FAA Got Slapped Down - Cannot Regulate Model Aircraft

[MavicFlieger]

This case applies to registration, not to regulation.

Taylor v Huerta, https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...20585258125004FBC13/$file/15-1495-1675918.pdf. It’s only 10 pages.

"The FAA’s Registration Rule violates Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. We grant Taylor’s petition for review of the Registration Rule, and we vacate the Registration Rule to the extent it applies to model aircraft. Because Taylor’s petition for review of Advisory Circular 91- 57A is untimely, that petition is denied.”

This case applies only to registration. The petition regarding regulation, specifically with respect to the Flight Restricted Zone around Washington, DC, was denied. This case does not apply to regulation of UAS. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that this case will be used in future challenges to the regulation of UAS.

Without FAA regulation of UAS every city, county, and state entity across the country would be free to impose their own registration and regulation rules on UAS. And, yes, those entities are already attempting that very thing.

 

[Blades]

100% RIGHT!
I want my 5$ and my info back! How much $ did they make off forcing everybody to register or making us pay $250,000 fine or jail....

About 760,000 hobbyists have registered more than 1.6 million drones since 2015, and sales have skyrocketed. The FAA estimates that hobbyists will buy 2.3 million drones this year and 13 million by the end of 2020. Commercial operators from photographers to oil pipeline and cellphone tower owners were forecast to buy another 10 million through 2020.
So they made 3,800,000 off the 760,000 that paid the 5$. Thats not adding the other forecast and part 107. What does a FAA worker make? They should refund everyone being they FORCED us to or be FINED or JAIL if we did not. I thought it was unconstitutional what they did with forcing everyone to register. I am glad they lost!
We should use common sense with anything from driving, riding a bicycle, hitting a soccer ball baseball even throwing a frisbee, shooting a gun, and flying your drone! You are responsible for your actions and if you hurt someone or damaged property you are liable for what you do! A few should not ruin it for others!

 

[Blades]

This case applies to registration, not to regulation.

Taylor v Huerta, https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FA6F27FFAA83E20585258125004FBC13/$file/15-1495-1675918.pdf. It’s only 10 pages.

"The FAA’s Registration Rule violates Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act. We grant Taylor’s petition for review of the Registration Rule, and we vacate the Registration Rule to the extent it applies to model aircraft. Because Taylor’s petition for review of Advisory Circular 91- 57A is untimely, that petition is denied.”

This case applies only to registration. The petition regarding regulation, specifically with respect to the Flight Restricted Zone around Washington, DC, was denied. This case does not apply to regulation of UAS. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that this case will be used in future challenges to the regulation of UAS.

Without FAA regulation of UAS every city, county, and state entity across the country would be free to impose their own registration and regulation rules on UAS. And, yes, those entities are already attempting that very thing.

The problem is cities counties and states are already making their own ordinances and laws anyway

 

[MavicFlieger]

The problem is cities counties and states are already making their own ordinances and laws anyway

Without the FAA regulations protecting UAS those cities, counties, and states will be more successful in implementing laws that restrict UAS operations.

 

[Blades]

The problem is cities counties and states are already making their own ordinances and laws anyway

Without the FAA regulations protecting UAS those cities, counties, and states will be more successful in implementing laws that restrict UAS operations.

They do now.

 

[Lapeer20m]

Without the FAA regulations protecting UAS those cities, counties, and states will be more successful in implementing laws that restrict UAS operations.

Michigan may be the first state in the union to go the opposite direction. The state created a UAS preemption law that prevents cities, parks, counties etc from regulating drones.

 

[Strafe1]

Without the FAA regulations protecting UAS those cities, counties, and states will be more successful in implementing laws that restrict UAS operations.

Fortunately they can't when it comes to the airspace, but they certainly can affect where you take off from and land, if it is publicly owned property.

 

[HarryMerkin]

Regardless of the rules being rescinded, the FAA is a government agency. You may or may not win a court case but it's going to cost a butt full of $$$ to go to court. Common sense and I mean PURE common sense tells you that anything in the airspace of manned flying machines of any type is dangerous not only for those pilots and passengers but to our hobby as well. If you don't think they won't pass another law as soon as this one has expired then take another hit off that pipe. They got busted breaking the law. They will cure the foible. Bet money on that. In the meantime, if you continue to fly by the rules, you won't be upset when they are implemented again.

 

[HarryMerkin]

Not quite true, my friend. All law agrees, hobby aircraft are aircraft.

You just have to be sure you operate in the hobby aircraft realm, or the FAA has jurisdiction over its operation. Registering changed none of this.

I still plan on telling everyone that I'm registered with the FAA. It HELPS you deal with the myriad of law enforcement and local busybodies.

I will keep my cheap $5 insurance card for JUST THIS REASON. I may not need to register now but if I have to talk to an officer because Gladys Kravitz is worried about me, I want to reassure that cop IMMEDIATELY. A $5 bill is cheap to avoid hassle.

 

[BigSimonia]

I am a lawyer and I've read the decision (you can get it here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FA6F27FFAA83E20585258125004FBC13/$file/15-1495-1675918.pdf) and the only thing it struck down is the FAA's Registration Requirement - the $5 thingy). The Court said (and this is one of the most prestigious courts in the country - right below SCOTUS in importance) that since Congress said the FAA can't regulate unmanned aircraft systems, the Registration requirement was beyond the FAA's authority.

