image
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: SUE THE FAA - Operation Drone Freedom

  1. #1
    Crashing Vitamin J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    5,455

    SUE THE FAA - Operation Drone Freedom

    Haven't seen this posted on the Lab yet, so I thought I'd do it myself!

    https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/o...rate-our-skies

    The Drone Pilot's Association is trying to raise $75,000 by August 25 in order to sue the FAA over it's anti-drone-freedom and anti-business policies.

    The sole purpose of this campaign is to provide a safer, easier, more reliable way to donate money to the Drone Pilots Association to challenge the FAA on all of our behalf as outlined on their site.

    I recently heard about fund raising efforts of the Drone Pilots Association DPA, and I was interested in donating. However, the only means of donation at the time was immediate fund transfer via Paypal. I and I'm sure many other people are a little uneasy to send money to a cause that may or may not reach its goal with no hope of refund in the event the goal is not met. After a quick back and forth in a UAV Legal Discussion Facebook Group here, https://www.facebook.com/groups/uavLegalNews/?ref=br_tf , a member mentioned that Indiegogo would be a feasible way to start a crowdsourced campaign that would minimize risk for anyone interested in donating. With the impression that we really don't have time to waste, and the belief that the DPA is on the right track but needs more help, I set up this campaign with limited time the other day to begin a new, safer means for donations.

    We've had a number of comments from people related to needing more information to give them confidence in this campaign and I will do my best to answer all questions to help get this done.

    Here are some reasons to give you confidence to get involved and fund this right now:

    Fixed Campaign. If we do not reach our goal, all donations will be completely refunded by Indiegogo.
    Direct Transfer of Funds to DPA. The campaign is set up in such a way that all money will be transferred directly to the Drone Pilots Association paypal account upon completion of a successful run. The creator of this campaign will recieve zero funds.
    The Drone Pilots Association is a reputable group that grew to over 1,000 members in a few days. They've been featured in numerous articles like this: http://associationsnow.com/2014/07/c...borne-quickly/
    --- end 8/8/14 update ---



    The FAA's recent Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft stands to destroy the hobby and industry so many of us love to take a part in and have invested our blood, sweat, and treasure. We deserve the opportunity to enjoy a free market without the overreach the FAA is attempting to solidify.

    The Drone Pilots Association, or DPA, created by Peter Sachs, has been raising funds for a little while now with the express purpose of funding a legal challenge to the FAA. You can read all of the details here:

    http://dronepilotsassociation.com/donate-to-legal-fund/



    Their goal is to raise $75,000 for legal fees to challenge the FAA by August 25. That is not a lot of time, and at the creation of this campaign, they had reached a little over $2,000 and can use as much help, support, and publicity as they can get. That's where we come in.

    This campaign aims to raise $70,000 buy August 25th to assist their efforts. If that goal is not met, all money is refunded by Indiegogo, and nothing is lost.
    So head on over and give them your $25! Or $250!

    https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/o...rate-our-skies


    They're operational plan and legal strategy is posted here:

    http://dronepilotsassociation.com/legal-fund/

    What is the Legal Fund? The Drone Pilots Association intends to challenge the FAA's Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, (the "Interpretation"), as published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2014, in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. It is our belief that the Interpretation creates regulations pertaining to model aircraft, which are expressly forbidden by Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

    The FMRA states:

    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 Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, 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 community-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 unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization; (4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere 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 procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

    (b) Statutory Construction. -- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger 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.

    Here's how the Interpretation creates new rules or regulations in violation of Section 336:

    The Model Aircraft Definition. The Interpretation claims the definition of "model aircraft" applies to all Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs"). The plain language of Section 336(c), shown in boldface above, makes it abundantly clear that the definition applies only to Section 336 itself. This equates to the promulgation of a new "rule or regulation."

    The Prior Permission Requirement. The Interpretation claims that drone operators must obtain prior permission to fly within 5 miles of any airport. The plain language of Section 336(a)(5), shown in boldface above, indicates all that is required is notice. This equates to the promulgation of a new "rule or regulation."

