FAA Sued Over Federal Drone Registry (technical.ly) 192
"Last December, the FAA rushed an arbitrary and ineffectual recreational drone-owners' registry into effect, mere days before Christmas and just in time to criminalize the flying of toys by thousands of children and hobbyists," argued The Daily Signal. Now Slashdot reader jenningsthecat reports on a promising legal challenge filed by a drone hobbyist who's also a lawyer, who is now "receiving financial help with his suit from the D.C. area Drone User Group (DC DUG).
In his Petitioner's Brief, John Taylor maintains that "(f)or the first century of American aviation and beyond, the federal government made no attempt whatsoever to regulate recreational model aircraft", and that "(t)he FAA seeks to revise history (PDF) when it argues its failure to register model aircraft, or otherwise treat them in any manner as 'aircraft,' in the past was the exercise of an 'enforcement discretion.'"
On a fund-raising page for the challenge, the group calls the federal registry "deeply concerning to users and prospective users of small unmanned aircraft."
On a fund-raising page for the challenge, the group calls the federal registry "deeply concerning to users and prospective users of small unmanned aircraft."
Toys (Score:1, Informative)
When you can't play with your toys in a safe manner you get your toys taken away.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
So you killed your parents?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure that we aren't going to have a revolution over the regulation of drones. You have no constitutional right to record your neighbor changing clothes through their second story window. The reality is that we have had hobbiest aircraft for a long time as the original article points out, the difference now is that nearly all drones come equipped with an HD video camera, and many can be operated beyond LOS and that is at the root of the problem.
The reality that the idiot drone operators (not all jus
Re: (Score:2)
... many can be operated beyond LOS and that is at the root of the problem.
It's always been and remains illegal to fly R/C recreational aircraft outside LoS. How is this a new problem that's not addressed by the old laws?
Re: (Score:2)
You have no constitutional right to record your neighbor changing clothes through their second story window.
If the blinds are open with a clear and unobstructed view and I am in a place I am legally allowed to be, I absolutely have a right to record my neighbor changing clothes through their second story window. You may want to read up on privacy laws and come back here because this line alone clearly tells me you have no clue about privacy rights.
The reality is that we have had hobbiest aircraft for a long time as the original article points out, the difference now is that nearly all drones come equipped with an HD video camera, and many can be operated beyond LOS and that is at the root of the problem.
You immediately assume that because a multi-rotor has a camera on it, it is capable of high-resolution pictures, at magnification. Again, you clearly don't know much
Re: (Score:2)
These aren't Predator UAV's, these are fucking hobby drones that weight less than 1lbs. Do you see a giant fucking camera rig slung underneath it? No? Then it's not taking pictures of your fucking hairy ass.
Now stop being a fucking ignorant dipshit and stop spreading F.U.D.
Re: (Score:3)
these are fucking hobby drones that weight less than 1lbs. Do you see a giant fucking camera rig slung underneath it? No? Then it's not taking pictures of your fucking hairy ass.
My son has a drone that weighs 200g. It has a 4M pixel camera.
I think the registration program is stupid government overreach for the opposite reason: privacy is a real concern, but registration doesn't really solve the problem. Plenty of drones below the limit (500g) have high res-cameras, and soon there will be 499.5g drones available.
Re: (Score:2)
its 250gr not 500gr.
but yes theres high enough rez drones at 250gr
i dont think its a privacy concern though.. a 600mm+ camera is a much better tool for spying on others most of the time. its silent and zooms further than the eye can see, its also more stable and stuff.
i think its just about control and insurance, and a reason to make money
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how small cameras are these days? They aren't like the Ansel Adams ones.
Re: (Score:2)
So what if your DJI phantom has a 14 megapixel camera, what's the optical zoom on the lens? Oh, it's a fixed 20mm lens?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that's so cute: you think that drone registration is about protecting your privacy. Protecting your privacy is easy without registration: you simply shoot down any drone over your property with an airgun, with another drone, or even a water jet. Problem solved.
What the FAA actually is aiming for is to let corporations use the airspac
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. What we should do eliminate cars, motorbikes and all those other things that cause countless deaths every year as opposite to toys which so far have caused precisely zero deaths.
Re: Toys (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My argument is that registration is achieving fuck all.
Re: Toys (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When you can't play with your toys in a safe manner you get your toys taken away.
There are now many millions of these toys in use, with hundreds of millions of hours in the air. Please cite your long list of examples of these toys being used in such a dangerous way that the long list of injuries and mayhem require a publicly-browsable federal registry of their owners and the criminalization and fining of kids who fail to register their 10 ounce plastic copter with the federal government.
More people are hurt using soccer balls, garden tools, and bicycles in a given day than have been
Re: (Score:2)
You've gotta start somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
You've gotta start somewhere
Start what?
Re: (Score:2)
Drones to guns in nine posts...Godwin's Law may need a corollary.
Common sense solution (Score:2)
Laws like this wouldn't be necessary if people just knew how to fucking behave.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People behave just fine. The laws are an over-reaction to a non issue. We're happy to ban Kindersurprise eggs so kids don't choke on toys, drones so they don't bring down aircraft, magnets because they are magic, but we happily let countless things by that kill millions of Americans every year.
These laws aren't necessary.
Re:Common sense solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Er, what do you think "kill[s] millions of Americans every year"? Only 2.6 million people died in 2014 all together. 614k of those are heart disease, followed closely by cancer at 591k. Those two are the only causes of death above 150k/yr. Unless you're saying that "our Western appetites, processed food, and a largely sedentary lifestyle" are the "countless things" we're letting by, you're talking out your ass.
Certainly drones must seem like a non-issue to you if you think the world is at least 10x more fatal than it is. For the rest of us, it would be nice if people would be a bit more responsible with their dangerous toys. Like the old-school model airplane AMA-member types - that's all anyone (including the FAA) wants out of the drone types. I think the eggs and magnet bans are stupid too (though you can still buy the magnets btw) but drones can hurt other people so they're a different category.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, deaths are the only thing that can cause trauma to someone, it's not at all a problem when people get injured. There were over 5 million motor vehicle accidents just in America last year. World wide there were 1.2million deaths. So you're right, I'm talking out of my ass and this is a non-issue. Nothing to see here, move along.
Shit if the world is 1/100th time as fatal as it is it still has killed erm let me do the math ( [arbrtrary made up number] / zero = infinity. ) Yeah so even with your realisatio
Re: (Score:2)
people need to stop with these stupids redirections just because they don't want to be wrong on the internets.
compare cars to toy drones
compare guns to toy drones
compare knives to toy drones
compare chairs to toy drones (hint: there are more death from chairs than toy drones for fuck sakes)
Re: (Score:2)
Man, you must never leave the house.
Re: (Score:2)
People behave just fine.
Man, you must never leave the house.
OK, since you get out of the house so much, you've no doubt got lots of anecdotes and hopefully at least a few examples of the countless tragedies that have occurred because 14 year old kids with 10-ounce plastic copters from the mall kiosk weren't properly put in criminal jeopardy for failing to appear on a publicly searchable federal database of toy owners. There must be many, many injuries and deaths associated with this activity to warrant such a thing, right? Right?
Re: (Score:2)
it is nonetheless a recognizable problem that needs solutions.
WHAT is a recognizable problem? Kids with 10-ounce plastic copters that have range of about 50 feet and can't fly in any kind of breeze? Please detail what sort of problem, requiring the federal government to fine a 14 year old kid $20,000 and subject them to jail time, you find those hundreds of thousands of toys are presenting. Tell you what: while you're digging for news showing some examples of the tragedies caused by those toys and how federal listing of those kids in a public-facing database would ha
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, people have no problem recognizing that yes, drones can cause harm, and want something done.
And what sort of harm are people referring to? Please be specific, and compare it to real-life activities that actually DO cause harm, since the rate of injury from the millions of drones in use is essentially zero. Explain how criminalizing the use of a 10-ounce plastic toy will make the public safer from the zero public injuries that result from their millions of uses ... compared to, say, the people who are actually killed every year in hundreds of different recreational activities. Be specific, instead
Re: (Score:2)
How would having a register have stopped these deaths? I presume the people with killer drones could have registered the drones no?
Re: (Score:2)
Man, you must never leave the house.
All the time. I may just be surrounded by a different kind of people :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Laws like this wouldn't be necessary if people just knew how to fucking behave.
NO LAWS would be necessary if people knew how to behave and chose to behave. THIS PARTICULAR law is unnecessary primarily because it doesn't really accomplish anything.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. But at some point, government that involves people can only be a blunt instrument. Is there a right to own drones? I don't know, and am not sure I care. Is there a right to a free Internet? I don't know, but it's not a free internet as long as hackers can run roughshod over individuals, companies and governments with impunit
I don't think there's much of a case here. (Score:5, Interesting)
The FAA has broad authority over anything that flies and they have a history of declining to regulate hobbyist model aircraft. But putting out an advisory circular saying "we won't bother you if you are a hobbyist and listen to the AMA" is kind of the opposite of "we don't have any authority over this activity". "Enforcement discretion" is pretty much exactly how I would describe this.
Like most executive branch functions, and like it or not, the precise manner and timing of how the FAA carries out their mandate is up to them. It's basically like how the cops usually won't bother people for having a broken tail-light or a few MPH of speeding, but can elect to pull over people at any time for those violations. In fact, even if the town has a policy of not pulling people over for always had to understand something about airspace and keep things safe. Pre-drone, the AMA served this purpose and their fields' placements and operating rules took care of this problem. But when you can unbox your drone, charge it for an hour or two, and then send it up to 3000' on the first try, there's no funnel through the AMA like there used to be to teach people those rules. The drone registry's main purpose is to act as another funnel so that people can figure out where and when it's safe to fly. And, if they don't play by the rules, that there's at least the potential for accountability.
The drone community has brought this on themselves entirely. As even the suit alleges, everyone was OK with the model airplane rules. Drones changed the game and forced the agency's hand here. That's what happens with disruptive technology - you might as well get mad about the regulation of automobiles because everything was fine with horses. But obviously cars are much easier to use (average experience and skill goes down) and go much faster (danger goes up). Drones are similarly easier to use, which explains their popularity, and can easily go much higher and from way more places.
Re: (Score:2)
The drone community has brought this on themselves entirely.
Please cite the number of tragic injuries and other horribleness resulting per year from the use of 10-ounce plastic mall copter toys that warrants the criminalization of their unregistered use ... compared to, say, the HOURLY rate of injuries in the country that result from, say, bicycle or skateboard use in public spaces. Really: get specific.
There are millions of "drones" in use with hundreds of millions of in-air hours booked. Surely there's a long parade of horrific accidents, injuries and death re
Re: (Score:2)
I cut my finger on a propeller once.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I can imagine you whining like a little kid when the Big Box home improvement store throws you for riding around on your skate shoes.
Why would I whine about what someone else does or doesn't allow on their private property?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how much success this group will have vs. a Federal regulatory agency like the FAA? But that doesn't mean I agree with your assertion that the drone community "brought this on themselves" or that it's anything like the transition from horses to motor vehicles.
The *only* reason attention was drawn to drones was the hype and news about their use in the military. Without that association in people's minds, drones would still be regarded as toys or photographic tools by most people -- and not view
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly, the model aircraft and the AMA have been around for many decades and one never heard about about drones being sighted at high altitudes and near airport approaches. Since these el cheapo drones have been available so every Tom, Dick, and Harry can run to Mal-Wart and buy one without knowing or caring to know the operational rules, there have been a rash of these events. Personally, I'd like to go way beyond a register and have people tested on their knowledge of the rules that pertain to drone oper
Re: (Score:2)
Laws like the Air Commerce Act [wikipedia.org] and the Federal Aviation Act [wikipedia.org] which give the FAA authority over aircraft in the United States? Once those laws have been passed, it's up to the FAA to figure out what the rules are. That's called "administrative law" and the "real" law says "you have to follow the administrative law".
Let's say you fly the drone stupidly and get punished by the FAA. (If you fly the drone non-stupidly and follow the simple rules, that's fine with everyone.) They have to follow an internal process
Re: (Score:1)
FAA is barred from regulating model aircraft. It cannot make administrative law to legislate away the limits on its powers. It tried a few years back with a model aircraft, it lost. It appealed and eventually gave up trying to get a ruling in its own favor, which would have given it the right to legislate over model aircraft.
http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf
"The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may *NOT* promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an a
Re: (Score:1)
The obvious exception seems to be that drones can fly out of visual range which would allow FAA regulation:
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft
Re: (Score:2)
So no, they cannot legislate for model aircraft. It isn't that they did not bother to legislate for model aircraft. IT'S THAT THE LAW DOES NOT LET THEM.
As a point of clarity, here, the FAA doesn't legislate anything. They regulate, with statutory authority FROM the legislature. Regardless the law that congress passed to prevent exactly this sort of nonsense is exactly why the Obama administration took advantage of what amounts to a loophole - they didn't use the FAA to require this absurd toy registration - they used the Department Of Transportation, which isn't explicitly mentioned in the law that prevents the FAA from requiring kids to be placed on publ
Re:FAA is barred from legislating by sec 331 (Score:4, Informative)
Section 331 of the 2012 FAA modernization act is a definitions section. Perhaps you meant section 336. You also left off a bunch of conditions:
- It has to be hobby/recreational
- It has to be according to the AMA's rules ("in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization")
- It has to be less than 55 pounds or signed off on by the AMA
- It has not interfere with manned aircraft
- If within 5 miles of an airport, you have to call the airport
- It has to be within visual line of sight
Also it says that "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."
So the section 336 exemption is followed exactly, except that the FAA says that if the drone is more than 0.55lbs it must be registered. The FAA probably argues that this is part of maintaining the safety of the national airspace system, and I think it's a case they will win considering it's based on weight. Their legal argument is basically that by codifying the Part 107 UAS rules, they have told everyone "we consider unregistered drones over 0.55lbs to endanger the safety of the NAS and will pursue enforcement actions against such persons" - which is basically all a regulation is. The plantiff's argument would have to be along the lines of "well technically the law says you can't do anything it doesn't say, and doesn't say anything about whether heavier drones can be required to be registered". Which is fair enough, but since registration is non-discriminatory (anyone can do it, the FAA won't tell anyone they can't) and free ($5 online but you can do it on paper), they'd have to argue that the registration requirement itself constitutes a burdensome regulation on top of what's allowed by the law - to which I say good luck.
Generally, laws about regulation either delegate a section of authority to an agency for them to figure out the rules, or (if the congress-folks are worried about the agency doing or not doing something they don't like, which is what happened here and with the more recent class-3 medical certification reform for manned aircraft) they lay out the shape of the rules that they expect the FAA to create. That's what the FAA did here, modulo that registration requirement. But it's up to the agency to create the laws that follow the outline in the law, and on general principle courts will yield to the regulating authority unless the disconnect is "big enough".
Re: (Score:2)
So the section 336 exemption is followed exactly, except that the FAA says that if the drone is more than 0.55lbs it must be registered.
The fundamental problem here is that there can be no "except." Section 336 explicitly says the FAA has no power to regulate "model aircraft" as defined therein. The registration requirement is a regulation. Your theory that the "enforcement action" clause can be stretched to the point where it effectively nullifies the rest of Section 336 violates some pretty basic principles of statutory construction.