However, Congress (not the FAA) also said that the FAA can't regulate unmanned aircraft systems so long as they complied with certain other requirements as follows:

(a)In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
“(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
“(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
“(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
“(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
“(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

As long as you operate your drone in accordance with these Congressionally mandated restrictions, the FAA has no authority to further regulate your flying. But go outside of these requirements and the FAA does have authority.Bottom line, as long as you fly within these parameters, the FAA has no authority to regulate you or your drone.

There is one other exception: Congress specifically gave the FAA enforcement authority against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

Don't think that this decision removed all FAA authority over drone flights.

 

[Blades]

I am a lawyer and I've read the decision (you can get it here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FA6F27FFAA83E20585258125004FBC13/$file/15-1495-1675918.pdf) and the only thing it struck down is the FAA's Registration Requirement - the $5 thingy). The Court said (and this is one of the most prestigious courts in the country - right below SCOTUS in importance) that since Congress said the FAA can't regulate unmanned aircraft systems, the Registration requirement was beyond the FAA's authority.

However, Congress (not the FAA) also said that the FAA can't regulate unmanned aircraft systems so long as they complied with certain other requirements as follows:

(a)In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
“(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
“(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
“(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
“(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
“(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

As long as you operate your drone in accordance with these Congressionally mandated restrictions, the FAA has no authority to further regulate your flying. But go outside of these requirements and the FAA does have authority.Bottom line, as long as you fly within these parameters, the FAA has no authority to regulate you or your drone.

There is one other exception: Congress specifically gave the FAA enforcement authority against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

Don't think that this decision removed all FAA authority over drone flights.

100% right.. So my FAA card means nothing and showing it to a cop ect is worthless.. And I DO NOT need to put numbers on my quads right? So because they forced us to pay and register or we would be fined or jailed and it was found to be unconstitutional can we do a class action lawsuit to get the money back. The money is not the point it is not letting them get away with the fine/jail BS they did. They just want us all to shut up and sit down like good tax paying sheep..

 

[Blades]

100% right.. So my FAA card means nothing and showing it to a cop ect is worthless.. And I DO NOT need to put numbers on my quads right? So because they forced us to pay and register or we would be fined or jailed and it was found to be unconstitutional can we do a class action lawsuit to get the money back. The money is not the point it is not letting them get away with the fine/jail BS they did. They just want us all to shut up and sit down like good tax paying sheep..

Unconstitutional to force me to sign up with threat of fines or jail...

 

[HarryMerkin]

Class action lawsuit. How does one file such a critter?

 

[Blades]

Unconstitutional to force me to sign up with threat of fines or jail...

Up to 250,000 fine or 3 years prison... Really! I am So happy that this man stood up to the FAA and WON!

 

[msinger]

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization

From a lawyer's perspective, can you explain exactly what this means? Who decides which organizations are deemed to be "nationwide community-based organizations"? Who decides which safety guidelines a nationwide community-based organization may or may not create.

 

[Robbyg]

Class action lawsuit. How does one file such a critter?

Lets not even go there!
Yes we would win, but the case itself would give the public the impression that the Hobby is totally unregulated and also put a huge legislation target on drones. That's like handing a politician a cute baby that wants to be hugged.

Rob

 

[Hammer]

It would be in our best interest nonetheless to exercise common sense and continue to operate as if the law was still in place. What I see from this are the no fly zones going away almost entirely but not the altitude cap other than maybe changing to 500 feet AGL because that is where actual Class G airspace begins (0 - 500 AGL). The part 107 will most certainly disappear because that is the heart of the problem to begin with.

That being said, the first time a clown causes a problem with commercial or recreational air traffic we may very well see UAVs banned entirely.

 

[Ryder]

The 400' rule is not in the AMA safety code, nor in the FAA rules for hobbyists. Not sure what you are referring to here. There is no height restriction for hobbyists, except within 3 miles of a major airport. Regarding the FAA and hobbyist designation, the FAA doesn't necessarily declassify you as a hobbyist if you violate "community guidelines". What documents are you referencing with either of these points?
Just to save some time, I will give you reference to the AMA rules:

Well, this is quite interesting then, as I was led to believe this to be the case (by the FAA no less). That sounds for the documents. Is it possible that there are other AMA docs that do point toward altitude limits?

Until then, I stand corrected. I may have to join AMA just to learn more about them. I was a member in past years... before drones.

Thanks.

 

[RobertD]

"The statute defines model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft that is capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line of sight and flown for hobby or recreational purposes."

A model aircraft is flown within line of sight , that still screws most of you ,lol

LOL. How is "Visual Line of SIght" legally determined? If i have a pair of binoculars, my RPA that is 1 mile away is still within line of sight. How far can I fly if I have a telescope? LOL

 

[Pp09nlk2n]

The people celebrating this as a victory do not understand US politics or policy. This is a temporary win that will cause a long-term loss.

Remember that some of these rules were first put in place because some idiot crashed their drone in a congressman's backyard, he got paranoid and demanded all drone be banned, and forced the FAA to step in to begin with.

The old rules created a détente. Now, there will be an excuse for politicians to step in and write new rules. Do you think the current Tea Party controlled "black helicopters are after me" congress will side with us? Or be susceptible to the general public hysteria that drones are watching every move people make?

I am not aware of Trump holding any stock in any hobby drone company, so he has no motivation to side with us-- but I do believe he doesn't want people flying drones around his properties and taking photos -- so he is motivated against us.

My point is: All this did was open the issue back up for debate and legislation, and the public environment and political environment is not favorable to us.