Slashdot Mirror


Drone Search and Rescue Operation Wins Fight Against FAA

An anonymous reader writes: Back in February, officials at the Federal Aviation Administration told a Texas search-and-rescue team they couldn't use drones help locate missing persons. The team, which is called EquuSearch, challenged the FAA in court. On Friday, the court ruled (PDF) in favor of EquuSearch, saying the FAA's directive was "not a formal cease-and-desist letter representing the agency's final conclusion." EquuSearch intends to resume using the drones immediately. This puts the FAA in the position of having to either initiate formal proceedings against EquuSearch, which is clearly operating to the benefit of society (as opposed to purely commercial drone use), or to revisit and finalize its rules for small aircraft entirely. The latter would be a lengthy process because "Congress has delegated rule making powers to its agencies, but the Administrative Procedures Act requires the agencies to provide a public notice and comment period first."

7 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. comments are now underway on just this issue by Todd+Palin · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can visit the FAA comment site to comment on proposed rule changes that address this issue. The comment period ends on July 25. The proposed rules will cripple drone use by civilians and also cripple most RC aircraft operations in the USA. The proposal is simply draconian. Check it out:
    http://www.regulations.gov/#!d...

    1. Re:comments are now underway on just this issue by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      It would also be a big help to send a copy of your comments to your congressional representative. This is especially true if your representative serves on the Aviation Committee that oversees the FAA. These are the members:

      Republicans
      Frank A. LoBiondo, New Jersey, Chairman
      Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
      Howard Coble, North Carolina
      John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
      Sam Graves, Missouri
      Blake Farenthold, Texas
      Larry Bucshon, Indiana
      Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania
      Richard L. Hanna, New York
      Daniel Webster, Florida
      Jeff Denham, California
      Reid J. Ribble, Wisconsin
      Thomas Massie, Kentucky
      Steve Daines, Montana
      Roger Williams, Texas
      Mark Meadows, North Carolina
      Rodney Davis, Illinois, Vice Chair
      Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania, (ex officio)

      Democrats
      Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member
      Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
      Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas
      Michael E. Capuano, Massachusetts
      Daniel Lipinski, Illinois
      Steve Cohen, Tennessee
      André Carson, Indiana
      Richard M. Nolan, Minnesota
      Dina Titus, Nevada
      Sean Patrick Maloney, New York
      Cheri Bustos, Illinois
      Corrine Brown, Florida
      Elizabeth H. Esty, Connecticut
      Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, (ex officio)

      It will be much easier to stop these regulations, than it will be to repeal them later. The skies should belong to the people, not the government. The time to act is now.

    2. Re: comments are now underway on just this issue by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The skies should belong to the people, not the government. "

      You mean the government for and by the people? The ones we elected to make up that list? Your exercise of writing those letters shows regulations should be at the behest of the people and this isn't us vs them.

      So please drop this "people or government" dichotomy. This sets us all back. It's ignorance, it goes against your point and tells people the government isn't ours to control. It's how we get regulations we don't like. Instead keep the first half of your sentiment and we can have both, regulations by and for the protection of people.

  2. ugh by dale.furno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Congress has delegated rule making powers to its agencies"

    This is what makes those agencies so intimidating. They have given up control.

  3. Re:both? by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, stop being such an ignorant douche.

    The FAA had made the current policies to prevent idiots who think they know everything (i.e. people like you) who have more money than brains from getting a UAV and hurting people by dropping it on someones head, though their roof or flying it into another aircraft.

    All this court has said is that 'your policy isn't a regulation, YET'. Did you notice the YET part.

    The FAA is empowered by Congress via congressional order to regulate these activities. Its what they do. The only reason EquuSearch has 'won' here is because the FAA ISN'T RUSHING INTO MAKING A STUPID BUNCH OF REGULATIONS THAT WE'RE ALL STUCK WITH BECAUSE OF SOME ASSHOLE LIKE YOU. The FAA can fairly easily turn their current policies into law and there isn't shit you can do about it, its just a matter of time. Is that what you want?

    If you 'search the net' for events relating to drones ... take away the EquuSearch related results, you'll find that pretty much EVERY ONE OF THEM is some fucking moron doing something that either DID hurt someone, was dangers as shit, came very close to hurting someone, or certainly had the potential to hurt someone. That is EXACTLY what the FAA is supposed to prevent.

    As someone who flies UAVs for fun and profit (yes, I fly them illegally) I am in 100% agreement with the FAA at this point. I've been flying RC for almost 30 years and universally, the people who scream the loudest about the FAA regulation and policies are the idiots who get people hurt.

    What you don't want is the FAA getting pissed off at idiots like you and fast tracking a regulation that makes any autonomous or camera equipped aircraft of any size or use to require a Certificate of Airworthiness, which is the EASIEST thing for them to do. Then EquuSearch is done, and so am I, and so are a bunch of hobbyists ... because some asshole like you with no idea whats going on thinks the Gubment needs to get out of the way and instead gets the exact opposite of what you want. EquuSearch is an EXTREMELY rare exception to the rule.

    Screaming idiots like you aren't helping the cause. The FAA won't get 'bitchslapped', making these rules is their job, by law. The only court cases the FAA has 'lost' are ones that essentially say 'your policies are not regulations, go make them regulations'.

    The FAA making their current policies regulations is EXACTLY WHAT YOU DON'T WANT.

    So I restate my first sentence. Stop being such an ignorant douche.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  4. Re:both? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If that's true then why do they care whether the usage is commercial or not? Have you read their little chart? Taking a picture of your house is fine, but a real estate agent doing the same thing is illegal. There's no difference between the actions and the aircraft - it's just the fact that money will change hands.

    If this had anything to do with "safety" and all that then it wouldn't matter whether money was changing hands.

  5. bonus points if you do your research and use gramm by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've gotten involved in a couple of rounds of agency rule-making before and it taught me a few things. I learned that this is where the skills learned writing papers in school can really be useful. The folks at the FAA think they know something about this topic, so they tend to discount comments that sound like the person is spouting off emotionally without having any real knowledge of the subject matter. On the other hand, they don't know everything that everyone is doing in the field, so they'd like to hear comments from people doing different things. For example, my local university has a drone research center and the FAA doesn't know what all the research center is doing, so they can appreciate comments about using drones in a research and educational setting.

    IF you really care about this topic, it may be worth putting some time into writing your comments well, or supporting an organization who will, such as the model aircraft association.