So, what are the requirements to be a CBO? Would PAMPA qualify, or may be Stunt Hangar? Is the AMA using (and strengthening) this regulation to ensure they are the only eligible CBO, so everyone HAS TO join AMA?
They say otherwise, but who knows? It becomes that, de facto, since there aren't any other organizations of any consequential membership.
I think the members would prefer the AMA to be the CBO and the notion of a "community-based organization" was originally invented by the AMA as it was a generic cover for the Special Rule for model aviation. I think we want this, as a general principle. We would like it if instead of the FAA, we use our AMA membership and the safety code to be the rules.
The AMA are a bit stuck between a rock and a hard place, because they know if they ignore or disavow drones, a different, larger, drone-based "CBO" would soon be formed and the AMA would no longer be the 800 lb gorilla of the NAA. But by doing so, they cannot start making distinctions between drones/quadcopters and traditional model aircraft. Its clear that they have done the math and tried to encompass drones rather than exclude them.
PAMPA is not a likely CBO, if nothing else, PAMPA is already a subgroup of the AMA, with around 1000 members rather than 200,000. Stunthangar is a website, and if Bob started to provide insurance and require dues, they would be $150 to pay the premiums and the "membership" would drop dramatically with virtually no ability to influence anything. Note that the AMA being a more-or-less legitimate CBO, and has by far the largest membership of any of the constituents of the NAA (and by extension, the FAI, since the NAA is far and away the largest national aero club), they still appear to be utterly powerless against the FAA. If the AMA cannot influence the outcome, any much smaller group certainly won't.
Brett