Originally Posted by
bradpaul
Well we know the position of R Hansen of the AMA, and it does not surprise me that the FAA unofficially has a different opinion. But (and this is important to consider) the wording of "within the programming" is Public Law and not a FAA creation. They of course can "interpret" the Public Law but in the end it would as you point out, require a court to decide.
The interesting case would be if the FAA took enforcement action against a modeler that was not an AMA member and the modeler tries to use the Public Law as a defense. That would set a precedent for the membership question.
It would be interesting, but I don't expect to see it happen anytime soon. The only part of Sect 336 (PL) they will be enforcing is "
(b) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system." Any such enforcement action they take will stick regardless of compliance with anything else in the section, so it will carry little weight if an offending modeler tries to use the (CBO related parts of) the PL. I really doubt that FAA gives a tinker's dam about the CBO, so defining what it is, which also would define what is not a CBO, is just non-relevant. They are not going to waste limited resources on enforcement of the CBO provisions in the PL, though they will as ordered by Congress dutifully see to it's codification in FAR.
If "within the programming" is going to get a hearing, it won't be FAA holding the door to courthouse open.
cj