Originally Posted by
bradpaul
This CBO thing is interesting......... just what/who is a CBO? We all assume that the AMA is a CBO but that DOES NOT MEAN that they will be the only CBO.
Now what if the CBO "programming" conflicts with the FAA's "Interpretation" of Sec 336?
The FAA interprts "CBO" this way:
"Congress explained that it intended ‘‘nationwide community-based organization’’ to mean, in part, a ‘‘membership based association that
represents the aeromodeling community within the Unites States; [and] provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground. . . .’’ U.S. House, FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Conference Report (to Accompany H.R. 658), 112 H. Rpt. 381 (Feb. 1, 2012) (discussion of special rule for model aircraft). Based on this language, which provides context to Congress’ use of the term ‘‘nationwide community-based organization,’’ the FAA expects that model aircraft operations conducted under section 336(a) will be operated according to those guidelines."
It seems reasonable to me. By this definition the AMA qualifies as CBO. i think that we can act as if it is a CBO and it will be the responsibility of the FAA to either accept or deny the qualification when or if the need arises.
Originally Posted by
bradpaul
The AMA says 400' within 5 miles of an airport. The FAA seems to say 400' everywhere.
The AMA says FPV using goggles with a spotter is OK.
The FAA interpretation of section 336 says nothing about 400' from anything. If you are referring to AC 91-57, then you must be aware that it already has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. You must also be aware that the AMA interpretation of this guideline is somewhat different. In any event, the FAA has never said a word of objection to the AMA definition. Thus to me, at least, the entire issue is moot.
Originally Posted by
bradpaul
The FAA says the pilot controlling the model cannot be using FPV goggles/
Which takes precedent?
That is a problem with the interpretation. There are many objections to that posted in the comments. Some of them are coherent and some aren't. In any event, we shall see what happens when the FAA completes the review of the comments and decides (in the colloquial sense, SP) what they are gonna do.
Originally Posted by
bradpaul
If it is the FAA "interpretation" how does not Sec 336 exclude additional rules or regulation?
Well, it clearly excludes any new regulations for recreational model aircraft, and that is all that I care about.
Originally Posted by
bradpaul
If it is the CBO "programming" what stops the creation of other CBO's (for example a FPV CBO) that would allow more permissive activities than the FAA Interpretation as long as:
Originally Posted by
bradpaul
Why should that be a problem? If their safety guidelines are self serving and clearly intended to avoid FAA regulatory or punitive action without actually being safe, then the FAA may take action. Anyway, that is for the future to decide and of only slight amusement to me.
Originally Posted by
bradpaul
Of course there is always the FAA fallback
Originally Posted by
bradpaul
BUT THE ABILITY TO PURSUE ENFORCEMENT ACTION REQUIRES A SPECIFIC ACTIVITY "PERSONS OPERATING MODEL AIRCRAFT WHO ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM", THAT DOES NOT IMHO INVALIDATE :
I am not sure what your problem is with clause (b) is. We know from Pirker's experience that a court hearing is possible and a favorable decision can result if a good legal argument is presented.
As far as I am concerned, clause (a) is a victory for us.