Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Any Drone pilots on here?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 2999182" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>Close. It was the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Because the DC Circuit has authority over federal agencies, it's ruling upon those agencies is binding nationwide (as opposed to the geographical restrictions that usually apply to the numbered circuits), but it's still just a circuit court. The distinction is important because Administration can petition for a re-hearing in the same court <em>en banc</em> (the entire court, instead of a panel of three judges), and can appeal to the Supreme Court (though I doubt that the Court would grant cert on such a petition, as the law is pretty explicit on this point); were it a SCOTUS ruling, it would be final.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See the link to the court's ruling immediately above.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Dennis is correct about the instructions being out of date <em>with regard to registration of model aircraft</em>. This is a two-pronged statement: 1) it applies to registration of <em>model aircraft</em>; it doesn't address <em>pilot/operator licensure</em>, and 2) "model aircraft" has specific meaning within the Act, to wit: <em>Id</em>. at 4-5.</p><p></p><p>Note that third prong of the definition of "model aircraft;" when you start flying it for commercial purposes, it ceases to be a "model aircraft" under the text of the statute that gave us this ruling in the first place (note also the second prong; sorry, FPV guys).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Chenry, dennis, as you both note, commercial use is different, and that's not just FAA interpretation, it's written right into the statute (see my previous cite to the opinion, which directly and accurately cites the statute).</p><p></p><p>The reason I mentioned pilot/operator licensure is that there's also a licensing process for those who would fly UAVs in commercial service. See <a href="https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_work_business/becoming_a_pilot/" target="_blank">https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_work_business/becoming_a_pilot/</a> (first group of links on the page) for information. Commercial work has always (or nearly always; perhaps not for the first few years of aviation, when the Wright brothers were still signing licenses, but certainly in the practical era) been different from private, and "commercial" is quite encompassing: <em>anything</em> for which you get paid (the exception being expense-sharing, such as fuel or rental cost, but that is strictly limited to a pro-rata share).</p><p></p><p>Anything I missed?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 2999182, member: 13624"] Close. It was the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Because the DC Circuit has authority over federal agencies, it's ruling upon those agencies is binding nationwide (as opposed to the geographical restrictions that usually apply to the numbered circuits), but it's still just a circuit court. The distinction is important because Administration can petition for a re-hearing in the same court [I]en banc[/I] (the entire court, instead of a panel of three judges), and can appeal to the Supreme Court (though I doubt that the Court would grant cert on such a petition, as the law is pretty explicit on this point); were it a SCOTUS ruling, it would be final. See the link to the court's ruling immediately above. Dennis is correct about the instructions being out of date [I]with regard to registration of model aircraft[/I]. This is a two-pronged statement: 1) it applies to registration of [I]model aircraft[/I]; it doesn't address [I]pilot/operator licensure[/I], and 2) "model aircraft" has specific meaning within the Act, to wit: [I]Id[/I]. at 4-5. Note that third prong of the definition of "model aircraft;" when you start flying it for commercial purposes, it ceases to be a "model aircraft" under the text of the statute that gave us this ruling in the first place (note also the second prong; sorry, FPV guys). Chenry, dennis, as you both note, commercial use is different, and that's not just FAA interpretation, it's written right into the statute (see my previous cite to the opinion, which directly and accurately cites the statute). The reason I mentioned pilot/operator licensure is that there's also a licensing process for those who would fly UAVs in commercial service. See [URL]https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_work_business/becoming_a_pilot/[/URL] (first group of links on the page) for information. Commercial work has always (or nearly always; perhaps not for the first few years of aviation, when the Wright brothers were still signing licenses, but certainly in the practical era) been different from private, and "commercial" is quite encompassing: [I]anything[/I] for which you get paid (the exception being expense-sharing, such as fuel or rental cost, but that is strictly limited to a pro-rata share). Anything I missed? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Any Drone pilots on here?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom