Separate names with a comma.
Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by LandYachtMedia, Mar 6, 2014.
Their loss could be our gain here in the US.
http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload ... cision.pdf
Can you sum it up?
The battle is won, but this was a HUGE loss in the war. All this does is make all of us look look bad, Take a look below at the list of things the FAA is complaining about and keep in mind, he was flying a fixed wing aircraft that does not stop unlike a multirotor. UVA is University of Virginia.
I agree that he should be in trouble for a, b, d, j, and l. The general public will probably agree with the entire list and now the FAA has this case as ammunition... "Look what this person did and got away with it, Congress, you must approve whatever rules we make in order to prevent this from happening again." - Future FAA Statement
This is huge. I think that pretty much frees us up from persecution by the FAA.
it looks like the FAA won in local court and assessed a $10,000 fine. This was the federal appeal in which the federal judge threw the case and thus the fine out because the FAA contradicted itself on the definition of "aircraft" and the fact that they only have suggested rules from the Transportation Commission and no actual laws regarding UAVs. However this guy IS in fact reckless which got him in trouble in the first place.
Unless FAA takes action to change the laws (which is highly unlikely)
At the rate they move, they'll issue their first draft for review in 2020!
I tend to agree. What the judge found was that there were no enforceable rules under the FAR for model aircraft. It also mentions that the FAA has previously not enforced aircraft rules and regulations for model aircraft. It goes on to say that model aircraft have specifically been exempt from rules that were written for full-size aircraft.
Here it is in layman's terms: http://dronelawjournal.com/
Wha'? This is a landmark ruling! You do realize that UVA paid Trappy to do it! And while his flying may have been aggressive and risky, he's clearly no slouch at operating his machine. And said machine weighs what? 0.5lbs? Ouch! That'll be a bruise in the morning.
Wow! Great news!
So you don't think the kind of behavior described in the FAA complaint is bad publicity for our community? I agree completely that this ruling is good for us. However, It's also an example of one rotten egg can make the whole carton smell bad.
I think time has proven that the list of complains by the FAA you quoted won't signal the imminent disaster you fear, since it was originally filed months ago. Today's ruling basically stated that the FAA can complain all they want but can't do anything till they get off their butts and make an actual law.
They decided to base their case on the safety issue, which probably had a better chance of success than pursuing the commercial use angle, and even that wasn't good enough. The judge didn't say "he wasn't flying unsafely", he said "you can't do anything about it right now"
I am sure that people and investors of Titan Aerospace are looking at this decision very closely. They are gearing up for some amazing things with drone technology by launching drone fixed wing aircraft that would be and atmospheric satellites and stay aloft for up to 5 years giving the entire world access to internet, communications and mapping links for any technology company that wants to hire them to launch a system or purchase their drones for global IT purposes. http://titanaerospace.com
I realize it won't have an immediate effect. However, it's fuel for their debate, they can't just make laws without an approval process, currently any laws they make won't get approved because there's no need for laws. With cases like this to cite they will be able to show a need for those laws.
Read my response above and go google how the FAA actually makes laws. I can 100% guarantee that when the FAA does submit proposed laws this case will be cited.
Bottom line is reckless behavior like this gives us all a bad name. That's all I am trying to point out.
The FAA is still going to propose the same laws with or without that formal list of complaints and with or without this case, this ruling simply told them to back the F off until they do. The case did not define or create the FAA's stance or perspectives on this issue, it just marked the first time they acted on them in this way.
The FAA doesn't make laws. It makes regulations. And this ruling has no bearing on the FAA's scope of responsibilities. It just says the FAA does not currently have any enforceable regulations that support their claims in the case. This ruling does not in any way prevent the FAA from defining new regulations pertaining to the commercial use of multirotors and model aircraft. Once those regulations are defined, they can be challenged as to whether or not the FAA is overstepping its remit.
The guy was paid to do it by UVA!
they should have paid one of us Phantom Pilots to do it. :lol:
For someone who has been kicked out of this forum 3 times, you sure dont understand a joke.