But that doesn't necessarily mean that the language used can't give the FAA a hook to hang very stringent regulations on. You can't put much weight on the "intent" of legislatures.
oooooo, you said the R-word
How, praytell,
are there going to be faa regulations on cbo modeleling
allowed by the wording of a condition,
when that condition is part of FAA NOT ALLOWED TO REGULATE MODELS?
By your method,
the FAA will regulate models by being forbidden by Federal Law from regulating models???[&:]
I dont think so.
We wont see 'rules' or 'regulations' against models that CBOs have to obey,
but what you allude to would be Wink&Nod style common '
safety concern regarding fullscale traffic'
whereby FAA/Airports will say you cant fly models <400' in an area fullscale fly at 3000agl 'due to safety'.
Would that be a completely unrealistic use of 'Cannot endanger the NAS' ? Yup.
Is there pretty much anything we can do about it? nope
But it wont be a 'rule' or a 'regulation' cause those would be unlawful by act of congress.
You can't put much weight on the "intent" of legislatures.
Please remind the folks adding their own meanings to the text on the law.
"Provide Notice" dont mean
Ask Permission,
and maybe folks should trying to change the meaning of the words in the law to make it that way because
they feel that was the 'intent' of the law.
Unless you are a congressman,
you dont KNOW that when congress printed SHOULD that they actually meant the completely different (and frequently used by congress) Shall