Americans No Longer Have To Register Non-Commercial Drones With the FAA (recode.net)

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down a federal rule that required owners of recreational drones and other model aircraft to register the devices with the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA had announced the rule in 2015 in response to growing reports of drones flying near manned aircraft and airports. Drones have become increasingly popular with hobbyists and more than 550,000 unmanned aircraft were registered within the first year it was required. From a report: The court ruled that the FAA's drone registration rules, which have been in place since 2015, were in violation of a law passed by Congress in 2012. That law, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, prohibited the FAA from passing any rules on the operation of model aircraft -- in other words, rules that restrict how non-commercial hobbyist drone operators fly. Now, if a person buys a new drone to fly for fun, they no longer have to register that aircraft with the FAA. But if flying for commercial purposes, drone buyers still need to register. The lawsuit was won by John Taylor, a model aircraft enthusiast, who brought the case against the FAA in January 2016. Since first opening the FAA's registration system in December 2015, more than 820,000 people have registered to fly drones.

Comments

Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

All the close calls between manned aircraft and drones show why these regulations are needed. Unfortunately the courts have been stacked with Democrat judges who seem unconcerned with security and the rule of law. Whether it's the much-needed travel ban or drone registration, the Democrat judges have shown they will rule against security. The Democrats will be to blame when one of these drones causes a plane crash with loss of life.

- snruter rotsac

Re:Democrats strike again

[olsmeister]

Registering or not registering a drone will not change the behavior of idiots who use them dangerously.

Re:Democrats strike again

[cayenne8]

Registering or not registering a drone will not change the behavior of idiots who use them dangerously.

This!!

I"m curious...why do commercial drones have to be registered, but hobbyist do not?

I mean, the rules about where you fly them are the same, etc....so, why is it that commercial still have to be registered, but un-payed fliers do not? You have just as good or stupid drone operators regardless if they are making a buck at it or not...

Is this just for the govt to get its fees?

Re:Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

But isn’t the “rule of law” (FAA Modernization and Reform Act) EXACTLY what is being followed here?

Re:Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

All the close calls between manned aircraft and drones show why these regulations are needed. Unfortunately the courts have been stacked with Democrat judges who seem unconcerned with security and the rule of law. Whether it's the much-needed travel ban or drone registration, the Democrat judges have shown they will rule against security. The Democrats will be to blame when one of these drones causes a plane crash with loss of life.

- snruter rotsac

Jeez, you have great ability to blame Democrats on anything (and similar to others who are the opposite of you).

I don't have an issue whether or not a drone needs to be registered; however, I would like to see some rules for use of drone just to at least have something to hold on to when encounter any idiot drone hobbyist.

Re:Democrats strike again

[spacepimp]

Commercial flights are entirely different. The section 107 is actually a waiver that states you have permission to violate flight restrictions provided you use minimization and efforts predescribed to fly, via putting in for a NOTAM. Since you have passed a test you are legally able to fly in restricted airspace, such as across from an airport, or similar. A hobbyist can't fly a drone in a no fly zone, while a section 107 approved commercial flight may.

Re:Democrats strike again

[BlueStrat]

Registering or not registering a drone will not change the behavior of idiots who use them dangerously.

The number of drone incidents, either as a whole or as a percentage, is so vanishingly tiny in context that it's really a non-issue covered by criminal negligence and other laws and regulations already on the books. People using them dangerously is just the excuse fed to the public to justify registration. The actual reason is to be better able to track down and destroy video evidence of illegal & unconstitutional acts perpetrated by authorities obtained using civilian commercial camera-drones, and silence the owners/operators.

But of course, it's totally legit for government to fly aircraft and drones overhead with sophisticated electronic eavesdropping equipment hoovering-up everybody's communications and with high-resolution still and video cameras reading your book over your shoulder from 3,500 feet and storing it all for possible future use. In case someone becomes "inconvenient".

Strat

Re:Democrats strike again

[Hentes]

Sure it would. RC aircraft have existed for more than 50 years yet most people used them responsibly. The reason for that is that RC planes used to be hard to fly, and that has kept the idiots away. Now that drones have removed the difficulty barrier, registration can create another. Most drone purchases are impulse buy Christmas presents for 5 year old Bobby, if buying a drone included a registration process only people serious about them would get one.

Re:Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

False flag, strawman. Relax, he's on your side trying to make the other side look like retards that they are.

Re: Democrats strike again

[theshowmecanuck]

Probability vs consequence. Yet another person who has no clue what risk assessment and risk management it's all about. If there it's a way to find out if someone flew their drone into the window of a plane (by registering the drone) then people will use them more wisely.

Re:Democrats strike again

[ShanghaiBill]

I"m curious...why do commercial drones have to be registered, but hobbyist do not?

Because the type of people that become entrepreneurs and the type that become bureaucrats are polar opposites. People in government often have a reflexive hostility toward anything to do with commerce.

Re:Democrats strike again

[MightyYar]

Most drones bought for 5-year-old Bobby are cheap, plastic pieces of shit that can barely work outside - let alone pose more of a hazard to aircraft than, say, a goose. This whole thing is solving an imaginary problem.

Re:Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the type of people that become entrepreneurs and the type that become bureaucrats are polar opposites. People in government often have a reflexive hostility toward anything to do with commerce.

That's probably for the best, people in commerce often have the attitude of "Who can I screw the most for the least effort" as evidenced by the plethora of spam, fraud, malfeasance, and other behavior of those who decide that if they can get away with it, it's all good.

Somebody has to reject that mindset.

Re:Democrats strike again

[ScentCone]

Not really. The FLIGHTS aren't any different at all. Unless a 107 holder explicitly seeks and gets authorization to fly where he's not normally allowed to, the commercial user doesn't get to do anything the hobby user gets to. The number of people who seek and get authorization to fly a small quadcopter at, say, an airport or over a prison are exceedingly small.

The fact that an individual machine that weights about the same as a stick of butter must registered for one person, but not for the other, is still capricious and silly.

Re:Democrats strike again

[ScentCone]

Ah, never actually done anything on your own, have you? Didn't think so. Your cartoon villain impression of what it means to be self employed would be funny if it weren't so childishly toxic. Grow up.

Re: Democrats strike again

[ScentCone]

No. There were already millions of these units flying around with untold millions of flight hours on them before the FAA decided to collect their $5 for every toy sold. And the number of collisions with aircraft that even broke somebody's NOSE? Run down the list, I dare you. While you're at it, compare that to the number of people who've died playing soccer, or who've been hit and killed by another skier on the slopes. Go ahead, do some comparing.

Re: Democrats strike again

[ColdWetDog]

That's it! You're brilliant!

We need to register soccer balls and skis!

(And bathtubs and toasters while we're at it. No problemo, they're all going to be connected to the Internet anyway.)

Re:Democrats strike again

[thunderclees]

What about when some peeping tom uses one to film your backyard?
I think that if some boob runs a drone over his neighbors yard the neighbor should be allowed to knock it down. It is already like this with other intrusions. In most places if a tree crosses the property line your neighbor can trim it. Registration might have curbed some of this as the neighbor could have alerted authorities to the drone.

Re:Democrats strike again

[MangoCats]

But it will change the cost to find and prosecute said idiots after damages have been done. Don't forget, scaring the public is very expensive.

Re:Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look, it's StenchBore, with his usual malignant ranting. Turns out self-employed, or running a major corporation, or a salesman on the showroom floor there's plenty of toxic people around, willing to cheat, defraud, and otherwise act in a fashion that truly does merit condemnation.

Of course, you'd rather pretend that recognizing that kind of mindset is the problem, because you just don't want it to be acknowledged that many people are truly deplorable. After all, if we admit they exist, then we're justified in taking action to rein them in, and that would mean you can't just declare government to be the problem. Because actually, the scariest words in America have always been "It will be good for business" as the greed and selfishness that comes from a love of money has been the root of vastly more harm than anything else.

Re:Democrats strike again

[sabri]

What about when some peeping tom uses one to film your backyard? I think that if some boob runs a drone over his neighbors yard the neighbor should be allowed to knock it down.

Are you going to shoot me down in my little Cessna 172 at 1000ft as well? Because I can effectively do the same thing.

Re:Democrats strike again

[HornWumpus]

They _all_ work outside, what they have huge problems with is wind more than 1 mph.

Re:Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

I wholeheartedly agree on the capricious and silly. It still bothers me the FAA knowingly tried to land grab, and forced a lot of people to pay for a registration, that they had no right to mandate. Signing the damn agreement then made you give up/agree to waive rights that they had no authority to regulate or control legally, and framed it the way they did, which still seems illegal. That being said I am seeking to fly near an airport, the 107 is the waiver request. Now that it is a fully insured, and legal FAA vehicle technically the waiver should be granted, provided the violations we need to achieve for the flight are described in how we will mitigate the hazards that are associated. I'm not expecting a lot of rapidity however.

Re:Democrats strike again

[spacepimp]

See my accidental AC post ...
I agree with everything you said.

Re: Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to put high power lasers on the drones now. They will make pretty looking effects for the passengers and pilots in the sky.

Re:Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

And all the people involved in the bureaucracy are absolutely perfect angels too.

Re:Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

Most drones bought for 5-year-old Bobby are cheap, plastic pieces of shit that can barely work outside - let alone pose more of a hazard to aircraft than, say, a goose. This whole thing is solving an imaginary problem.

They also weight less than .55 pounds, so aren't what you imagine was trying to be solved.

