Originally Posted by
init4fun
Hi Sport ,
Courts are full of Lawyers arguing "the intent of the law" every day . With this law , were it to be broken on a level requiring court involvement , you can bet that the first thing to be laid out would be that "Visual line of sight" is intended to mean that you can actually SEE the model your supposedly controlling , hence the redundant use of "visual" and "sight" . There is no jury in the US , even in light of the OJ verdict , that would believe in your "next galaxy" definition of VLOS .
Here, from AMA blog, is how AMA defines it, or interprets the intention of Congress in PL 112-95:
[AMA's Viewpoint:]
The FAA’s interpretation suggests that hobbyists who fly their models by “first person view” (FPV) might be doing something wrong if they are using video glasses or “goggles.” For the past decade, FPV has been inspiring students, engineers, robotics enthusiasts, and many others to take up the hobby or to expand their hobby activities. FPV control adds no danger to the hobby, especially when a spotter is present to monitor the airspace. The language of the 2012 statute concerning “within visual line of sight” indicates how far away a person should fly the model aircraft, not what method of control may be used for the recreational experience. [This part of the FAA's interpretation impacts me because I enjoy flying FPV or plan to explore FPV in the near future.]
AMA's legal quarrel with FAA centers on the assertion that the intent of Congress was unambiguous, and so FAA had no right to interpret it. The discussion here blows a big hole in that argument. Ironic that folks most opposed to the FAA interpretation have provided ample evidence demonstrating that the terminology used by Congress
is ambiguous as to their intent as FAA will respond, isn't it?
cj