PBS Feature

[msinger]

So you just accept the FAA's summary decision to reinterpret UAS as aircraft?

According to the vague US law I posted above, a UAS is definitely an aircraft. And, in the Pirker case, it was decided his UAS is an aircraft. I guess that doesn't mean all UASs are aircraft, but, I'm assuming the court will come to the same conclusion if people try to challenge that law with other types of UASs (e.g. a Phantom).

With that said, I don't like what the FAA is up to. That's not something I'm able to change though. If I want to use my Phantom commercially, I have to jump through the existing hoops just like everyone else is doing.

 

[N017RW]

So you just accept the FAA's summary decision to reinterpret UAS as aircraft?

According to the vague US law I posted above, a UAS is definitely an aircraft. And, in the Pirker case, it was decided his UAS is an aircraft. I guess that doesn't mean all UASs are aircraft, but, I'm assuming the court will come to the same conclusion if people try to challenge that law with other types of UASs (e.g. a Phantom).

With that said, I don't like what the FAA is up to. That's not something I'm able to change though. If I want to use my Phantom commercially, I have to jump through the existing hoops just like everyone else is doing.

Regardless of personal opinion(s) and interpretation(s), now that the Realtor has been granted an Exception doesn't that create a precedent, if not by proxy, that all Phantoms (and similar) are now aircraft?

 

[msinger]

Regardless of personal opinion(s) and interpretation(s), now that the Realtor has been granted an Exception doesn't that create a precedent, if not by proxy, that all Phantoms (and similar) are now aircraft?

Nope. It just means the FAA thinks it's an aircraft. Only a court of law could determine if it's really an aircraft.

The same goes for the FAA requiring a private pilot license. They think it's the appropriate license for a UAV. It has never been proven in a court of law though.

 

[ianwood]

Nope. It just means the FAA thinks it's an aircraft. Only a court of law could determine if it's really an aircraft.

That's what I've been saying!

 

[msinger]

Nope. It just means the FAA thinks it's an aircraft. Only a court of law could determine if it's really an aircraft.

That's what I've been saying!

All that's left is for someone to challenge the FAA and take them to court. A Phantom was clearly made to fly in the air though, so I wouldn't get your hopes up that a court is going to find it's not an aircraft. Until otherwise challenged, it'll remain an aircraft in the FAA's eyes -- and, you'll have to follow all of their aircraft regulations.

 

[ianwood]

They don't have to prove it isn't an aircraft. They just have to show that the existing FAA regulations were not intended for nor applied to RC toys prior to last year. For the FAA to make that change, they would need an NPRM.

 

[msinger]

They just have to show that the existing FAA regulations were not intended for nor applied to RC toys prior to last year.

Done. Review the Pirker case. The court found FAA regulations apply -- even though there were created years before Pirker flew. It really does not matter when the regulations were created though.

"RC toys"? The Phantom definitely does not fit into the same category as an RC toy purchased from a kids toy store.

 

[ianwood]

Done. Review the Pirker case. The court found FAA regulations apply -- even though there were created years before Pirker flew. It really does not matter when the regulations were created though.

The NTSB (which is essentially the judicial arm of the DOT and sibling to the FAA) found that the regulations apply. After they initially decided it didn't. The overturning of the Pirker case is a little too convenient for the FAA. It stinks of insider politics. Pirker still has the option to appeal to a Federal court where there is arguably much less bias. I doubt the appeal will hold up in Federal court.

I'm done with this debate. The FAA is a decade too late. Their incompetence screams for an overhaul of their agency. An entire industry is on its knees as result of their ineptitude.

 

[msinger]

The FAA is a decade too late. Their incompetence screams for an overhaul of their agency. An entire industry is on its knees as result of their ineptitude.

True. I'm sure everyone would agree with this.

There's no debate here. The regulations apply. Other than ignorance, there's nothing otherwise to say they don't.

 

[derrickduff]

The FAA is a decade too late. Their incompetence screams for an overhaul of their agency. An entire industry is on its knees as result of their ineptitude.

True. I'm sure everyone would agree with this.

There's no debate here. The regulations apply. Other than ignorance, there's nothing otherwise to say they don't.

Reality says otherwise. I've noticed you see things in black or white while reality is very grey. One Realtor was granted an exemption to operator commercially. Care to make a wager on how many out there are still conducting business everyday without one? My guess would be thousands to tens of thousands. And that's just in the Real Estate industry. By attempting to make something stick they've made regulations that are both too strict and too easily ignored thus making them useless.

 

[msinger]

Reality says otherwise.

I don't think so:
http://www.realtor.org/articles/nationa ... l-vehicles

Care to make a wager on how many out there are still conducting business everyday without one?

I'm not a betting man. But, I'll bet you there are more people speeding in cars than illegally using drones for commercial purposes. And, speeding has been illegal for many years.