Overclock.net banner

[The Hill] Court strikes down rule forcing toy drone users to register with govt

3K views 71 replies 25 participants last post by  un-midas touch 
#1 ·


Quote:
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."
Source

Score one for the little guy.
thumb.gif
 
See less See more
2
#2 ·
I've been in the RC hobby for years...

I'm not sure I agree with this, I trust the FAA more than congress.

The FAA rules were fairly relaxed IIRC, mostly don't do something stupid or near an airport and your fine.

The registration process is a joke, IMO it wasn't needed.
 
#3 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitrzac View Post

I'm not sure I agree with this, I trust the FAA more than congress.
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).
 
#5 ·
Not personally a fan of regulation and the FAA's registration requirement seems to clearly violate existing law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoLomgbbq View Post

Nah. This is stupid. There needs to be regulation on this and especially as the tech improves.
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 View Post

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.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: DesertRat
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by tp4tissue View Post

Meanwhile... Joseph is taking picture of his neighbor's wife during coitus with someone other than his neighbor..

Joseph further plans to blackmail this woman..
Good, deserves it.
 
#8 ·
Good
wink.gif
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoLomgbbq View Post

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?
Not a real concern.

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
tongue.gif
 
#11 ·
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.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: DesertRat
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by un-midas touch View Post

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?
thumbsupsmiley.png
There was a story last year of someone dropping in care packages of drugs into prison yards, creating brawls.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33791411
Quote:
Ohio officials are investigating after a drone dropped a package full of illegal drugs into a prison yard, sparking a fight over the contraband.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slaughtahouse View Post

There was a story last year of someone dropping in care packages of drugs into prison yards, creating brawls.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33791411
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.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by un-midas touch View Post

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.
thumb.gif
 
#16 ·
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.
 
#18 ·
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.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

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.
 
#20 ·
Yeah, FAA oversight of beginners toys was pure overreach. I can understand regulation for commercial applications, but not for toys.

It's true that there are a lot of idiots out there, but this harmed hobbyists more.

Plankers and CP heli pilots are generally more responsible, the ruling was proper because we already had codified exemption.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenophobe View Post

Yeah, FAA oversight of beginners toys was pure overreach. I can understand regulation for commercial applications, but not for toys.

It's true that there are a lot of idiots out there, but this harmed hobbyists more.

Plankers and CP heli pilots are generally more responsible, the ruling was proper because we already had codified exemption.
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?
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

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.
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitrzac View Post

I've been in the RC hobby for years...

I'm not sure I agree with this, I trust the FAA more than congress.

The FAA rules were fairly relaxed IIRC, mostly don't do something stupid or near an airport and your fine.

The registration process is a joke, IMO it wasn't needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by un-midas touch View Post

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
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by un-midas touch View Post

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.
You're saying you don't understand how a typical enthusiast quadcopter might bring down a jetliner on approach to an airport if it collided with it?
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mand12 View Post

You're saying you don't understand how a typical enthusiast quadcopter might bring down a jetliner on approach to an airport if it collided with it?
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top