FAA Looses in suit regarding video for hire

FAA Appeals. I assume this means the decision is suspended until the appeal to the board is decided. But this isn't a case in the regular judicial system. It's the NTSB board. So, I don't know how it might be different than any other federal case. Anyone know how NTSB legal process works? Are we back to the status quo before the decision was issued?

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/ ... wsId=15894
 
jtw29 said:
FAA Appeals. I assume this means the decision is suspended until the appeal to the board is decided. But this isn't a case in the regular judicial system. It's the NTSB board. So, I don't know how it might be different than any other federal case. Anyone know how NTSB legal process works? Are we back to the status quo before the decision was issued?

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/ ... wsId=15894
Typical FAA response.
 
jtw29 said:
FAA Appeals. I assume this means the decision is suspended until the appeal to the board is decided. But this isn't a case in the regular judicial system. It's the NTSB board. So, I don't know how it might be different than any other federal case. Anyone know how NTSB legal process works? Are we back to the status quo before the decision was issued?

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/ ... wsId=15894

Wow! This is getting embarrassing. Their case has more holes in it than a golf course full of gophers. The FAA can still send out cease and desist letters but the ice they tread is much thinner than before. In fact, there pretty much is no ice at all now.

Judging by their intention to appeal, I'd guess the C&D letters will continue. And now I really want one! To frame. Who wants to pay me to make a video using my Phantom? I'm cheap. One dollar. I will send a copy of the invoice to the FAA. This is a serious offer.
 
The status of the Advisory Circular hasn't changed and it wasn't the basis for the fine in Pirker's case.

It's simply never been a regulation despite many people imagining it to be one.[/quote]

Exactly. The reason people keep thinking there's laws against using them is because the Media keeps saying it. the Media Keeps saying it because the government tells em that. Unfortunately for the FAA, in this single case, the judge has ruled that not only to the FARs NOT pertain to model aircraft, they CAN NOT. For the Federal Government to take this on, over a topic like illegal immigration, would be the worst thing they could do. There's bigger things the FAA needs to worry about than drones.

That said, the worst thing for US, would be for someone to go flying in controlled airspace and do something stupid, although you know that's just a matter of time now.

Everyone just needs to be careful. :D
 
1) Anyone know a link to the video this got made for UVA?

2) What was he flying?

3) Are there a lot of these cease and desist letters that have been sent by the FAA? Have they gone after other pilots?
 

Attachments

  • pirker.jpg
    pirker.jpg
    119.5 KB · Views: 321
havasuphoto said:
jtw29 said:
FAA Appeals. I assume this means the decision is suspended until the appeal to the board is decided. But this isn't a case in the regular judicial system. It's the NTSB board. So, I don't know how it might be different than any other federal case. Anyone know how NTSB legal process works? Are we back to the status quo before the decision was issued?

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/ ... wsId=15894
Typical FAA response. How this doesn't violate Double Jeopardy, and a host of other Constitutional Rights, is just beyond my comprehension.

I sincerely hope the Defendant in this case, sues them into the next Century.

This doesn't mean the FAA can continue with "enforcement" actions....that ship has sailed. This is just a political delaying tactic....and is total B.S.
Call it "sour grapes"...the FAA doesn't like to lose.

EDIT: one more thing; this decision happened on a Friday. The FAA has asked the entire NTSB board to review the case. Until such time as the NTSB decides to hear the case, nothing is suspended. This is more mis-information put out by the FAA, to delay things. The NTSB has not responded, nor will they, until probably at least next week.
But, until the NTSB grants the FAA the right to be heard on their appeal, nothing changes from the original Administration Judges decision.

You are incorrect.
This has nothing to do with Double Jeopardy. The FAA is exercising its right to appeal like any other party could. Are you suggesting that we eviscerate our legal system and have first level federal administrative judges be the final say on all matters? No more Court of Appeals or Supreme Court?

The holding is stayed.
 
jdenkevitz said:
You are incorrect.
This has nothing to do with Double Jeopardy. The FAA is exercising its right to appeal like any other party could. Are you suggesting that we eviscerate our legal system and have first level federal administrative judges be the final say on all matters? No more Court of Appeals or Supreme Court?

Um, I edited that post.

I'm reserving judgement right now.

I am more familiar with the FAA, and the Administrative law proceedings than you think.

And yes, I don't think the FAA should pursue this case any further. They are not going to the next level, legal measure(court). They are asking the NTSB, the entire board, to hear the case. That's a bit unusual, and in my opinion, UN-necessary.


IF, drones were such a huge problem-don't you think the results of this decision would have been on the National News? It wasn't .

Also-the holding is NOT stayed, just because the FAA says it's so. We've already learned, from that decision, that the FAA has no regulatory authority. Not then, not now. So, until the NTSB decides to hear the case, or declines, the FAA still has NO Regulatory Authority-the End.
Not going to argue this with someone that has 23 whole posts.

You have your opinion and understanding of Administrative Law, and I have mine. You don't have to agree with me, or even believe me.
 
Visioneer said:


Forgetting the legality for a second. Looking at the video, that strikes me as being pretty reckless too.

But, also, I'm not impressed with the footage. A gimbal-stabilized GoPro on a Phantom would've looked so much better. Hard to see commercial value to footage like that.
 
ghinson said:
Visioneer said:


Forgetting the legality for a second. Looking at the video, that strikes me as being pretty reckless too.

But, also, I'm not impressed with the footage. A gimbal-stabilized GoPro on a Phantom would've looked so much better. Hard to see commercial value to footage like that.
I thought so too. Also, the 1 person seen running in the video-do you think that could have been one of his buddies?
 
ghinson said:
Visioneer said:


Forgetting the legality for a second. Looking at the video, that strikes me as being pretty reckless too.

But, also, I'm not impressed with the footage. A gimbal-stabilized GoPro on a Phantom would've looked so much better. Hard to see commercial value to footage like that.

Recklessness aside, when I saw that video right when it first came out, I was blown away by it. I hadn't seen anything like it before. I didn't know that was even possible. I had never thought about owning an RC anything before seeing it. I can say now it definitely was a contributing factor. Not that I want to fly like that!
 
You forget that when the video was made..... long before the Phantoms were around and there was no such thing as a brushless gimbals. That video was filmed in Oct 2011, since then GoPro has came out with several new models of cameras and only last year did brushless gimbals become affordable, before then most were using servo based gimbals. Heck the TBS Discovery quad didn't come out until March 2012. Look how fast things are changing now that 3-axis gimbals are being put to use.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,359
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers