No more ladder climbing
Posted on 03/08/2014 12:11:10 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
An administrative judge on the National Transportation Safety Board has ruled that the commercial use of small drones is in fact legal, despite six years of Federal Aviation Administration statements to the contrary.
Today Judge Patrick Geraghty dismissed a $10,000 fine levied by the FAA against Raphael Pirker, a Swiss drone operator who used a camera drone to film on the University of Virginia campus. "At the time of respondent's model aircraft operation ... there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation application to model aircraft or for classifying model aircraft as an UAS," the judge writes.
The ruling effectively invalidates the FAA's 2007 ban on the use of commercial drones. But if the agency appeals, the case will go to the Washington, DC, US Court of Appeals.
There are plenty of would-be drone operators eagerly awaiting the opportunity to do so legally. Amazon famously announced that it would create a fleet of package delivery drones, but had to shoot its demo video outside the US to comply with alleged FAA rules.
The toothpaste is out of the tube, sorry.
The government probably already can. I’ve heard of spybots that are the size of insects. Might be too costly to do routinely, but if they wanted to stake someone out that would be a way to do it.
No more ladder climbing
The FAA got slapped down hard. They should have never tried to fine that person/company. Currently, because of the ruling, you can fly any UAV anywhere (above 18,000 ft is still an open question). Unless the paparazzi are already following you around, it is very unlikely that any citizen would be following you around with a UAV. Transponders, ADS-B (self reporting to FAA and other aircraft), and cameras have gotten so small and light that they can be on almost any UAV. As long as UAVs stay out of airport traffic zones and out of jet ways, the technology exists to make them as safe or safer than a significant portion of the aircraft flying in the national airspace today. An interesting side note: should people have property rights for the airspace above their property? Say up to 400ft? People can have mineral rights below their property, why not above?
Helicopters do a better job.
Maine will use helicopters or hills, but not drones.
“An interesting side note: should people have property rights for the airspace above their property? Say up to 400ft? People can have mineral rights below their property, why not above?”
When you purchase property it comes with 3 rights; water rights, mineral rights and air rights unless they have been deeded away. My memory is a little rusty but I think the air rights are up to 1,000 ft.
Any little buzzing drone hovering over our property is going to meet Mr. Mossberg.
Only if they have the same equipment. Helicopters cost $250,000 on up and cost hundreds of dollars per hour vs drone costs of of hundreds to $5k-$10 dollars.
Farmers are beginning to use drones for much of the same reason everyone else does, or wants to, cost and speed.
$10,000 or $15,000 purchases a nice industrial drone system capable of scanning for analysis hundreds of acres per hour, on demand and under the direct control of the farmer.
That’s probably less than 5% for what a airplane or helicopter would cost.
I want to add that the prohibition of the use of drones is similar to cigarette taxes, at some point, ‘smuggling’ the use of drones will become a business.
You seem to forget, the Republic of Maine will have a standing army of no more than 1,000. But, every man between the ages of 18 and 65 is an armed member of the militia. A drone, since prohibited, can be shot down by anyone at any time.
$10,000 or $15,000 purchases a nice industrial drone system capable of scanning for analysis hundreds of acres per hour, on demand and under the direct control of the farmer.
That’s probably less than 5% for what a airplane or helicopter would cost."
That's fine, use them anywhere you want, except after June 12, 2018, they are fair game in the Republic of Maine.
You have made what I consider a fallacious assumption. That is you can shoot a drone down. Given the size, speed and altitude, I doubt you could hit one.
Government needs to have the support, and permission, of the people it seeks to govern.
If the proposed government is out of step with the people, as your arguments suggest, it will never have their support, and certainly not their permission. It will never come to fruition as proposed.
I predict farmers, and others, will be legally using drones well beyond 2018.
Yes, they fly very high and for sure I probably couldn't hit one even with ... well, nonetheless, I guarantee I know some very clever, inventive, extremely technically accomplished folks who could disable/take one down one way or another, and not necessarily by shooting. I am saying that if commercial (and government!!) entities have rights to use drones, then individuals have a RIGHT to destroy drones however they can when those drones invade their space and privacy. Exactly the same as a homeowner has a right to destroy any surveillance equipment he finds installed in his home.
Hobbyists have been flying RC aircraft for decades without legal impedements other than non-interference with controlled airspace around airports and military facilities. The “drone” word seems to be the modern version of “gay” which years ago meant happy.
You don’t have nuclear weapons, do you?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A few .50 cal rounds with depleted uranium bullets don’t count.
Breaking News! FAA Ban on Commercial Use of Quadcopters was Shot Down by a federal Court!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.