This same issue contains "AMA's Response to the FAA's sUAS" proposed rule.
Now, "sUAS" is defined as "small unmanned aircraft systems".
The AMA response talks only about those "sUAS". Maybe they didn't think to realize that sUAS also defines ANY R/C model (aircraft, meaning any vehicle which flies).
The AMA response does NOT try to separate drones (quadcopters) from R/C aircraft in general. And I thought that the FAA was particularly upset with "drones" flying in restricted airspace, or other non-safe venues. If the "drone" problem is not specifically addressed, the FAA would be inclined to slap severe restrictions on ALL R/C activity. When that happens, the AMA will say "what happened?"
Don't forget to read page 148, same issue. The writer proudly reports on a 20 foot wingspan R/C plane that a bunch of guys built and flew. Particularly disturbing is the final paragraph of that article. The guy wants to build "a full-scale aircraft that will be turned into R/C".
No wonder the government wants restrictions on R/C !! I hope they don't read page 148.
Floyd
edit for spelling