Trappy appeal brief

[Rexnoobs247]

...the FAA looks idiotic in their case...embarrassingly idiotic.

Especially since they never actually charged him with "flying an sUAS for commercial purposes" or something to that effect, even though everyone knows thats why they brought charges in the first place. The bit off more than they could chew with this one. I think they were hoping he would bend over and play nice

[Vitamin J]

So my question is that these regulations and court proceedings have essentially established that The FAA had no regulations in place to stop what trappy was doing, now this incident took place in 2007. Has the FAA changed any laws or rules regarding this? Or are we still free to soar as high and as far as we want since it was established they have no jurisdiction over modeltry aircraft?

No, the FAA has no laws, no regulations, and not even a binding definition of unmanned aerial aircraft. Nothing has changed. The FAA is still sending out cease-and-desist letters and telling journalists drones are illegal and 400ft is a law. It's their only strategy left at this point.

Did the FAA ever try to regulate how high or far? AC 91-57 clearly urges voluntary compliance, and the FAA abandoned trying to enforce that as law early on.
The trappy case involves commercial RC with monetary gain, which regardless of FAA outcome is in no uncertain terms illegal use of a HAM license (no FPV OR UHF).
Unless I missed something somewhere, which I'm sure someone will point out if I did.
Fly as long and as high as you want, you are only choosing to ignore suggested safety procedures, which is your right (the same an auto racer might chose). Along with it comes financial responsibility.

How can the FAA enforce an AC as law considering it stands for "Advisory Circular?" The FAA was trying to prosecute Trappy with full size aircraft laws.


Come on guys, it's 2014. We should know what laws do and do not affect us by now. That's part of the reason why I made this video:

[SENTRY]

^ win

[Toysrme]

+2
yupyup

[Hockeystud87]

No, the FAA has no laws, no regulations, and not even a binding definition of unmanned aerial aircraft. Nothing has changed. The FAA is still sending out cease-and-desist letters and telling journalists drones are illegal and 400ft is a law. It's their only strategy left at this point.

I don't understand why the FAA has not changed it's bilaws in the 7 years since this incident to now cover these types of situations. It would seem like the logical thing to do that if they are concerned with this they would have put somthing that may not be able too effect Trappy's case but every case after that. Perhaps trying to regulate such things like a RC airplane is a slippery slope.

[Vitamin J]

Hopefully Mr. Schulman can comment further, but I think the reason is because the FAA is a federal agency and is given their authority by congress and the Department of Transportation. They do not have authority to make new laws on their own. In order for them to make a new law that law has to go through public commenting periods and then to the DOT and then to congress.

They are still in the first stage of rulemaking, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which has been regularly delayed since 2009:
http://www.suasnews.com/2014/01/2697...ntil-nov-2014/

[Channel 1]

They are still in the first stage of rulemaking, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which has been regularly delayed since 2009:
http://www.suasnews.com/2014/01/2697...ntil-nov-2014/

How convenient, pushing it out to right past the midterms, it could be a lot of mid and upper level administrators at the FAA are too busy right now polishing up their Linkedin listings to even worry about working their current job knowing if the Republicans roll the Senate, there are going to be a lot of favors to be paid back and one of the most common paybacks in governement is to find decent paying positions for the friends of the elected in the various regulatory agencies Congress has control over.

And then there is this, "The rulemaking would result in regular collection of safety data from the user community and aid the FAA in assessing effectiveness of regulations to expand sUAS access to the national airspace system."

Translated, that means folks around here had better get on the ball and start logging flights with less crashing if they ever expect to be allowed to go over 400 AGL, an altitude I am willing to bet will be written into the new regulations.

Wayne

[spiked3]

Allow me to exert the loudest LOL you have ever heard. How your law degrees study coming?

[Channel 1]

Here is the brief we filed today opposing the FAA's appeal in Trappy's case.

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upl...ppealReply.pdf

Brendan

Brendan

Any idea when the board is going to come back with a decision on this or did I miss something?

Wayne