Appeals court strikes down FAA drone registration rule

[imyomama]

Appeals 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 ....

[staplehawk]

[tvc184]

They might appeal to the SCOTUS.

Hopefully they will keep the same ruling if it is taken by them. Looking at the law, it appears as though the appeals court was correct. The law states that the FAA cannot impose regulations or registrations on model aircraft operated for sport or recreation.

It is not against the law to have such rules but Congress has to do it, not the FAA.

[Leverhunter]

The 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.

[Etxbuckman]

I won't care until it's legal to blast these **** things out the sky. Too many people with eyes where they don't belong.

[Leverhunter]

Originally Posted by Etxbuckman

I won't care until it's legal to blast these **** things out the sky. Too many people with eyes where they don't belong.

AGREED ! I don't need some amateur flying is overgrown toy 200ft over my house.

[Bill in San Jose]

The decision quotes law saying the FAA can't regulate model aircraft. A drone and a model aircraft are not the same things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Leverhunter]

The regs for model aircraft have not kept up with the development of them. 50 years ago a model plane was very limited in performance. Today they can easily climb into airspace used by passenger planes and create serious problems. It needs to be addressed.

[Artos]

I had one flying about 10ft over me / front hood going 75mph while driving through Falfurious on 281 this week...now it had a really good tail wind, but surprised it kept up as long as it did.

[stickerpatch59]

you should look at some of the r/c ducted fan and jets that are available. WOW!!!

[meltingfeather]

Originally Posted by Bill in San Jose

A drone and a model aircraft are not the same things.

Model Aircraft: A model aircraft is a small sized unmanned aircraft or, in the case of a scale model, a replica of an existing or imaginary aircraft.

Drones are model aircraft. The FAA overstepped their bounds. Appeals court rightfully interpreted the law and came to the only possible conclusion on this. If the Congress, which makes the laws in this country, wants to create a law requiring registration, they can do that. Bureaucrats at the FAA should not.

[txwhitetail]

Nothing said about blasting out of the sky.

[tvc184]

Originally Posted by Leverhunter

The 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.

The only knowledge they ruled on was the section that said the FAA has no authority to regulate model aircraft used for recreation. Model aircraft a lot larger than typical drones have been around for decades. Drones simply now are easier to fly.

Safe? Unsafe?

The court ruling was on lawful authority to tax and regulate and the FAA has none under the 2012 law. The Court might not know about flying aircraft but they can understand written law.

[tvc184]

Originally Posted by Leverhunter

The regs for model aircraft have not kept up with the development of them. 50 years ago a model plane was very limited in performance. Today they can easily climb into airspace used by passenger planes and create serious problems. It needs to be addressed.

That part is addressed in the law and it is a crime. How does a registration fee/tax on them stops that?

That is like saying a tax on every container of drinking alcohol (which is the law) will stop DWI or registering firearms will stop crime.

[wsteffen]

Originally Posted by txwhitetail

Nothing said about blasting out of the sky.

[DFWPI]

I want a drone bad

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[flyby]

Originally Posted by txwhitetail

Nothing said about blasting out of the sky.

Yep, that's already well established law. It's illegal. You can be arrested, jailed, and sued in civil court.

[flyby]

Originally Posted by DFWPI

I want a drone bad

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Build your own! I have 8 or 10!!

[DFWPI]

Originally Posted by flyby

Build your own! I have 8 or 10!!

Wish I had the time and the knowhow, mostly the time.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

[flyby]

Originally Posted by DFWPI

Wish I had the time and the knowhow, mostly the time.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

In that case start simple. DJI Phantom. Hands down most user friendly and easy to fly with gps, return home, failsafe, and lots of other features. Buddy just bought a Phantom 2 basic new for $500 ready to fly. If you can go more expensive I'd personally get the Phantom 3 Advanced. Better range and camera.

I have so many because I race, and I'm not very good at racing, so I crash alot. When I crash and break something I just grab another.

[TheBeaster]

Is there anything prohibiting drones flying over restricted property?

[Bill in San Jose]

Originally Posted by meltingfeather

Model Aircraft: A model aircraft is a small sized unmanned aircraft or, in the case of a scale model, a replica of an existing or imaginary aircraft.



Drones are model aircraft. The FAA overstepped their bounds. Appeals court rightfully interpreted the law and came to the only possible conclusion on this. If the Congress, which makes the laws in this country, wants to create a law requiring registration, they can do that. Bureaucrats at the FAA should not.

This is a model airplane



This is a drone



They both fly in the air.
You can't seriously tell me they're the same.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bill in San Jose]

Originally Posted by tvc184

That part is addressed in the law and it is a crime. How does a registration fee/tax on them stops that?



That is like saying a tax on every container of drinking alcohol (which is the law) will stop DWI or registering firearms will stop crime.

It required a unique number on it with a way if I had a complaint, it may be traceable to the owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[txwhitetail]

Originally Posted by flyby

Yep, that's already well established law. It's illegal. You can be arrested, jailed, and sued in civil court.

Prove it was my bullet.

[Bill in San Jose]

I'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

[IowaHunter]

Originally Posted by TheBeaster

Is there anything prohibiting drones flying over restricted property?

Are you already answering your question?

