
U.S. court strikes down FAA’s hobby drone registration rule - ojbyrne
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/U-S-court-strikes-down-FAA-s-hobby-drone-11159526.php
======
djrogers
This was a given from the moment the ink dried on the regulation - it's a
clear violation of the actual law that gives the FCC it's powers and
authority.

It may or may not be a good idea for the legislature to change those laws so
that the FCC (or another agency) can regulate hobby drones and model aircraft,
but unless and until that happens this is dead in the water.

~~~
dragonwriter
> This was a given from the moment the ink dried on the regulation - it's a
> clear violation of the actual law that gives the FCC it's powers and
> authority.

 _Had_ the FCC been the agency involved, I'd agree that this would be a clear
and obvious violation.

~~~
jessaustin
Somehow they govern mobile phone use aboard airplanes, however...

~~~
vonmoltke
Yes, because mobile phones are communication devices and use regulated RF
spectrum.

The FAA is free to (and does) make their own additional regulations concerning
mobile phone use on aircraft.

~~~
jessaustin
Why don't they "regulate" mobile phone use while driving? On the subway? At
the grocery store? In the waiting room at the doctor's office?

Because all of that would be outside the scope of the statutes? Precisely. So
is the regulation of mobile phone use while in flight.

------
codys
So is the FAA required to return money given to them for the registration?

And what happens to the registration database?

------
lightedman
Still stuck at 400ft AGL despite legal rulings that private property extends
upwards of 500 feet.

~~~
groundeffect
Don't know where you got this impression, but no it doesn't. At least in
relation to aviation regulations anyway. The FAA has the authority to regulate
flight from the surface.

~~~
lightedman
Guidelines established in AC 91-57. These set initial guidelines due to manned
aircraft being restricted to 500 feet AGL. You aren't reliably telling 500
feet straight up, so a good 100 feet of leeway/buffer zone is helpful. On top
of that, AMA has a 3 mile (for airports)/400' safety recommendation.

------
droithomme
Woo hoo!

One less thing to worry about being a "criminal" regarding.

Thanks Donald. Less regulation is sometimes better.

~~~
tzs
Are you attempting to satirize Trump supporters and their lack of attention to
relevant detail? HN doesn't seem to like satire, which is why I think you are
getting voted down.

On the off chance it was not satire. Trump had noting to do with this. It was
struck down by a court, by a judge appointed long before Trump was President,
in response to a lawsuit filed long before Trump was President, using as
justification a law that was signed by Obama.

------
microcolonel
Wonderful, I hope that they move toward more durable solutions to the problem.
The registration solution is susceptible to unidentified homebuilt drones and
deliberate interference with other aircraft. We need to build resilient
defences against these things so that when organized criminals and terrorists
use them, we aren't left wondering why they didn't register.

The Navy has microwave laser weapons and similar which might be useful, it'd
be a bit pricey, but a drop in the bucket of any major airport. And unlike
registration, that actually solves (some) of the problem.

~~~
djrogers
Wait, you want to arm every airport in the country with anti-aircraft
weaponry? Who exactly is going to man and operate these weapons?

~~~
romwell
It's not about arming every airport. It's about giving the airports the right
to clear the airspace around them.

I think we should stop thinking about drones as something new. For instance,
in the context of airport safety, rogue drones are simply flying nuisance
objects. Do airports have to deal with these on a daily basis? Yes! The
airports have to deal with birds!

What do they do with birds? They trap them, shoot them, and often kill them
(e.g. see
[http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2520695/airpo...](http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2520695/airports_global_bird_slaughter_100000s_gassed_shot_poisoned.html))
Arguably, if they have this right regarding wild geese, they should have the
same right regarding drones (even more so: "killing" a drone does not pose a
threat to the environment).

So, to answer your question: people who hunt down birds around the airports
will also hunt down drones, if given the right.

~~~
dingaling
> It's about giving the airports the right to clear the airspace around them.

Why should they have that right?

Certainly they should do so over their own property, but if they want to
extend that zone for commercial purposes ( i.e. permitting unhindered approach
of aircraft so as to charge landing fees ) then the airport authorities should
be required to buy land under the approaches, rather than just being able to
declare a free-fire zone over other people's property.

