Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Anyone know FAA regs on octocopter flights with an Epic ?

Wendell:

Thanks for sharing. Great read and will be cheering for Pirker.

Wendell Adkins said:
James,

As I predicted several years ago, the current interim period we find ourselves in (with no specific FAA commercial UAV regulations in place) will be contested/decided in the courts. A landmark case has recently been filed. (see brief link below) It is a long read but very clearly defines why the current FAA policy in this matter does not carry the weight of law, and rather, is a significant departure from the long established regulatory lawmaking process for a federal regulatory agency. For something to be "illegal", laws or regulations must be on the books in the federal register as FAR's. These do not currently exist and the FAA is trying to cheat and morph existing full size regulations into applicability for UAV's while they continue to not do their jobs and fall behind the rest of the worlds developed nations in this arena. This case calls their bluff and should be interesting to follow.

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/FAA-v-Pirker.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Brian F Kobylarz said:
Jack... Appreciate the clarification. I never had aspirations towards the legal profession and it shows - I can take pride in that!

Glad that you have joined the discussion. There has been a lot of speculative information presented as fact which can get folks in hot water. I'm really looking forward to the day the regulations are nailed down.
In the right hands, with the right equipment and a good safety checklist, these platforms have the potential to provide stunning POV's for our cameras.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Brian...Glad to be a part of the conversation and equally glad Wendell posted the original link to the Motion.

The relevancy of the process that Pirker is in, is that the mere "threat" of litigation by the FAA, as the document points out, has the same effect in terms of restricting sUAV/S flights by both hobbyists and commercial entities absent a formal rule making process.

Congress has set up frameworks in the past which have restricted this "threat" abuse by other parties. One such example is the CDA (Communications Decency Act). While it is a comprehensive piece of legislation, one piece of the CDA is what allows sites like Facebook, Twitter, Vimeo, Youtube, etc. to operate without the threat of being sued for "third party content" posted by others.

Courts have ruled that one of the primary purposes of the CDA is to insulate website owners from such expenses; “section 230 must be interpreted to protect websites not merely from ultimate liability, but from having to fight costly and protracted legal battles"...

Undoubtedly, Pirker's counsel is using a similar legal tactic to apply to the FAA in the context of previous CDA court rulings... "Section 230 immunity, like other forms of immunity, is generally accorded effect at the first logical point in the litigation process. As we have often explained in the qualified immunity context, ‘immunity is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability’ and ‘it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial."

As I mentioned earlier, if Pirker wins this Motion, I think it will the first step to curtailing future abuses by the agency.
 
I spoke to a gentleman at the FAA about this a few months ago. It is not that there is specifically a ban on commercial use of civilian UAVs, there is just no FAA classification for them at present and therefore operating one for commercial purposes is in violation of FAA rules and could potentially lead to federal prosecution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top