership in the AMA in the bill.
They are talking about operating "within the programing" of a national based org to me does not infer required membership, rather recognizing the safety guidelines of the AMA and use those as a safe operating structure.
Essentially we are saying users who are doing this for fun or sport don't need the regulation the FAA is recommending.
This is what happens when law makers right stuff (with the help of their law degrees or lawyers). The wording is interesting.
It is interesting, because of what possible benefit is requiring the "programming of a national based organization" if not requiring membership? I might support the addendum (through it would seem to accomplish nothing but to extend FAA jurisdiction to ground-based radio operators) without the red
"programing of a national organization" clause. That is just self-serving to the AMA, not about flying models, as there is no way to argue that an organization needs to collect dues from a national base to be safe. Further, if following national safety guidelines was enough to be safe, there would be no need to charge money for narrow insurance.
Another way to "assuage unfounded fears" would be to make any government-required national membership, government-mandated as free to those with existing, proper umbrella insurance. Private insurance companies would love that bill, so it would be very easy to slide through. But personally, I prefer no government meddling, so I would leave the FAA to its stated mission:
"We work so all air and space travelers
arrive safely at their destinations."