|
Aardvark DailyThe world's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication, now in its 30th year. The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact but reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy.Content copyright © 1995 - 2025 to Bruce Simpson (aka Aardvark), the logo was kindly created for Aardvark Daily by the folks at aardvark.co.uk |
Please visit the sponsor! |
I recall debating with a representative of CAA, whether their "policies" with respect to drone operation in New Zealand were enforceable.
The guy from CAA argued "yes they were". I argued "no they aren't".
It seems that CAA were confused between "policy" and "regulation" -- two completely different things.
The fact that, despite much sabre-rattling and threats, CAA has never bought (to my knowledge) any prosecutions under their "drone" policies and have recently done almost a complete 180 on the subject is pretty effective proof that I was right.
Over in the USA, exactly the same thing has happened -- but far more definitively.
Several months ago the FAA (the US equivalent of our CAA) levied a $10,000 fine against an RC model flier, alleging that his actions violated their rules in respect to the use of RC models (drones) for commercial purposes.
The alleged offender (Raphael Pirker AKA "Trappy", who can be seen visiting me last year in this video) argued that the FAA (like CAA) has no legislative backup to support its "policies" in respect to "drones".
I posted an opinion piece (video) regarding this action by the FAA in which I asserted that the FAA were in the wrong and (like CAA) were attempting to present policy as regulation -- which is completely invalid.
The matter was heard by a judge last week -- and the FAA lost (woohoo... I was right again!).
What does this mean?
Firstly, it means that the FAA has been incredibly dishonest in freely firing off "cease and desist" letters and threatening to prosecute businesses that have used or attempted to use drones for commercial purposes.
There are hundreds of cases of businesses effectively being shut down by the FAA who had falsely claimed that the use of these craft was against the law. The FAA had better hope that none of those businesses choose to now sue and recover their lost profits.
More importantly -- it's now a free-for-all in the commercial drone market over in the land of the free.
The US government gave the FAA a deadline for integrating commercial drones into the national airspace -- and due to the slow progress of this process, that deadline has already been extended. Now -- the need for such regulation is *immediate* -- since the courts have effectively said that the FAA's current rhetoric is toothless.
Amazon, DHL and beer companies can now launch their drone delivery services with impunity!
The worry now is that all hell might break loose.
Every man and his seeing-eye dog is now free to buy an off-the-shelf drone and go into business making aerial videos, conducting surveillance and engaging in a myriad of different aerial activities.
By acting like a bunch of goons, the FAA have effectively shot themselves in the foot -- big time!
Now they have absolutely ZERO control over the commercial use of these craft and, given the number of people and businesses that have been crying out for the right to fly, the skies could soon be filled with such machines in a completely unregulated fashion.
What a stuff-up -- but it does very effectively demonstrate the dangers that are present when a regulator over-steps their authority and believes they can sidestep the procedures involved in creating enforceable regulation.
Let's hope that other agencies, both in the USA and elsewhere in the world are watching and will learn from this.
In the meantime, if you're planning a visit to the USA -- take a hard-hat.
Please visit the sponsor! |
(Sorry, forums are stuffed at present)
Beware The Alternative Energy Scammers
The Great "Run Your Car On Water" Scam