Originally Posted by
R_Strowe
The difference is that the Taylor lawsuit was based on A:80 years of model operations yet the FAA saw no need to exercise regulation over R/C ops, and B:the law in place (at the time) stated that the FAA may not promulgate any new rules or regulations for recreational operations.
I'm guessing RDQ will have a much more difficult time, since what they are claiming is not enumerated in the Constitution as a right.
R_Strowe
On "A" the court ruled that the FAA's "previous failure to regulate recreational model aircraft was an
exercise of regulatory discretion, not statutory interpretation".
On "B" the court ruled, "101.4 does not
regulate section 336 model aircraft at all. On the contrary, it
simply defines the model aircraft that fall within 336(a)".
The court also rejected Taylor's claim that the FAA had no authority to regulate recreational model aircraft
that did not fall under 336 or 107, "the Act does not create the three separate regimes that Taylor perceives".
That 2018 decision will be the final word on the FAA's authority over hobby drones and Remote ID. It's a total
smack-down. On Rupprecht Law's drone lawsuit database it's only shown as "adjudicated", without comment.
----
(This is Taylor II, the challenge to the 2016 FAA rule (Part 107) that Taylor lost. Registration was Taylor I)