FAA Settles Key Case Over Commercial Drone Use... Leaves The Rest Of Us With No Rules At All

from the ridiculous dept

Fri, Jan 23rd 2015 1:37pm — Mike Masnick

As we've been covering for a while now, the FAA is doing everything it can to delay nearly all commercial use of drones, despite the many possible innovations drones can lead to. Are there some legitimate safety concerns? Absolutely, but the FAA's approach of "ban everything" and then drip out a few exemptions here and there is problematic. Last year, we wrote about a key test case, involving Raphael Pirker, in which a judge declared that the FAA's ban on drones was illegal (mostly for procedural reasons). A few months ago, that got overturned... and now Pirker and the FAA have settled the matter, with Pirker agreeing to pay $1,100 [pdf] while not admitting to any wrong doing:

Respondent agrees to pay $1,100.00 (the "settlement proceeds") by January 22, 2015, to the FAA in full and final settlement of this matter.

[....]

It is understood and agreed that neither the Respondent's execution of this settlement agreement nor payment of the settlement proceeds constitutes Respondent's admission of any of the facts or regulatory violations alleged in the FAA's June 27, 2013 Order of Assessment or the Amended Order of Assessment that will issue pursuant to this settlement agreement.

From a financial perspective, I'm sure it makes sense for Pirker to settle this agreement for $1,100, rather than having to pay a lot more to go to court. But for the rest of us, this kind of sucks. It would have been good to have at least been able to test whether or not the FAA's rules are really legal. Or, at the very least, put more pressure on the FAA to stop dragging its feet and to start issuing actual rules that allow drones to be used for commercial purposes. The longer we wait, the more likely it is we cede innovation on this important area to other countries.

Pirkerdeal (PDF)Pirkerdeal (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: drones, faa, innovation, raphael pirker, rules

6 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

DigDug, 23 Jan 2015 @ 1:47pm

Drones are just RC Aircraft not military drones
Same rules apply for "Drones" - really just RC quadcopters, hexacopters, etc...

Just because someone threw the military term "Drone" at them doesn't make them drones.

To hell with the FAA on this one.

All old rules fitting to RC Aircraft apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2015 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re: Drones are just RC Aircraft not military drones
  "All old rules fitting to RC Aircraft apply."
  
  But which old rules?
  
  The FAA's pre-Sept2001 rules or post-Sept2001 rules (which can basically be boiled down to just one rule: "whatever we decide at the moment.")
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John C, 23 Jan 2015 @ 1:50pm

The best oversight 1958 has to offer.
The FAA is reason aviation in the USA is essentially preserved in the amber of 1958.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2015 @ 2:25pm
  
  Re: The best oversight 1958 has to offer.
  "The FAA is reason aviation in the USA is essentially preserved in the amber of 1958."
  
  It had its advantages. Sticking with WWII-era vacuum-tube technology for flight-control electronics for many decades after society had abandoned the vacuum tube in favor of transisters and other semiconductors had an important unintended consequence, as semiconductors are easily damaged and rendered inoperable by strong radiation (as in a distant nuclear blast) while vacuum tubes are essentially impervious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 23 Jan 2015 @ 1:58pm

What would a bureaucracy with nothing to rule look like?
The FAA needs to step carefully here, or they will be left with nothing new to lord over (their raison d'être, after safety of course). This is one of their steps into the 21rst century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jan 2015 @ 1:48pm

Like everything else our government does, they will do next to nothing until disaster strikes, and then they will go off the deep end. Its been a lovely war, drop all of your ordinance on my pos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]