Re:Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

And all the people involved in the bureaucracy are absolutely perfect angels too.

In Trump's America? Of course not. People can love money, no matter where they stand. Even Plato knew that. And he's been dead for over 2000 years.

Because even the bureaucracy can be corrupted by the avaricious. That's one of the worst things about the noxious nature of commerce, it is an infection that requires constant vigilance to prevent.

I'd be glad to talk about that with you, if you wanted, rather than just resort to pointless rhetorical rejoinders.

Stankmoan, however, just wants the freedom to do whatever he wants without challenge. He hates admitting that covetousness actually is a problem, it's offensive to bring up the failings of Wall Street con men, Southern Plantation owners, or Junk mail scammers, or even how they are the ones who weasel into government, corrupting and manipulating it for their own ends. He can't even admit the death toll of greed, not one bit.

That's why you can't talk with him, there's nothing there except ranting and screaming like a tantrum throwing toddler. Don't emulate the RankPhony, he's really a joke, all he has is shrieks and caterwauling, no ability to contribute anything of substance.

Re: Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

Every soccer field near me now has a paramedic team on game days.

The electric circuits in homes are now requiring GFCI and other safety measures.

Welcome to the world where we do spend money stopping harm from happening.

Re:Democrats strike again

[theNetImp]

Democrats? How do you know the guy who fought this law is a Democrat? I would suspect he could very well be a Republican who wants the government to be less restrictive.

Point is you're an idiot for pointing fingers at a political party.

Re:Democrats strike again

[rworne]

It still bothers me the FAA knowingly tried to land grab, and forced a lot of people to pay for a registration, that they had no right to mandate.

Putting aside whether they had the right to do it or not, they allowed free registrations - and the free registration period did not expire until after the holidays, where lots of people would have gotten drones for presents. So everyone that had a drone on or before Jan 20, 2016 could register it for free. Even paid, we are talking $5 here. They could have easily made the fee so expensive it would have killed the market.

Re:Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You are going to fly in circles around my home aiming your camera at my backyard? I mean, technically you could do it but I doubt you could do it for that long a period.

Your neighbors drone on the other hand, while likely to have a worse camera then you, can hover his drone upward in his own yard and get the best possible angles of your backyard with ease.

Drones cost anywhere from $50-$500, but likely could get a decent one for around $150. I don't know how much it cost to rent the plane with pilot or fly your own plane with your own pilot license, but you still pay for fuel and likely some kind of take off and landing fee for the day trip.

But yeah, your Cessna 172 at 1000ft would work just fine to invade someone's privacy but isn't really feasible for most people.

Re:Democrats strike again

[OrangeTide]

It is already illegal for model aircraft and manned aircraft to share the same airspace, and there are rules to prevent this and organizations such as AMA operate airfields for hobbyists specifically to prevent this.

But it still happens, I recall reports of a giant scale model plane (1/2 scale!) crashing into a small aircraft and while there were no injuries it was thousands of dollars of damage and a very pissed off pilot. It was another case where R/C event was held at a private airfield normally used for full size craft, but the proper notices were not filed.

That said the likely consequence of sucking a model into a commercial airliner is a very expensive fine and a tremendous civil suit for the turbine engine repair. Collision with a small aircraft can be more catastrophic as the planes are smaller and a harder to control when damaged and the pilots tend to be less experienced.

Most tragic model aircraft accidents are with bystanders on the ground. Race events where high speed planes or stunt events with large class helicopters tend to be the most dangerous for ground-based pilots and spectators. 250-size FPS drone racing is likely as safe to manned aircraft and spectators as a golf course. (i.e. small but non-zero risk)

Re:Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

While this might make drone operators happy, Beau still has to register as a sex offender.

Re:Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, he isn't entirely wrong. The part to take issue is the interpretation of "often".
Most people actually behave, the problem is that it only takes one asshole to ruin it for everyone else.

Most people doesn't want to go around and murder other people, but if there is one who wants to do that we need laws against it so that we can deal with the problem in an orderly fashion.
Still won't prevent every murder, but it keeps things manageable.

Do you know about those "track your spouse" apps? How long do you think we will go until someone starts a business to track people with a drone?
To cut costs you will have one operator for many drones and just pay less attention to each drone.

Can non-commercial use be reckless? Of course it can. Commercial use can start out responsible but when going for high profits recklessness is guaranteed.

That is why some countries requires commercial drivers to keep records of how much they sleep but non-commercial drivers doesn't.
Non-commercial drivers can occasionally drive while tired, but without regulation commercial drivers started to do it at a large scale as part of the business.

Re:Democrats strike again

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I see somebody is still concocting excuses for the businessmen's ever growing list of crimes. They had to do it on their own, so that's why they defrauded customers, it was only a bill they refused to pay, they didn't think anybody would get hurt even though they knew the drywall had toxic chemicals inside!

Don't mind you, you're just upset that people get put in jail for that, it's part of your repellent mindset. One day, however, you'll face the consequences of your behavior.

Re:Democrats strike again

[thunderclees]

Actually if you were operating your Cessena 172 below legal altitude (below 500') you would have a tag so I could report you.

Re:Democrats strike again

[grumling]

The problem with the club field argument is that if you want to use a drone for photography it gets pretty boring to just take pictures of the club field. I enjoy flying my quadcopter, but if all I could do with it is fly it just for the sake of flying it I wouldn't have bothered.

Two different hobbies.

Re:Democrats strike again

[OrangeTide]

The problem with the club field argument is that if you want to use a drone for photography it gets pretty boring to just take pictures of the club field. I enjoy flying my quadcopter, but if all I could do with it is fly it just for the sake of flying it I wouldn't have bothered.

Two different hobbies.

And this is the problem. If you fly without regard for AMA rules, then you are not part of the AMA and don't deserve the same protection. It's precisely why some people want to have everyone register their drones and pay a fee for each flight.

Some people are behaving quite reasonably. They are flying quad copters on on private property, outside of FAA restricted airspace, and below the FAA ceiling for models. This eliminates interactions between model and manned aircraft, it still annoys people on the ground which is where most of this pressure against drones is coming from. Others are flying over public roads, near small airports and doing FPV at higher altitudes and beyond line-of-sight. And none of that behavior is acceptable and we don't have to tolerate such a "hobby".

Unsurprising

[SlaveToTheGrind]

The 2012 law explicitly prohibited the FAA from doing exactly what it did. The court's opinion is only 10 pages and gets directly to the point:

In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,” yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a “rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.” Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft.

Re:Unsurprising

[ShanghaiBill]

Then why is registration still in place for "commercial use"? If we are going to regulate drones, it should be done based on weight, altitude, payload (cameras, machine guns, etc.) and location (near airports or flight paths). It should not be based on whether the operator is earning some money to feed his family.

Re:Unsurprising

[thebes]

Surely there can be some middle ground:

https://www.youtube.com/result...

Re:Unsurprising

[Repentinus]

Then why is registration still in place for "commercial use"?

Because Section 336(a)(1) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act specifically restricts the FAA's ability to regulate model aircraft if "the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use".

Commercial pilots of traditional aircraft have stricter qualification requirements because they are likely to fly heavier aircraft, they are likely to fly more often, and they are likely to operate in busier airspaces. As a consequence, commercial flights pose a greater risk. This is also true of commercial operation of model aircraft.

We place a higher standard on commercial operation of vehicles (taxis, buses, lorries), professional engineering and construction (you need to be adequately educated and licensed to undertake the construction of a large shopping mall whereas you are likely permitted to build your own dwelling), professional practice of law (you cannot represent others without a law licence), etc. In doing so, we recognize that the risks for professional activities are higher, the public has a heightened expectation of competence, and professional practice is associated with an income that should cover compliance with the requirements. We rarely place similar restrictions on non-professional activities. Why should it be any different in aviation?

Re:Unsurprising

[tsqr]

The 2012 law explicitly prohibited the FAA from doing exactly what it did.

That's right. And that 2012 law expires 4 months from now. What will happen next? From TFA: “The goal of the registration rule was to assist law enforcement and others to enforce the law against unauthorized drone flights, and to educate hobbyists that a drone is not just a toy and operators need to follow the rules,” said Lisa Ellman, an attorney and specialist on the drone regulation with the law firm Hogan Lovells. “These are worthy goals, so if this ruling stands it wouldn't surprise us to see a legislative response here."

Re:Unsurprising

[Repentinus]

If we are going to regulate drones, it should be done based on weight, altitude, payload (cameras, machine guns, etc.) and location (near airports or flight paths).

We do.

Sec 336(a)(3):

the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

Sec 336(a)(5):

when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

Sec 336(c)(2)

flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft;

Airspace controls and restrictions are also applicable to model aircraft.

Re:Unsurprising

[ShanghaiBill]

Commercial pilots of traditional aircraft have stricter qualification requirements because they are likely to fly heavier aircraft, they are likely to fly more often, and they are likely to operate in busier airspaces.

That is stupid reasoning. If heaviness, frequency, and location are problems, then they should be regulated directly, rather than regulating commerce just because it is correlated with these things. Many commercial operators use tiny drones. Many hobbyists use big drones. The regulation should be based on the size not the motivation of the user.

Re:Unsurprising

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Commercial use is where all the money is, and that's where Congresspeople can get donations to stop getting in the way of things.

This is the way most of the world operates. It is just lessened and pushed even more underground in the US and Europe.

BTW, they want tax simplification, as was done in the 1980s, to get rid of most loopholes so they can hand them back out again in upcoming years.