    The FPV ban. The Interpretation bans the use of "first person view" ("FPV") operations. The plain language of Section 336(c)(2) requires flights to be conducted within visual line of sight of the person operating the drone, but does not contain any restriction on the use of FPV. This equates to the promulgation of a new "rule or regulation."

    The Commercial Use Interpretation. The Interpretation defines commercial operation in extremely broad and nonsensical terms. Flights conducted that are incidental to a business (which are not considered commercial with manned aircraft) are termed commercial if conducted with a drone. Demonstration flights, whether conducted by manufacturers for marketing and training; for pre-purchase demonstration flights outside of a hobby shop; for paid competitions; or for paid flight instruction are all considered commercial. This equates to the promulgation of a new "rule or regulation."

    We also believe that the FAA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the law that governs federal agency rulemaking, when it issued the Interpretative rule as an "announcement" in the Federal Register, without prior notice and comment. With its Interpretation, the FAA is not merely interpreting the law, it is changing its past practices and prior interpretation. Doing that requires that prior notice and comment be afforded the public.

    Litigation is expensive, and we will need money to pay legal fees. The DPA is hoping you will help fund an appeal of the FAA's Interpretation. If you are affected now or believe that you will be affected in the future by the Interpretation, we ask that you contribute whatever you are able to fund an appeal. There is a statutory deadline that an action challenging interpretive rulemaking must be filed within 60 days of its publication in the Federal Register. The Interpretive Rule was published on June 25, 2014.
    Last edited by Vitamin J; 12th August 2014 at 02:58 PM.

  2. #2
    Engineer for Jesus Christ IBCrazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Amherst, VA
    Posts
    7,352
    Isn't the purpose of a lawsuit to obtain financial benefits for a wrong doing? I would think most attorneys would jump at a class action lawsuit naming every FPV pilot as a beneficiary. This would be a lawsuit to the order of tens of millions.

    -Alex
    If it is broken, fix it. if it isn't broken, I'll soon fix that.

    videoaerialsystems.com - Performance video piloting

  3. #3
    Pilot
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Battleground, WA
    Posts
    1,440
    I'm willing to donate. I suspect that the FAA might find themselves brought to court more than once for their recent antics...
    Regarding "some" peoples thoughts about Trappy and the FAA and "the sky is falling":

    "Perspective. Time to recognize the root cause and not focus exclusively on a single case."


  4. #4
    Banana Drone Flying Monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Snoqualmie, WA
    Posts
    5,110
    Yeah buddy lets do it!!!
    "You can't take the sky from me"

  5. #5
    Crashing Vitamin J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    5,455
    More info added to the OP. Sounds like they have a plan!

  6. #6
    Instructor Pilot Channel 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Out in the middle of nowhere.
    Posts
    4,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Vitamin J View Post
    The Drone Pilot's Association is trying to raise $75,000 by August 25 in order to sue the FAA over it's anti-drone-freedom and anti-business policies.

    So head on over and give them your $25! Or $250!
    They has $2K Friday and hit $3.2 on Saturday, I send a small donation over there Friday night and apperently a few other people did as well.

    At least they seem to have an end goal.

    Wayne
    Everybody loves a bunny.

  7. #7
    Instructor Pilot Channel 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Out in the middle of nowhere.
    Posts
    4,884
    Quote Originally Posted by IBCrazy View Post
    Isn't the purpose of a lawsuit to obtain financial benefits for a wrong doing?
    The goal of a lawsuit is to try to make the plaintiff whole after being damaged by someone else.

    I would think most attorneys would jump at a class action lawsuit naming every FPV pilot as a beneficiary. This would be a lawsuit to the order of tens of millions.
    To have a class, a group must have been damaged in a common manner and then have thier lawsuits combined into a class action where a single decision will decide what the members of the class will be settled with.

    In most cases class actions bode well for the attorneys but deliver little to the members of the class.

    None the less, proving the damages to FPV suppliers by the FAA proposed regulations is going to be tough row to hoe and those suppliers make up maybe a dozen companies?

    Not enough for a class there.

    As for FPV pilots, trying to explain how they where damaged is going to require accepting commercial operations into the mix so it is no longer a hobby problem and without damages no class there either.

