Trappy Wins His Case Against FAA, Commercial Drones are Now 100% Legal - RC Groups
Thread Tools
Mar 06, 2014, 07:27 PM
Registered User
Discussion

Trappy Wins His Case Against FAA, Commercial Drones are Now 100% Legal


Raphael Pirker has won his case against the FAA and a federal judge says the agency has not done enough to officially regulate the use of commercial drones.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/com...al-judge-ruled
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Mar 06, 2014, 07:42 PM
400' ..... NOT
Martin Y's Avatar
Son of a ................
Latest blog entry: 1280mhz vs 1090mhz
Mar 06, 2014, 07:57 PM
Registered User
It wasn't his case against the FAA, it was the FAA's fining him for reckless flying. The issues of FAA jurisdiction (as it relates to us all flying drones around) are kind of incidental to that. The case wan't about commercial vs. hobby use, etc. The upcoming regs could still be completely onerous and make small business use of UAS tech untenable. Don't get too excited just yet, big-picture-wise.
Mar 06, 2014, 08:00 PM
Suspended Account
Ye ha

I am going down south this weekend and doing some serious flying

And not worry at all

Ye ha
Mar 06, 2014, 08:00 PM
KK4NOP
Mike Freas's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronAgeMedia
It wasn't his case against the FAA, it was the FAA's fining him for reckless flying. The issues of FAA jurisdiction (as it relates to us all flying drones around) are kind of incidental to that. The case wan't about commercial vs. hobby use, etc. The upcoming regs could still be completely onerous and make small business use of UAS tech untenable. Don't get too excited just yet, big-picture-wise.
But you must admit this is a better outcome that if the verdict went the other way.
Mar 06, 2014, 08:01 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Y
Son of a ................
That's an understatement.

It's not just about commercial operation. It confirms what many of us have
said all along. That the FAA has never gone through the process to establish any
legally enforceable regulations for model aircraft. Full stop.
AC91-57 is not law.
The 2007 policy statement, is not law.

And just so it's clear, the modelling exemption carved out in the 2012 FAA Re-auth bill,
is a law *but* it exists to limit the FAA's scope. It is only necessary to follow its conditions
if the FAA creates real regulations that cover model aircraft, that are more strict (which
they will eventually). Until that happens, the terms of the exemption can be ignored.
Mar 06, 2014, 08:03 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Freas
But you must admit this is a better outcome that if the verdict went the other way.
Yes, it is. But I'd just about bet money that this will light a fire under the agency to get their real regs on top of us sooner than they otherwise would have. I almost preferred operating in the is-it-or-ain't-it atmosphere over what I suspect will be coming.
Mar 06, 2014, 08:05 PM
Suspended Account
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronAgeMedia
Yes, it is. But I'd just about bet money that this will light a fire under the agency to get their real regs on top of us sooner than they otherwise would have. I almost preferred operating in the is-it-or-ain't-it atmosphere over what I suspect will be coming.
Thats why you go do it before its too late mentality
Mar 06, 2014, 08:05 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronAgeMedia
It wasn't his case against the FAA, it was the FAA's fining him for reckless flying. The issues of FAA jurisdiction (as it relates to us all flying drones around) are kind of incidental to that. The case wan't about commercial vs. hobby use, etc. The upcoming regs could still be completely onerous and make small business use of UAS tech untenable. Don't get too excited just yet, big-picture-wise.
Yes, it's very likely that future regulations for commercial operators will be quite onerous. They
will favor those who've had the biggest voice in the process, the defense contractors.
But for right *now*, it means they can't push people around, and that gives
everyone some more time to advance the technology and make it
so ubiquitous in the commercial sector that people can't imagine a world
without em.

On the other hand, this might set off a storm of regulation from states and municipalities
who are afraid of the technology.
Last edited by Daemon; Mar 06, 2014 at 08:23 PM.
Mar 06, 2014, 08:25 PM
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon
On the other hand, this might set off a storm of regulation from states and municipalities who are afraid of the technology.
It absolutely will. I can't believe the level of ignorance that drives most non-enthusiast discussions on this topic. I take every opportunity I can to educate, but MAN is it an uphill battle.
Mar 06, 2014, 08:46 PM
VP of Policy & Legal at DJI
bmschulman's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronAgeMedia
The case wan't about commercial vs. hobby use, etc. The upcoming regs could still be completely onerous and make small business use of UAS tech untenable. Don't get too excited just yet, big-picture-wise.
You should read what the decision says about the 2007 Policy Statement.
Mar 06, 2014, 08:48 PM
UAV Integrations
IronAgeMedia? You are media and you actually understand technology? You don't blindly follow the media sheeple and blurt out DRONE everytime you see a flying RC vehicle? WOW! You, sir, are extremely rare. Most involved in media are such driveling idiots when it comes to UAVs that its laughable.
Mar 06, 2014, 08:57 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by philthyy
IronAgeMedia? You are media and you actually understand technology? You don't blindly follow the media sheeple and blurt out DRONE everytime you see a flying RC vehicle? WOW! You, sir, are extremely rare. Most involved in media are such driveling idiots when it comes to UAVs that its laughable.
Not to take this too far off topic, but the problem we have (for those of us who don't like
being associated with the word "drone") is that we don't have any simple,
easy to say, word to label the type of aircraft we fly and activity we engage in.
"Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle" is a mouth full. "FPV" means nothing
without a lengthy explanation. "RC Toy", doesn't distinguish what we
do from any other type of toy.

"Drone" for all its negative connotations immediately conjures up an image
of an unmanned aircraft, with a camera on it, controlled from afar, so gets the
reader/viewer about 70% of the way there. Saves the media a lot of time, to start there.
Unfortunately the other 30% is usually filled with images of destruction or spying.

We need a cool.. simple, single *word*. Probably have to make it up from scratch.

For whatever it's worth, I fly around the general public very often in parks, and
the reaction I get from folks who witness it first hand, ranges from ambivalence
to outright enthusiasm. Even in places of solitude, I get folks who wave at my quad,
come talk to me, watch the live video.. etc. I've never had a random
stranger approach me and tell me that I was disturbing them, or they feared for their
safety or privacy. The public doesn't really fear what we do. The media, state
legislatures and sometimes LEOs like to convey a sense of fear on behalf of the public, but
it's misplaced.
Last edited by Daemon; Mar 06, 2014 at 09:05 PM.
Mar 06, 2014, 09:01 PM
Registered User
smoothvirus's Avatar
holy smokes!
Mar 06, 2014, 09:11 PM
Registered User
I've decided that I can't avoid the word "drone," and have embraced it instead. When I get the usual spectators, and they ask, I call them "camera drones" - and before they can draw the wrong conclusions, I point to the downlink display for a live look, or hand them an iPad with some portfolio stuff so they can see what it's all about. Have never had one of those conversations go badly, and most people are fascinated. And almost all of them confess to having harbored completely sideways understanding about the whole topic. This job is about public education first, and AP second.