HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Mar 07, 2014, 09:11 AM
Inherent Tinkerer
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Joined Jul 2003
1,428 Posts
Discussion
Drone Pilot Beats FAA In Court!

Trappy won!

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?d...8-2DD76FB8B255
jtprouty is offline Find More Posts by jtprouty
Reply With Quote
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Mar 07, 2014, 09:54 AM
Registered User
Canada, NS, Halifax
Joined Dec 2005
277 Posts
Full Decision

A federal judge slapped down the FAA’s fine for a drone operator, saying there was no law banning the commercial use of small drones.

Full decision is below 13 page PDF

One of the key items is the FAA claimed that the word aircraft covered anything that flew and that model airplanes were covered. The judge ruled that the FAA had carefully distinguished in other writings and rules that they had identified model aircraft uniquely by using the word "model" to identify them separate from other aircraft.

from the decision " The reasonable inference is not that FAA has overlooked the requirements, but, rather that FAA has distinguished, model aircraft as a class excluded from the regulatory and statutory definitions."

Jim H
small_rcer is offline Find More Posts by small_rcer
Last edited by small_rcer; Mar 07, 2014 at 10:10 AM. Reason: to post actual decision as pdf
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 07, 2014, 10:35 AM
Inherent Tinkerer
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Joined Jul 2003
1,428 Posts
The thing that concerns me it what rules will come out of this case. I'm worried that they'll make everything so restrictive that we won't be able to fly at all....
jtprouty is offline Find More Posts by jtprouty
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 07, 2014, 03:30 PM
Gaftopher
Gary Mortimer's Avatar
Nottingham Road South Africa/Bedford UK
Joined Feb 2007
3,640 Posts
Not so much the appeal is in http://www.suasnews.com/2014/03/2793...trappy-ruling/
Gary Mortimer is offline Find More Posts by Gary Mortimer
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 09, 2014, 11:55 AM
David1
bmw330i's Avatar
USA
Joined Mar 2007
1,478 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Mortimer View Post
With case law like we have here if the judge did not mistake anything it may be hard to overturn if only legality is considered.

Now if judges can be swayed to consider other than legal merits all bets are off.

Remember also in times of national emergency the president has absolute authority to do an executive order at will. Just say its a national safety issue and sign the paper.

I doubt this is the end. However, in America I grew up being taught in school that you are supposed to fight unjust laws. We are not subjects but individuals with rights. So I am happy to see someone finally challenged the FAA but wish more Americans would stand up and challenge the system more. That's what the legal process is for. It took someone from outside the USA to take a stand. I think we are all better for it but really people. Don't just blindly assume our overlords are right all the time.
bmw330i is offline Find More Posts by bmw330i
Last edited by bmw330i; Mar 11, 2014 at 01:07 AM. Reason: Edited out finger pointing which is never constructive
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2014, 07:39 AM
Registered User
Joined Mar 2014
4 Posts
When I read the things he had done I was almost wish he would have been fined, maybe not with 10,000USD but from the list of offenses he could have been charged with reckless endangerment at the very least.

These are the kind of actions that will get UAV's banned...
Please use common sense when flying, I dont want this hobby to get banned.

Quote:
Specifically, the FAA charged that the pilot:
  • Operated the aircraft directly towards an individual standing on a UVA sidewalk causing the individual to take immediate evasive maneuvers so as to avoid being struck by your aircraft.
  • Operated the aircraft through a UVA tunnel containing moving vehicles.
  • Operated the aircraft under a crane.
  • Operated the aircraft below tree top level over a tree lined walkway.
  • Operated the aircraft within approximately 15 feet of a UVA statue,
  • Operated the aircraft within approximately 50 feet of railway tracks.
  • Operated the aircraft within approximately 50 feet of numerous individuals.
  • Operated the aircraft within approximately 20 feet of a UVA active street containing numerous pedestrians and cars.
  • Operated the aircraft within approximately 25 feet of numerous UVA buildings.
  • Operated the aircraft on at least three occasions under an elevated pedestrian walkway and above an active street.
  • Operated the aircraft directly towards a two story UVA building below rooftop level and made an abrupt climb in order to avoid hitting the building.
  • Operated the aircraft within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport at UVA.
SwedenByAir is offline Find More Posts by SwedenByAir
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 06:08 PM
Registered User
brakar's Avatar
Asker, Oslo, Norway
Joined Feb 2009
414 Posts
Quote:
Specifically, the FAA charged that the pilot:

Operated the aircraft directly towards an individual standing on a UVA sidewalk causing the individual to take immediate evasive maneuvers so as to avoid being struck by your aircraft.
Operated the aircraft through a UVA tunnel containing moving vehicles.
Operated the aircraft under a crane.
Operated the aircraft below tree top level over a tree lined walkway.
Operated the aircraft within approximately 15 feet of a UVA statue,
Operated the aircraft within approximately 50 feet of railway tracks.
Operated the aircraft within approximately 50 feet of numerous individuals.
Operated the aircraft within approximately 20 feet of a UVA active street containing numerous pedestrians and cars.
Operated the aircraft within approximately 25 feet of numerous UVA buildings.
Operated the aircraft on at least three occasions under an elevated pedestrian walkway and above an active street.
Operated the aircraft directly towards a two story UVA building below rooftop level and made an abrupt climb in order to avoid hitting the building.
Operated the aircraft within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport at UVA.
I think this pretty much sums up one point I have being trying to make over a few years at this site:

There are on the one side laws. Then there are; good intentions, reccommendatinos, common sence, advisories, best pactice guides, norms and standards, guidelines, etc, on the other side.

Both are important, but their inflict is offcource not ment to be the same.

I think some people could benefit from paying more attention to the differencies, and to realize a "drone" is not too different from a car, gun, knife, etc, which can also both be used and misused.

Cheers
brakar is offline Find More Posts by brakar
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion DJI slapped with injunction in United States Texas court. Burntpixel Multirotor Talk 8 Jan 28, 2014 05:00 PM
Discussion FAA announces drone research sites in six States jesolins FPV Talk 0 Dec 31, 2013 11:36 AM
Discussion FAA's drone "Roadmap" kallend Aerial Photography 3 Nov 08, 2013 09:47 PM
Yippee! Drone Pilot Challenges FAA on Commercial Flying Ban chuenwe Multirotor Talk 2 Nov 01, 2013 11:22 PM
Discussion FAA crafting rules for drones in the US Landiin FPV Talk 3 Nov 28, 2011 02:25 PM