As far as the Pirker case was he not considered commercial use?? If so that doesn't apply for recreational hobbyist.
Drone law experts say challenge to FAA registration rule is likely to succeed
- Thread starter clackey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- faa lawsuit registration
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
- Messages
- 741
- Reaction score
- 302
- Age
- 72
Of course it doesn't make them right.
I think this lawsuit may work. We shall see. But non-the-less, I think our birds are legally an aircraft.
T
Continuing with Section 336:
"(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."
The FAA can make regulations to provide for a safe public airspace. The FAA is stating that their right to create a registry of "drones" falls under their ability to create safe airspace and therefore Section 336 does not apply.
Your statement was as follows:
So we now agree that drones are "aircraft". You appear to also agree that the FAA has the right to maintain safe airspace. According to Section 336, Section 336 does not limit this ability at all.
Just more time... . what I'm stating is that the FAA is stating that they are making this rule _not_ under Section 336. Drones _are_ aircraft and the FAA does have the right to regulate aircraft.
This does not matter. I'm showing in that case that it _was_ ruled that drones _are_ aircraft. You now seem to agree with this.
I never denied quads, drones are aircraft based on the fact that yes they fly and go into airspace. Don't try to twist my words. I am stating that unmanned rc quads flown by hobbyist are really not the same as "normal aircraft" like manned aircraft, when it comes to FAA having ability to add regustration.
The last 2 lawyers in the article sum it up good...
’” Brant Hadaway, a partner at Diaz, Reus & Targ, LLP, who works on regulatory-compliance cases and writes about drone law, said in an email. “When Congress says that an agency 'may not' do a thing, the agency indeed 'may not' do it.”
The FAA contends that by requiring drone-pilot registration, it is merely applying an existing manned-aircraft regulation to unmanned craft, said Peter Sachs, a Connecticut attorney who founded the Drone Law Journal. But the section of federal aviation regulations that contains the FAA's interim rule “did not exist at all prior to this new registration requirement,” Sachs said.
T
Is does matter going back to the ops statement that FAA forced registration may not stand up which goes back to my original feelings that FAA overstepped it's authority especially on a knee jerk reaction in fear of Christmas drone popularity.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
- Messages
- 741
- Reaction score
- 302
- Age
- 72
Gentlemen:
I get the feeling that I've pissed a couple of you off. That wasn't my desire.
I too think the FAA has overstepped their legal authority by mandating the registration of recreational UAVs. And I think this suit will win in the end, if the guy has enough fortitude to chase it through the federal court system.
T
I get the feeling that I've pissed a couple of you off. That wasn't my desire.
I too think the FAA has overstepped their legal authority by mandating the registration of recreational UAVs. And I think this suit will win in the end, if the guy has enough fortitude to chase it through the federal court system.
T
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
- Messages
- 741
- Reaction score
- 302
- Age
- 72
Sagebrush,
You've done nothing but legitimately make your point. No worries
No there is a worry. This brand-new-noob's boxed-up P3A was weathered in at Salt Lake yesterday and UPS was delayed getting it out today. Right now it's flying over the largest unroaded chunk of ground in the lower-48 and I don't think the RTH button is going to help me out. We shall see. But thanks.
T
Apilot101 said:
No one disagrees with this... but it's not even close to what you said in any of your prior posts.
Yes, there is an issue as to if the FAA can require drones to register. We get that. That was not the subject my posts. What I'm pointing out is it does not matter what Section 336 states. I've said this time and time again and even use _Section 336_ to point this out. The FAA states that it's a _safety_ issue so it falls outside Section 336. <- That is what I'm pointing out.
The other thing to consider is how does this registration really affect your use of your drone and also if this registration does not exist, will something be put in it's place.
Right now for $5 is put a sticker in my drone and fly as normal. I don't see this registration affecting 99.9999999% of us. The FAA wants to do something and the media wants to see unregulated drone use as the end of the world. I think this "registration" as a way to quite the media hype and get people off our backs.
Just something to consider.
and the other side of the coin is this "registration " will not stop 99.99999999% of bad things from happening. Accidents are just that, and can be delt with as they would without registering. Terrorists are laughing at this rule because it does nothing to them.
Problem is there was or is NO emergency or safety issue to allow FAA to impose such registration. It was done due to media hype, mass fear of what Christmas drones may do, not on a real emergency situation. I could see it if it was a terrorist attack or such but it wasnt.
Us who fly know it won't stop anything. But I _am_ hoping that this is what other people (the media mainly) think. This is not a bad thing... it's good. The media and idiot lawmakers think something needs to be done to stop the world ending drone flights. What they are doing... and what they can continue to do is strangling drone use. The illegal laws being made are being done all over the US. Local parks are banning the flight of drones from their property. The list goes on. If the price of stopping all of this nonsense is something that won't affect the people flying drones then I question if anyone should be fighting the registration.
What's wrong with education? I think that's the best for all of us, not knee jerk rules, registration, etc in fear just to shut up media.
Sad thing is the same media who's created a bad image of us, at times rely on us for "their" footage when it is needed by them.
We need more people out flying responsible so when you are approached you can teach the ignorant. We need more organizations like AMA, Drone Law, etc to come out and stand up for us. Not sit in a defensive position taking what ever getting thrown at us.
Sad thing is the same media who's created a bad image of us, at times rely on us for "their" footage when it is needed by them.
We need more people out flying responsible so when you are approached you can teach the ignorant. We need more organizations like AMA, Drone Law, etc to come out and stand up for us. Not sit in a defensive position taking what ever getting thrown at us.
There were no reports of drones being flown in restricted airspace? A drone did not crash into the Whitehouse? No drones being flown over fires that hampered the ability to control those fires? No airline pilots reported close calls with drones?
You can argue that the registration won't prevent this but that is not what we are talking about. You are saying that there was nothing that created a safety issue. A 10 year old could argue the safety factor and win in front of a judge. It's a piece of plastic and some fun against all of the above that I've mentioned. The "reaction" also does nothing to limit that plastic in the air and the fun. I agree 100% that drones are not the threat that people claim. I just understand no judge is going to rule against people on a plane, saving life and property in a fire, protecting the White House, etc. over.... no real restrictions. IMHO, it _will_ be considered a safety issue. The real question is only if the FAA has the authority to make a registration of people who fly drones.
For the reasons mentioned above, I really think it might be best to just accept this. I certainly understand the view of those opposed.
Could not agree more (though, less that the AMA not more interested in their bottom line).
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2013
- Messages
- 57
- Reaction score
- 1
Fact of the matter is that if there weren't people flying near airports, the FAA would not have responded in the draconian manner they did.
Put yourself in the FAA's shoes if (and I hope this never happens) some idiot or miscreant flew a few drones into an aircraft and brought it down. They are just playing it safe. Tell me honestly that you would NOT do the same if your job was on the line. I'm not condoning the FAA's actions but this is a sick world we live in and much as we like to enjoy our toys, we have to acknowledge that the harm idiots or miscreants can do today is far more than just a few years ago.
One thing that should be done is that purchasers of model aircraft should be made to sign a legally binding statement that they promise not to fly within xx distance of aircraft / airports.
Put yourself in the FAA's shoes if (and I hope this never happens) some idiot or miscreant flew a few drones into an aircraft and brought it down. They are just playing it safe. Tell me honestly that you would NOT do the same if your job was on the line. I'm not condoning the FAA's actions but this is a sick world we live in and much as we like to enjoy our toys, we have to acknowledge that the harm idiots or miscreants can do today is far more than just a few years ago.
One thing that should be done is that purchasers of model aircraft should be made to sign a legally binding statement that they promise not to fly within xx distance of aircraft / airports.
I even have to say I agree that even tho I dont like the idea of the registration esp for small hobby use craft and not matter what any one says I'm not all smiles and joyful about having to fork over one red cent to the goverment to get my phony do nothing registration... But one of the things I did try to see on the bright side of the FAAs do nothing reg scheme being what it is which is mostly some thing to appease the public and say hey look we did some thing about them scary drones. But even tho the reg thing will and cant do any thing to prevent any of the stuff that nutcase tin foil hat people think of in there paranoid minds. But atleast it might keep other local places from passing there own laws and bans. Albany county NY a few weeks ago was thinking of trying to pass one of the most draconian drone law of them all. They wanted to pretty much ban any and all remote controlled craft of any kind and not even wanting to allow any clubs not even indoor flying clubs to fly any thing that flys and is remote control. not even them cheerson micro drones that are smaller then a match book would of been banned also had it passed. They also wanted the ban to be so all encompassing that even things were the public good is served by the use of drones would also be completely banned. even search and rescue, or any thing of that sort. They pretty much only stopped short of out right banning even owning any type of rc flying craft of any kind any ware in the entire county. Luckily they finely decided to drop the whole issue after a very packed standing room only hearing on the matter. Which was the first time there was ever a turn out that large for any thing in any ones recent memory. The AMA even sent some people and some of the local clubs that would of been effected and the main point that got them to back off was how it was pointed out that the faa already basically addressed the issue of these scary drones with there registration thing that was to start in a few days. So they decided to drop the whole issue thinking oh well the faa has it covered. So if the faa had not had there silly reg thing in place at the time they would of voted in the most stupid anti drone law ever. and they really did not care what any of the large number of people that showed up at the hearing had to say besides the faa thing.
