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

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

[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

[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

[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: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

[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: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: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: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.

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: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.