    Wayne
    Everybody loves a bunny.

  8. #8
    Engineer for Jesus Christ IBCrazy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Amherst, VA
    Posts
    7,352
    So who are the beneficiaries of the suit? The DPA? I'm a bit lost here. While I have considered suing the FAA many times, I'm not sure how this works.

    Here is my thought (and feel free to correct me if I am incorrect):

    The best angle to this would be a class action lawsuit on the part of all hobbyists. Each hobbyist could claim damages for the money and time invested in the FPV hobby before the FAA attempted to make it illegal. Name the suit as the cost of the FPV gear, airplanes, autopilots, ect. FPV vendors can have all their invoices with names and addresses of the beneficiaries ready. Also, vendors and manufacturers can claim damages for lost business. This would be a multi-million dollar lawsuit, right?

    Or is the DPA angle better? Are they just trying to sue to get the decision repealed without any monetary beneficiary?

    Either way, I agree we should be suing the FAA right now. I'm just wondering how this thing works.

    -Alex
    If it is broken, fix it. if it isn't broken, I'll soon fix that.

    videoaerialsystems.com - Performance video piloting

  9. #9
    Instructor Pilot Channel 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Out in the middle of nowhere.
    Posts
    4,884
    Quote Originally Posted by IBCrazy View Post
    So who are the beneficiaries of the suit? The DPA? I'm a bit lost here. While I have considered suing the FAA many times, I'm not sure how this works.
    As for a lawsuit drop the idea of getting money out of it, and consider it to be building roadblocks against an agency.

    Here is my thought (and feel free to correct me if I am incorrect):

    The best angle to this would be a class action lawsuit on the part of all hobbyists. Each hobbyist could claim damages for the money and time invested in the FPV hobby before the FAA attempted to make it illegal. Name the suit as the cost of the FPV gear, airplanes, autopilots, ect. FPV vendors can have all their invoices with names and addresses of the beneficiaries ready. Also, vendors and manufacturers can claim damages for lost business. This would be a multi-million dollar lawsuit, right?
    Do you really think you can extract money from the FAA?

    Class actons are filed against private companies with deep pockets, you are not going to collect a dime from suing the FAA.

    Again, drop the money factor, if you are real partner up with someone who will nail the FAA, to roadblock them from pushing anything forward.

    Wayne
    Everybody loves a bunny.

  10. #10
    Crashing Vitamin J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    5,455
    Quote Originally Posted by IBCrazy View Post
    So who are the beneficiaries of the suit? The DPA? I'm a bit lost here. While I have considered suing the FAA many times, I'm not sure how this works.

    Here is my thought (and feel free to correct me if I am incorrect):

    The best angle to this would be a class action lawsuit on the part of all hobbyists. Each hobbyist could claim damages for the money and time invested in the FPV hobby before the FAA attempted to make it illegal. Name the suit as the cost of the FPV gear, airplanes, autopilots, ect. FPV vendors can have all their invoices with names and addresses of the beneficiaries ready. Also, vendors and manufacturers can claim damages for lost business. This would be a multi-million dollar lawsuit, right?

    Or is the DPA angle better? Are they just trying to sue to get the decision repealed without any monetary beneficiary?

    Either way, I agree we should be suing the FAA right now. I'm just wondering how this thing works.

    -Alex
    They're not really "suing the FAA." What they are doing is raising money to file an appeal against the recent Interpretive Rule the FAA released which bans goggles, autopilot, commercial use, etc. If they file an appeal then it will block the Interpretive Rule until it's decided in some court.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hows This For LOS Operation. ;-)
    By Channel 1 in forum OFF-TOPIC
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 5th August 2014, 11:58 PM
  2. Incredible rescue operation of quadcopter
    By Prometreus2 in forum AIR SHOWS...
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 5th April 2013, 02:18 AM
  3. Illegal Operation : sUAS
    By FAA in forum IFR - Video Link Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 2nd April 2013, 12:56 PM
  4. Operation Aphrodite: Early FPV / RPA / UAV history
    By SilviaSGP06 in forum INFORMATION BOOTH
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14th March 2012, 04:00 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
  •