Sorry, we're sliding down the slippery slope if we redefine the mission of the FAA according to how some view Pirker. FAA's role is to "regulate civil aviation to promote safety." (see FAA website) The question is what categories of model aircraft need to be regulated? My short answer is none of them. (-I could acknowledge a weight limit at some point as you probably don't want a BLOS hunk of metal that can take out an airplane engine to fly the skies without rules.) But for now we don't need a federal agency telling us how to build and fly hobby aircraft. So, we don't want to agree with an NTSB decision that defines RC airplanes as part of "civil aviation" or in need of "regulation." Just doesn't make any sense. That leads to equipage mandates, construction regulations, and pilot licenses. Rather, we need to rely on local laws that provide remedies to injuries caused by people who engage in careless behavior. You hit somebody with a golf ball... there is a local law for that... not a federal agency. You break a window with a baseball .... there is a local law for that.. not a federal agency... you drop a brick off a building and hurt someone there is a local law for that... not a federal agency....
Why some folks want to believe that regulation of a hobby is a good thing or believe that the "FAA would never do that to model aviation" is beyond me. One last thing, there is also a belief that Pirker only applies to careless or reckless operation.. That's wishful thinking. The NTSB has defined that FAA regulates all things that fly in the air, "regardless of size." That will apply to every aspect of "safety." Guess what's going to happen the next time your motor conks out on your plane? You could be cited for recklessly flying a craft with a known defect. The lawyers say cha ching (Makes that park flyer not look like a deal anymore.) FAA is not going to regulate. The lawyers will....