Source: http://www.phantompilots.com/threads/hobby-recreational-flight-could-indeed-be-regulated.82761/
Timestamp: 2017-06-25 02:04:36
Document Index: 84211270

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 101', 'art 107', 'art 101', 'art 107', 'art 107', 'art 107']

Hobby/Recreational Flight could indeed be regulated. . . | DJI Phantom Drone Forum
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by BigAl07, Jun 29, 2016.
I'm not sure how this will play out in the court system (I'm sure at some point it will) but here's a write up from a VERY intelligent and experienced Aviation attorney. Basically it states (the full article is linked at the end):
"The FAA has added model aircraft flying requirements to Part 101 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, adding recreational drone flying to already existing rules for moored balloons, kites and so on. The new regulations basically incorporate statutory language from Section 336 of the FAA Reauthorization and Modernization Act of 2012. But the incorporation is not a simple transfer of statutory requirements to regulatory form. That is because the statutory language of FMRA Section 336 was never directed at model aircraft flyers but at the FAA: “…the [FAA] may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft…if”, the statute then lists the very requirements that have now been made regulatory. So a requirement that previously only applied to the FAA has been made a regulatory requirement binding on model aircraft flyers."
Very loosely translated this "could" mean that the Community Guidelines are no longer just a suggestion but a codified regulation which has enforcement-ability (my word LOL) and real teeth that a mere suggestion did not.
"Failing to meet anyone of these requirements, even unintentionally, could expose a hobby flyer to FAA penalties for violating Part 107. Yes, that’s correct. By FAA’s enforcement reasoning, if you don’t meet a Part 101 requirement you will be deemed to be required to operate under Part 107 – which if you happen not to hold a Part 107 certificate or meet the other Part 107 requirements, will subject you to an $1100 per regulation per flight civil penalty."
This is at least food for thought for ALL of us.
Here's a link to her full article but keep in mind... this is only her opinion but it's a very valid and trusted one.
regdawg and captainmilehigh like this.
At least she has the vested interest in the issue here. She actually says she owns a Phantom 2 Vision+ and flies it regularly. (Reference 'Amelia Dronehart.com'). It could go either way I suppose..........over regulation and forms, tests, requirements.........or a simple solution with common sense regulations we can all live with. Perhaps we have an ally in our fight for simplicity. Time will tell. Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app
Congress will have to grant the FAA more control over amateur use. In the meantime, I agree 107 will be the codified teeth for anything the FAA could argue falls outside of 336.
Congress will have to grant the FAA more control over amateur use. In the meantime, I agree 107 will be the codified teeth for anything the FAA could argue falls outside of 336.Click to expand...
I'm confident it's just a matter of time before Congress does exactly that. If it weren't for the AMA going to bat to protect "hobby fliers" it would have already taken place. Like it or not the AMA (even though they were protecting their own interests first) did the entire "Hobby" a huge favor by getting this passed in 2012. Even though I doubt it will stand forever it was good while it lasted #4
Here's a copy of the pending FAA Reauthorization Bill: https://t.co/e90POcHJu3
My understanding is that this version has been fully vetted within Congress and is destined to pass (deadline is 7/15/16).
Drone issues start with Sec. 2201 on p.36.
I think the biggest concern is how far the FAA will attempt to stretch the limited regulatory authority provided under Sec. 2202(d).
I have a pending case in a U.S. Court of Appeals challenging the FAA's authority regarding the recreational model aircraft registry, the 30-mi. DC Special Flight Rules Area as applied to recreational model aircraft, and recreational model aircraft in general. A copy of my brief is located here: http://bit.ly/28ADz7H. The FAA's reply brief is due August 4, 2016. Some of these issues are also pending in a U.S. District Court in Conn. regarding the Haughwout's (gun and flame thrower) case.
Unfortunately, Congress's ability to limit the hobby is almost endless, and there seems to be no reluctance to cave into the current hysteria. We're not doing much to organize and oppose restrictions at this critical time. There are over 9,000 registered owners in Maryland alone (and who knows how many unregistered), but I doubt many of them have communicated with their legislators.
JohnATaylor,
Forming rules and regulations is a regular process and changes over period of time. Let's find out the best way to enjoy without violating any one of them. I really don't bother much as I have no control over these regulations but it's good to know the direction in which our fun is being controlled and restricted.
Actually alokbhargava, you should have some control over these regulations. Email your legislators. I do it a couple times a year and usually have a positive response. They want to be re-elected (most anyway) and will take your input if you are thoughtful and intelligent in your communications. Just my $.02.
Similar Threads - Hobby Recreational Flight
Travel blogs: hobby or commercial use? General Discussion
Total: 635 (members: 115, guests: 440, robots: 80)