[meltingfeather]

Originally Posted by Bill in San Jose

This is a model airplane

This is a drone

They both fly in the air.
You can't seriously tell me they're the same.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can tell you that they are both "small unmanned aircraft," and if you disagree we don't speak the same language.

[tvc184]

Originally Posted by Bill in San Jose

It required a unique number on it with a way if I had a complaint, it may be traceable to the owner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So I assume you are for registering firearms. Lord knows we have way more gun crimes that was way more serious to the public instead of drones.

Yes, anything with a number is traceable if you can get your hands on it and it is registered. The problem is not what can be done but what Congress approved. The way I read the law, it clearly said that the FAA could pass no such rules for private use.

[tvc184]

Originally Posted by Bill in San Jose

This is a model airplane



This is a drone



They both fly in the air.
You can't seriously tell me they're the same.

Who has ever said they are the same? I missed that post unless you are talking about the definition of model aircraft.

What gives the FAA more authority to regulate one over the other under the definition of private use? Is it the camera? Maybe Congress should regulate cell phone cameras and audio recorders.

The problem the court saw was not that something might not need regulating. It might. People are trying to make arguments over dangers and needed regulations. The only problem is that the FAA was never given that authority. To the contrary, I read the law Congress passed and it said that the FAA cannot regulate it.

I have the feeling that if this was anything other than drones and a federal agency tried to pass their own laws without congressional approval (like the EPA did trying to regulate firearm ammo), the same people complaining over this court ruling would be raising 9 kinds of heck saying government overreach.

[Artos]

Thank you!! The decisions should be based on the merits of the case & not the emotion of your opinion.

Change the freak'n laws, but don't blame the case for your disdain for or against.

I fear big brother is coming.

Originally Posted by tvc184

Who has ever said they are the same? I missed that post unless you are talking about the definition of model aircraft.

What gives the FAA more authority to regulate one over the other under the definition of private use? Is it the camera? Maybe Congress should regulate cell phone cameras and audio recorders.

The problem the court saw was not that something might not need regulating. It might. People are trying to make arguments over dangers and needed regulations. The only problem is that the FAA was never given that authority. To the contrary, I read the law Congress passed and it said that the FAA cannot regulate it.

I have the feeling that if this was anything other than drones and a federal agency tried to pass their own laws without congressional approval (like the EPA did trying to regulate firearm ammo), the same people complaining over this court ruling would be raising 9 kinds of heck saying government overreach.

[Leverhunter]

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.

[Leverhunter]

Originally Posted by Bill in San Jose

I'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

This I really like ! Believe I'll have to take up fishing.

[Ironman]

Originally Posted by Leverhunter

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.

Model aircraft is not aviation. The altitude restriction is due to the fact that it gets into aviation air space, which they do control.

[texanatc]

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?

[PVDT]

Originally Posted by Leverhunter

The 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.

[Ironman]

Originally Posted by texanatc

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?

There are already regulations regarding that.

[tvc184]

Originally Posted by Leverhunter

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.

Everything 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..........

[tvc184]

Originally Posted by texanatc

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?

The 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.

[Dejashoot]

It sounds like some of you want the court to legislate from the bench instead of inturprit the law as written.

[texanatc]

Originally Posted by imyomama

Appeals 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 ....

Yep, I stepped into that. I should have put what I was referring to. The ops post. I can honestly tell you I would rather take 100's of calls versus filing 100's of drone sightings.

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.

[tvc184]

[Lungbustr]

Originally Posted by tvc184

The 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.

So 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.

[Hart8]

Originally Posted by DFWPI

I want a drone bad

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

So do I..A young man from Austin had one at the resort we stayed at in Mexico.He took some really cool pics of the reef,and sea turtles.Sent it out 500 yards from the beach,and about 40-50' up.Really cool.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[tvc184]

Originally Posted by Lungbustr

So 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.

I never said that and have not mentioned airspace. This ruling was on the authority to require registration and sets fees for such registration.

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.

[Leverhunter]

Originally Posted by tvc184

Everything 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..........

Operating in any type of airspace and owning a gun are 2 different topics. You have a right to own a gun for personal defense. You do not have a right to operate in all airspace.

[muzzlebrake]

Now all we need is for legislature to pass a law that makes it LEGAL to shoot them out of the sky when they are flying above your house. That'll show em who's boss.

[SmTx]

I'm always for fellow Americans calling for more government regulations...

[Lungbustr]

Originally Posted by tvc184

I never said that and have not mentioned airspace. This ruling was on the authority to require registration and sets fees for such registration.

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.

To me having to register a private aircraft for recreational flying, model airplane or drone is all the same.

Once it's registered or, licensed, that's only the beginning. It juts gets more and more restricted until it's difficult to maintain compliance or until you just can't afford it. Look at recreational aircraft and everything they deal with. The next costly rules go into effect January 2020.

The drone guys dodged a bullet this go round.

[TheBeaster]

Originally Posted by IowaHunter

Are you already answering your question?

I guess I could've worded it better, but I haven't answered my own question.

The "property" I was referring to is restricted - sensitive municipality property. We recently had a drone flying over this area. It could be just a curious recreational drone owner wanting to know what is beyond the fence. But there's also the possibility that it could be used for scouting a potential target. FYI, failure of this structure could result in loss of life and property for thousands.

Its my understanding that restricting airspace is separate issue from restricting property. Is this correct?