There's a lot of questions circling around about whether or not recreational fliers (under part 101) can fly FPV legally. I'm a big believer in giving folks as much information as possible and then letting them make individual risk decisions, and suffer consequences (if any) as appropriate.
AMA put out yesterday that "AMA members may continue flying FPV" (note 1), which included statements to the effect that because the case challenging the FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule is on hold, enforcement actions are on hold. Thus FPV under AMA rules is allowed.
In the FAA's Interpretation of the Special Rule on Model Aircraft (note 2), it says that: "
By definition, a model aircraft must be 'flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.' Public Law 112–95, section 336(c)(2). Based on the plain language of the statute, the FAA interprets this requirement to mean that: (1) The aircraft must be visible at all times to the operator; (2) that the operator must use his or her own natural vision (which includes vision corrected by standard eyeglasses or contact lenses) to observe the aircraft; and (3) people other than the operator may not be used in lieu of the operator for maintaining visual line of sight. Under the criteria above, visual line of sight would mean that the operator has an unobstructed view of the model aircraft. To ensure that the operator has the best view of the aircraft, the statutory requirement would preclude the use of vision enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles designed to provide a 'first-person view' from the model [emphasis added]."
I was of the understanding that the case was held in "Abeyance," and no injunction was issued. So I checked with a close friend who is a senior military Judge Advocate, someone who is well versed in the Federal Court system. He confirmed that a case held in "abeyance" normally does not prevent an agency from enforcing, unless the agency has issued something saying they will not enforce. So I asked the AMA two questions:
(1) Did the court order the FAA not to enforce based on the interpretation?
(2) Has the FAA issued something saying they are suspending enforcement action?
Question (1): The AMA did not answer. So I went to the US Federal Court's PACER system and looked up the case (USCA Case#14-1158) and found the order (Document #1523016) holding the case in "Abeyance." I've attached a copy of the abeyance request and the court's order granting the motion. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
did not order the FAA not to enforce the FAA Interpretation of the Special Rule on Model Aircraft.
Question (2): AMA did not indicate they have anything in writing with respect to the second question, only that they're engaged in "ongoing conversations." Now, you can make the decision for yourself, but a lawyer told me a long time ago that "if it's not in writing, it doesn't exist."
So if you choose to follow the AMA's advice and fly FPV under part 101, at least you're doing it with the full knowledge that the court HAS NOT prevented the FAA from enforcing and the only thing that stands between you and enforcement action are "ongoing conversations."
Note 1:
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...#comment-15522
Note 2:
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...model-aircraft (page 36193, 3rd column, 2nd para)