Agreed - it always seemed to be a real stretch to argue that it was not in contravention of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. I'm sure they thought long and hard about how to tackle it though. How do you think they should have approached it?
Drone registration ruled unlawful by U.S. Court of Appeals
- Thread starter Tyler Mason
- Start date
Agreed - it always seemed to be a real stretch to argue that it was not in contravention of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. I'm sure they thought long and hard about how to tackle it though. How do you think they should have approached it?
just checking in heh.. i quit flying my drone the day this law went into effect. forgot how to fly it. havent touched it. dunno even if the batteries are gonna be good anymore. dji phantom II. how far behind am i lol.
I'm not sure why you would want to quit flying just because of a registration requirement. It's not that onerous. I barely ever fly my P2s now - the new ones are just so much better in every way. The batteries might be useable if you left them around half charged - otherwise they will be toast.
"I'm not sure why you would want to quit flying just because of a registration requirement"
ill just say that is why you are in NM and i am in TX and leave it at that.
ill just say that is why you are in NM and i am in TX and leave it at that.
What I said is simply those RC flyers who did not bother registering their drones (when it was required) with the FAA should not be flying. The process is so simple and inexpensive that there is no excuse not to do it. It's irrelevant that there is no immediate benefit from it. We all pay thousands of dollars a year in fees for things that give us no benefit except that we did the right thing. Why is this different ?
Warning, what follows is just an opinion, and much like @#$holes, they all can stink, so you've been warned ;-)
The successful appeal makes sense in terms of black letter law, but the ramifications...
I'm thinking about automobiles vs. horse and buggies at the beginning of the twentieth century. Today's relatively inexpensive "prosumer" drones, with 4-5 mile horizontal ranges and 17000 flight ceilings, are analogous to the new motor cars and trucks of the 1910-20-s. The glow plug tethered Cox or VHF RC "hobby" model airplanes of days-gone-by are analogous to ox carts and horse wagons and buggies. Okay, with that picture in mind here I go.
The 2012 Modernization Act's hands-off exemption for "model aircraft" needs to be amended or replaced with law which enables the FAA to regulate model aircraft so that today's model aircraft flying in the NAS fits in with the realities of the "motor cars and trucks" coming on today. The existing two types of flight operations, Part 107 and Part 101 is confusing to many, and has to go. It burns me up as a certificated Part 107 pilot, that I have to go through a lengthy COA process to fly 4 miles away from a Class D airport, and a "hobbyist" wink wink, nod nod, can fly the same aircraft the same day by calling a buddy at the airport tower beforehand. Until this recent appeal, my commercial sUAS registrations were for each individual aircraft, yet a hobbyist flyer can have multiple aircraft under one number. I can't think of another instance in aviation wherein a higher pilot rating has less privileges than a lower/uncertificated one.
I know, I know, aircraft registrations and pilot regulations will not stop bad actors from doing stupid and dangerous things. That said, with no regulator or regulations or registrations in place, there is no definitive chain of evidence to, or consequences for bad actors acting badly other than the risk of tort litigation, which is a whole other barrel full of monkeys. My biggest fear is that if the "hobbyist flying" starts spinning out of control with the new modern drones, then we will be facing backlash legislation/decision making, akin to recent rule making in Canada, China, and now in the Netherlands.
Happy flights and safer landings
The successful appeal makes sense in terms of black letter law, but the ramifications...
I'm thinking about automobiles vs. horse and buggies at the beginning of the twentieth century. Today's relatively inexpensive "prosumer" drones, with 4-5 mile horizontal ranges and 17000 flight ceilings, are analogous to the new motor cars and trucks of the 1910-20-s. The glow plug tethered Cox or VHF RC "hobby" model airplanes of days-gone-by are analogous to ox carts and horse wagons and buggies. Okay, with that picture in mind here I go.
The 2012 Modernization Act's hands-off exemption for "model aircraft" needs to be amended or replaced with law which enables the FAA to regulate model aircraft so that today's model aircraft flying in the NAS fits in with the realities of the "motor cars and trucks" coming on today. The existing two types of flight operations, Part 107 and Part 101 is confusing to many, and has to go. It burns me up as a certificated Part 107 pilot, that I have to go through a lengthy COA process to fly 4 miles away from a Class D airport, and a "hobbyist" wink wink, nod nod, can fly the same aircraft the same day by calling a buddy at the airport tower beforehand. Until this recent appeal, my commercial sUAS registrations were for each individual aircraft, yet a hobbyist flyer can have multiple aircraft under one number. I can't think of another instance in aviation wherein a higher pilot rating has less privileges than a lower/uncertificated one.
I know, I know, aircraft registrations and pilot regulations will not stop bad actors from doing stupid and dangerous things. That said, with no regulator or regulations or registrations in place, there is no definitive chain of evidence to, or consequences for bad actors acting badly other than the risk of tort litigation, which is a whole other barrel full of monkeys. My biggest fear is that if the "hobbyist flying" starts spinning out of control with the new modern drones, then we will be facing backlash legislation/decision making, akin to recent rule making in Canada, China, and now in the Netherlands.
Happy flights and safer landings
Last edited:
With the new DJI registration live data spyware they are rolling out, this is what they want to do.
To be able to log on, search flight logs on incidents they think people might have filmed, find the registration and go arrest the owner to seize the footage.
All you have to do, is step back and join the dots together, you can see the full picture.
To be able to log on, search flight logs on incidents they think people might have filmed, find the registration and go arrest the owner to seize the footage.
All you have to do, is step back and join the dots together, you can see the full picture.
I agree with your thinking. To take that further, a concern that I have is the future proliferation of these devices. The odd drone here or there is not a huge issue in terms of safety, nuisance or privacy. But we are moving rapidly towards the point at which nearly anyone can afford to buy and operate a flying camera, so imagine the situation where these are as ubiquitous as cameras. At any place of interest the sky is going to be full of them. They will be everywhere that they are allowed, and more.
It hasn't happened with regular aircraft or helicopters because of the expense, nor with model aircraft, at least so far, because of the relative complexity of that as a hobby. The new breed of sUAS and sUAS pilot is a complete game changer.
It's not. Which is the actual point. Because its easy and simple and we do other things that are wrong does not mean we should do this as well.
I understand your point and don't disagree in the outcome. However, I don't agree with your reasoning on why it should continue.
I disagree - that is just paranoia. Who wants to be able to log on - DJI? To hurt their own business? On the contrary, I think that DJI is doing its best to stay ahead of the regulatory pressures that may otherwise intervene to seriously restrict recreational sUAS activities. And that may still happen, especially if the resistance to regulation continues and disregard for NAS safety becomes sufficiently commonplace that it becomes a real issue.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2016
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 17
- Age
- 74
The Parks Department does not own the airspace over Federal parks. If an airplane can fly over the park so can a drone.
The FAA owns ALL the airspace!
If we fight this simple registration process, the FAA will eventually come up with regs that are not so easy to comply with. Sure, we will fight them and so forth, but why go thru all that ? If we just do the simple thing now they are asking us to do, it shows the FAA we acknowledge their responsibility in the process and are happy to make their job easier providing they don't make ours too difficult.
This country has too many people fighting over things that are not worth fighting over, why add to that ?
Well reasoned. By same logic, we ought to issue national ID and required each person to carry a national ID. Better yet, subdermal implants, location tracked at all times in case some Yahoo decided to go postal. We can then locate such person easily.
I for one will feel safer that way.
Too extreme? Where do you draw the line then since this is exactly what you suggest as the reason for doing.
It's not prohibited to fly over a federal park, just to take off, land or operate from. It's not the FAA that owns the airspace, it's the public. The FAA is set up to regulate use of the NAS on behalf of the public interest and safety.
Excellent question, here's where I would draw the line: When/where a person uses/manipulates a physical object in any manner which could cause serious harm to other persons or property either intentional, incidentally, or collaterally.
Known examples already drawn: Boats and ships operated commercially need licensed operators. Crane operators, need licensed operators. Automobile and truck drivers needs licensing. Those working with explosives, need licensing. Using firearms outside of firing ranges (except self defense, police, or in armed forces) is usually licensed. Flying an aircraft need ...
Whereas walking around your neighborhood, breathing, eating, talking, reading, and maintaining a body temperature does not need licensing.
My prediction is that upon appeal this ruling will stand and then the FAA will then ask and get permission from congress to license "hobby" drones (as they were licensed before) and congress will give them that authority and everything will be as it was before this ruling came about. It may take a couple of years, but that's my prediction.
I just hope that congress doesn't give the FAA additional authority.
I just hope that congress doesn't give the FAA additional authority.
Maybe you misunderstood that word. There is a slippery slope, we have been watching out rights decay and decay.
Similar threads
