FAA Sued

dronesky

Premium Pilot
Joined
Feb 4, 2017
Messages
741
Reaction score
690
Location
Indiana
Information from private meetings to surveillance
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
385
Reaction score
232
Age
49
Location
Pennsylvania
The FAA holding secret meetings hidden from the public? Shocking. My P4P already broadcasts its identity. Why isn’t that enough?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MTO
Joined
Feb 18, 2020
Messages
38
Reaction score
6
Age
78
check out Alien Drones on you tube, he always talks directly to the FAA and gets the real scoop!
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2015
Messages
68
Reaction score
46
Location
Windy Northern Arizona
This seems more like a publicity stunt than anything, the 'lawsuit' is simply asking a court to review the final rule and asks for nothing else and only provides a copy of the rule itself. As they have yet to show damage, the issue of standing will be an interesting point to watch.

Secondly, and more importantly, their analysis on their 'FAA Legal Battle' webpage, in the FAQ section, is fundamentally flawed in parts that talk about FPV and visual observers, both for recreational and 107 flying.

As I'm NOT a lawyer, it is possible this is a prelude real legal action, so I will look on with interest to see what happens. But based on the information I have available at this point in time, this seems either a stunt or amateurish (particularly the analysis in the FAQ section, though, despite the flaws they do raise some interesting points). But being NOT a lawyer, I could get their case thrown out of court with what little I know if they try to defend it with the analysis in the FAQ section! Imagine what a real FAA lawyer could do...

If they ARE serious, they need to up their game!

UPDATE, a day later - they did an interview last night that explained the process better and confirmed that this filing is the prelude to a bigger action and is the first step. However there is still the issue of standing, which as NOT a lawyer I believe will be at issue as they are simply making hay about how the sausage is made and about provisions that were dropped from the final rule so are moot. And it doesn't change that their analysis is fundamentally flawed, particularly on FPV and the use of visual observers. And I'm still of the opinion, as NOT a lawyer, that this is publicity stunt, nothing that was said changed my view there...
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
140,509
Messages
1,448,378
Members
102,302
Latest member
Empyreus