by AUVSI News
On May 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals determined that hobbyist UAS owners will no longer have to register their unmanned systems with the Federal Aviation Administration, potentially reversing a practice that has been in place for more than a year.
A three-judge panel determined that a final rule issued by the FAA in December 2015 requiring UAS owners to register their aircraft like manned aircraft directly contradicted another rule that was already in place from 2012.
The rule that was in place from 2012 comes from section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which states that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.”
In that same section, a model aircraft is defined as “an unmanned aircraft that is (1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.”
In an opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, he says, “statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft.”
AUVSI President and CEO Brian Wynne issued the following statement after the ruling:
“AUVSI is disappointed with the decision today by the U.S. Court of Appeals to reject the FAA’s rule for registering recreational unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). A UAS registration system is important to promote accountability and responsibility by users of the national airspace, and helps create a culture of safety that deters careless and reckless behavior. We plan to work with Congress on a legislative solution that will ensure continued accountability across the entire aviation community, both manned and unmanned.”
Wynne served on the panel that created the drone registration, along with other industry representatives and representatives of hobbyist UAS aviators. The Academy of Model Aeronautics, which also had a representative on the panel, had opposed registration for hobbyist drone owners. The AMA said in a statement on its website that it is reviewing the new ruling.
<< Back to the News