Drone registration ruled unlawful by U.S. Court of Appeals

[Tyler Mason]

Pretty big news in the drone world as the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the FAA's drone registration is illegal.

Curious to see what happens next. A while back, I interviewed the attorney, John Taylor, who was suing the FAA over the registration rule. If you want some background of the lawsuit, you can see the interview here.

 

[V tail]

Hats off to him.

 

[sar104]

That is interesting, but maybe not that surprising. The FAA argument as to why requiring registration and imposing legal penalties for not doing so did not contravene the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 always seemed weak, and the court unambiguously stated that.

 

[AyeYo]

Not surprising at all, but not necessarily a victory in the long run. The FAA seemed content to leave hobbyists alone with the registration system and their "guidelines", even though people regularly violated them. With that gone, expect retaliation via actual enforcement of Section 336, which almost no hobbyists follow.

 

[drm]

So, does this mean we get our $5 back? :^)

 

[sar104]

So, does this mean we get our $5 back? :^)

Potentially, yes, if this ruling is not overturned.

 

[microlinux]

So, does this mean we get our $5 back? :^)

I, for one, will be spending any such refund on a beer.

 

[drm]

I, for one, will be spending any such refund on a beer.

Great idea!

 

[tcope]

Echo what other said... not surprised. Claiming it was done as a "safety" think was a load of crap. My favorite part of the briefing was when people asked how the FAA would get the drone in order to connect it to the person. They said that was not the difficult part. Yeah right! Total BS. The reason the FAA _really_ created the registration.... was to push information to people and try to add further restrictions. They snuck that in as part of the registration. They made people "agree" to their terms... which was not allowed.

On the flip side... I did not mind the registration so much. I looked at it as a way to convince the public that "something" was being done to stop these deadly drones from killing everyone. Better something as mundane as a registration then something more aggressive. Personally I don't think the FAA will do anything else if they can't register drones so I'm not too concerned. Their main goal was to get their information in front of people and it served it's purpose.

Besides, it takes the FAA _years_ to do what should take days or weeks.

 

[AyeYo]

Echo what other said... not surprised. Claiming it was done as a "safety" think was a load of crap. My favorite part of the briefing was when people asked how the FAA would get the drone in order to connect it to the person. They said that was not the difficult part. Yeah right! Total BS. The reason the FAA _really_ created the registration.... was to push information to people and try to add further restrictions. They snuck that in as part of the registration. They made people "agree" to their terms... which was not allowed.

On the flip side... I did not mind the registration so much. I looked at it as a way to convince the public that "something" was being done to stop these deadly drones from killing everyone. Better something as mundane as a registration then something more aggressive. Personally I don't think the FAA will do anything else if they can't register drones so I'm not too concerned. Their main goal was to get their information in front of people and it served it's purpose.

Besides, it takes the FAA _years_ to do what should take days or weeks.

I don't think that was it at all. The registration was a way to put tracking and accountability on drones. Removing this doesn't change the rules. Hobbyists are still bound by the parameters put in place in Section 336, which happen to be nearly identical to the rules they agreed to when registering. It'll simply be more difficult for the FAA to track violators, and that isn't a good thing.

 

[macoman]

I think is a good idea franklin to keep track of drone ownership with the registration.

 

[N017RW]

No change for 107 pilots or when your a/c is used commercially.

 

[GMack]

Interesting that the DJI lawyer was in favor of the hobbyist registration as mentioned here:

Hobbyists' Path to Drone Flying Gets Easier as Court Rebuffs FAA

"The world’s largest drone manufacturer, China-based SZ DJI Technology Co., said that the FAA’s registration system had made sense."

“The FAA’s innovative approach to drone registration was very reasonable, and registration provides for accountability and education to drone pilots,” Brendan Schulman, DJI’s vice president of policy and legal affairs, said in an email. “I expect the legal issue that impedes this program will be addressed by cooperative work between the industry and policy makers.”

Almost comical that a non-lawyer beat a real lawyer in court too.

 

[N017RW]

Mr. Taylor is an Insurance Lawyer.

 

[Monte55]

I think is a good idea franklin to keep track of drone ownership with the registration.

I think is a good idea franklin to keep track of drone ownership with the registration.

What?????

 

[TDodgens]

I'll bet that was supposed to be "I think IT is a good idea, FRANKLY, to keep track of drone ownership with the registration."

 

[N017RW]

I think is a good idea franklin to keep track of drone ownership with the registration.

I agree so long as these things are flown outside of typical CBO (such as AMA) guidelines. If I am harmed by an irresponsible operator beyond my VLOS I want recourse.

 

[KongWerks]

I don't agree with the registration of "hobbyist" drones as currently implemented as there is no cost benefit to only having a list of people who at one time submitted their name to the FAA. It serves almost no purpose that I can think of other than increasing taxes.

 

[microlinux]

I don't agree with the registration of "hobbyist" drones as currently implemented as there is no cost benefit to only having a list of people who at one time submitted their name to the FAA.

Would you rather have municipalities create their own questionable registration policies and then take every single one of them to court to get reversals?

I'm not sure anything good can happen as a result of this ruling. Registration doesn't really have much of a logistical purpose, but it gives some sense of authority to the FAA and helps the mis-informed public feel something is being done to regulate all the drone perverts they imagine over-running their neighborhoods.

 

[tcope]

I don't think that was it at all. The registration was a way to put tracking and accountability on drones. Removing this doesn't change the rules.

How many times has the FAA used the registration of a drone to track it to its owner?

Now, how many times has someone flown illegally and they were never able to obtain the drone and/r track it to it's owner?

How many people have been fined for flying an unregistered drone?

It was obvious to everyone that the issue was _not_ as the FAA claimed (that they had not problem obtaining the drone, that the only issue was matching to it's owner).

Hobbyists are still bound by the parameters put in place in Section 336, which happen to be nearly identical to the rules they agreed to when registering.[./quote]That is like saying a laws is "mostly" legal.

It'll simply be more difficult for the FAA to track violators, and that isn't a good thing

Clearly the registration did _not_ make it any easier to match a recovered drone to a flier. It was simply 1) a feel good think for the FAA to make it look like they were doing something (I'm fine with that) and 2) to push information and new regulations onto people (which was not legal).