FAA Got Slapped Down - Cannot Regulate Model Aircraft

[Ryder]

You are right about the registration part that has changed. What was confusing with the registration process was the flight recommendations that required agreement as part of the registration process. Some of those recommendations are not applicable or enforceable per PL 112-95 sec. 336. As well as the need to register in the first place, as it turns out.
There is question whether the FAA regards an infraction of 336 to mean you are now automatically a part 107 pilot. I've seen argument to support that as well as evidence to the contrary.
The part of "stay below 400'.......realm of hobbyist" does not apply to hobbyists. Just to clarify. The LOS does apply, just not the height restriction.

I think you're mistaken. The way that the FAA knows you're a hobbyist is that you fly under the hobbyist community guidelines. And if you don't have alternatives to the AMA, then you're stuck with 400'.
If you violate the community guidelines... then the FAA knows you are not a hobbyist. See how that works?

Now you're a UAV, non hobbyist.

 

[Plawa]

Don't go pulling your stickers just yet. Treat this as you would a firmware update.

Have you seen how people here react to new firmware?

 

[bravo kilo]

Remember that now for ever new rule the FAA must remove two rules. The FAA might not want to tackle the drone issue now that Trump is in office because they will have to remove two regulations. Which two regulations would the FAA sacrifice to keep one drone regulation?

 

[Strafe1]

I think you're mistaken. The way that the FAA knows you're a hobbyist is that you fly under the hobbyist community guidelines. And if you don't have alternatives to the AMA, then you're stuck with 400'.
If you violate the community guidelines... then the FAA knows you are not a hobbyist. See how that works?

Now you're a UAV, non hobbyist.

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:

 

[younumpty]

i also agree with you here, Someone will always find a work around to flying where they want

NFZ mod for Mavic Pro

 

[Knight Hawk]

 

[SteelFlyer]

Everyone should be careful not to read too much into this ruling. It is actually fairly narrow and pertains mostly just to registration of non-commercial UAS. It does not throw out all regulation of drones or even the rules that people hate so much.

A good summary of the ruling can be found here:

Taylor v. FAA (Drone Registration Lawsuit) - Drone Law Attorney Services - Rupprecht Law, PA

 

[pilotattitude]

Just realize the other side that gives local govts the right to start banning drones, since the lack of control the FAA would have on drones

 

[pilotattitude]

I may be a lone wolf on this but I think this turn of events is a bad thing!

At least with the public perception of the FAA having some level of control we are were fairly safe from any kind of knee jerk reaction created by the drone fearing public. Now with the ball squarely in the hands of politicians we are at the mercy of those who respond to whatever gets them the most votes.

Rob

I feel the headway in places that we can fly them will diminish thanks to knee jerk reactions. I know prior to 107, drones were banned in most parks.

 

[DSGDSG]

Everyone keeps talking about "idiots" and "morons" etc who are going to do this or going to be doing that because they think there's no rules. Does anyone here really think that these "idiots" and "morons" haven't already been doing what they felt like? You people really think that these rules were keeping the folks you all keep talking about in line? I don't.

 

[Lonjsnyder]

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:

Does section B1 of AMA Safety Code regarding not flying over structures, vessels, & vehicles make many UAV flights non-hobby?

 

[johnyeros]

I don't know why eveybody is up and arm about registration. Use some common sense and eveybody need some rules and guideline and those flying close to airport should be punish. It is unlikely that a small toy drone will down a commercial jet but nobody want to fking take off st the airport surrounded by Dji phantoms. Chill the fk out on both side and exercise some common sense.

 

[MPPilot]

Everyone keeps talking about "idiots" and "morons" etc who are going to do this or going to be doing that because they think there's no rules. Does anyone here really think that these "idiots" and "morons" haven't already been doing what they felt like? You people really think that these rules were keeping the folks you all keep talking about in line? I don't.

You're correct. My "moron" comment above doesn't really apply to people in these forums. At least the people here are trying to stay current on the rules, guidelines, and safe practices in our hobby or business. My concern is with the large number of UAV "pilots" who have limited knowledge of the rules and will jump to conclusions after reading only the headlines. What they do affects all of us.

 

[rydfree]

Does section B1 of AMA Safety Code regarding not flying over structures, vessels, & vehicles make many UAV flights non-hobby?

there's also ...

All pilots shall avoid flying directly over unprotected people, vessels, vehicles or structures and shall avoid endangerment of life and property of others.
6. With the exception of events flown under official AMA Competition Regulations, excluding takeoff and landing, no powered model may be flown outdoors
closer than 25 feet to any individual, except for the pilot and the pilot's helper(s) located at the flight line.
7. Under no circumstances may a pilot or other person touch an outdoor model aircraft in flight while it is still under power, except to divert it from striking an
individual.
8. RC night flying requires a lighting system providing the pilot with a clear view of the model’s attitude and orientation at all times. Hand-held illumination
systems are inadequate for night flying operations.
9. The pilot of an RC model aircraft shall:
(a) Maintain control during the entire flight, maintaining visual contact without enhancement other than by corrective lenses prescribed for the pilot.
(b) Fly using the assistance of a camera or First-Person View (FPV) only in accordance with the procedures outlined in AMA Document #550.
(c) Fly using the assistance of autopilot or stabilization system only in accordance with the procedures outlined in AMA Document #560.

 

[its2loud]

Between the AMA and FAA, someone just needs to clearly spell it out for all areas of UAV use because I'm confused.

 

[Strafe1]

Does section B1 of AMA Safety Code regarding not flying over structures, vessels, & vehicles make many UAV flights non-hobby?

A good question. All of section B seems to be directed at AMA members and designated flight line locations. From the testing of the RC units, to flight line barriers, and even aircraft lighting requirements for fixed wing aircraft. I don't think that the flights you mention will make flights non-hobby, but avoiding unprotected persons/structures is always good practice. I also read the word "avoid" as "do your best to prevent, or move away from". I don't read it as "it is prohibited", or "shall not", as used in other parts of the AMA code. For example B7 would unequivocally prohibit hand catching or launching your quad. Just not applicable. That's why I think the AMA document #560 was created, to better define their intent for AMA membership with sUAS's to be guided by.

 

[samd012]

Grab the popcorn

OK an I missing something. Breezed through everything quickly sorry if I missed something. From what I read the FAA can not regulate model aircraft. But an entity can regulate if you take off from their property. So some things to think about.
1. Yes the FAA can regulate airspace, but not for model aircraft at all?
2. 107 or not the FAA can not regulate the definition of a model aircraft, do I get my $5 back? Better yet do I get my $150 back for my test?
3. I agree with some people this could be bad or good. The government at what ever level will need to do something to protect airports and other sensitive areas, you can bet they will find a way to do it. So now entire towns or cities will need to ban model aircraft to stop people from taking off or landing anywhere near their jurisdiction
4. And last how does affect any town or even park restrictions. Yes people can control if you land or takeoff on their property but beyond that as of now (I am sure it will change) they can not regulate you once you are in the air.

In any case this is definitely gong to get interesting. Unfortunately it will only take a couple bad apples to force which ever entity to put restrictions in place

 

[AirAllegria]

As for regulating airspace, it's the same thing as building a fence around a property with no one in it. It doesn't matter whether it is occupied or not. It is a keep-out zone (around certain areas) or one where entry is regulated (near airports). It is illegal for an aircraft to enter controlled airspace without communication with a flight controller.

 

[Blades]

So hold on to your hats. They are not going to take this laying down. They never take no for an answer, and have already responded that they are weighing their options, instead of complying with a federal court decision. If they loose a case, they just keep appealing because unlike Joe common, they have unlimited taxpayer funds to continue until they get the decision they want. They did in the Pirker case and they will do it again.

This is one of, if not the most powerful federal agencies in existence, and they are arrogant. Don't think they will simply go out with a wimper of embarrassment.

For those of you who think that the registration was a good policy, that isn't the point. It was flat out illegal and if Congress wants a registration, they can make it so.
Otherwise, federal agencies simply can not, and should not, be making thinges up as they go, whether or not you or I think it is a good idea.

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....

 

[Blades]

I think you're mistaken. The way that the FAA knows you're a hobbyist is that you fly under the hobbyist community guidelines. And if you don't have alternatives to the AMA, then you're stuck with 400'.
If you violate the community guidelines... then the FAA knows you are not a hobbyist. See how that works?

Now you're a UAV, non hobbyist.

I think you are a hobbyist having FUN until you start charging money! Then you need the 107