The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided with plaintiff John A. Taylor, a recreational drone pilot, who argued that the FAA doesn't have the power to make him register his toy drones because Congress already said the FAA can't regulate model aircraft.
"The FAA's 2015 registration rule, which applies to model aircraft, directly violates that clear statutory prohibition," the opinion said. "We therefore grant Taylor's petition and vacate the registration rule to the extent it applies to model aircraft."
It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of a governmental agency trying to do something that Congress expressly prohibited. The entire system of "checks and balances" in the Constitution revolves in part around the concept of the executive branch of the government (of which the FAA is a part thereof) having to follow the laws set down by the legislative branch (and signed into law by the President).
Nah. This is stupid. There needs to be regulation on this and especially as the tech improves.
How long before people using start using wifi enabled drones to infect/hack/steal etc etc by hovering over a business/residence and attaching to their wifi?
If it's illegal to do without a drone, it's illegal to do with a drone. No specific regulation required.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoLomgbbq
How long before people using start using wifi enabled drones to infect/hack/steal etc etc by hovering over a business/residence and attaching to their wifi?
Drones don't have that much utility in this regard; there are plenty of other ways to accomplish the same thing. May as well try to force the registration of everything with a NIC.
Unenforceable registration is also a waste of legislature. Even if the FAA could legally compel toy drone registration, enforcing such a law would be essentially impossible. If I want to use a drone for something illegal, I'm not going to register it, and such a requirement wouldn't even be a minor hurdle to my acquisition and operation of a drone.
Hehe. You guys ever hear of the incident where someone used a drone to fly drugs over the prison fence for their accomplice inside?
Well I mean how much damage can they really do?
How long before people using start using wifi enabled drones to infect/hack/steal etc etc by hovering over a business/residence and attaching to their wifi?
Drones probably do need to be considered carefully though; heard about a kid having his eye chopped in half by a quad copter blade after the pilot flew it into a tree and lost flight control. I'd be more concerned about a hunk of plastic+metal with spinning blades falling on me out of the sky when it randomly fails in some way
This is the state of the Federal Government. Congress delegates laws to "rules" made by unelected bureaucrats in some alphabet agency. When the "rules" are unconstitutional, it's you vs. the entire Federal Government in court instead of an elected District Attorney.
Hehe. You guys ever hear of the incident where someone used a drone to fly drugs over the prison fence for their accomplice inside?
Well I mean how much damage can they really do?
Ya I'm from Ohio brother. lol I know an individual or two who "resided" in Mansfield for a time.
What the story didn't tell you is that operations like this are planned and the fight was likely staged to keep the true cargo hidden. The keys to understanding this in the story are "small amounts of" and "but no inmates or staff were hurt."
Also, I suppose I should clarify that I don't find this particularly apalling or any kind of black mark against drones.
Ya I'm from Ohio brother. lol I know an individual or two who "resided" in Mansfield for a time.
What the story didn't tell you is that operations like this are planned and the fight was likely staged to keep the true cargo hidden. The keys to understanding this in the story are "small amounts of" and "but no inmates or staff were hurt."
Also, I suppose I should clarify that I don't find this particularly apalling or any kind of black mark against drones.
Coming from a pilot this is great news. The FAA's drone registration was never about safety, it was simply about money. The same reason why in 2010 they made regular aircraft registrations expire every three years. They tried to say it was to keep data more up to date but already required you to update your info promptly if there was a change. They even save your original registration form and allow you to just resubmit it but of course they want more money every time. The FAA estimated 7 million drones will be sold in the US by 2020, they simply want a cut of the pie.
While clearly this regulation was in conflict with the statute, I'd say that makes the case for the statute to be changed. The capabilities of drones definitely put them into the airspace that the FAA needs to be able to regulate, particularly where they can start to interfere with other aircraft.
Just flying around a drone for the hell of it because you can is fun, but when enough people start doing it then there are going to be problems.
While clearly this regulation was in conflict with the statute, I'd say that makes the case for the statute to be changed. The capabilities of drones definitely put them into the airspace that the FAA needs to be able to regulate, particularly where they can start to interfere with other aircraft.
Just flying around a drone for the hell of it because you can is fun, but when enough people start doing it then there are going to be problems.
Eh, it wouldn't take much to develop a universal intelligent avoidance protocol that gets built in at the factory. You know, for insurance purposes. I assume most people don't build their own, and if they do they will take the care to not break it.
That's right, kids. Just sit back and let the industry take care of itself.
How did it "harm" hobbyists to abide by regulations designed to avoid collisions with other aircraft? The range and altitude of enthusiast-level drones is most certainly within the jurisdiction of the FAA.
I get that the ruling is proper because of the statutory exemption, but why should that exemption exist?
How did it "harm" hobbyists to abide by regulations designed to avoid collisions with other aircraft? The range and altitude of enthusiast-level drones is most certainly within the jurisdiction of the FAA.
I get that the ruling is proper because of the statutory exemption, but why should that exemption exist?
I would like you to consider whether a MODEL drone can cause a catastrophic tragedy like any other aircraft not classified as a model can. Maybe the answer is we should further judicially clarify what that threshold is.
Maybe also considering that we can make them avoid collisions automatically.
I would like you to consider whether a MODEL drone can cause a catastrophic tragedy like any other aircraft not classified as a model can. Maybe the answer is we should further judicially clarify what that threshold is.
Maybe also considering that we can make them avoid collisions automatically.
This is a major issue for Civilian and military aircraft alike. And as usual it's the minority that let the majority down. If you consider a bird can completely FOD an engine leading it to fail in flight then a drone can do a tonne more damage.
Drones should be registered without a doubt like I said, it's the minority that ruin it for the majority flying them near airports/bases especially with helos and light aircraft - it could cause a major incident. Even if the drone is fitted with TAS, the vast majority of non CAA aircraft are still not TAS equipped
I would like you to consider whether a MODEL drone can cause a catastrophic tragedy like any other aircraft not classified as a model can. Maybe the answer is we should further judicially clarify what that threshold is.
Maybe also considering that we can make them avoid collisions automatically.
This question doesn't really matter. The important question (from a policy perspective) is whether mandatory registration would stop such incidents. I would posit that it would not.
You heard it here first, folks! Trying to prevent plane crashes doesn't matter because people might still break the law.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!