Learn from history.

Re:Unsurprising

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a model: it's powered, it flies and its direction can be controlled by a pilot. It's not a model, it's a real aircraft.

Re:Unsurprising

[DRJlaw]

That is stupid reasoning. If heaviness, frequency, and location are problems, then they should be regulated directly, rather than regulating commerce just because it is correlated with these things. Many commercial operators use tiny drones. Many hobbyists use big drones. The regulation should be based on the size not the motivation of the user.

"Because Section 336(a)(1) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act specifically restricts the FAA's ability to regulate model aircraft if "the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use."

You skipped the most important part of the response. We live under the rule of law, not the rule of what Shanghai Bill thinks the law should be. If you get yourself elected to Congress, you even get 1/536th of a say in the matter.

Re:Unsurprising

[Anonymous Coward]

One problem with the law is: what is a "model aircraft"? The M-W definition that most closely applies for this usage of the word "model" is: a usually miniature representation of something.

If you have a RC aircraft which closely resembles or at least functions similarly to a full size aircraft, such as most RC winged airplanes, single rotor helicopters, etc. then those are reasonably "model aircraft" by most definitions.

OTOH most consumer drones are not miniature or representative versions of some real object, they are original designs. One could reasonably argue that they are not "model aircraft," and thus this law doesn't prohibit the FAA from regulating them.

Re:Unsurprising

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose it's in the definition of "model aircraft". Commercial aren't "models" because they are being used for a specific purpose.

"Model aircraft" could potential both mean a non-functioning replica or a an R/C plane that looks like another one.

Re:Unsurprising

[ScentCone]

So the fact that people have been calling them models for decades, that's meaningless? YOU know what the word means, all of the people who've been building and flying model aircraft for decades know what it means. The FAA knows what it means, and congress, who wrote the law that the Obama administration violated, know what it means.

Re:Unsurprising

[ColdWetDog]

Well, my Phantom class UAVs look like a pair of Flying Bananas glued together.

Sort of a demented model aircraft, if you will.

Re:Unsurprising

[Aighearach]

Then why is registration still in place for "commercial use"?

Because "model aircraft" is already well defined in those other laws, and it only covers hobbyist use. "Model" being an important word there. When used commercially it is no longer a mere "model" of an aircraft, but rather is a fully functional flying tool.

It makes perfect sense using plain English. But only if you assume that words have specific, known meanings.

Re:Unsurprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Meaningful distinctions are size, weight, range, piloted vs. remotely-operated.

Two identical aircraft, one is used by a hobbyist, and one used for profit. How is one a model and the other not?

Re:Unsurprising

[BitterOak]

The 2012 law explicitly prohibited the FAA from doing exactly what it did. The court's opinion is only 10 pages and gets directly to the point:

In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,” yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a “rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.” Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft.

Actually, it's not so clear and may very well be overturned on appeal. The problem is this. (Excerpt from ruling which quotes the Act which supposedly makes the FAA's regulation illegal.):

The Act defines “model aircraft” as “an unmanned aircraft that is — (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes."

The problem is part (2): "flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft." Drones do not need to be in the operators visual line of sight because they typically have an on board camera which the operator can use to navigate even when the drone is out of the visual line of sight. That's what distinguishes a drone from a remote controlled aircraft, and it is drones, not RC aircraft which were required to be registered by the FAA before this ruling. I think this is an obvious error on the part of the Court of Appeal and I expect the ruling will be overturned.

Note that I'm not saying I agree with the FAA's policy. I'm just saying I think this court got it wrong from a legal point of view.

Re:Unsurprising

[Anonymous Coward]

If the law defined pi == 3.100 then it would be right for an agency to disregard that provision.

This is not exactly the same, but close enough. The statue, as written, is gibberish: it invents distinctions devoid of difference, namely how an aircraft can be a "model" when flown by a hobbyist, but not otherwise. It is entirely correct for the FAA to attempt to regulate over the top of it, and force either the legislature to correct its error, or to force the courts to take responsibility for enforcement of the error.

No agency and no court should attempt to enforce a regulation that defines pi == 3.100, and no agency and no court should attempt to enforce this nonsense.

Re: Unsurprising

[Entrope]

Because the law says that its use of "model aircraft" is limited to hobbyist/non-commercial flight, as the court was quoted above. Resolving questions like yours is a major reason that laws have "definitions" sections.

Re: Unsurprising

[Entrope]

That's neither tricky nor grounds to overturn the law. A model airplane ceases to be one when its operator flies it out of his or her line of sight (subject to reasonable exceptions for momentary, accidental, breaks in the line of sight). Any model aircraft could be flown out of the operator's sight -- that doesn't mean the FAA suddenly gets to regulate them all.

Re:Unsurprising

[SlaveToTheGrind]

I think this is an obvious error on the part of the Court of Appeal and I expect the ruling will be overturned.

Putting aside the question of whether the U.S. Supreme Court would find an issue like this interesting enough to burn one of its 60ish annual grants of certiorari, there's actually no error on which to base a cert petition in the issue you're raising. From the opinion (worth a read -- it's short):

Lest there be any doubt about whether the Registration Rule is a rule “regarding a model aircraft” for purposes of Section 336, the Registration Rule states that its “definition of ‘model aircraft’ is identical to the definition provided in section 336(c) of Public Law 112–95,” the FAA Modernization and Reform Act.

So there are no nits to pick here -- that which the FAA required to be registered is that which falls under the Section 336 definition, and the Court of Appeals held that registration requirement unlawful. Game over.

Re:Unsurprising

[DRJlaw]

The statue, as written, is gibberish...

Blah, blah, blah, private citizen breaks the law and goes to jail...
Blah, blah, blah, agency violates the law and can't send the private citizen to jail... just like what happened here.

It is entirely correct for the FAA to attempt to regulate over the top of it...

No. It's not. Just like it's not entirely correct for me to kill you for advocating anarchy. But keep it up, I may become convinced... of both.

Re:Unsurprising

[grumling]

No, because the AMA's lobbyist did a great job getting that language put into the act. The AMA doesn't care about commercial users, just their membership.

Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to register a foam electric RC airplane under their "drone" rules - bureaucracy run wild.

Woo hoo!

[MangoCats]

Now I can operate my Telemaster (big, cheap RC plane) anywhere and any way I want, and nobody can tell me that I can't because they can't make any rules about model aircraft operations. It was in the news, it must be true.

Re:Woo hoo!

[operagost]

No, you can't operate it any way you want, any more than you can swing a baseball bat any way you want, throw rocks any way you want, or set fires anywhere you want. We don't need to have a license to have a rock, a baseball bat, or fire starters (at least, not today), but we have plenty of laws in place to dissuade people from harming people or destroying property. Asking legislators to compensate for the failings of law enforcement or actions of jackholes is harmful to the liberty of the peaceful citizen.

Re:Woo hoo!

[MangoCats]

So, as long as nobody gets killed or hurt and no property is destroyed, I can fly in commercial airport airspace--- Yee haw!

Re:Woo hoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really.

The 2012 law does establish minimum safety criteria. The issue here is that the 2012 law also prohibits the FAA from enacting rules that apply to model aircraft operations conducted within the safety programming of nationwide community-based organization.

If this sounds bizarrely specific, it's because it is. There is such an organization (and only one that I am aware of). The Academy of Model Aeronautics has been around for many, many decades and has a comprehensive set of safety rules for operation of model aircraft up to 50lb. And frankly, if someone is operating under the AMA rules, they are more restrictive (and comprehensive) than anything that the FAA has put together.

I've flown model aircraft under the AMA rules for many years. I stopped flying model aircraft once the FAA got involved. Why, you ask? I have two reasons. First, I'm not interested in registering with the government just because I have a hobby. I simply don't trust how the government will use and protect the information. Second, and more importantly, I hold an FAA airman's certificate. As such, I have more on the line than some chucklehead that went out and bought a quadcopter. Specifically, the FAA has avenues to take enforcement action against a licensed pilot, that they cannot do with a non-pilot. This is entirely unreasonable to me.

I see no reason whatsoever that the FAA needs to get mixed up in the activities of a formally established radio control airfield that's operating under AMA rules. And to be clear, I get just as annoyed at idiots doing stupid things around other people as anyone else (maybe more so). But there needs to be a way to distinguish between these different kinds of activities, because they are completely different in nature.

Re:Woo hoo!

[ColdWetDog]

No, you can't. The Fine Regulation states that you can only fly according to AMA (Academy of Model Aircraft) rules. Anything else is subject to fines, jail time and the Spanish Inquisition.

Re:Woo hoo!

[MightyYar]

I'm pretty sure you are trying to be funny (no sweat, I try and fail at that all the time), but I'm also pretty sure that you are trying to make a broader point - and I'm not really catching it.

Re:Woo hoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

no one expects the Spanish Inquisition

Re:Woo hoo!

[ColdWetDog]

But pretty much everyone here expects that phrase as the next comment.

dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

This won't end well

-Avid Hobbyist Drone Pilot

Sad that Trump is endangering the public like this

[Anonymous Coward]

This proves he doesn't care about the people.

Drones aren't model aircraft

[Anonymous Coward]

So why did this law apply?

Re:Drones aren't model aircraft

[MightyYar]

What the heck are they?

Trump!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Deregulating in 2017!!!

The Donald Rocks On!!!

They need numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

They need numbers so I can report the jerks or find them and sue them when needed. Unfortuately, it's illegal to shoot drones down. And there a LOT of jerks with drones.

