using phantom+ for business faa sucks!!!!

CarlJ said:
I think a lot of Americans are confused as to what the First Amendment really says.

The founders hated that they were not allowed to speak against the crown, and their intent was to protect speech against the government. Your speech is not protected in any other area. You are not free to say whatever you like here on this or many other forums. You can't do it at work, school, church, and the list just goes on. With all of these examples censorship would be lawful.

We've become increasingly liberal with the interpretation of free speech as it now applies to corporations, and in a recent case the Supreme Court upheld a mans right to warn oncoming traffic about a police speed trap. The court ruled the man flashing his lights was in effect speech against the government, so it was protected.

Try painting "The FAA Sucks" on the side of your Phantom, and you'll have a much better case.
You are among the people who don't understand what the First Amendment says.
 
Good luck getting a airworthiness certification with a DJI Phantom........ all the FAA has to do is read any Phantom forum on the net and they can see these things flying off uncontrolled or dropping out of the sky any day of the week. That would be enough for even the most hopeful of FAA agents to not accept these as airworthy. Honestly, would you certify one? I wouldn't..... and I own one.
 
CRankin said:
My understanding is that the FAA really doesn't have any power in this regard. Refer to the Pirker case, where they got their *** handed to them. Ever since they've been acting like whiny little children whose parent won't buy them a candy bar at the grocery store, crowing about how they have the right to fine and ground people when they actually don't. There are plenty of people out there who are already making money with aerial photography using these drones.

I'd also argue that the FAA's restriction on commercial use while permitting the exact same operation for hobbyist use is a violation of the First Amendment. In this age, taking photos and video is a means of expressing one's self. It does not matter if this is done for business or pleasure - it is still a means of expression. I believe the courts have tended to agree with this interpretation of the First Amendment fairly consistently through the years. (Please correct me if I'm wrong here.)

Now, there are limits that the government may impose to freedom of expression - but they generally have to meet some threshold of compelling public interest (such as safety). The age-old example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater comes to mind as a pertinent example. There is no such compelling public interest in strictly banning commercial use of drones. There approved use for hobbyists and active use in various government operations at home and abroad adequately demonstrates their safety and should (IMHO) be enough to allow those making First Amendment complaints against the FAA to win their case.

The FAA is an antiquated, outdated, and (mostly) irrelevant organization when it comes to UAV flight. They've had years to develop a framework with the RC industry based upon mutual respect and logic, yet they haven't. And now - only after they've been tasked with developing rules by Congress - do the lazy desk-jockey minions start to work on it. The organization and its ineffectual cries and whines about commercial use deserve to be ignored; instead most of us can work better and safer just by employing simple common sense rules, logic, and care for our equipment.

+1 on this post... the ruling on the Pirker case can be found here and it is very similar to your situation: http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/PirkerDecision.pdf
 
Good point. I'd want to know exactly who was calling and what their position and contact info was at the FAA. Not uncommon for potential competitors-- or even just your random malcontent-- to make calls like this pretending to be of an official nature.

petersachs said:
Do you know who at the FAA called the paper? It's important because it makes a big difference. If it was not from the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel, and an "Order" not to fly was issued, that's a violation of Part 13 of the FARs. Only the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel can issue such "Orders."
 
Good point. I'd want to know exactly who was calling and what their position and contact info was at the FAA. Not uncommon for potential competitors-- or even just your random malcontent-- to make calls like this pretending to be of an official nature.

petersachs said:
Do you know who at the FAA called the paper? It's important because it makes a big difference. If it was not from the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel, and an "Order" not to fly was issued, that's a violation of Part 13 of the FARs. Only the FAA's Office of Chief Counsel can issue such "Orders."
 
It was the chief operations officer but apparently they are going to work with us on getting us back in the air with a waiver temporary permit looks like it might work out after all :)
 
photomikey said:
You are among the people who don't understand what the First Amendment says.

Oh I'll be your huckleberry! :)

Would you like to start with the sedition act 1798? It pertains to the topic at hand, a founding father arresting the press using the very legal terminology that forbid him from speaking against the crown.

Oh yes, PLEASE come school me!
 
CRankin said:
I'd also argue that the FAA's restriction on commercial use while permitting the exact same operation for hobbyist use is a violation of the First Amendment. In this age, taking photos and video is a means of expressing one's self.

The freedom of expression and speech are nearly the same, and you do have a fundamental right to express yourself, but the government isn't stopping you from expression. This has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with free markets, because right now the FAA is picking the winners and losers in an emerging technology.
 
CarlJ said:
The freedom of expression and speech are nearly the same, and you do have a fundamental right to express yourself, but the government isn't stopping you from expression. This has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with free markets, because right now the FAA is picking the winners and losers in an emerging technology.

I suspect the FAA will be about as successful as Obama was in picking "Green Energy" winners... :roll:
 
Dirty Bird said:
CarlJ said:
The freedom of expression and speech are nearly the same, and you do have a fundamental right to express yourself, but the government isn't stopping you from expression. This has nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with free markets, because right now the FAA is picking the winners and losers in an emerging technology.

I suspect the FAA will be about as successful as Obama was in picking "Green Energy" winners... :roll:

Or Bush at finding WMD?

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk
 
BigTulsa said:
Or Bush at finding WMD?

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

Except we KNOW that the Iraqi's had chemical weapons...they used them on the Kurds. Just ask all those Democrats who gave speeches about the WMD threat when they voted to authorize the war.

That was before they decided it was politically expedient to be against the war... :roll:

Or look at Iraq today. What happens when MORONS are in charge... ;)
 
Dirty Bird said:
I suspect the FAA will be about as successful as Obama was in picking "Green Energy" winners... :roll:

Getting screwed from both directions, and too blind to see. Moving on!
 
Dirty Bird said:
BigTulsa said:
Or Bush at finding WMD?

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk

Except we KNOW that the Iraqi's had chemical weapons...they used them on the Kurds. Just ask all those Democrats who gave speeches about the WMD threat when they voted to authorize the war.

That was before they decided it was politically expedient to be against the war... :roll:

Or look at Iraq today. What happens when MORONS are in charge... ;)

That may be the case, but the case made for invasion was that they had it *at that time*. It was never found, now was it?

4000 of our men and women dead later (at least two of those were family and friends of mine) WMD still weren't found.

But hey, whatever justifies it for you is fine. I won't tow that line.

This will be my last comment on the matter.
 
Actually that was only partially the case. The heart of the case was Hussein had been stonewalling inspectors for more than a decade. He agreed to the inspections and, if he had nothing to hide, then why the games? There comes a point when enough is enough.

Sorry about your friends. I lost a few too.
 
SilentAV8R said:
For the love of God aren't there enough places on the Internet for people to share their political views without having to see them in this forum too??

I'll side with Dirty Bird on this one. Obama is a useless, well, let's just say that public forums aren't really the best place for me to express my opinions about him.

But then again, from my experience (10+ years of government contracting) I'd say that many/most who work in government are just as useless in their own way. The FAA continues to demonstrate this every day - particularly with things like the OP's story. At first it's not OK and an imminent danger to our safety... then, once they find out who their stupid decision is affecting, they change their story and say that there might be a way to make this work. Note that the supposed "danger" or "pubic safety issue" type thing didn't change a single iota. That tells me that the FAA wants to play favorites, and that their clueless, hapless, bumbletard employees just need to shut up and quit wasting taxpayer money. (It's time to fire Henny Penny.)
 
Wasn't there a recent court decision that in affect said that using a "drone" for profit wasn't in violation of any FAA regulations. As I recall the pilotw as initially fined $10K but the court threw it out.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,352
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic