Jim,
We'll see. It is pretty clear that control line fliers are not a major priority of the AMA due to our lack of numbers, but if we can get their attention, there is a good chance that we can move this forward. From my conversations with various AMA folks, it appears that this lack of priority--and a fear of separating out one type of modeling equated to throwing other types of modeling "under the bus," is what has paralyzed progress. The later seems like nonsense, if handled correctly. The way this should be viewed is that there are a range of modeling activities. These could be separately evaluated for risk given the charter that the FAA received from congress in the FAA reauthorization legislation. Indoor? Zero risk. Issue exemption.* Set a precedent and move forward. Control line? Extremely low risk. Reaffirm maximum line lengths, require a special waiver by local ATC if on airport property. Issue exemption. Move on.
The AMA has been provided with information and offers of assistance. Should it have taken this long? In my opinion, no. Again, I tried to lay groundwork on this back in 2011. We (modelers, as represented by the AMA) didn't have to wait for the drone crisis....but having done so, things just got harder. Which is the very definition of kicking the can down the road. It's time we picked up the can and disposed of it.
Dave
*--Actually, the FAA has no jurisdiction over air inside buildings. But thinking of it this way is useful because it shows one type of aeromodeling that has absolutely zero risk under their charter, which is an important concept. Sort of a benchmark. It provides a foundation for all subsequent discussions since you simply can't say that all modeling has appreciable risk. Note that anyone claiming airspace risk for indoor models would be laughed out of employment. So with that established, it is easier to work your way up the risk ladder.