- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Judge dismisses fine against commercial use of drone
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:11 am
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:11 am
LINK
Man it would be awesome if this sticks...
quote:
A federal judge has dismissed the Federal Aviation Administration's only fine against a commercial drone user on the grounds that the small drone was no different than a model aircraft, a decision that appears to undermine the agency's power to keep a burgeoning civilian drone industry out of the skies.
Patrick Geraghty, a National Transportation Safety Board administrative law judge, said in his order dismissing the $10,000 fine that the FAA has no regulations governing model aircraft flights or for classifying model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft.
Man it would be awesome if this sticks...
4
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:16 am to C
D.C. Circuit? Probably will be upheld, but who knows now that the political balance has been shifted on that court.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:18 am to FalseProphet
quote:
D.C. Circuit? Probably will be upheld, but who knows now that the political balance has been shifted on that court.
If only geauxjudge was on that court.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:18 am to C
This ruling will stick for now. But laws are coming down the pipe rest assured.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:19 am to FalseProphet
I'd be happy if the FAA just said "as long as you keep it in line of site, over your property, and under 400 ft you are good" that would buy them some time for meaningful intrastate use.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:20 am to goatmilker
quote:
But laws are coming down the pipe rest assured.
FAA has said they won't meet the Sep 2015 deadline, FWIW.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 9:24 am to C
Judge's order:
LINK
1. Neither the Part 1, Section 1.1, or the 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6) definitions of “aircraft” are applicable to, or include a model aircraft within their respective definition.
2. Model aircraft operation by Respondent was subject only to the FAA’s requested voluntary compliance with the Safety Guidelines stated in AC 91-57.
3. As Policy Notices 05-01 and 08-01 were issued and intended for internal guidance for FAA personnel, they are not a jurisdictional basis for asserting Part 91 FAR enforcement authority on model aircraft operations.
4. Policy Notice 07-01 does not establish a jurisdictional basis for asserting Part 91, Section 91.13(a) enforcement to Respondent’s model aircraft operation, as the Notice is either (a) as it states, a Policy Notice/Statement and hence non-binding, or (b) an invalid attempt of legislative rulemaking, which fails for non-compliance with the requirement of 5 U.S.C. Section 533, Rulemaking.
5. Specifically, that at the time of Respondent’s model aircraft operation, as alleged herein, there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation applicable to model aircraft or for classifying model aircraft as an UAS.
Upon the findings and conclusions reached, I hold that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss must be AFFIRMED.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be, and hereby is: GRANTED
2. Complainant’s Order of Assessment be, and hereby is: VACATED AND SET ASIDE
3. This proceeding be, and is: TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE.
ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
LINK
1. Neither the Part 1, Section 1.1, or the 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6) definitions of “aircraft” are applicable to, or include a model aircraft within their respective definition.
2. Model aircraft operation by Respondent was subject only to the FAA’s requested voluntary compliance with the Safety Guidelines stated in AC 91-57.
3. As Policy Notices 05-01 and 08-01 were issued and intended for internal guidance for FAA personnel, they are not a jurisdictional basis for asserting Part 91 FAR enforcement authority on model aircraft operations.
4. Policy Notice 07-01 does not establish a jurisdictional basis for asserting Part 91, Section 91.13(a) enforcement to Respondent’s model aircraft operation, as the Notice is either (a) as it states, a Policy Notice/Statement and hence non-binding, or (b) an invalid attempt of legislative rulemaking, which fails for non-compliance with the requirement of 5 U.S.C. Section 533, Rulemaking.
5. Specifically, that at the time of Respondent’s model aircraft operation, as alleged herein, there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation applicable to model aircraft or for classifying model aircraft as an UAS.
Upon the findings and conclusions reached, I hold that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss must be AFFIRMED.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be, and hereby is: GRANTED
2. Complainant’s Order of Assessment be, and hereby is: VACATED AND SET ASIDE
3. This proceeding be, and is: TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE.
ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 10:25 am to C
quote:Only sensible decision. As it stands if you don't take money, you can do whatever you want. It's clearly NOT about safety, but extracting licensing fees.
A federal judge has dismissed the Federal Aviation Administration's only fine against a commercial drone user on the grounds that the small drone was no different than a model aircraft, a decision that appears to undermine the agency's power to keep a burgeoning civilian drone industry out of the skies.
The downside, is now the FAA may move to regulate model aircraft, ending the inconsistency.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 11:42 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
The downside, is now the FAA may move to regulate model aircraft, ending the inconsistency.
Yeah that would be the easy solution to retain power. And then only selectively enforce the rules.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 12:09 pm to goatmilker
quote:
This ruling will stick for now. But laws are coming down the pipe rest assured.
The expression is "coming down the pike." It refers to coming down the turnpike, with the image of something getting bigger as it moves toward us.
Posted on 3/7/14 at 12:47 pm to C
quote:
the FAA has no regulations governing model aircraft flights or for classifying model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft.
Expect a notice of intent next week for just such regulations.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News