Update 3/7: The FAA has appealed.
From Motherboard:
For the moment, commercial drones are, unequivocally, legal in American skies after a federal judge has ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration has not made any legally binding rules against it.
The judge dismissed the FAA’s case against Raphael Pirker, the first (and only) person the agency has tried to fine for flying a drone commercially. The agency has repeatedly claimed that flying a drone for commercial purposes is illegal and has said that there’s “no gray area” in the law. The latter now appears to be true, but it hasn’t gone the way the FAA would have hoped. Patrick Geraghty, a judge with the National Transportation Safety Board, ruled that there are no laws against flying a drone commercially.
The FAA attempted to fine the 29-year-old Pirker $10,000 after he used a drone to film a commercial at the University of Virginia. Pirker and his lawyer, Brendan Schulman, fought the case, saying that the FAA has never regulated model aircraft and that it’s entire basis for making them “illegal,” a 2007 policy notice, was not legally binding. The FAA has never undertaken the required public notice necessary to make an official regulation.
Geraghty agreed: The FAA “has not issued an enforceable Federal Acquisition Regulation regulatory rule governing model aircraft operation; has historically exempted model aircraft from the statutory FAR definitions of ‘aircraft’ by relegating model aircraft operations to voluntary compliance with the guidance expressed in [the 2007 policy notice], Respondent’s model aircraft operation was not subject to FAR regulation and enforcement.”
Comments
Now that the FAA is appealing (which will take months, and we probably won't see a final decision by the NTSB Board until the end of the year, when the NPRM is supposedly due), I doubt they will take any further action like trying to make an emergency rule. They really wouldn't have a basis for an emergency rule anyway. It's not like anything has really changed. The judge merely clarified what was already the case--that there are no legally enforceable rules regarding small UAS. They also don't have much of an argument to make that commercial UAS (which were the only thing they claimed to regulate) are so much more dangerous than hobbyist UAS (which they already considered unrestricted), that suddenly finding out they had no authority to prohibit them creates some huge new danger.
Let the games begin
Link to FAA News Release...
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=15894
The FAA has appealed. What a shock :).
The bigger picture involved here is just how lazy a government agency can be in making rules. What good is a ruling making process if the FAA (or other agency) doesn't have to follow it?
For Immediate Release
March 7, 2014
Contact: Kristie M. Greco
Phone: (202) 267-3883
WASHINGTON, D.C.--The Federal Aviation Administration today issued a notice appealing a decision by an NTSB Administrative Law Judge in the civil penalty case, Huerta v. Pirker.
“The FAA is appealing the decision of an NTSB Administrative Law Judge to the full National Transportation Safety Board, which has the effect of staying the decision until the Board rules. The agency is concerned that this decision could impact the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground.”
For more information on UAS operations please visit: http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240
Is it just me or does AB1327 seem to ruin any chance of using UAVs for research or environmental monitoring because you have to destroy all data after 6 month? We can now deliver you a burrito but the park service can't keep pictures of post wildfire regrowth.
I this this differently. This maybe great for commercial use in the short term but may have created a bigger issue for long term. If the ruling stands it may force FAA to create regulations for ALL model aircraft use and that will be a bad thing for hobbyist. Similar to UK, it may come to needing a special certification/permit for hobby use and a full pilot's license for commercial use.
The FAA, or any government entity for that matter, does not like to be scolded. They are, in their minds, the ultimate law of the lands. So, watch how diligently the FAA works on a cure for this temporary ill. They may come back with a bigger bite than before.
I see no reason why commercial UAVs cannot exist in our airspace below 400 ft. Modelers have been flying aircraft for decades without any kind of major incident. If operators follow rules that have existed in the R/C community, then there should be no problems.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next