FAA Looses in suit regarding video for hire

[mikeydaddio]

At a minimum, this gives you guys who shoot commercially a valid response should the FAA contact you: cite the case and then tell them that they have no enforceable laws or regulations applicable to flight of model aircraft. Then suggest that they go make some. This entire hullabaloo from the FAA is absolutely nothing but them trying to buy time with scare tactics because they don't want to make enough time in their docket to sit down and concentrate on the issue for 90 days and actually make some valid regulations. Their time would be better spent doing that than trolling forums and trying to scare people with "laws" that do not exist!

This simply proves what I've been saying all along: that the FAA has no enforceable regulations for model aircraft at this time and to suggest that simply charging a fee for footage taken with a camera affixed to a model aircraft makes it something other than a model aircraft is ludicrous! The judge even mentions in this case that the current "suggestions" WRT model aircraft in the FAR are nothing more than voluntary suggestions at this time!

What really needs to happen is that the guy who won this case should now sue the FAA for the attorney fees related to the case. Something tells me that the FAA won't stop their (invalid) strong-arming until they are hit in the wallet. Money is king.

Mike

 

[Suwaneeguy]

From the list of what the FAA was picking on, I would say that it was a blatant attempt at charging the pilot with anything they could find even if it wasn't in the rules of flight.
Kind of like the cop who makes a list of things to charge you with and the real law says otherwise.

I mean, within x feet of a statue?
Flying below treetops and lower than rooftops?
Hell, like how did the **** thing get in the air to begin with?

IMO, according to their own authority, the FAA has no authority under 400 feet.
No wonder they lost the case.

 

[LandYachtMedia]

IMO, according to their own authority, the FAA has no authority under 400 feet.
No wonder they lost the case.

There is precedence for the FAA to have jurisdiction below 400'. I wouldn't recommend challenging that one.

What was successfully challenged here is whether the FAA has jurisdiction over model aircraft. The answer per this judgement is that no they do not. This is good news for those of us that have been ready to offer services but have chosen to wait till the question has been answered.

 

[ianwood]

From the list of what the FAA was picking on, I would say that it was a blatant attempt at charging the pilot with anything they could find even if it wasn't in the rules of flight.
Kind of like the cop who makes a list of things to charge you with and the real law says otherwise.

I mean, within x feet of a statue?
Flying below treetops and lower than rooftops?
Hell, like how did the **** thing get in the air to begin with?

The charges don't seem so ridiculous if they were being applied to a real aircraft. That is what the FAA was attempting to do: apply big boy plane rules to model planes. And the only reason they did this is because they're the only rules they have other than a 30 year old one page advisory that has very few teeth.

IMO, according to their own authority, the FAA has no authority under 400 feet.
No wonder they lost the case.

This is not true. The FAA regulates the national airspace down to the ground. How would planes land safely if the FAA had no authority below 400ft? You are subject to the FAA's model aircraft circular which states that you need to stay below 400ft AGL and away from airports and built-up areas.

 

[iResq]

There is precedence for the FAA to have jurisdiction below 400'. I wouldn't recommend challenging that one.

What was successfully challenged here is whether the FAA has jurisdiction over model aircraft. The answer per this judgement is that no they do not. This is good news for those of us that have been ready to offer services but have chosen to wait till the question has been answered.

Ayup. We have been waiting for this. Website will be up in a few days!

 

[bobomet]

IMO, according to their own authority, the FAA has no authority under 400 feet.
No wonder they lost the case.

There is precedence for the FAA to have jurisdiction below 400'. I wouldn't recommend challenging that one.

What was successfully challenged here is whether the FAA has jurisdiction over model aircraft. The answer per this judgement is that no they do not. This is good news for those of us that have been ready to offer services but have chosen to wait till the question has been answered.

I think this is the key point in the entire discussion here.
Don't make more of it than it is.
Those of us who see an opportunity to offer a service now have a chance to responsibly demonstrate the viability of this new capability.

But keep in mind that Congress ordered the FAA to compile a set of rules by next Fall.
So, say what you want about the FAA ... but the last thing we really want is Congress involved in this, because they will sell us little people out.

 

[Buk]

Lightheartedly I say,
"Hope now DJI will release the Bluetooth firmware/software"

Seriously,
The FAA will "get on their butts" and get the regulations written and through all the processes. Their wrists are stinging from this slap by the NTSB. Motivation for a swift response.

Prediction,
The resulting regulations will be comprehensive, conservative and modeled after AMA guidelines with a minor emphasis on controlling commercial applications of radio controlled model aircraft aerial photography for a fee.

The privilege to fly will be governed by regulations similar to those for driving a car. Air worthiness will be given by the AMA working in partnership with the FAA. Licensure will be through a system of written testing and actual flying (simulations?) at your local friendly mall.

For now, I'll continue checking http://www.dji.com daily for that Bluetooth update..!!

 

[Buk]

You are subject to the FAA's model aircraft circular which states that you need to stay below 400ft AGL and away from airports and built-up areas.

Nobody is "subject to" the circular since it is not a regulation and you don't need to adhere to it. It's merely a suggestion.

If I were the FAA, this would be something that concerns me the most after the judgement being handed down. Now longer having control over something I thought I had ultimate control.

 

[Visioneer]

It's too early for either major celebration or hand wringing. Only time will tell how this plays out.

An interesting quote from http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/faa-small-drones-ban-104393.html ... "Any appeal of the ruling would go to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The FAA could also attempt to issue an emergency rule banning small drone use." If accurate, the recently "decided" could be "undecided" once again (I say if because of repeated references in the article to the magic altitude of 400 feet - perhaps really not so magic - so it gives reader pause as to overall accuracy). It sometimes seems that nothing is ever finally decided.

In the meantime, of course, it's clear that the FAA has little to back up its bluster. But it's not exactly the wild west ... laws regarding nuisance, trespass, privacy(?), and liability for one's actions are still in effect. As someone pointed out in another thread, things may be copacetic "as long as no one files a complaint". But if someone gets annoyed enough, authorities may be involved (whether they want to or not), civil suits filed, etc. Let the games begin ...

An observation - the back & forth in this thread (as in others) makes it clear that not everyone has the same "understanding" of the issues. A quick visit to and complete reading of http://dronelawjournal.com/ might go a long way to calming the storm.

 

[havasuphoto]

I just read the entire Decision.....I love it when I'm right!!!
Specifically, that the FAA shot themselves in the foot, back in 1981, when they deemed "model" aircraft, as a separate class, with AC 91-57(Advisory only).
And, that when the FAA made part 103(anyone remember me mentioning that in a post?), that further defined a different type of "aircraft", as an "ultra-light" Aircraft.

Does anyone remember my argument that Drones, are not Aircraft??

Now, let the Damages Phase begin. Realize, that in order to sue the Government, you need to get permission from that same Government.
This case, on it's merits, warrant a Civil Action, and Penalty, against the FAA. I sincerely hope the former Defendant, sues the FAA into the next Decade!! The Defendant, at the very least is entitled to; Attorney fee's and court costs, loss of revenue, and irreparable damage to their reputation, and loss of any possible future revenue due to this case.
In other words; he can retire, on what the Government will award him-out of court(and you can bet there will be a Gag Order-I've seen this before).

Sorry-so excited, didn't read the preceding 4 pages....so don't beat me up too bad.
IF the links haven't been posted, here are 2;
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...ine-dropped-by-judge-finding-against-faa.html

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/PirkerDecision.pdf

So, to Summarize-the FAA has NO REGULATORY CONTROL over UAS/Drones/Quad-copters...THE END!!!!
I love my Country, and I love my Constitution.

 

[ianwood]

You are subject to the FAA's model aircraft circular which states that you need to stay below 400ft AGL and away from airports and built-up areas.

Nobody is "subject to" the circular since it is not a regulation and you don't need to adhere to it. It's merely a suggestion.

Yes, we've heard you say this 1,000 times already. When I said "subject to", I meant that it applies. I did not say it was a directive. But, as long as we're being pedantic, it is not "merely a suggestion" either. Advisory circulars pertain to safety and are typically followed unless there is sufficient reason not to.

 

[ianwood]

Advisory circulars pertain to safety and are typically followed unless there is sufficient reason not to.

You're making things up again.

How did you determine that Advisory Circulars are typically followed?

There are a ton of videos on this site (your videos included) that show that the RC Advisory Circular is not typically followed.

Uhhm, my part 141 private pilot's training tells me that ACs are typically followed. Glad to see you're watching my videos Pete, but I said "advisory circulars" as in all of them not just "the advisory circular" that pertains to RC. Read, breathe, then write. Maybe read it again just to make sure you understand what is being written.

 

[havasuphoto]

Advisory circulars pertain to safety and are typically followed unless there is sufficient reason not to.

You're making things up again.

How did you determine that Advisory Circulars are typically followed?

There are a ton of videos on this site (your videos included) that show that the RC Advisory Circular is not typically followed.

Uhhm, my part 141 private pilot's training tells me that ACs are typically followed. Glad to see you're watching my videos Pete, but I said "advisory circulars" as in all of them not just "the advisory circular" that pertains to RC. Read, breathe, then write. Maybe read it again just to make sure you understand what is being written.

My Part 135 training, and over 30 years of aviation experience, tells me differently, and that you don't have a complete understanding of Advisory Circulars. And, I don't have the time, or energy to educate you further.

But, it seems that maybe the 2 of you just have a difference of opinion. So maybe, just maybe, both you should just drop it??

Lets revel in this News.....it's a time for celebration. Not a time for name calling, and bashing.
I thought this was an Educational Forum.......let's try and be Adults, and keep on topic. Just let it go....


OR, take it to PM. You're not adding anything to the discussion, that is educational.

 

[havasuphoto]

 

[ianwood]

My Part 135 training, and over 30 years of aviation experience, tells me differently, and that you don't have a complete understanding of Advisory Circulars. And, I don't have the time, or energy to educate you further.

It's OK that you don't have the time as I am pretty straight on the application of ACs as it applies to GA flight, thanks. But I agree, let's not digress from the good news.

I think it is still pertinent to advise our fellow RC flyers that maybe the AC in question should be considered more than just "a mere suggestion". In the absence of any applicable federal regulations, I think it would be wise for all of us to take seriously the "advice" being provided. Let's not give the FAA further cause to issue a knee-jerk stopgap regulation which I am already half expecting they will do. We've already seen the videos of RCs operating in class B. Surely, you would rather not see a small white spec in your windscreen as you rotate, no?

 

[havasuphoto]

My Part 135 training, and over 30 years of aviation experience, tells me differently, and that you don't have a complete understanding of Advisory Circulars. And, I don't have the time, or energy to educate you further.

It's OK that you don't have the time as I am pretty straight on the application of ACs as it applies to GA flight, thanks. But I agree, let's not digress from the good news.

I think it is still pertinent to advise our fellow RC flyers that maybe the AC in question should be considered more than just "a mere suggestion". In the absence of any applicable federal regulations, I think it would be wise for all of us to take seriously the "advice" being provided. Let's not give the FAA further cause to issue a knee-jerk stopgap regulation which I am already half expecting they will do. We've already seen the videos of RCs operating in class B. Surely, you would rather not see a small white spec in your windscreen as you rotate, no?

Neither you, nor I, are in any position to Advise anyone about anything.
It's not pertinent, and my advise would be to leave it alone.

As for seeing "white specks" in my Windscreen in Class B airspace....again, don't care. I've hit birds much larger than Phantoms, and they would actually cause more damage. A Phantom or other R/C aircraft just goes "crunch" when you hit it. Birds are messy.

 

[ianwood]

Neither you, nor I, are in any position to Advise anyone about anything.

I would say you are selling yourself short. As someone with 30 years of commercial aviation experience and an RC flyer, you are the very person who should be providing advice, guidance and thoughtful debate on the matter. Me, I am just a loudmouth with an opinion who knows a thing or two. I do shut up and listen to experience from time to time.

I make the point not to belabor the issue but to emphasize the fact that we need to be vocal about the way forward. This ruling enables commercial use but it also highlights a gaping hole in the regulations. The press is calling it a "free for all". It is up to us at the grassroots level to advocate for the balance between public safety and the freedom to operate our devices for fun and for profit.

 

[havasuphoto]

Neither you, nor I, are in any position to Advise anyone about anything.

I would say you are selling yourself short. As someone with 30 years of commercial aviation experience and an RC flyer, you are the very person who should be providing advise, guidance and thoughtful debate on the matter. Me, I am just a loudmouth with an opinion who knows a thing or two. I do shut up and listen to experience from time to time.

I make the point not to belabor the issue but to emphasize the fact that we need to be vocal about the way forward. This ruling enables commercial use but it also highlights a gaping hole in the regulations. The press is calling it a "free for all". It is up to us at the grassroots level to advocate for the balance between public safety and the freedom to operate our devices for fun and for profit.

I learned long ago, as a flight instructor, that I had the ability to teach virtually anyone to fly a Helicopter. What I couldn't teach, was Judgement, and Common Sense. There were some people that were great, natural pilots-that had horrible judgement and/or Common Sense. And others, that were marginal pilots, but that exhibited exceptional judgement and/or common sense. It was the latter of those 2 types of pilots, that got jobs in the industry, and lived long enough to retire.

There are some things people need to figure out for themselves. And sometimes, Life is a better teacher. Therefore, I tend to stay away from telling people what to do.
I do advise on certain aerodynamic issues that effect flight, but I draw the line at what you should or shouldn't do with your quad, and where.

I've never had an issue with an R/C aircraft. And, I've seen plenty of them flying around some local airports that I used to get fuel at. It's just not a big deal.

What people lose sight of, is, that AC 91-57 was created in 1981. We didn't have Class B airspace then. We had Stage 1, 2, and 3, TCA's, TRSA's, and a host of other Acronyms for the national airspace system.
We didn't have GPS, or even Loran. We used ADF, a map and a compass to navigate.

R/C aircraft, back then, were very basic. Today-we have GPS/Naza, that will hold the aircraft in a perfect hover, without any input from the pilot. We have FPV systems, with telemetry that allow the pilots to see what their camera see's. We have Fail Safe systems that return aircraft back home if it loses RC signal, or the operator flips a switch.
It's the difference between night and day, as far as technology is concerned.

To "recommend", or even "advise" anyone to follow 33 year old Advisory Circular, is just nuts. Some Advisory Circulars are so far out of date, that they are completely irrelevant to Today's National Airspace System, and technology, and should be ignored.

AND, I have 1 request-let's drop this discussion, with this post, and move forward.

 

[shaun27]

have just seen this not sure if any one as read this yet but it may help some of you out in the US

http://www.dailytech.com/Court+Rules+th ... e34468.htm

 

[havasuphoto]

have just seen this not sure if any one as read this yet but it may help some of you out in the US

http://www.dailytech.com/Court+Rules+th ... e34468.htm

It's the same information that was posted on page1, and page 4.......