Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 42 of 42

Thread: John Taylor's suit against FAA was dismissed?

  1. #41
    Mistake Discovery Artist
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Thanks... I just logged in and canceled it as well. They asked for a reason, so I said something to the effect that "Court has ruled that FAA violated the law by requiring this registration."

  2. #42
    FPV Browncoat prelator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Centennial, Colorado
    I just remembered I forgot to cross-post this here from the UAS legal discussion Facebook group I originally posted it to. This is very important for everyone here to know as well.

    With the ruling in the Taylor case (which I will call Taylor-1) striking down the FAA's registration rule for model aircraft hobbyists, the legal landscape for model aircraft is poised to change dramatically. Somehow I did not realize until recently that John Taylor has a second case pending before the same court (which I will call Taylor-2), challenging all of Part 101 and the FAA's position that model aircraft are legally considered aircraft.

    That case just finished the briefing stage, and will soon be set for oral argument (assuming the court doesn't dismiss it on standing, which is an argument the FAA has made, though in my opinion, weakly). Here are the main briefs that we care about (the case has been consolidated with EPIC's ridiculous attempt to challenge Part 107 because it didn't include privacy rules, which I don't see going anywhere):

    Taylor's Brief:

    The FAA's Brief:

    Taylor's Reply Brief:

    It's important to consider the possible ramifications of this second Taylor case, as the first one will serve as an important precedent that I think makes it likely that Part 101 will likewise be invalidated.

    My personal opinion is that should Taylor win this case too, it might leave model aircraft hobbyists in the best of both worlds. Our models will be non-aircraft flying devices that operate in the federal airspace (and therefore are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government) similar to ultralights, but will not be regulated by any FAA regulations except perhaps a general prohibition on "endangering the national airspace".

    The FAA will still have the legal authority to enact specific regulations regarding recreational model aircraft activities that fall outside the Sec. 336 safe-harbor, but until it does so those activities will not be prohibited, either by the application of general civil aviation regulations or Part 107. This includes BVLOS FPV.

    Meanwhile, because the national airspace is still under federal jurisdiction and some modeling activities are still subject to potential FAA regulation, federal preemption would still apply and state and local governments would not have the authority to regulate model aircraft. Model aircraft activities that fall squarely under Sec. 336 could not be restricted by anyone.

    As I've said for a while, our best bet to is continue to play the feds and the states against each other, until we end up in a legal no-mans land where *no-one* may regulate us. That bright future now appears to have a real possibility of coming true.
    ~Patrick M.

    YouTube Channel:

    Colorado FPV Pilot and Flying Site Map:

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Suit filed challenging registration requirement
    By Flyswamper in forum sUAS LEGISLATION
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 8th January 2016, 09:30 AM
  2. Motors and ESC's to suit new Quad build
    By Ant in forum ROTORCRAFT
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 8th June 2012, 11:35 PM
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 31st May 2012, 01:50 PM
  4. John :)
    By john in forum PILOT'S CHECK IN
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 3rd October 2011, 01:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts