AMA LoL ~ Litany of Lamenting
when FAA refers to 'Congress intention' is not OK, but when AMA does the same then it's fine
"This again misstates Congressâ€™ intent
and implies that the freestanding definition of â€œmodel aircraftâ€ provided in Section 336 is intended to reference the definition of aircraft in 49 U.S.C. 40102; 14 CFR 1.1. It also twists the meaning of the word â€œregardingâ€ so as to purportedly allow the FAA to actually
regulate model aircraft as long as the words â€œmodel aircraftâ€ do not appear specifically in new rules and regulations. That contradicts the clear intent of Congress, which passed Section 336 specifically to exempt aeromodeling from new rules and regulations.
Throughout the Interpretive Rule, the agency takes great latitude in determining Congressâ€™ intentions
and in placing tightly worded restrictions through its â€œplain-languageâ€ interpretation of the text. In this case the definition of model aircraft in the Act requires that, â€œmodel aircraft be flown within visual line
of sight of the person operating the aircraft.â€ From a safety perspective this means that the model aircraft must remain in visual range of the operating station so that the operator can maintain situational awareness, control the aircraft, and â€œsee & avoidâ€ other aircraft and obstacles. Congress did not intend
this as a prescribed means of operating the aircraft, but rather the manner in which model aircraft are to be flown. It limits the distance from the operator that the model aircraft can be flown â€œwithin visual line of sight.â€ There is no ambiguity in the language provided by Congress and no need for interpretation.
The Interpretive Rule uses the plain language doctrine to create a regulatory prohibition of the use of a specific type of technology: first-person view goggles. In this regard, the rule states, â€œThe aircraft must be visible at all times to the operatorâ€ and â€œAn operator could not rely on another person to satisfy the visual line of sight requirement.â€ This is well outside of the congressional intent
and is inconsistent
with current and acceptable two-pilot manned aircraft operations."
note; 336 (c)(2)â€œmodel aircraft be flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft.â€ does not mention 2nd