SMALL - espritmodel.com SMALL - Telemetry SMALL - Radio

NTSB Judge Rules Commercial Drone Use Legal

Charge up your batteries, fly safely, make money

Splash

The skies are open... but for how long?

The sound of thousands of commercial UAV operators celebrating could be heard across the internet as an NTSB judge presiding over the high-profile case of FAA v. Pirker ruled that commercial usage of drones violates no laws and no legal action can be taken against law-abiding operators by the FAA.

The FAA has dragged it's feet for years as they attempt to come up with rules for commercial UAV operations in the national air space (NAS). But policing such a diverse group has proven difficult at best; operators can range from hobbyists with a camera on a quad, to multi-million dollar teams with gas powered fixed-wing UAV's... and everything in between. In an attempt to ward off commercial operations, the FAA began contacting small and large UAV businesses with cease-and-desist orders. However, there are currently no laws prohibiting operations, only advisories issued by the FAA... hardly binding laws.

The killing blow was dealt to the FAA with the final ruling on Raphael Pirker's $10,000 fine and court case by judge Patrick Geraghty. Geraghty stated The FAA "has not issued an enforceable Federal Acquisition Regulation regulatory rule governing model aircraft operation; has historically exempted model aircraft from the statutory FAR definitions of aircraft; by relegating model aircraft operations to voluntary compliance with the guidance expressed in [the 2007 policy notice], Respondents model aircraft operation was not subject to FAR regulation and enforcement.

Additional info on the ruling can be found on Motherboard.

Click here to read the court documents

Last edited by Matt Gunn; Mar 06, 2014 at 08:20 PM..

Discussion

Reply
Thread Tools
Old Mar 06, 2014, 09:58 PM
fly by night
BCSaltchucker's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
5,404 Posts
too late, thread is here:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2119090
BCSaltchucker is offline Find More Posts by BCSaltchucker
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 06, 2014, 10:19 PM
Registered User
United States, MD, Annapolis
Joined Jun 2013
2,228 Posts
Great news!
Waterbound is offline Find More Posts by Waterbound
RCG Plus Member
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 07, 2014, 07:32 AM
RCGroups Editor
Matt Gunn's Avatar
United States, OH, Parma
Joined Jul 2009
5,002 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCSaltchucker View Post
Its not a contest Salty. And once again, this is a news article that's located on the home page, in the forums, and on the FPV channel page rather than a single post in a forum. I hope that clarifies...

Matt
Matt Gunn is offline Find More Posts by Matt Gunn
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: RMRC FPV Fest 2014 Wrap-up
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 07, 2014, 10:32 AM
Registered User
rockstar08's Avatar
United States, OR, Eugene
Joined Jan 2008
154 Posts
This is great news!
rockstar08 is offline Find More Posts by rockstar08
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 07, 2014, 12:23 PM
Team Basement RC
max1's Avatar
Toronto, Canada
Joined Jul 2004
430 Posts
Good news is still good news. Its Okay to hear it over again
max1 is offline Find More Posts by max1
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 07, 2014, 03:37 PM
<<x USMC
r0beert0's Avatar
USA, CA, Rancho Cucamonga
Joined Jun 2010
673 Posts
Everything Is Awesome!! ok, just watched the Lego Movie with the kids this past weekend.
r0beert0 is offline Find More Posts by r0beert0
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: FPV + McLaren P1 = HELLA FUN
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 07, 2014, 04:56 PM
Registered User
Michael Heer's Avatar
Stockton, Ca. USA
Joined Apr 2001
9,432 Posts
The Feds are appealing the decision so it ain't over.
Michael Heer is offline Find More Posts by Michael Heer
RCG Plus Member
Old Mar 07, 2014, 05:22 PM
RCGroups Editor
Matt Gunn's Avatar
United States, OH, Parma
Joined Jul 2009
5,002 Posts
If you read the court papers, the case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it's dismissed permanently. I don't speak legalese, but I'm pretty sure they can't appeal. Am I wrong?

Matt
Matt Gunn is offline Find More Posts by Matt Gunn
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by Matt Gunn; Mar 07, 2014 at 08:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 07, 2014, 09:12 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,472 Posts
That's my understanding as well. The FAA didn't lose a case that actually went to court. The case
was dismissed, and normally that's all she wrote. "With prejudice" means the FAA cannot re-file
a case against the same plaintiff. Presumably any attempt to file a
case against a different plaintiff would meet with similar fate as long as the
FAA tries to use their current arguments as legal foundation for regulation
of unmanned aircraft (that which the judge says is missing).

[edit]That said.. FAA seems to think they can appeal something
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releas...m?newsId=15894
Daemon is online now Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by Daemon; Mar 07, 2014 at 10:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Judge tells living man that hes still legally dead radix2 Life, The Universe, and Politics 22 Jul 18, 2014 10:23 AM
Discussion Trappy Wins His Case Against FAA, Commercial Drones are Now 100% Legal jkoebler FPV Talk 209 Jun 29, 2014 01:52 AM
Discussion Holy Crap! Question Answered - Commercial Aerial Work is Legal vislaw Multirotor Talk 2 Mar 06, 2014 08:03 PM
Discussion Commercial Use Drones - National Airspace? MikeMSD Multirotor Talk 2 Jan 24, 2014 10:01 PM
Discussion Drones in commercial use rpstar Atlanta Area RC 0 Jan 24, 2013 11:37 AM