Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > AMA Discussions
Reload this Page >

FAA Sued In Federal Court Over Drone Registration Rules

Notices
AMA Discussions Discuss AMA policies, decisions & any other AMA related topics here.

FAA Sued In Federal Court Over Drone Registration Rules

Old 01-05-2016, 06:37 PM
  #76  
combatpigg
Senior Member
My Feedback: (3)
 
combatpigg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: arlington, WA
Posts: 20,358
Received 26 Likes on 24 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
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?
You have no idea how utterly ridiculous your post is.
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.
Old 01-05-2016, 06:41 PM
  #77  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by combatpigg View Post
You have no idea how utterly ridiculous your post is.
Which specific part are you referring to?
Old 01-05-2016, 07:23 PM
  #78  
ravill
My Feedback: (11)
 
ravill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Granite Bay, Ca
Posts: 5,704
Received 90 Likes on 72 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
Of course, blame it on the aircraft, not the operator. Logical, makes perfect sense.
Originally Posted by init4fun View Post
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 ........

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.
Old 01-05-2016, 07:35 PM
  #79  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ravill View Post
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.
So what you're saying is you simply don't understand the difference between a multi-rotor aircraft and FPV?
Old 01-05-2016, 09:42 PM
  #80  
2walla
My Feedback: (10)
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: walla walla, WA
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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.
Old 01-05-2016, 09:48 PM
  #81  
TimJ
 
TimJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orange County CA
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 2walla View Post
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.
The AMA filed a lawsuit agianst the FAA months ago.
Old 01-06-2016, 04:17 AM
  #82  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by combatpigg View Post
You have no idea how utterly ridiculous your post is.
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.
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.
Old 01-06-2016, 04:30 AM
  #83  
init4fun
 
init4fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,241
Received 44 Likes on 38 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ravill View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Chris P. Bacon View Post
So what you're saying is you simply don't understand the difference between a multi-rotor aircraft and FPV?
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 ......................
Old 01-06-2016, 06:22 AM
  #84  
Chris P. Bacon
Banned
Thread Starter
My Feedback: (4)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by porcia83 View Post
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.
Additionally, the group of 14 are the ones with the vested financial interest in the industry. It's not clear to me if the individual who filed suit has any financial interest in the industry.

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.
Old 01-06-2016, 09:37 AM
  #85  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

My right to fly a model "anything" is not.
Actually it is. As is most things it is covered in the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution.
Old 01-06-2016, 10:00 AM
  #86  
Papa51
My Feedback: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Port Allen, LA
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Sometimes it takes but a single pebble to start a landslide.
Old 01-06-2016, 12:34 PM
  #87  
indycustombikes
My Feedback: (11)
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: coatesville, IN
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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.

Last edited by indycustombikes; 01-06-2016 at 12:57 PM. Reason: spelling
Old 01-06-2016, 12:53 PM
  #88  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by indycustombikes View Post
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?
Overall I don't thing the feds care if anyone takes the rules seriously, once they are written and codified we're all expected to be compliant, no matter how we feel. They have used the word pilot and aircraft because they have a process for each. I'm not saying the registration document is the easiest to read (even the FAQs can be tough to get through) but they do lay out the process. They have stated repeatedly that they have the authority to regulate the NAS, and previously they have exerted that authority by requiring scale pilots to register.

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/
Old 01-06-2016, 01:01 PM
  #89  
RCFlyerDan
My Feedback: (54)
 
RCFlyerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SWFL
Posts: 1,949
Received 55 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

[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
Old 01-06-2016, 01:04 PM
  #90  
indycustombikes
My Feedback: (11)
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: coatesville, IN
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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!
Old 01-06-2016, 01:07 PM
  #91  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by RCFlyerDan View Post
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
I suspect in 10 years we'll be even more amazed at what is out there for our use. Meanwhile, someone has already created a real "hoverboard". Ironically a DJI seems to be following him in this pic.


http://www.arcaspace.com/en/arcaboard.htm

That sure is a lotta lipos!
Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version

Name:	AB_photo_4.jpg
Views:	45
Size:	737.4 KB
ID:	2140008  
Old 01-06-2016, 01:11 PM
  #92  
RCFlyerDan
My Feedback: (54)
 
RCFlyerDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: SWFL
Posts: 1,949
Received 55 Likes on 39 Posts
Default

Drones and the Navy!!!

http://qz.com/586998/the-us-navy-is-...wimming-drone/
Old 01-06-2016, 01:13 PM
  #93  
indycustombikes
My Feedback: (11)
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: coatesville, IN
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

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.
Old 01-06-2016, 01:15 PM
  #94  
VF84sluggo
My Feedback: (55)
 
VF84sluggo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Gulf Breeze, FL
Posts: 2,367
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by Silent-AV8R View Post
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.
There is talk about the FAA taking certificate action against pilots flying unregistered "drones." My livelihood depends on holding an FAA airman certificate. I do not need any hassles from the FAA.

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
Old 01-06-2016, 01:20 PM
  #95  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

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.
Old 01-06-2016, 01:21 PM
  #96  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,292
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

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/
Old 01-06-2016, 01:24 PM
  #97  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by indycustombikes View Post
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.
above in blue. I also wonder why the FAA released those numbers now, I would have figured they would have done this after 2/19.

Last edited by porcia83; 01-06-2016 at 01:34 PM. Reason: Changed G to Q...made a big difference.
Old 01-06-2016, 01:25 PM
  #98  
porcia83
Banned
My Feedback: (8)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 7,269
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by franklin_m View Post
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/
Hard choice right......? Private practice...or AVP of DJI.
Old 01-06-2016, 01:27 PM
  #99  
franklin_m
 
franklin_m's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 4,292
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

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 Xs 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
Old 01-06-2016, 01:27 PM
  #100  
Sport_Pilot
 
Sport_Pilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 16,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

So that's why he is now talking like a government lawyer!

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.