Slashdot Mirror
These Are the Companies the FAA Has Sent notices To For Using Drones
Daniel_Stuckey writes "Just as soon as the Minnesota-based Lakemaid Beer company excited everyone by delivering beer to ice fisherman with drones, the Federal Aviation Administration ruined their fun by demanding that they cease operations. But Lakemaid isn't the only company that's been harassed by the agency. Since 2012, the agency has sent official notices to 13 companies for the commercial use of drones."
Sorry guys... your PR heavy "response" isn't going to cut it. We, the COMMUNITY, are the one's that provide you with content and allow you to earn a living from our debates all in exchange for simple access to a site that we can use and like. Your Beta site has broken the implicit contract you had between your community and the business. In the end you are responsible for all hell breaking loose and people rioting in the comment threads. We are trying to provide you the opportunity to correct this situation but you seem to have received crisis response training from the Apple people who came up with "you're holding it wrong." Only you can fix Slashdot. If the community has to fix it, then the solution will be a new home. The clock is ticking.
#IamSlashdot
You can't take the sky from me.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
There have been a few FOIA request lately that show the FAA is full of it. They're simply trying to intimidate people.
"The most significant misrepresentation is the repeated assertion that flying unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes is prohibited. The FAA repeatedly states that commercial operators are using UAS "without proper authorization" and are therefore "in violation of FAA guidance for UAS," or "in violation of FAA mandates for UAS," warns UAS operators that "operations of this kind may be in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations and result in legal enforcement action," speaks of "devastating liability" in the event of an accident, and concludes with a command either requiring or "advising" the subject to cease UAS operations.
Each of these letters is premised on the notion that the FAA's 2007 Policy Notice creates a mandatory prohibition that is binding on the general public. However, by law a mere "policy notice" by a federal agency cannot create legally binding and enforceable obligations on the general public. Only "regulations," passed through the proper notice and comment procedures dictated by the Administrative Procedures Act, can be considered mandatory.
This is one of the central issues in the ongoing case regarding Raphael Pirker ("Trappy"). In fact, in a legal filing in that case, the FAA even admitted:
"To the extent that the Respondent is arguing that the information contained in the AC 9157 and
the 2007 Notice supersede the operational requirements contained in 14 CFR part 91 regulations, it
2 is clear that compliance with the regulations is mandatory, while the policies addressed in AC 91-57
and the 2007 Notice are not mandatory."
Despite this admission, the FAA continues to label failure to abide by the 2007 Policy Statement's prohibition on commercial use of unmanned aircraft as a "violation" which could subject operators to legal enforcement action. This begs the question, how can someone be penalized for failure to obey a non-mandatory policy? What regulation are they violating, and on what basis could the FAA initiate an enforcement action if compliance is not mandatory? The FAA has no answers to these questions, which is likely why they have never initiated an enforcement action against someone solely for operating a commercial UAS. Yet they continue to misrepresent the law and tell people such operation is illegal, despite having no legal basis for this claim."
.
.
Whitespace burning
.
In the night
.
Holy shit
.
What a sight
.
Beta Shave.
.
.
The hexacopter is great, but it's a radio-controlled device. You can do first-person-view (FPV) stuff with it but it's still 100% controlled by a human. That's not a drone.
WAIT, BEFORE YOU SAY "WHO CARES", RC helicopters up to 400ft are not regulated by the FAA. That means the FAA lacks authority to do so. The beer thing is a fun gag. HOAX if you prefer. The hexacopter can lift almost 4lbs, and a six-pack weighs 4.5lbs. It wasn't real. The GPS coordinates... also not real. It's a gag. A gimmick. An advertisement for some future product. Didn't happen.
The point of this is.
1. The FAA has no authority over RC stuff.
2. Drone/UAS means there's nobody controlling it. That's not the case here.
3. A six pack of beer is a great thing, but it's too heavy for even a hexacopter.
Ehud :)
helicopter pilot (the real kind, 1 R44, and about 7 electrical RC and 1 nitro methane RC