But it's up to the agency to create the laws that follow the outline in the law, and on general principle courts will yield to the regulating authority unless the disconnect is "big enough".
You mean like, for example, if the law explicitly says "the Federal Aviation Administration may not pro
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent up, it is what the law actually says.
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot. Please don't breed.
As a less-direct response: I don't need a drone to take pictures or video of private property. Turning on the camera on my phone and pointing it at literally any level direction would cause me to take pictures or video of private property.
Drones flown over private property should be handled by reasonable trespassing laws, which generally regard firearms - especially pointed into the sky - as an absolute last resort. However, you seem to be making assumptions that any devi
No, We Need that Airspace... (Score:2)
We need that airspace clear so we can sell it to the highest bidder. To hell with your recreational stuff, and your democracy protecting uses.
Useless regulation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I "registered" my drone as required and nowhere in the process was there anything to identify my drone. In other words, my drone isn't registered; I am registered as a drone owner. What good is that? If someone misuses their drone the FAA sends out a list of local drone owners?
They just want a list of houses to SWAT if some politician is video recorded porking their illegal-alien Mexican maid's 14-yo daughter by the swimming pool.
Coincidentally, last weekend I was visiting with a friend who owns/flies small drones. I went with him to a local park that's a popular spot for local drone owners to fly and spent most of a Saturday there. We'd actually been discussing 'drone licensing' and decided to take an informal poll among the drone owners that showed up at the park. Every single
FAA still leaves out volunteer SAR operations (Score:2)
The Part 107 rules STILL leave out the use-case of volunteer non-profit search & rescue operations. By definition, commercial means that you are being compensated. The FAA's own example of accepting ball game tickets as a gift for flying illustrates this. Volunteer non-profit SAR groups aren't compensated for their work. Therefore, one would think that Part 107 doesn't apply yet many people believe that it does. SAR also doesn't have the luxury of waiting any length of time to look for someone nor
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess if you want the fucking nutters to come out you talk about drones.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The supreme court seems to think it's a big deal.
Why do you refer me as a parts per liter? Is this some new group I'm not aware of?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there aren't convenient "air" borders between states, so this, like, say, radio frequencies, are an obvious place where the Federal government has a role. Perhaps you should review why it is exactly the Articles of Confederation were ultimately seen as near worthless and the Constitution that is in place tody was written.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Constitutions has no rights "baked into it". The US Constitution enumerates a limited set of governmental powers; all rights that aren't explicitly limited by enumerated powers are retained by the people (or the states).
Re: (Score:1)
But what if I put a gun on my drone? Is it constitutionally protected then?
Re: (Score:1)
The gun is. The drone isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The gun is. The drone isn't.
Ya, fuck the Ninth Amendment. If a right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, then you do not have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A gun is a constitutionally protected right. A drone isn't.
Arms isn't technically limited ti firearms, I guess you have to weaponize that drone!
Re: (Score:2)
That's wrong. Under the US Constitution, the federal government has limited, enumerated powers, while citizens retain the infinity of rights and privileges that aren't explicitly limited in the Constitution. The Second Amendment doesn't give you any rights you didn't already have under the Constitution; the Second Amendment simply states, as a precaution, that this right in particular is protected, because the Founders already anticipated just the k
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think it should be.
What you think is irrelevant.
For instance I think the government should have you censored, strip away your right to vote and imprison you.
Re: Gun Registry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no justification to own a gun.
It's my Constitutional right. No justification is needed.
Re: (Score:1)
If the constitution was written for a reason, there has to be a reason for the things that are in it.
If it wasn't written for a reason then you don't need a reason to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
What you think is irrelevant. People no more have to justify to you why they want to own guns than why they want to have sex, with whom they want to have sex, why they want to own a car, etc. That's what living in a free society means: you decide what is important to you, not government or your neighbors.
Re: (Score:2)
European constitutions protect specific rights, the US constitution does not protect any rights.
