ORIGINAL: JohnShe
ORIGINAL: Top_Gunn
ORIGINAL: phlpsfrnk
I do not believe the intent of the public-law was/is that there needs to be an agreement between modelers and all local airports. The long standing intention was to notify of our presence within 3 miles. Only if there is a conflict does there need to be any direct “negotiations” to allow continuing operations. The only difference between the intentions of the text in the public-law and AC 91-57 is two more miles around the local airports.
Regards
Frank
Agreed (except now it's going to be five miles when the reg's emerge). 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. After all, the legislature consists of hundreds of different people, and in most cases none of them have actually read the bills they are voting on.
It was suggested earlier that the language in question came from the AMA. If so, the AMA did a poor job of drafting.
I strongly agree with Frank on this. The FAAhas a long history of not bothering model aviation and has no reason to write unnecessary regulations. In fact if you look at the history of the FAA, you will see that they tend to exercise a typical bureaucratic slowness at writing new regulations in response to strong recommendations from the NTSB after horrifying accidents. We have no reason to worry.
I agree with you except perhaps the last sentence. We do have some reason to worry, which is good motivation for us and to the AMA to do something about this.