Drones are a problem

Nope Denver, it doesn't work that way. A federal agency can not enact regulation except in accordance with that authority being granted by Congress. It's called the enabling legislation and is quite broad usually. The model airplane law modified the enabling legislation for the FARs. That the executive branch operated outside their Constitutional authority is a Constitutional issue.

When a president issues an executive order that exceeds his Constitutional authority, that too, is a Constitutional issue.
 
flyingron said:
Nope Denver, it doesn't work that way. A federal agency can not enact regulation except in accordance with that authority being granted by Congress. It's called the enabling legislation and is quite broad usually. The model airplane law modified the enabling legislation for the FARs. That the executive branch operated outside their Constitutional authority is a Constitutional issue.

When a president issues an executive order that exceeds his Constitutional authority, that too, is a Constitutional issue.
Click to expand...

They do it all the time. See "National Security Letters". LOL.

Of course the section the judge cited, Section 336... was preceded by a number of sections that authorized FAA to specifically start coming up with unmanned aircraft rules, and Section 336 only applied limits to FAA on aircraft flown for hobby use.

Interestingly it mandates a "community based set of safety guidelines" within a "nationwide" community.

It's surprising the judge believed there is such a thing for hobbyists. AMA is out there but certainly nobody is required to join or follow their rules.

It also allows for said same "national community" to build fly and test unmanned aircraft larger than 55 pounds as long as they do it under some nebulous test program in this non-existent national organization.

It also only applies to aircraft that remain "within line of sight" of the operator. Lots of POV aircraft flying beyond visual range of the operator, and plenty of folks building programmable stuff that'll fly a GPS track beyond visual range.

The legislation is clearly a total mess.

Here's the text the Judge utilized to determine if requiring registrations was authorized...

I guess he went with whatever he thought the spirit of the law was, instead of the law, as written.

I'd love to know what "safety guidelines... within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" all the backyard unmanned aircraft were supposedly being operated under.

LOL. AMA? Not a chance.

It'd be rather difficult to call the judge a "strict constitutionalist" in the legal sense. If the argument is that he based a constitutionality judgement on these words below in an appropriations bill. LOL.

Now on the merits of not so much the law, but as to whether or not the judge did everyone a favor striking down a requirement for registrations on hundreds of thousands of aircraft -- yeah, he probably did everyone a favor. Clearly China can build them faster than any bureaucracy can keep up with the paperwork of sticking an ID number on all of them.

Let's just be grateful that FAA ignored Congress on Section 222 (a) 1 in that same document.

And of course they've completely ignored Section 321 which has been talked about before.

I think I'll print off a page of the bill and fold myself an unmanned aircraft less than 55 lbs, and launch it across the room.

-----

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Fed- eral Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this sub- title, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a commu- nity-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds un- less otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspec- tion, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not inter- fere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating pro- cedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic con- trol tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)). (b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shallbe construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who en- danger the safety of the national airspace system.(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
 
FWIW, no one in the FAA dreamed up the registration for hobbyists thing. That was an edict direct from the head of the executive branch in the early fall of 2015 out of fear of projected Christmas sales. The FAA attorneys loudly warned that they'd be sued (and loose) and their predictions rang true. But when the boss says jump, you warn him of the implications, but ultimately you jump.
 
Hmmm.....

Regarding (2),
...(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization...​

It seems to me that a group of drone enthusiasts could form a nationwide organization (wouldn't take more than a web forum), list a set of "safety guidelines" that allow doing anything they bloody well like, and then no one could ever be found in violation of this particular rule.

Surprised it hasn't happened already.
 
Half Fast said:
Hmmm.....

Regarding (2),
...(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization...​

It seems to me that a group of drone enthusiasts could form a nationwide organization (wouldn't take more than a web forum), list a set of "safety guidelines" that allow doing anything they bloody well like, and then no one could ever be found in violation of this particular rule.

Surprised it hasn't happened already.
Click to expand...

They couldn't get everyone to say they were operating by those nice non-existent rules. Haha. Always arguing. Pilots. :)
 
Half Fast said:
Hmmm.....

Regarding (2),
...(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization...​

It seems to me that a group of drone enthusiasts could form a nationwide organization (wouldn't take more than a web forum), list a set of "safety guidelines" that allow doing anything they bloody well like, and then no one could ever be found in violation of this particular rule.

Surprised it hasn't happened already.
Click to expand...
There's already at least one, possibly more, "nationwide organization" of commercial drone operators.
 
murphey said:
There's already at least one, possibly more, "nationwide organization" of commercial drone operators.
Click to expand...

Yep, but the carve out is only for hobby drones. And there's no way to make hobbyists all follow an organization's rules, let alone join.

This would have been no different when they wrote it in 2011 so apparently they were assuming some magic pixie dust from Congress would magically create one?
 
Since we're bringing this back ;)


1s6hp4.jpg
 
Know of a commercial helicopter pilot who hates drones because some of what he does in the ag sector could conceivably be done much cheaper by a drone someday...

He cites safety concerns in his arguments against them. I always call him on it. You have a good personal reason not to like em, don't make stuff up to try to bolster your argument...

When people smell bs, they tend to start ignoring even the legitimate things you say; at least I do. As an example, I have little interest in what most any politician has to say for this very reason.
 
I know some people look for things to villainize or make into the boogie man, forget drones, I'll give you something real


And it's something you can do something about, get a nuisance permit, maybe a little training with the airport manager or someone, and take em out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top