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."
I don't think it should be.
What you think is irrelevant.
For instance I think the government should have you censored, strip away your right to vote and imprison you.
Because they broke they law by passing unconstitutional laws and the court system decided to illegally turn a blind eye to it.
During World War II the us government illegally imprisoned Japanese americans. It was still illegal they just got away with it.
People behave just fine. The laws are an over-reaction to a non issue. We're happy to ban Kindersurprise eggs so kids don't choke on toys, drones so they don't bring down aircraft, magnets because they are magic, but we happily let countless things by that kill millions of Americans every year.
These laws aren't necessary.
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.
Er, what do you think "kill[s] millions of Americans every year"? Only 2.6 million people died in 2014 all together. 614k of those are heart disease, followed closely by cancer at 591k. Those two are the only causes of death above 150k/yr. Unless you're saying that "our Western appetites, processed food, and a largely sedentary lifestyle" are the "countless things" we're letting by, you're talking out your ass.
Certainly drones must seem like a non-issue to you if you think the world is at least 10x more fatal than it is. For the rest of us, it would be nice if people would be a bit more responsible with their dangerous toys. Like the old-school model airplane AMA-member types - that's all anyone (including the FAA) wants out of the drone types. I think the eggs and magnet bans are stupid too (though you can still buy the magnets btw) but drones can hurt other people so they're a different category.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
When you can't play with your toys in a safe manner you get your toys taken away.
There are now many millions of these toys in use, with hundreds of millions of hours in the air. Please cite your long list of examples of these toys being used in such a dangerous way that the long list of injuries and mayhem require a publicly-browsable federal registry of their owners and the criminalization and fining of kids who fail to register their 10 ounce plastic copter with the federal government.
More people are hurt using soccer balls, garden tools, and bicycles in a given day than have been hurt by anyone, ever, using a little plastic toy copter. Why is your first instinct to involve government control, lists, fees, and public databases of toy owners?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Exactly. It is highly disingenuous to compare modern drones to the hobbiest model and miniature aircraft of the past. The hobbiests tended to be pretty sensitive to other peoples' feelings and to general notions of aviation safety. Part of it was, I suppose that the cost of such aircraft was fairly high, but it was also part of the gentlemen's agreement that went along with entering the hobby. Now when any beer-swilling asshole with a spare $200 can go and buy a drone with video camera on it, it simply isn't the same hobby at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Section 331 of the 2012 FAA modernization act is a definitions section. Perhaps you meant section 336. You also left off a bunch of conditions:
- It has to be hobby/recreational
- It has to be according to the AMA's rules ("in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization")
- It has to be less than 55 pounds or signed off on by the AMA
- It has not interfere with manned aircraft
- If within 5 miles of an airport, you have to call the airport
- It has to be within visual line of sight
Also it says that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system."
So the section 336 exemption is followed exactly, except that the FAA says that if the drone is more than 0.55lbs it must be registered. The FAA probably argues that this is part of maintaining the safety of the national airspace system, and I think it's a case they will win considering it's based on weight. Their legal argument is basically that by codifying the Part 107 UAS rules, they have told everyone "we consider unregistered drones over 0.55lbs to endanger the safety of the NAS and will pursue enforcement actions against such persons" - which is basically all a regulation is. The plantiff's argument would have to be along the lines of "well technically the law says you can't do anything it doesn't say, and doesn't say anything about whether heavier drones can be required to be registered". Which is fair enough, but since registration is non-discriminatory (anyone can do it, the FAA won't tell anyone they can't) and free ($5 online but you can do it on paper), they'd have to argue that the registration requirement itself constitutes a burdensome regulation on top of what's allowed by the law - to which I say good luck.
Generally, laws about regulation either delegate a section of authority to an agency for them to figure out the rules, or (if the congress-folks are worried about the agency doing or not doing something they don't like, which is what happened here and with the more recent class-3 medical certification reform for manned aircraft) they lay out the shape of the rules that they expect the FAA to create. That's what the FAA did here, modulo that registration requirement. But it's up to the agency to create the laws that follow the outline in the law, and on general principle courts will yield to the regulating authority unless the disconnect is "big enough".
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
That happened way before drones, it stopped being a hobby when ready to fly models became available.
When you spent many hours building a model, you vaued it al lot more than an off the shelf item
Pretty sure that we aren't going to have a revolution over the regulation of drones. You have no constitutional right to record your neighbor changing clothes through their second story window. The reality is that we have had hobbiest aircraft for a long time as the original article points out, the difference now is that nearly all drones come equipped with an HD video camera, and many can be operated beyond LOS and that is at the root of the problem.
The reality that the idiot drone operators (not all just the idiots) fail to acknowledge is that your rights end where mine begin. To start with, drone operators need to know the rules and what the consequences are if they break the rules, thus the licensing. Next we need some kind of highly visible ID tags for drones such that they can be identified in flight and traced back to their owner if they are violating the rules/trespass/peeping laws. If you are flying your drone at a drone park, that is fine. If you are hovering 10 feet off the ground in front of my daughters bedroom window, you are trespassing and peeping and need a visit from a LEO. The third step is for the justice system to be brought up to speed on the flying camcorders and prosecute their operators with the trespassing/peeping laws already on the books.
Remember, your rights end where mine begin. Too many drone operators have been infringing on others property and right to privacy, and now you have the consequence.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
There is no justification to own a gun.
It's my Constitutional right. No justification is needed.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
these are fucking hobby drones that weight less than 1lbs. Do you see a giant fucking camera rig slung underneath it? No? Then it's not taking pictures of your fucking hairy ass.
My son has a drone that weighs 200g. It has a 4M pixel camera.
I think the registration program is stupid government overreach for the opposite reason: privacy is a real concern, but registration doesn't really solve the problem. Plenty of drones below the limit (500g) have high res-cameras, and soon there will be 499.5g drones available.
Registering handguns with unique serial numbers has turned out quite well for law enforcement hasn't it? The reality is that this is dumb and there's no need for it. If a drone flies over your house you should be allowed to shoot it down, period.