Back to Squawk list
  • 25

NTSB judge dismisses fine against small drone user

Submitted
This just popped up. Admin judge dismissed the fine for user near Univ of VA. Looking for more details on incident and fine. "the small drone was no different than a model aircraft ... and the FAA has no regulations governing model aircraft flights or for classifying model aircraft as an unmanned aircraft" (bigstory.ap.org) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 4
Government bureaucracy gone wild. Over a decade to issue rules about using small remote controlled model planes, like that 5 pound styrofoam model plane for simple purposes like aerial photography is way too long.
kavanow
gary berard 3
I have flown rc model airplanes since the early 80's. we were attaching cameras on the planes back then. I now have some quad copters that I fly. Those who fly rc ,that belong to a.m.a. and sanctioned clubs and fields do so in a responsible way. Todays rc aircrafts are much safer with all the technology that has been developed for this hobby. If there are problems, it is with those that fly the rc aircraft in irresponsible ways, don't know the rules already in place regulating the rc hobby and don't feel that rules or laws apply to them.
There are creeps everywhere with cameras using them for all the wrong reasion, do we start to ban all forms of photography?
I have enjoyed this hobby for many years, this over reach by the FAA must be challenged in the courts if this hobby is to continue.
devsfan
ken young 1
We've been flying model airplanes for decades.
Now, was the FAA fine an over reach? Maybe.
However, be mindful of this folks, if government uses this as legal precedent to use drones to spy on the people, we are doomed.
I think this needs to be challenged in federal court with the intent on getting it to SCOTUS.
In my opinion, the definition of a model aircraft use is
A small radio controlled aircraft that resembles or is in the form of a "scale model" of an actual in or previously produced aircraft.
An aircraft that while in flight can be seen by the operator at all times without the use of sight enhancing instruments or devices.
Is used for recreational purposes or in competition or exhibition only.
That's just a start.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
Too restrictive.

Lots of legit RC hobbyists have planes that are more creative and don't necessarily look like a current or previously manufactured plane. Sole prefer to make futuristic aircraft.

I see no reason for owners to have their use of their own RC aircraft on their own land restricted, for any reason. They could be inspecting structures, inspecting crops, photographing their property, etc. I see no reason to restrict owners to have employees or agents do any of the above on their behalf.

Let's make that the start. Provides much more liberty without any compromise on safety.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 2
This is no simple regulation to write. There are many many groups to satisfy from hunters to nudists to pilots and aircraft owners. I don't need some idiots model or drone crashing through my windscreen or fouling my engine intake or spying on me while I line up a shot on Bambi, or snapping a picture of me on the down stroke. You'll cry big tears when I use more than a stone to chase your "model"away. While you may be a responsible model operator there are some who have far more nefarious plans. I think if your model is out of your line of sight it's fair game for my bird shooting training and practice.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Getting off topic, but no regulation is easy to write. Take for example Cammandment # 6: Thou shalt not kill. Pretty simple eh? But exempt from that is lifetaking associated with taking over Canaan, the promised land which just happened not to be empty. Also death by stoning for violating one or more of the other 600 odd regulations including adultery, and adding cheese to your hamburger.

And that is before the well heeled interest groups start to weigh in.

The FAA position seems to be 'just because you are permitted to do it, does not mean we will allow it."
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Valid points as well.

It's been so long since I brought the commandments down the mountain, I've forgotten the exact wording and lest we forget the confusion in translations to so many languages from one so complex as the original.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Well, on the eighth day, you could have created vowels. That might have helped.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
I didn't create anything. You brought up the obscure reference to Bible history and cheese burgers.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
You're right, my bad. I misread it- yours referenced the messenger, not the author.
No regulation is easy to write. The law of unintended consequences always finds a way to bite.
mhlansdell00
Mark Lansdell 1
Now your talkin'.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
A bit more on the background:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/9/4821094/remote-aircraft-pilot-fights-faa-fine-could-change-drone-rules
blakerl
Larry Blaker 1
The NTSB Judge is both wrong and right. The Wrong is there is a safety of flight issue with Drone operations. But they are right the FAA has no regulations governing Model or drone operations. The FAA has written a bunch of regulations for general aviation aircraft, but none for model or drones. The FAA Tombstone approach wait till a drone or model airplane fly's in the approach end at LAX and takes out a 727. Or what is more likely to happen a drone fly's into the windscreen of a King Air on take off a some small air port.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
The ALJ said nothing about flight safety. His point was that, at most, the FAA had a voluntary regulation recommendation on UAS activity and that this was not sufficient to establish a regulatory framework that supported fines.
See the judges order here:
http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/PirkerDecision.pdf

Interesting to say the least.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
The blanket prohibition without the support of legislation and without appropriate regulations to govern such prohibition seems to be unconstitutional restriction of liberty.

He argument is not that there isn't a numbskull somewhere who might cause a safety issue. The argument is that the government hadn't done their job. If it's such a safety issue, they'll have to get off their hindside and actually do some work. Like write appropriate proposed regulations and provide forums and opportunities for the public to comment on the proposed rules.

And the safety arguments only suggest that they should do do quickly. They've let nearly a decade pass without doing anything meaningful to either propose regulations nor to gather public commentary on the nonexistent regulations.

Time to light a fire under the bureaucrats, if RC model aircraft are a danger to out country. In ybe alternative, it makes sense to not unnecessarily restrict individuals' liberty unnecessarily.
awesam
Sam Andrews 0
Could have ramifications I suppose. http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/unset/user/40384/Conn_photographer_files_lawsuit_to_continue_UAV_use
grinch59
Gene Nowak -5
Maybe the NTSB judge needs to have one fly into his windshield while he is driving home on a crowded expressway. Hope the government gets the rules out quickly, otherwise we are going to be seeing conflicts with commercial and private aircraft from overzealous model aircraft flyers who now think they own the universe.
RECOR10
RECOR10 2
While we are at it - I say we ban Frisbie's, boomerangs, pop fly's, and falling branches. I am thinking maybe hail storms too.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
The judge did mention paper airplanes and balsa.
What about regulating snowballs?
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
You guys are forgetting to use sarcasm font. Some folks without a sense of humor may mot realize that you guys are being funny.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Snowball is in sarcasm font.
paper airplane and balsa on page 3 of the judges order.
Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which.
RECOR10
RECOR10 1
Maybe we could use George Bush's North Korean made "Hurricane Steering Device" (the one he used to aim Katrina at New Orleans) and force all the snow north to Canada. Then we wont have to worry about them Snow Balls and the miscreant heathens who would subject society to such as risk as a flying projectile of ice in the public air space.
wopri
We have enough snow already, keep your fair share! :)
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Please forward it to the crest of the Sierra Nevada mountains. It is really needed there.
wopri
You need to go through official channels for this request joel wiley. Contact you state government, hope the lobbyists agree with you, state government might then contact the federal government, again your request will have to pass muster by the lobbyists, and then the federal government might contact the Canadian government where the whole process will start over, but in reverse order. If you're lucky the snow might reach the Sierra Nevada in the early summer of 2020 and simply melt away before being of use for anyone..... :)
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Clearly do do not understand how California State government works.
It begins with "first, rent a few legislators..." 8-)
randomguy
randomguy 1
Just need to get some model sidewinders... :)

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss