The FAA regulations are not part of what the FAA refers to as CBO nor are their regulations a part of community based safety guidelines. Section 336 points out that those are a _different_ set of rules. I say this as they then go on to say that those rules cannot conflict with the FAA regulations or the FAA's authority. It also makes no sense to post FAA regulations and then go on to comment about other entities making rules. If there were all from the FAA, they would all be listed in Section 336.
I mentioned this above.... that open ended CBO thing is to allow other entities to regulate the USE of airspace. But of course, this only applies when they have that authority. I gave an example above... I'll see if I can give another. Going back to the Causby case, a person has an easement into the air above their property. This means that they have somewhat of a right to limit the use to that airspace. In the Causby case the Supreme Court ruled that another person could not use that airspace when it limited the used the land below. Now I'm going to stretch this a bit and say that something like a city or state could make a law that states the same thing. The FAA is saying that this can be done as long as it does not interfere with the FAA's jurisdiction and regulations. What I can't say is if such a law would hold up as being lawful. I'm just trying to come up with an example of why the the regulation left that door wide open. The issue I see that open door creating is now every Tom, **** and Harry thinks that it allows them to come up with any limitation that they want.I say this as when you read these "laws" many of them put in limits as not to conflict with existing FAA regulations (like saying you can't fly under 400' because they think FAA airspace starts at 400'). This post would seem to contradict myself when I speak out against other local "laws" as not being lawful. Not really... though it's a fine line. Those "laws" usually speak against freedom of speech (limiting photos) or trying to governing people that they don't have control over (if they are not on that local parties land, such as city property). Again, if the right to govern that person's actions (such as being a member of the AMA) does not exist, they cannot apply those local regulations to that person. Control needed to exist beyond just being in the airspace.
Section 336 is most _certainly_ a series of several regulations. There is no doubt about that. Its _very_ clear. It does _contain_ some definitions but it's simply not just the definition of "model aircraft". I don't know of anyone else that thinks it is. However, let me add that I think you make a good argument. I make the same point. However, my opinion is that the error is in adding VLOS to the definition of "model aircraft". If you were to accept this, then yes... Section 336 would not apply to anyone who flies outside of VLOS. I'm of the opinion that the error is adding that part to the definition and the rest of Section 336 is correct.
Edit: I said above that it was a set of regulations. That is still correct. I guess you could argue that it's a set of "rules" and if you adhere to those "rules" then the FAA's regulations don't apply. I'm not sure this is what you are saying but regardless, those are still regulations. if you don't follow them, you fall within a different set of regulations. If that is someone's argument you would just be arguing semantics.
However, I think what has been said if if you were to take that definition as it is, you could say that if you fly beyond VLOS that you are no longer flying a "model aircraft" and if this is true, you no longer get the "immunity" for given under Section 336 and would be subject to all requirements under Section 107 which includes not flying beyond VLOS. I think what is actually correct is, at worse, you'd still be under Section 336 and just in violation of.... well... what part of Section 336? Flying outside of the definition of "model aircraft"? That makes no sense. That is why I think that VLOS thing is simply screwed up. I think the FAA would _like_ you to think it means you cannot fly beyond VLOS but as I've stated above, we all know the FAA puts out incorrect information until they are called on it. They said the exact same thing about 400' until the AMA called them on it. Again, as I mentioned above, it's why I recommend people go right to the regulations and not what the FAA's interpretation.
Note: I've been wrong many times in the past. This may be one of those times. I'm not saying I'm 100% correct about this whole issue. I'm just putting my thoughts out there and people can decide for themselves.
Last edited:
