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.
Hmm....ask AMA. See my reply to John She.
Now what if the CBO "programming" conflicts with the FAA's "Interpretation" of Sec 336?
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 says the pilot controlling the model cannot be using FPV goggles/
Which takes precedent?
You know the answer to that
It is stated in 336 para (b)
If it is the FAA "interpretation" how does not Sec 336 exclude additional rules or regulation?
It was intended by those that drafted it that it would not exclude additional rules or regulation for the hoi polloi modelers that did not buy protection from the CBO. It doesn't require FAA to make any such rules though and there doesn't appear to be anything to motivate them to do so.
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:
You answered that Q:
Of course there is always the FAA fallback
I consider that to be FAA's primary option, not a fallback. Another CBO could be more permissive than AMA, but to what effect? If FAA deems a person's operation of a model aircraft endangers safety, they will take enforcement action without regard to protestations that it was operating within the rules of AMA, another CBO, or God.
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 guess.....if one were to argue that rendering it toothless does not equate to invalidating it.