Re:They need numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you (personally) actually had a problem with a drone? Or is this just getting ped off cause its fun?

Good news or bad news?

[__aaclcg7560]

I've watched plenty of videos from hobbyist drones that went straight up at high attitudes. I wonder if such attitudes are possible in Silicon Valley, as the whole area is a flight path for multiple airports in the region. I'm thinking about getting a camera drone.

Re:Good news or bad news?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if such attitudes are possible in Silicon Valley,

Not on 50k per year, that's for sure.

Not on 1500 calories a day, either.

Not even if it weighs less than 350 pounds!

But with a 3 thousand dollar tax credit signed into law by George Bush... if you dare to dream... it might just be possible.

Re:Good news or bad news?

[__aaclcg7560]

Not on 50k per year, that's for sure.

Something like the DJI Phantom P3 would be bought by my side business and written off as a tax expense.

Re:Good news or bad news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Define "high altitudes". Most commercial aircraft fly at 39k feet, I doubt many consumer grade drones can go 7 miles up. And even those that can it would either be a one way trip, or they would only be able to stay there for a couple minutes. Even around airports they often stay fairly high until its time for a CDA/OPD, which puts them from cruise altitude to the runway in pretty short order. Only idiots flying right in an approach lane or actively trying to cause an impact are going to cause issues, and police will probably pick them up in pretty short order for assault/destruction of property/reckless endangerment.

Re:Good news or bad news?

[__aaclcg7560]

Define "high altitudes". Most commercial aircraft fly at 39k feet, I doubt many consumer grade drones can go 7 miles up.

The tallest buildings in San Jose are 27 stories or less and situated on either side of the flight path to the San Jose International Airport. Buildings closest to the flight path are shorter in height. The city tore out a residential neighborhood and put in a park next to the airport because airplanes were coming in above the roof lines. It wouldn't take much for a drone to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Refund?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want my 5 dollars!

Re:Refund?

[Aighearach]

I don't think you can sue for less than the filing fee, and since you won't have to pay it again you can't claim you'll be harmed by enough to meet the threshold.

A class action could sweep in people who were harmed at the $5 level, but you still need an original plaintiff who was harmed enough to have standing.

The easiest route to a refund would be to stand in front of the FAA for a few months with a sign. If you have a few hundred other people with you, maybe you'll get noticed!

Class Action

[Anonymous Coward]

Time for a class action suit by all those that already paid the registration fee(s).

Re:Class Action

[Khyber]

Make it a RICO suit since this was obviously nothing more than a racket/money grab.

Pedophiles rejoice

[Anonymous Coward]

..and pedophiles, peeping-toms all over the country rejoice at the news: now they can jack off to your kids and peer into your windows with impugnity.

Keep your goddamned shitty drones the FUCK AWAY FROM ME or I'll DESTROY it, and BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU.

Re:Pedophiles rejoice

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear.
These rediculous drones are another CANCER that needs to be erradicated. They're just flying privacy-invasion platforms, and worse pests than Zika-infested mosquitos.

This is kinda what I was wondering

[rsilvergun]

I'm wondering if we're gonna have to have a major airline accident over a population center from some kid's $500 drone before somebody takes action. Or am I just completely off base here? I don't know enough about aviation to say for sure and the articles I've read don't really touch on the issue. Most of the news outlets seem to have sided with the hobbyists over the FAA here.

Re:This is kinda what I was wondering

[MangoCats]

$500 drones generally don't weigh enough to cause a major airline accident, not on the first few tries at least.

What you are gonna have is a rash of "near miss" reports and potentially a few drone strikes, maybe even an expensive engine intake of one - but the engine intake scenario is probably 1:100 for the near miss reports. The population center is at even less risk of the engine intake causing a failure to land at an airport situation, but when it eventually does happen it will likely be over a major population center, because that's where the idiots flying $500 drones recklessly all live, and they're too damn lazy to drive out to open airspace to play with their toys.

Re:This is kinda what I was wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlikely, most drones that are operated recklessly are the cheap toy ones. They would damage the engine for sure if sucked in, but so would a big bird.

Re:This is kinda what I was wondering

[ScentCone]

Why would we have a rash of something that we didn't have BEFORE the FAA started collecting their $5, but when we already had literally millions of these devices flying around, and untold millions of hours of airtime without any such thing happening? Please explain.

Re:This is kinda what I was wondering

[__aaclcg7560]

I'm wondering if we're gonna have to have a major airline accident over a population center from some kid's $500 drone before somebody takes action.

The hobbyists with money are going to be the ones to worry about. If the drone used to pull Casey Neistat on skies flew around an airport, it might cause problems.

http://dronelife.com/2016/12/20/custom-drone-ski-lift-neistat/

Re:This is kinda what I was wondering

[Aighearach]

A major airliner in the worst case sucks in a drone, loses an engine, and lands safely at the nearest airport.

The real airplane danger would be a military fighter jet hitting one and taking some damage, and the pilot ejecting leaving the plane to crash in a neighborhood.

Unlikely, but possible.

But the big threat to the public isn't airplanes, it is helicopters. They crash easy, and they suck things in easy.

That isn't why the government wants to regulate. The government wants to regulate because private drones make VIP protection at events really, really difficult. They can't, because Congress said no in the past. Expect Congress to pass narrow exceptions allowing the temporary regulation of "model aircraft" near public events.

Re: This is kinda what I was wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

A major airliner in the worst case sucks in a drone, loses an engine, and lands safely at the nearest airport.

Nope. Worst case is a crash, possibly killing dozens on the ground, maybe hundreds. In fact, a nonzero number of airliners have lost their second engine on return after a single engine failure.

Unlikely, but it is still possible.

Re:Sad that Trump is endangering the public like t

[x0ra]

A court decision, based on a regulation promulgated under Obama, is now the responsibility of Trump ? Oh my...

Re:Sad that Trump is endangering the public like t

[ScentCone]

A court decision, based on a regulation promulgated under Obama, is now the responsibility of Trump ? Oh my...

No, the LAW, passed by congress in 2012 is the law. Period. The Obama administration decided to violate that law by conjuring up a pointless new regulatory limitation and fine threat outside the bounds of that law. The court just decided that the Obama administration's over-reach needed to be smacked down, as it deserved to be. That doesn't suddenly make the Trump administration newly responsible for anything. The law said that the FAA could act as if it had responsibility or authority in this area, and that's still the case. Obama grabbed executive power where he was not allowed, and now that power grab had been undone. How does that involve Trump? Be specific.

Posting the drone registry on the internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the FAA going to post the whole drone registry on the internet? Hopefully they will have to destroy the illegally obtained personal information.

Money Back

[sdinfoserv]

I want my money back that the FAA required me to spend for illegal registration - WITH INTEREST! Time to start a class action lawsuit.

820,000 added to terrorist watchlists

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you should ignore regulations until they're vetted by the Supreme Court.

Re:820,000 added to terrorist watchlists

[OrangeTide]

If violating the requirements caries few consequences then why not. It's why most people broadcasting on GMRS frequencies or powers didn't bother filing for the FCC's GMRS license even though it's a 1 page registration process with no test, but $70. (I think it lasts for 5 years?)

Another welcome (if rare) example of common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It's disturbing how brazen various government agencies have gotten about flouting the law these days. From what I understand it was a pretty clearly illegal for the FAA to make this a requirement. And even from a general perspective it was unnecessary, as misuse of a drone still clearly falls under reckless endangerment/assault laws already on the books (any cop/prosecutor who says otherwise simply doesn't want to charge someone).

Nice

[sexconker]

Another win for Trump!

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly what I was thinking... might actually start working on the flying things again now.

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Another win for American Citizens. Same thing really.

Re: Sad that Trump is endangering the public like

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, ScentCone, you are so full of yourself, you're trolling a Trump troll with your own Trump trolling.

Why don't you stand up for your cubicle and shout an apology to x0ra? He's on the same floor. Sure, your supervisor will dock you your pay for the post, but at least your coworkers won't piss in your drink.

I don't think it's every going to be a 'rash'

[rsilvergun]

it's going to be the occasional one off, like most airline accidents. It's just those usually kill people. Sometimes lots of people.

Mod Parent up

[rsilvergun]

this makes a lot of sense. I see hospital choppers all the time and a drone could screw one of those up real quick.

Re:Another welcome (if rare) example of common sen

[OrangeTide]

Nobody understands the law. Common people don't understand what is legal and what is not legal. And government bureaucratic don't either. The legislature are frequently unsure of the laws they are supposed to read and vote on as well. Courts are about the only way anything gets done, it's not a real law until it's been tested in court. I don't have to be a lawyer to give you this advice: you don't want to be the guinea pig used for testing a new law.

remember people

[spongman]

posting monetized flight videos on youtube is /still/ commercial use.

Re: Sad that Trump is endangering the public like

[ScentCone]

Wow, that's sure some insightful commentary on the specific issues I mentioned. Your keen insight is really constructive! I really appreciate how you're demonstrating your understanding of how Obama's man Huerta at the FAA had to use and end-around and use the DoT as a regulatory authority to get around the word of a plainly written law. Your grasp of the details make your personal ad hominem worth listening to.

Ooops! Silly me, you have no idea what's actually going on here, and are just acting like a child. Carry on! Your complete lack of understanding about why issues like this - which go directly to separation of powers and the integrity of the constitution - is nicely on display.

RIP wallet

[Anonymous Coward]

There's $5 I'm never seeing again