FAA Delays Drone Rules Again

[petersachs]

Peter, while I appreciate both your passion and line of reasoning, the scope of the FAA's regulatory and enforcement authority has not been authoritatively determined on this issue.

Actually it's current scope has been determined. It's future scope is what hasn't been determined. There exist right now no regulations concerning commercial operation of remote-controlled model aircraft, and regulations are what must exist for "the enforcer" (the FAA) to enforce.

And as both you and Richard point out, its likely that only by going through (multiple) cycles of enforcement action would the question be clarified. As you suggested, I hope you do bait them into enforcement action so that we could have this clarity as soon as possible.

I know it sounds odd, but I do this all the time. I intentionally set myself up to be charged, or to be sued simply to prove what is and what is not the law.

The sooner this is cleared up, the sooner my company will be able to begin operating small UAVs on a regular basis. But given the pace of the Trappy's case, I doubt other enforcement actions will be disposed of in a timely manner so its likely to be a long wait.

Trappy's case should have a ruling pretty soon. If it results in a decision that says the FAA has no regulations that apply to remote-controlled model aircraft, then it's pretty much a done deal until the final rulemaking is completed in 2015. Anyone will be free to operate remote-controlled model aircraft for pleasure or profit (as they can right now.)

Regarding the scope of the FAA's 'rules' governing RC aircraft/UAVs, I have to imagine FAA lawyers have considered the arguments you've laid and don't think they pass muster. I have to think if they had even a little doubt they'd be cautious and just issue a TFR covering the entire country. They certainly did that in the DC area (where I live) following the story of a guy plotting to load an rc plane with C4 and fly it into the White House. That effectively shutdown a number of RC sites in the area and I'm not aware of anyone asserting they exceeded their authority.

Actually the FAA lawyers (based on their briefs at least) had either not considered those arguments, or realized that they would prevail because of those arguments. A simple read of the FARs reveals they are utterly silent with regard to "commercial operation" of remote-controlled model aircraft. Plus, as I mentioned previously, if they knew they could win an enforcement action for commercial operation they would have charged Trappy with that. They didn't. They knew they have no regulations to back up any such charges. Hence the "recklessness" charge.

 

[Butcher99]

You as a lawyer know, lawyers (especially govt lawyers who don't have to worry about posting billable hours) go over every permutation. Even if you get the Trappy's outcome your hoping for, whats to stop them from just issuing a TFR. Even if they don't have rules regulating drones, they definitely can regulate what can enter particular airspace.

 

[petersachs]

You as a lawyer know, lawyers (especially govt lawyers who don't have to worry about posting billable hours) go over every permutation. Even if you get the Trappy's outcome your hoping for, whats to stop them from just issuing a TFR. Even if they don't have rules regulating drones, they definitely can regulate what can enter particular airspace.

There's nothing to stop them from doing that, other than the backlash they will receive if they used TFRs as a tool to intentionally ground remote-controlled model aircraft. That's not what TFRs are for.

Moreover, (in my opinion), TFRs shouldn't apply to remote-controlled model aircraft anyway. It's silly "security theater," that began after 9/11 as part of the government's "let's keep the country afraid and compliant" effort. I'd ignore any such TFR on principle alone.

I like civil disobedience.

 

[rmklaw]

I agree. Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR) are used for other purposes and have geographical limitations. Usually, to separate participating and non-participating traffic, hazards, security threats, etc. I can't see how a TFR could ever be used to apply unrestricted to all national air space. :lol:

 

[brad90631]

They have a TFR over Disney land. how did they manage that? NO other amusement parks just Disney land

 

[Hiway]

...
I like civil disobedience.

My kinda kindred spirit.

 

[flyshasta]

Has anyone actually received a cease and desist notice? I thought that was a troll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[petersachs]

Has anyone actually received a cease and desist notice? I thought that was a troll.

Yes, several have been sent by the FAA. All are without authority and the recipients could have ignored them and ultimately won in the end. However, they would have all incurred legal fees fighting them.

 

[rmklaw]

They have a TFR over Disney land. how did they manage that? NO other amusement parks just Disney land

That would make sense given the popularity of Disney and probably financial pull.

 

[Scottrod]

I have started a small Aerial photography business with mine. I don't charge for photographs, just editing time. ;-)

 

[MedX172]

They have a TFR over Disney land. how did they manage that? NO other amusement parks just Disney land

It's been there for some time. They also have a TFR over Disney World in Orlando as well. It's been there since 2009, but honestly, Disney World is inside Orlando's class B airspace, so you aren't getting in there without permission. I've flown very close to Disney World with the TFR in place, but I was on an IFR flight plan at the time, headed to Ocala, FL and ATC there likes to route you across International and Disney and get you out of there and in to JAX airspace.

 

[Sledge]

I have started a small Aerial photography business with mine. I don't charge for photographs, just editing time. ;-)

This is my strategy as well.....free video and photography, charge for the editing packages.

 

[dkatz42]

They have a TFR over Disney land. how did they manage that? NO other amusement parks just Disney land

This was a gift from the local member of congress after 9/11. The FAA didn't see Mickey Mouse as an important instrument of national security, so it got added as a rider to some bill and remains there ever since. The FAA thinks it's dumb too, but now it's statutory.

 

[petersachs]

The FAA has now been caught lying in the pretend "cease & desist" letters it has been sending to "commercial operators." Copies of those letters were recently obtained via FOIA request by Patrick McKay, not me. He then interpreted, (quite well, I might add), the FAA's response in those letters. Kudos to him.

Pretty clear from the content of the letter that the FAA is either lying, or is simply unfamiliar with the US Code and its own regulations.

Interesting reading.

 

[EMCSQUAR]

The FAA has now been caught lying in the pretend "cease & desist" letters it has been sending to "commercial operators." Copies of those letters were recently obtained via FOIA request by Patrick McKay, not me. He then interpreted, (quite well, I might add), the FAA's response in those letters. Kudos to him.

Pretty clear from the content of the letter that the FAA is either lying, or is simply unfamiliar with the US Code and its own regulations.

Interesting reading.

Geez, what a surprise... Imagine that a gov't agency changing the rules as they go. Next crop of lawyers coming out of law school are going to have to have flight qualifications

 

[rfernandez]

Here is the Advisory circular from the FAA..!


http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/medi ... /91-57.pdf

 

[extrememc]

Following

 

[Scottrod]

This video was posted by another member and I think it's relevant for this thread.

http://youtu.be/pDId6Du-yoE

 

[petersachs]

The second part of their story is actually more relevant, where they ask me about the law.

See: http://youtu.be/R_nRTuuKsXo

 

[extrememc]

Got this article for @thedjiguy on twitter. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/commer ... udge-ruled


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk