FAA Sued In Federal Court Over Drone Registration Rules
01-05-2016, 06:37 PM
#76
Sorry, that doesn't fly, no pun intended. Amazon, Nasa, Google, and Walmart have resources to do this. Other than NASA, those companies have more money than god. As for others being able to do it, nobody is stopping them. If one guy can do this out of pocket, why couldn't the 14 people who wanted to use their ties to the RC industry to send a complaint letter come up with something similar to this. All of those companies together don't have the funds to do this?
Nothing could be more pretentious than your assertion that if a lawyer has the means to sue the FAA then so should everyone else.
This notion is so ridiculous that it sends chills.
Last edited by combatpigg; 01-05-2016 at 06:45 PM.
01-05-2016, 07:23 PM
#78
Chris is right .
Multicopters themselves didn't get us into this , People got us into this , by flying unrestricted BLOS using mostly Multicopters .
A seemingly small difference at first glance , but with huge implications in having people held accountable for their own actions rather than blame misbehavior on an inanimate object .
No gun ever picked itself up and intentionally shot someone either , someONE was always holding it when the deed was done ........
Multicopters themselves didn't get us into this , People got us into this , by flying unrestricted BLOS using mostly Multicopters .
A seemingly small difference at first glance , but with huge implications in having people held accountable for their own actions rather than blame misbehavior on an inanimate object .
No gun ever picked itself up and intentionally shot someone either , someONE was always holding it when the deed was done ........
I humbly disagree.
I challenge each and every one of you to do what those quadcopters are doing with your smallest park flyer!
My smallest foamie can't.
My smallest turbine can't.
My skills (which are incredibly lacking, both mental and flying abilities) are not good enough for me to fly in and around buildings and hover over crowds with cameras pointed at them. Once I lose sight of them, I can no longer control them in any meaningful way.
Guns sir, are a constitutionally protected right. My right to fly a model "anything" is not.
01-05-2016, 07:35 PM
#79
Banned
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I humbly disagree.
I challenge each and every one of you to do what those quadcopters are doing with your smallest park flyer!
My smallest foamie can't.
My smallest turbine can't.
My skills (which are incredibly lacking, both mental and flying abilities) are not good enough for me to fly in and around buildings and hover over crowds with cameras pointed at them. Once I lose sight of them, I can no longer control them in any meaningful way.
Guns sir, are a constitutionally protected right. My right to fly a model "anything" is not.
I challenge each and every one of you to do what those quadcopters are doing with your smallest park flyer!
My smallest foamie can't.
My smallest turbine can't.
My skills (which are incredibly lacking, both mental and flying abilities) are not good enough for me to fly in and around buildings and hover over crowds with cameras pointed at them. Once I lose sight of them, I can no longer control them in any meaningful way.
Guns sir, are a constitutionally protected right. My right to fly a model "anything" is not.
01-05-2016, 09:42 PM
#80
My Feedback: (10)
This lawsuit is a good thing as the AMA is involved too deep trying to be recognized as the community based orginization to self regulate us. They dont want to piss off the faa so wont play hardball. Its better to have this independant suit stop this useless action. Then hopefully cooler heads will prevail and some sort of reasonableaccomidation can be reached.
01-05-2016, 09:48 PM
#81
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This lawsuit is a good thing as the AMA is involved too deep trying to be recognized as the community based orginization to self regulate us. They dont want to piss off the faa so wont play hardball. Its better to have this independant suit stop this useless action. Then hopefully cooler heads will prevail and some sort of reasonableaccomidation can be reached.
01-06-2016, 04:17 AM
#82
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
I guess in retrospect it was ridiculous to expect that group of 14 to do anything as meaningful as this guy did. After seeing what a debacle that letter writing campaign was, it's clear these titans of the RC world would rather sit back and potentially enjoy the potential benefits of someone elses hard work.
01-06-2016, 04:30 AM
#83
I humbly disagree.
I challenge each and every one of you to do what those quadcopters are doing with your smallest park flyer!
My smallest foamie can't.
My smallest turbine can't.
My skills (which are incredibly lacking, both mental and flying abilities) are not good enough for me to fly in and around buildings and hover over crowds with cameras pointed at them. Once I lose sight of them, I can no longer control them in any meaningful way.
Guns sir, are a constitutionally protected right. My right to fly a model "anything" is not.
I challenge each and every one of you to do what those quadcopters are doing with your smallest park flyer!
My smallest foamie can't.
My smallest turbine can't.
My skills (which are incredibly lacking, both mental and flying abilities) are not good enough for me to fly in and around buildings and hover over crowds with cameras pointed at them. Once I lose sight of them, I can no longer control them in any meaningful way.
Guns sir, are a constitutionally protected right. My right to fly a model "anything" is not.
And I strongly disagree with you ravill ! As Chris states , you do not seem to have an understanding of the difference between an LOS multicopter VS a BLOS Easystar !
But that's OK , your not alone in the (false) notion that it's the configuration of the airframe that's "the problem" .
"The problem" is unrestricted BLOS flight operations which yes , are mostly done today with multicopters , but not in any way exclusively ! Ban multirotors and see just how fast the unrestricted BLOS crew goes BACK to using Easystars , BLOS FPV's first mass market successful airframe ....
But as to "Rights" ?
DUDE , you haven't a clue !!!!!
MY RIGHT to "life , liberty , AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS clearly dictates that if I harm no others in MY pursuit of happiness , then that pursuit is a PROTECTED RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!
And ya know what makes ME happy ?
Standing in a field flying a model airplane !
PS , the "life , liberty , and the pursuit of happiness" phrase appears in the Declaration of Independence , which of course was written BEFORE the Bill of Rights , so my RIGHT to fly a model airplane predates your second amendment's established right to own a firearm !
You may now consider yourself schooled on MY RIGHT to fly my model airplane ......................
01-06-2016, 06:22 AM
#84
Banned
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL....chills...brrrr....so dramatic!
I guess in retrospect it was ridiculous to expect that group of 14 to do anything as meaningful as this guy did. After seeing what a debacle that letter writing campaign was, it's clear these titans of the RC world would rather sit back and potentially enjoy the potential benefits of someone elses hard work.
I guess in retrospect it was ridiculous to expect that group of 14 to do anything as meaningful as this guy did. After seeing what a debacle that letter writing campaign was, it's clear these titans of the RC world would rather sit back and potentially enjoy the potential benefits of someone elses hard work.
I would certainly hope that those having their vested financial interests represented by others make a $izable donation to those representing their livelihood. I'm not talking about donating some obsolete products that have been sitting on the shelves for years either.
01-06-2016, 12:34 PM
#87
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: coatesville,
IN
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back on topic, How do they plan anyone to take the proposed law or rule seriously, if they cannot decide whether we are registering people or aircraft?
If we are to register aircraft - then they would need to know info about said aircraft, correct? which would necessitate safety inspections, no?
If we are registering people, which I get from the language in the rule..... then the FAA does not have the authority to register people for anything.... only aircraft.... JS
I totally feel like any form of model aviation is and should be part of our hobby, but I do also feel that LOS is not the problem. I fly quads, heli, jets, planes.... all line of sight, its FPV and BLOS that seems to be the problem here, but then again they aren't registering the aircraft, or are they?
what they should have done IMO :
Require a license to fly anything FPV or BLOS and then require 2 hours training to obtain said license which could have been a lifetime license... problem solved, education effective. Every camera will have a serial number that could be tracked to owner of the person who caused an accident if one happened and then they could be fined if not licensed etc.....
I have a license to buy refrigerant, but no one polices it, and the only way for me to be fined is if I am recorded on video venting said refrigerant. which is impossible to prove its refrigerant and not nitrogen... which makes it all pointless and ridiculous.
If we are to register aircraft - then they would need to know info about said aircraft, correct? which would necessitate safety inspections, no?
If we are registering people, which I get from the language in the rule..... then the FAA does not have the authority to register people for anything.... only aircraft.... JS
I totally feel like any form of model aviation is and should be part of our hobby, but I do also feel that LOS is not the problem. I fly quads, heli, jets, planes.... all line of sight, its FPV and BLOS that seems to be the problem here, but then again they aren't registering the aircraft, or are they?
what they should have done IMO :
Require a license to fly anything FPV or BLOS and then require 2 hours training to obtain said license which could have been a lifetime license... problem solved, education effective. Every camera will have a serial number that could be tracked to owner of the person who caused an accident if one happened and then they could be fined if not licensed etc.....
I have a license to buy refrigerant, but no one polices it, and the only way for me to be fined is if I am recorded on video venting said refrigerant. which is impossible to prove its refrigerant and not nitrogen... which makes it all pointless and ridiculous.
Last edited by indycustombikes; 01-06-2016 at 12:57 PM. Reason: spelling
01-06-2016, 12:53 PM
#88
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
Back on topic, How do they plan anyone to take the proposed law or rule seriously, if they cannot decide whether we are registering people or aircraft?
If we are to register aircraft - then they would need to know info about said aircraft, correct? which would necessitate safety inspections, no?
If we are registering people, which I get from the language in the rule..... then the FAA does not have the authority to register people for anything.... only aircraft.... JS
I totally feel like any form of aviation is and should be part of our hobby, but I do also feel that LOS is not the problem. I fly quads, heli, jets, planes.... all line of sight, its FPV and BLOS that seems to be the problem here, but then again they aren't registering the aircraft, or are they?
If we are to register aircraft - then they would need to know info about said aircraft, correct? which would necessitate safety inspections, no?
If we are registering people, which I get from the language in the rule..... then the FAA does not have the authority to register people for anything.... only aircraft.... JS
I totally feel like any form of aviation is and should be part of our hobby, but I do also feel that LOS is not the problem. I fly quads, heli, jets, planes.... all line of sight, its FPV and BLOS that seems to be the problem here, but then again they aren't registering the aircraft, or are they?
Not sure how FPV and BLOS are the sole culprits here if there are in fact any. There are many FPV pilots already part of the AMA. I believe the popular idea is that our hobby and a few of the bad apples flying BLOS or just recklessly caused this issue, but nothing the FAA seems say indicates this as the sole or root cause. If we all say that our hobby has done well in terms of safety etc for 80 years, it's hard to reconcile (for me at least) that a few instances of rouge flying would bring a whole federal agency down on us. The commercial applications of this technology I believe is the true reason they had to take action. I don't think anyone in or out of this hobby want's thousands of these things zipping around overhead completely unregulated. I absolutely see the FAA clamping down even more stringently on this issue, but that will be an issue for the commercial boys, hopefully not us.
Tangentially, another poster shared this link earlier today, over 181,000 folks have registered.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...c-21/78360534/
01-06-2016, 01:01 PM
#89
[QUOTE=RCFlyerDan;12156278In 50 years, since there are already guys doing it in a small back yard form, I can truly see a quadcopter becoming a form of transportation for the "dummy land car driver". The future is amazing, but in the mean time, the growth of this new aviation technology is a pain in the ass to my hobby.[/QUOTE]
This is where I see Drones going and sooner then 50 years as I thought!!!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techno...cid=spartandhp
This is where I see Drones going and sooner then 50 years as I thought!!!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techno...cid=spartandhp
01-06-2016, 01:04 PM
#90
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: coatesville,
IN
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of registered folks is pointless unless we know the total of folks that they want to register, this could be less than 5%..... who knows.
Im sure the FAA does care who takes the wording seriously, but by law they have to make it clear.. hence the lawsuits.
You have to be licensed to drive, yet you have to register the car separately, in the event of a circumstance, they must prove by witness WHO was the operator to proceed. And So again I ask, are people being registered or aircraft? and no one can definitevely answer this question based on the wording, making the ruling jibberish!
Im sure the FAA does care who takes the wording seriously, but by law they have to make it clear.. hence the lawsuits.
You have to be licensed to drive, yet you have to register the car separately, in the event of a circumstance, they must prove by witness WHO was the operator to proceed. And So again I ask, are people being registered or aircraft? and no one can definitevely answer this question based on the wording, making the ruling jibberish!
01-06-2016, 01:07 PM
#91
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
This is where I see Drones going and sooner then 50 years as I thought!!!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techno...cid=spartandhp
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techno...cid=spartandhp
http://www.arcaspace.com/en/arcaboard.htm
That sure is a lotta lipos!
01-06-2016, 01:13 PM
#93
My Feedback: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: coatesville,
IN
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also....... FAA has control over NAS correct? Registered people never go into NAS as they are on the ground, but the aircraft DOES go into NAS and therefore would be what is registered...... and then they would have to verify WHAT it is that will be in NAS and whether it is safe to be there or not.............. Do you now see the implications?
FPV by definition is BLOS and these are the reason for the FAA freak out party.... everything else "commercial applications" is easily handled through the commercial requirements and licenses.
FPV by definition is BLOS and these are the reason for the FAA freak out party.... everything else "commercial applications" is easily handled through the commercial requirements and licenses.
01-06-2016, 01:15 PM
#94
So you are OK with agreeing to fly below 400 feet?? For me that is the sticking point. Until the FAA clarifies that this is not a hard limit I plan to hold off registering. Everything else does not bother me much, but their backdoor attempt to impose a 400 foot altitude cap is not something I can abide by.
Thus, the 400 ft "rule" pales in importance, to the point of insignificance for me. I'm sure I can keep my T-28 and my Hellcat in compliance with the 400 ft "rule"...and I've programmed my DJI Phantom 2 to go no higher than 350 ft
01-06-2016, 01:20 PM
#95
4oo feet is just 100 feet more than a football field. Most models climb at least 2,000 feet a minute. some a lot faster. If your Hellcat climbs more than a 30 seconds.maybe a lot less then you are definitely over 400 feet.
01-06-2016, 01:21 PM
#96
FYI, you can access the entire AMA vs. FAA docket via the Federal court "PACER" system. Case is docket number 14-1158. Of note, you have to give a credit card as there is a per page fee. I did see that as of July 2015, Brendan Schulman is no longer representing AMA (he left the firm).
https://www.pacer.gov/
https://www.pacer.gov/
01-06-2016, 01:24 PM
#97
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
The number of registered folks is pointless unless we know the total of folks that they want to register, this could be less than 5%..... who knows.
Agree, earlier quotes noted a million quads were to be sold, the most recent story from the CES noted 400k were sold. I don't know how many they expected, and if the 181,000 is something they can claim is a success. They said that were "encouraged" by it, but that's pretty vague.
Im sure the FAA does care who takes the wording seriously, but by law they have to make it clear.. hence the lawsuits. There has only been one suit filed after the announcement, and it doesn't really address the wording of the registration process or the ambiguity of it. The complaint alleged the FAA is overstepping it's boundaries as defined by congress and is promulgating rules that they are not allowed to. It's almost a mirror action as that filed by the AMA previously. There is no law per se that the language in the registration be perfectly clear to all, just to the standard that an average person would read and understand (usually a standard set by courts). I've got to imagine every word, even commas etc were cross checked 10 ways from Sunday by the room fulls of attorneys they have on staff. They had to so something to justify their salaries, and they don't get to bill by the hour, minute etc.
You have to be licensed to drive, yet you have to register the car separately, in the event of a circumstance, they must prove by witness WHO was the operator to proceed. And So again I ask, are people being registered or aircraft? and no one can definitively answer this question based on the wording, making the ruling jibberish!
In the example you give above, the owner of the car is primarily responsible for any property damage or injuries caused by the operation of it (with rare exception). The driver issue is secondary, for possible criminal issues, as well as maybe having insurance of their own. License and reg are done for different reasons (ie Taxes! )
I think the registration process is pretty clear and actually notes in the FAQ that for the majority of us in the hobby, we are registering ourselves as pilots. We are not registering our planes. There is however a separate provision for registering planes (see info on over 55lb). Not trying to argue, just provide additional context.
Agree, earlier quotes noted a million quads were to be sold, the most recent story from the CES noted 400k were sold. I don't know how many they expected, and if the 181,000 is something they can claim is a success. They said that were "encouraged" by it, but that's pretty vague.
Im sure the FAA does care who takes the wording seriously, but by law they have to make it clear.. hence the lawsuits. There has only been one suit filed after the announcement, and it doesn't really address the wording of the registration process or the ambiguity of it. The complaint alleged the FAA is overstepping it's boundaries as defined by congress and is promulgating rules that they are not allowed to. It's almost a mirror action as that filed by the AMA previously. There is no law per se that the language in the registration be perfectly clear to all, just to the standard that an average person would read and understand (usually a standard set by courts). I've got to imagine every word, even commas etc were cross checked 10 ways from Sunday by the room fulls of attorneys they have on staff. They had to so something to justify their salaries, and they don't get to bill by the hour, minute etc.
You have to be licensed to drive, yet you have to register the car separately, in the event of a circumstance, they must prove by witness WHO was the operator to proceed. And So again I ask, are people being registered or aircraft? and no one can definitively answer this question based on the wording, making the ruling jibberish!
In the example you give above, the owner of the car is primarily responsible for any property damage or injuries caused by the operation of it (with rare exception). The driver issue is secondary, for possible criminal issues, as well as maybe having insurance of their own. License and reg are done for different reasons (ie Taxes! )
I think the registration process is pretty clear and actually notes in the FAQ that for the majority of us in the hobby, we are registering ourselves as pilots. We are not registering our planes. There is however a separate provision for registering planes (see info on over 55lb). Not trying to argue, just provide additional context.
Last edited by porcia83; 01-06-2016 at 01:34 PM. Reason: Changed G to Q...made a big difference.
01-06-2016, 01:25 PM
#98
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
FYI, you can access the entire AMA vs. FAA docket via the Federal court "PACER" system. Case is docket number 14-1158. Of note, you have to give a credit card as there is a per page fee. I did see that as of July 2015, Brendan Schulman is no longer representing AMA (he left the firm).
https://www.pacer.gov/
https://www.pacer.gov/
01-06-2016, 01:27 PM
#99
Also noticed that FAA Administrator is at the Consumer Electronics Show. Per their media advisory, "He will be joined by four key UAS Registration Task Force members... [emphasis added]"
Lists those "four key members" as
ave Vos, Project Lead for Google X’s Project Wing; Nancy Egan, General Counsel, 3D Robotics; Brendan Schulman, VP of Policy & Legal Affairs for DJI; and Doug Johnson, Vice President of Technology Policy, Consumer Technology Association (CTA)
https://www.faa.gov/news/media_advis...m?newsId=19894
Lists those "four key members" as
ave Vos, Project Lead for Google X’s Project Wing; Nancy Egan, General Counsel, 3D Robotics; Brendan Schulman, VP of Policy & Legal Affairs for DJI; and Doug Johnson, Vice President of Technology Policy, Consumer Technology Association (CTA)https://www.faa.gov/news/media_advis...m?newsId=19894
Last edited by franklin_m; 01-06-2016 at 01:28 PM. Reason: Added link to media release