Slashdot Mirror
FAA Sued Over Federal Drone Registry (technical.ly)
"Last December, the FAA rushed an arbitrary and ineffectual recreational drone-owners' registry into effect, mere days before Christmas and just in time to criminalize the flying of toys by thousands of children and hobbyists," argued The Daily Signal. Now Slashdot reader jenningsthecat reports on a promising legal challenge filed by a drone hobbyist who's also a lawyer, who is now "receiving financial help with his suit from the D.C. area Drone User Group (DC DUG).
In his Petitioner's Brief, John Taylor maintains that "(f)or the first century of American aviation and beyond, the federal government made no attempt whatsoever to regulate recreational model aircraft", and that "(t)he FAA seeks to revise history (PDF) when it argues its failure to register model aircraft, or otherwise treat them in any manner as 'aircraft,' in the past was the exercise of an 'enforcement discretion.'"
On a fund-raising page for the challenge, the group calls the federal registry "deeply concerning to users and prospective users of small unmanned aircraft."
On a fund-raising page for the challenge, the group calls the federal registry "deeply concerning to users and prospective users of small unmanned aircraft."
When you can't play with your toys in a safe manner you get your toys taken away.
Much more people have died from guns, but the only people killed by drones were brown people and/or enemies of the USG.
Why do we have a drone registry but not a gun registry?
All the hassle and regulation of flying a real aircraft with none of the privileges. Thanks FAA.
It's a legal trick, FAA don't have the right to force registration of toy planes. So they set a very very low bar 'free registration'. The user thinks.... we'll it's only registration, and its free, so why not. So they register, but what they're actually doing is acknowledging FAA's wacky interpretation of these toys as aircraft, and thus the FAA's right to legislate over these.
So now your Mavik, smaller than your hand and made of plastic ca be treated like an aircraft, made of steel and canvas and carrying a pilot. But its not. It's a toy, a model aircraft. Only this model aircraft has an expert pilot on board, and will refused to fly in no-fly zones. So its better.
Even if you refuse to register, FAA will claim that the other people registered and try to sway a judge with numbers in order to gain the power to regulate toys.
FAA should not be doing legal trickery. The mechanism by which FAA gets legal powers is called Congress. You cannot have a situation where government agencies use legal tricks to acquire power.
Why is it a problem that you have to register?
Mostly government falls into regulating anything that significantly affects the population as a whole. Drone's were never a problem until they became a problem with increasing numbers. If we only had a few numbers of cars on the road we wouldn't regulate vehicles like we do either. It's only when numbers become a significant factor in safety and privacy along with imposing regulations of operation that this comes into effect. I think the drone problems are just beginning, and will become a real issue for many on both sides. Operators, and the general public.
He has a point... but it goes only as far as the eye can pick out a 2 cu ft toy in the sky. Model airplanes generally dont go that far and you fly them always within line of sight. Today's technology allows you to use articulating gimbal mounts and wireless technology that allows you to send your toy out for miles with no line of site required. It might be marketed as a toy... but the technology in it is not a toy.
Laws like this wouldn't be necessary if people just knew how to fucking behave.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The FAA has broad authority over anything that flies and they have a history of declining to regulate hobbyist model aircraft. But putting out an advisory circular saying "we won't bother you if you are a hobbyist and listen to the AMA" is kind of the opposite of "we don't have any authority over this activity". "Enforcement discretion" is pretty much exactly how I would describe this.
Like most executive branch functions, and like it or not, the precise manner and timing of how the FAA carries out their mandate is up to them. It's basically like how the cops usually won't bother people for having a broken tail-light or a few MPH of speeding, but can elect to pull over people at any time for those violations. In fact, even if the town has a policy of not pulling people over for always had to understand something about airspace and keep things safe. Pre-drone, the AMA served this purpose and their fields' placements and operating rules took care of this problem. But when you can unbox your drone, charge it for an hour or two, and then send it up to 3000' on the first try, there's no funnel through the AMA like there used to be to teach people those rules. The drone registry's main purpose is to act as another funnel so that people can figure out where and when it's safe to fly. And, if they don't play by the rules, that there's at least the potential for accountability.
The drone community has brought this on themselves entirely. As even the suit alleges, everyone was OK with the model airplane rules. Drones changed the game and forced the agency's hand here. That's what happens with disruptive technology - you might as well get mad about the regulation of automobiles because everything was fine with horses. But obviously cars are much easier to use (average experience and skill goes down) and go much faster (danger goes up). Drones are similarly easier to use, which explains their popularity, and can easily go much higher and from way more places.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
The first century of American aviation was started by bicycle gears and wooden wings:
Drones are highly complex machines that can carry cameras, guns, bombs, or whatever you could think of (Yes, even the small ones).
These people are fucking delusional
http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf
"The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft,"
So no, they cannot legislate for model aircraft. It isn't that they did not bother to legislate for model aircraft. IT'S THAT THE LAW DOES NOT LET THEM.
Real airplanes often fly across state borders, and it can be argued that this raises the need for federal regulation.
Consumer drones have limited range, and are almost always flown *within* single states.
So if they are to be regulated, why shouldn't it be the right of states to implement regulations as opposed to the federal government?
We don't have federal registration or drivers' licenses for cars. We don't have federal hunting permits. There isn't even an argument saying that having different regulations in different states would harm commerce since we are talking about consumer drones.
We need that airspace clear so we can sell it to the highest bidder. To hell with your recreational stuff, and your democracy protecting uses.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Fyi(for your information):
FAA might actually allow us to take aerial photos of not just celebrities, (Maybe) Politicians Too!
I was thinking about hiring a Drone Company to take photos of Passengers in an Airplane so I don't have to use my App to see when my friends will be arriving.
Thank U.
Gun owners are taxed, registered, regulated, spied on, harassed, assaulted by law enforcement, and otherwise fucked with constantly by the government...
But drone operators should be completely free from any rules or restrictions to enjoy their precious hobby of invading other people's airspace and privacy (not to mention potentially causing grievous bodily harm).
Got it!
Yes, they are. I fly between states for work. Most flying is interstate, and therefore completely within the purview of the federal government, and better to be regulated by the feds than the states. This has already been well settled by the courts. The arrogant assholes with toys are threatening interstate commerce, and therefore are clearly within the federal government's responsibility to regulate.
I "registered" my drone as required and nowhere in the process was there anything to identify my drone. In other words, my drone isn't registered; I am registered as a drone owner. What good is that? If someone misuses their drone the FAA sends out a list of local drone owners?
They ruin everything, and claim to be victims like that idiot in Kentucky who was really spying on underage girls.
In the country as a whole, model airplanes are relatively rare. They're comparatively difficult to build and fly. OTOH drones are cheap, trivial to fly, and are available everywhere you look.
For years the relative rarity of model airplanes (and other piston-engined flying models) allowed them to be treated in a more-or-less hands-off manner by the FAA. The community of uses was largely limited to people who made a large investment of time, money, and learning: that made the community was sort of self-limiting and self-policing, kind of like ham radio.
The ubiquity of drones (quadcopters and their ilk) fundamentally changes the equation. Their accessibility means that in the aggregate a lot more abuses will be commited with drones that were ever committed with model airplanes. The community of uses isn't just hard-core enthusiasts: any 'idiot' can go to Radio Shack and get a drone for less that 100 bucks, and the capability of these cheap drones is increasing constantly. So, the FAA has to assert its authority based on the sheer volume of potential problems.
Back in the day, rc aircraft (the good ones) took several hundred hours too build and could cost some serious $$. Learning to control them took time in of itself, they didn't have cameras available to the user, certainly not live pov built into the controller like they do today.
Although there where lots of RC helicopters, most were planes, both took some dedication to learn to fly and planes needed an abandoned airfield or some stretch of flat asphalt.
Basically, it was a bit more of a dedicated hobby with a more narrow subset of users back in the day. Most were even pilots or aircraft enthusiast that new common sense things like "don't buzz your neighbors house".
Today, any idiot can buy a 20/30 lb drone and have it up and flying as soon as they get home with hours of loiter time available and minimal skill....
Nein nein nein hobbyist nicht hobbiest!!!
The Part 107 rules STILL leave out the use-case of volunteer non-profit search & rescue operations. By definition, commercial means that you are being compensated. The FAA's own example of accepting ball game tickets as a gift for flying illustrates this. Volunteer non-profit SAR groups aren't compensated for their work. Therefore, one would think that Part 107 doesn't apply yet many people believe that it does. SAR also doesn't have the luxury of waiting any length of time to look for someone nor do they have the luxury of waiting until daylight.