What the court missed is the FAA does regulate airspace usage. There is/was a registration difference between model planes and drones. If the FAA cannot pass regulations concerning drone flights how did they put an altitude restriction on them ? Also the FAA requires anyone flying a drone for commercial purposes be a licensed drone pilot. They also have weight limits on drones for hobby use after which you need a license. Comparing to drone registration to gun registration is not a apples to apples comparison.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Appeals court strikes down FAA drone registration rule
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Bill in San Jose View PostI'm thinking of a product that looks like a fishing treble hook, weighs a couple ounces so you can cast it some distance and the hooks somehow collapse if it does not initially grab something.
Then you rig up 4 or 6 inexpensive fishing poles, and if a drone is over your property, there's no law against practicing casting on your own property. If you hook one, reel it in and fillet/pan fry in butter!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leverhunter View PostWhat the court missed is the FAA does regulate airspace usage. There is/was a registration difference between model planes and drones. If the FAA cannot pass regulations concerning drone flights how did they put an altitude restriction on them ? Also the FAA requires anyone flying a drone for commercial purposes be a licensed drone pilot. They also have weight limits on drones for hobby use after which you need a license. Comparing to drone registration to gun registration is not a apples to apples comparison.
Comment
-
I do think they should be registered, but it should be free. I've had aircraft report drones at 1000ft and just recently at 2800ft, even had one crashed on airport property near the runway (wasn't registered). The airport still has it.
Is it legal to drive a remote control car on the interstate?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leverhunter View PostThe Appeals Court is wrong. The FAA is there to regulate aviation and air safety. The appeals court just voided part of that authority and open the door for more rulings possible jeopardizing air safety. Does this mean the FAA rule on 400ft for drones is also void ? They just opened up a can of stink without any knowledge of the subject.
100% agree. Not everyone using them or who plan on using them are "hobbyists" as was mentioned in an earlier post. We can thank those with bad intentions for a lot of heartache and regulations in our life. That's simply the way life is now. Bottom line. Let's not try to argue that it will ever be the way it used to be.
Comment
-
Originally posted by texanatc View PostI do think they should be registered, but it should be free. I've had aircraft report drones at 1000ft and just recently at 2800ft, even had one crashed on airport property near the runway (wasn't registered). The airport still has it.
Is it legal to drive a remote control car on the interstate?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Leverhunter View PostWhat the court missed is the FAA does regulate airspace usage. There is/was a registration difference between model planes and drones. If the FAA cannot pass regulations concerning drone flights how did they put an altitude restriction on them ? Also the FAA requires anyone flying a drone for commercial purposes be a licensed drone pilot. They also have weight limits on drones for hobby use after which you need a license. Comparing to drone registration to gun registration is not a apples to apples comparison.
The Court said that Congress has the constitutional authority to make laws. They did so including the commercial use not being considered modeling.
The same law specifically says that the FAA on its own cannot make such rules regarding model aircraft. There are two rules in the law. One is for unmanned aircraft and the exception to most of those rules in a "model aircraft".
The rules you mention apply to unmanned aircraft. I agree.... as long as it is not a "model aircraft". What you are doing is applying two different parts of the law as if it is one.
Specifically:
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into
Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this
subtitle, 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,........
And what is "model aircraft"? Here is how the same section defines it... as a Congress passed law:
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model
aircraft’’ means 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.
Please point out how the DC Appeals Court misapplied this section of the law defining model aircraft and the non-regulation of them.
And yes, firearms registration is exactly the same as it relates to stopping endangering actions which is what you mentioned. Like somehow registering firearms would end the crazy violence in Chicago. Oh yeah, Chicago has firearms registration required and IL requires a gun owner's license to merely possess any firearm outside of the home. I wonder how those very restrictive laws are working for them..........
Comment
-
Originally posted by texanatc View PostI do think they should be registered, but it should be free. I've had aircraft report drones at 1000ft and just recently at 2800ft, even had one crashed on airport property near the runway (wasn't registered). The airport still has it.
Is it legal to drive a remote control car on the interstate?
It is not a matter if those laws and rules are needed. It is only a matter of who is doing so.
It is being argued that some laws are needed. Fair enough. There are bodies that are allowed to make such laws and the FAA in this case does not appear to be one of them.
The Court of Appeals did not rule on the validity of laws needed. It did not rule that the FAA put out bad laws. It only stated that nothing in the law gives the FAA the authority to do it. In fact it specifically states that they "may not" makes such rules.
If a remote control car is illegal on the interstate, it is because a state or federal congress said so. Therein lies the issue at hand. They have the constitutional authority to make such rules. The FAA does not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by imyomama View PostAppeals court strikes down FAA drone registration rule!!! WHHOOOHOOO!
someone with half a brain finally realized this is pure stupidity!
Well , they already got my $5!
i guess someone finally got tired of getting 100's of phone calls a day from hobbyists flying their quads in their back yard ....
TVC and IRONMAN, I wasn't trying to debate the faa's authority, legalities is not a subject I'm well versed on. Apologies for the confusion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tvc184 View PostThe actions you mentioned are against the law as they endanger the public, as defined by the government congresses that have the authority to make them. Endangering the public in any means is even against state laws.
It is not a matter if those laws and rules are needed. It is only a matter of who is doing so.
It is being argued that some laws are needed. Fair enough. There are bodies that are allowed to make such laws and the FAA in this case does not appear to be one of them.
The Court of Appeals did not rule on the validity of laws needed. It did not rule that the FAA put out bad laws. It only stated that nothing in the law gives the FAA the authority to do it. In fact it specifically states that they "may not" makes such rules.
If a remote control car is illegal on the interstate, it is because a state or federal congress said so. Therein lies the issue at hand. They have the constitutional authority to make such rules. The FAA does not.
There are plenty of private pilots that would prefer to not be forced to comply with the 2020 ADS-B transponder mandate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DFWPI View PostI want a drone bad
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lungbustr View PostSo the FAA under th US Dept. Of Transportation have no authority to make rules concerning airspace?
There are plenty of private pilots that would prefer to not be forced to comply with the 2020 ADS-B transponder mandate.
Only a congress (state/federal), county government or city government can make laws, period. Non-elected people have absolutely no authority to decide when and where to make laws.
However.....
One of those government bodies can give a commission/administration/council/whatever the authority to make rules, by law. In other words the elected officials have to pass a law that says something to the effect, "you have the authority to set prices of fishing licenses" or "You have the authority to set rules for vehicle inspections or "You have the authority to regulate airspace". I think one of those elected government bodies absolutely has the authority to grant such power.
So yes, the FAA has authority where given, by the US Congress. The FAA can control airspace and does so. This is about registration.
In this case the US Congress specifically said that the FAA does not have that authority. I quoted the law above.
This is a quote from the court ruling:
"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."
I have a hard time finding a valid argument against the Court's statement.
The appeals court did not throw out laws for causing danger due to aircraft operations. Those rules are still in effect.
The appeals court did mention some FAA local rules such as a ban on drones around DC. They did not rule on that issue which may or may not be valid. Since the petitioner did not file that appeal in a timely manner it was not ruled on.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tvc184 View PostEverything that you mentioned... is also mentioned in the law. In other words, Congress approved it. That's the way this thing works.
The Court said that Congress has the constitutional authority to make laws. They did so including the commercial use not being considered modeling.
The same law specifically says that the FAA on its own cannot make such rules regarding model aircraft. There are two rules in the law. One is for unmanned aircraft and the exception to most of those rules in a "model aircraft".
The rules you mention apply to unmanned aircraft. I agree.... as long as it is not a "model aircraft". What you are doing is applying two different parts of the law as if it is one.
Specifically:
SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into
Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this
subtitle, 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,........
And what is "model aircraft"? Here is how the same section defines it... as a Congress passed law:
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model
aircraft’’ means 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.
Please point out how the DC Appeals Court misapplied this section of the law defining model aircraft and the non-regulation of them.
And yes, firearms registration is exactly the same as it relates to stopping endangering actions which is what you mentioned. Like somehow registering firearms would end the crazy violence in Chicago. Oh yeah, Chicago has firearms registration required and IL requires a gun owner's license to merely possess any firearm outside of the home. I wonder how those very restrictive laws are working for them..........
Comment
Comment