Drone registration ruled unlawful by U.S. Court of Appeals
- Thread starter Tyler Mason
- Start date
Sure, after all... this is such a small tax. I know we don't get anything from this tax but what is the harm, right?
You may need to go back about 200 years but does this ring any bells?
You may say that the FAA registration is certain a much smaller issue. I would agree. So is the fight to have it ruled what it was... illegal.
Do I think we should have nothing? No, I said the opposite. The FAA could do what they want to do, just in a legal and more productive way. It's going to take education and time to get past the media's hyper-coverage of drones.
Read my post again!
The operator of the drone was on government property. It was Illegal to operate a drone ON the property! The airspace above the park was class D airspace - 2nd foul!!
I suspect that you are correct. But Congress would need to dismantle the special rule, which would then permit the FAA to regulate as they see fit. No additional authority required.
That's a good start. I would include in those bikes, mountain bikes, skateboard, and etc. These devices are likely to cause much more server damage to person or properties if not used appropriately.
They certainly can consistent generates more kinetic energy compared to my P3P.
THIS ^^. The fact is that people are forgetting there are MANY far more dangerous hobbies that can damage people and property that have been around for decades and people are NOT panicked about it. All this registration crap is due to fear of the unknown by the general public. I am very happy this decision was turned over. It is pure ignorance and paranoia and not much having to do with the actual science and actual risk. Even the FAA decided the risk wasn't as great as the hype seemed to be. I think we are finally starting to see the paranoia and ignorance on quadcopters take a turn towards "They are here to stay..and nobody has died yet."
While I agree with your post, this statement scares me the most. We are in a very fragile time, a fork in the road. After this decision I pray no one does something really stupid.....
When I registered in April, I had to pay $15. $5 per year and had to do a minimum of 3 years.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2017
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 3
- Age
- 69
One reason that RC aircraft have not been an issue is that they are typically flown at model airplane fields, not in neighborhoods, over gatherings of people, near fires or airports that attract media attention with resulting bad press about drones.
It's $5 for three years on the FAA website. You must have used one of the third party sites that makes money out of people who can't find faa.gov.
That will definitely happen. It is only a matter of time before someone nefarious decides to put 1Kg of plastic explosive with BB's and fly it into a crowd or next to an commercial airline. But, those same nefarious people won't obey any laws anyway. That won't affect the backlash which will be against all regular drone pilots. Take the National Park Service's ban on drones because some idiot crashed his into a geyser in Yellowstone. At around the same time a different idiot actually fell in and dissolved. They banned drones but they didn't ban people. It is that kind of response that happens just because they believe this will end the problem. But, the bottom line is making people believe they have enforcement when there isn't any at all. Of course, there will always be "concerned citizens" who will try and enforce the law on their own even when there is no law to actually enforce. That is the American mentality.
It is a matter of enforcement. I just returned from a trip to the US and visited 8 national parks as part of a Russian-based photographic tour of the greater Southwest. I didn't bring my Phantom 4 fearing some kind of onerous enforcement. I did; however, buy a Zerotech Dobby in Las Vegas on the thinking that being under 250 grams (it is 190 grams) it isn't legally a sUAS (not subject to FAA regulation) so it could be in theory be legally flown anywhere. I was all geared up to make that argument (it is only $350). It never happened. In all the parks including a bunch of State Parks (with the exception of the private parks run by the Navajo Nation where enforcement is done well), I never saw a single Ranger (except at the main gate taking money for admission) out doing any kind of patrols anywhere. Clearly the budgets have been whacked and the Parks are operating without any supervision whatsoever and it can be seen as thousands of people don't walk on the paths anymore, throw trash wherever they want, are drinking etc. This is a far larger problem than anything a sUAS pilot could do.
I do agree though that if helicopters can do low altitude flybys a drone is not a bigger problem. Over Grand Canyon there are literally dozens at any given time and it is a big business now. My hotel was near the airport and it was nuts how many aircraft are in operation. That said my Dobby wouldn't let me fly near the airport but no problem in the parks themselves. No one complained ever but I took measures to avoid flying near people.
Last edited:
You may have misunderstood the rules. Drones under 0.55 lbs don't need to be registered with the FAA, but are still subject to regulation. And operating in National Parks is regulated by the National Park Service, has nothing to do with the FAA, and has nothing to do with the size of the drone.
Maybe. I think it will need to be tested in the courts. If it isn't determined to be an sUAS then how could it be banned? A "flight" must be using an aircraft, which I have always thought was an over-reach on the part of the NPS to include sUAS. An aircraft requires registration. Their entire application was IMHO nuts. After all there are literally millions of toy drones being flown by little kids and I doubt the NPS would be very successful in trying to enforce any bans with kids toys. The voting public would finally wake up on that. You could also argue that because it takes off from my hand it didn't take off or land in the park. Lawyers have fun with this kind of stuff. I think the real intent was to try and prevent damage from larger sUAS should they fall out of the sky. At 0.55 lbs you aren't going to hurt anyone or anything. Even in Austria where they have taken this idea to the maximum extent possible, they permit small drones to operate anywhere without any oversight. It is a question of Joules of force on impact. An sUAS like a Dobby or Wingsland S6 are so light they can't do any serious damage. More and similar sUAS are coming soon. The truth is this kind of drone has a limited range of 100 meters due to wifi range and cannot fly in any winds at all more than 5 meters per second. To fly it you must stay very close so it is always under complete supervision. It fits in your pocket and is not offensive (other than being annoying with it's arguably loud propellers) but with a 9 minute duration it isn't going to bother anyone long enough for them to bother.
That said I did see more than a few Mavic Pro's flying in the parks and no one ever seemed to care.
I did also bring a kite for Kite Assisted Photography, which I used at Alstrom Point over Lake Powell and kites are not regulated at all (being connected to the ground they are not legally aircraft) except in regards to height and proximity to powerlines. I keep a KAP setup for when the winds are too high for my Phantom which is common where I live, and hang a Xiamoi yi2 off a picavet on the string. I prefer the Phantom for photography but this is better than nothing and a lot of fun. Kites are allowed to fly pretty much everywhere including the National Capitol.
My point though is there are zero Rangers in evidence. What good are rules (even questionable ones) if there is no enforcement?
As this evolves we are going to see tiny drones coming soon once the new battery technologies come on line. This is an evolving area and applying 1940's rules isn't going to work on 2017 equipment.
That said I did see more than a few Mavic Pro's flying in the parks and no one ever seemed to care.
I did also bring a kite for Kite Assisted Photography, which I used at Alstrom Point over Lake Powell and kites are not regulated at all (being connected to the ground they are not legally aircraft) except in regards to height and proximity to powerlines. I keep a KAP setup for when the winds are too high for my Phantom which is common where I live, and hang a Xiamoi yi2 off a picavet on the string. I prefer the Phantom for photography but this is better than nothing and a lot of fun. Kites are allowed to fly pretty much everywhere including the National Capitol.
My point though is there are zero Rangers in evidence. What good are rules (even questionable ones) if there is no enforcement?
As this evolves we are going to see tiny drones coming soon once the new battery technologies come on line. This is an evolving area and applying 1940's rules isn't going to work on 2017 equipment.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 108
- Reaction score
- 42
This was pretty simply explained in the "Daily Signal" on May 19:
A statute passed by Congress, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act*. Section 336 of that law specifically states that “the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.”
*In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA ‘may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,’ yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a ‘rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.’ Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft. (Emphasis added)
The FAA’s recreational drone registry may have been struck down, but its commercial drone regulations were not at issue, and remain in force. The FAA’s ability to preserve the integrity and safety of the national airspace is similarly unaffected. Section 336(b) of the 2012 law affirms the “authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.”
A statute passed by Congress, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act*. Section 336 of that law specifically states that “the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.”
*In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA ‘may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,’ yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a ‘rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.’ Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft. (Emphasis added)
The FAA’s recreational drone registry may have been struck down, but its commercial drone regulations were not at issue, and remain in force. The FAA’s ability to preserve the integrity and safety of the national airspace is similarly unaffected. Section 336(b) of the 2012 law affirms the “authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.”
What I want to know is.. do I still have to call the towers at the two airports I live within 5 miles of? Because, to me, that's a total waste of time.
They do NOTHING with this information. One airport actually sounds bothered I took the time to call.
And save me the "they're busy.. don't expect them to be nice" story. It's a waste of my time as much as theirs every time I have to call.
They do NOTHING with this information. One airport actually sounds bothered I took the time to call.
And save me the "they're busy.. don't expect them to be nice" story. It's a waste of my time as much as theirs every time I have to call.
The requirement to call the towers derives from the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, as referenced in 14 CFR 101.41. It has nothing to do with the FAA 2015 regulatory action (Registration and Marking Requirements for Small Unmanned Aircraft). This ruling has no effect on anything in 14 CFR 101.
Shhhh.. you're ruining my dream.
So at a minimum I don't have to read my stupidly long registration number anymore? Admittedly they rarely ask for it.. maybe one out of 5 calls.. and if I don't have it handy they almost always tell me not to worry about it.
Which only adds to my complaint the call is meaningless.
Remember that the requirement to call the airport was put into place for a reason - DJI (and other) UAVs can easily get up into the traffic patterns and approach/departure lanes that many new recreational pilots know little or nothing about. Notifying the airport at least gives them some warning, and also the opportunity to comment on proposed flying locations.
Similar threads
