Originally Posted by
aymodeler
As I said, I do agree that it would have been better had they not repealed 336, but in my opinion (and I wasn't in the room so I must qualify it as an "un-informed" opinion) that was never going to happen due to the "realities" I referenced earlier. There were just too many actors and too many agendas to allow this to stand. Where we ended up is with a legal/regulatory framework that does allow us to exist despite these other actors and agendas. Oh and despite the requirement not to promulgate new rules, if you recall, the FAA immediately produced an "interpretation" of the 336 based on their authority to regulate the NAS, which 336 did nothing to "revoke".
And you are right, that the FAA or Congress can change the rules to the game at any time. That was the case before, that is the case now, and that will be the case in the future. Obviously, the rules just changed and nothing will ever stop that from potentially happening again. But because we now have a legal framework, it will be harder to arbitrarily change rules without specific cause (note I said harder, not impossible).
Finally, I am extremely encouraged by actions the FAA has taken to find solutions in all of this that allows the hobby to continue within the context of these rules and the external "realities". And that is what I mean when I say the net effect is that not much will change from the perspective of the average RC model aircraft enthusiast. Most of will still be able to build and fly our planes with minimal interference from the outside parties.
I do not view publishing interpretations as a rule. A rule, as used in the context of legislation or FARs has specific meaning. Also, AMA was in the process of challenging that interpretation in court. Now, one can challenge rules too, but challenging an interpretation is easier IMO.
Before: no test / After: testing required
Before: no statutory operational limits / After: statutory operational limits
Before: FAA prohibited from writing rules* on MA / After: No prohibition
Before: No RemoteID / After: RemoteID unless at FRIA
Before: Club field just about anywhere / After: FRIAs only where approved by FAA
Before: Prosecuting violator relied on "should have known" / After: FAA can prove you knew (the rules)
So I guess we have a much different definition of "minimal impact." I see required testing, statutory operational limits, no statutory prohibition on new rules, RemoteID, and FRIAs only where approved by FAA as something other than "minimal impact." I also disagree that this legal framework in place now does anything to preclude FAA from writing more rules or makes them more difficult to challenge. Nothing has changed in that regard. Actually, once a rule is in place I'd argue its actually easier to incrementally change it. If that's indeed true, it's actually easier now. If for no other reason than the FAA can point to the existing rule and say "That didn't work, so we need to tighten things up a bit more."
It remains to be seen whether AMA will demand a much greater level of compliance from members. If I were king for a day, I'd make insurance coverage for individuals and clubs conditioned on compliance. Some will argue we don't do that for motor vehicles. True, but then again there's standardized testing of drivers and a much more robust legal framework.