What the US Constitution is doing is something much better: it enumerates a limited set of powers that the government has; all rights (current and future) that aren't limited by those powers are retained by the people.
That, at least, was the original idea. Legal practice has increasingly ignored that since the progressive era. But it's nevertheless what the Constitution
Re: (Score:1)
Yes
Just like all speech, all press, and all religion is protected.
If you don't like that, you need to amend the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
No liberty is absolute. Speech, for instance can be limited, either civilly (if you sign an NDA and then violate it), or criminally (revealing state secrets, or treason as some call it, is an example of how speech can be limited under criminal statute). The Founding Fathers intended liberties to expansive, but not absolute. In such a way, limiting some forms of gun ownership is no different than, say, laws against shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you guess which one the 2nd Amendment falls under?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In practice limiting human death is a motivating concern for law in a civilized society
What percentage of murders are committed in America with "Assault Weapons", or "Assault Rifles", or were ever murdered with "a Bazooka", or even the famously banned in California 50 BMG rifle, care to guess or look it up? Because if it's a really big percentage then you have a point, otherwise you're just making odd mewling sounds.
Re: Gun Registry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My premise is simple: Fifth commandment just war is the only exercise of heavy weaponry that is permissible.
If you lived in a theocracy that would be a valid point. Here in America we don't, so you don't. Is that really the best you got? Seriously?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you done being wrong ...?
No,
Fair enough - later!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because they broke they law by passing unconstitutional laws and the court system decided to illegally turn a blind eye to it.
During World War II the us government illegally imprisoned Japanese americans. It was still illegal they just got away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because ever since the National Firearms Act was passed back in the 30's, and the Hughes Amendment in the 80's, no one has had the resources nor standing to bring a successful suit against the government until now. [hellerfoundation.org]
The government at all levels often creates unconstitutional laws but until someone can challenge it with an actual standing the only way to get a law is repealed is through the respective legislative body, however we all know anyone purposing a repeal of the Hughes Amendment, let alone the Nation
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a special kind of cunt to compare registering your air-ready toy with German Jews in the 1930s.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the registration that is the problem -- it's the contract that the FAA forces upon you when you register.
Section 336 clearly states that the FAA may make no new rules to control model aircraft so they've been clever as a fox. The FAA has no way to make new rules to control these craft so they conjured up a contract and called it "registration". In order to register you must agree to the terms of the contract which include restrictions that were not previously present -- such as not flying over 4
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. It is highly disingenuous to compare modern drones to the hobbiest model and miniature aircraft of the past. The hobbiests tended to be pretty sensitive to other peoples' feelings and to general notions of aviation safety. Part of it was, I suppose that the cost of such aircraft was fairly high, but it was also part of the gentlemen's agreement that went along with entering the hobby. Now when any beer-swilling asshole with a spare $200 can go and buy a drone with video camera on it, it simply isn'
Re: (Score:3)
That happened way before drones, it stopped being a hobby when ready to fly models became available.
When you spent many hours building a model, you vaued it al lot more than an off the shelf item
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the FAA (and other regulators around the world) have chosen to penalize the genuine hobbyist for the acts of the idiots. This is totally uncalled for and unfair. Imagine if, every time some dick-head decided to break the speed limit, *every* responsible driver was penalised as a result. That's the situation we have here with drones.
The regulators can't even define what a drone is accurately or consistently so instead of making even the smallest effort (such as differentiating between
Re: (Score:1)
Those of us that fly real airplanes dont want to get your $200 toy stuck in our $20,000 engine.
Precisely! this [wikipedia.org] IS more important than this [banggood.com] and since passengers are at risk in real planes, they are even more important than this [uav-stol.com].
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't think they are breaking the law, but nice touch beginning of your FAA quote a capital letter "T" and finishing it before the "if" :
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 reg
Re: (Score:2)
I think you don't understand what the insurance is covering.
Hint: It's not damage to itself.
Re: (Score:2)