Butcher99 said:
Peter, I would love nothing more for that to be true but the FAA disagrees when it comes to profit. (Language below) Now, we can certainly be of another opinion but the truth is the FAA's authority to make those specifc regs has not been challenged in court yet.
I know the FAA disagrees, but that doesn't matter. I don't know what regulations you are referring to because there are none. I'm not saying anything about the FAA's authority to make regulations being challenged. I am simply stating that there are no regulations
right now that gives it the authority to enforce anything with regard to commercial operation of remote-controlled model aircraft. I'm not saying that there is no possibility of future regs. I'm saying
right now there are none. As for the language below, I've addressed it below.
Butcher99 said:
The closest test we have is the Trappy's case which has yet to be adjudicated. And in that case they're not going after Black Sheep on commercial grounds but on basically a wreckless flying charge.
That's correct,
Administrator v. Raphael Pirker, NTSB Docket CP-217 has yet to be decided, but should be shortly. You're also correct in that they went after Pirker ("Trappy") for reckless operation, not commercial use. If there existed a regulation that prohibited commercial use they would have likely gone after him for that. Yet they did not. Also, Trappy was decided at the Administrative hearing against him. What now is happening is the appeals process (expensive process unless you have someone banking it).
Butcher99 said:
The FAA has sent numerous cease operations letters to aerial photographers looking to sell their services as well as University drone journalism programs which they say fall under the category of a commercial operation.
Yes, they have sent those "cease and desist" letters, all of which could have been ignored entirely since no regulation exists to back up an FAA "order" to "cease and desist."
Butcher99 said:
I'm not saying they're right or that their declarations will hold up, but until a federal court (or Congress) says otherwise, those are the rules now.
That not how the law works. Unless there is a statute, regulation, ordinance or case law that prohibits something, it's legal. Again, there are no "rules," ("regulations" in this instance), to even be challenged in a court of law. They simply don't exist.
Butcher99 said:
Model Aircraft Recreational use of airspace by model aircraft is covered by FAA Advisory Circular 91-57, which generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic. In 2007, the FAA clarified that AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and specifically excludes individuals or companies flying model aircraft for business purposes.
This is not a regulation. It's from the FAA 2007 "Clarification" of AC 91-57. It merely states the FAA’s own current
policy concerning operations of unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System. Although it does in fact say that remote-controlled model aircraft may not be used commercially, it’s only a
policy statement, has
no force in law and can be ignored entirely. A
policy statement is not a regulation, and is
not legally enforceable.