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.Butcher99 said: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.
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.Butcher99 said: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.
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.)Butcher99 said: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.
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 said: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.