I'm assuming you're referring to FAA v. Pirker.

Isn't the case still undecided?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoglia/2014/04/12/faa-files-...

The case is being appealed, but isn't the most recent decision the one with legal power, until another decision is made upon appeal?

But even more generally, I should have said the FAA has no clear legal authority to regulate small unmanned aircraft. The FAA obviously claims that it does have certain legal abilities, and points to certain laws to argue their case [0].

[0] http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-06-23/faa-claims...

In this case the appeal stays the decision:

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId...

Definitely agree with your second point - according to most observers, the FAA's authority to regulate small (model-sized) UAVs is tenuous at best. They're generally not expected to win their appeal.

Even if they lose, won't the laws change to give them these powers ? I don't see something as potentially risky as drones running around unregulated.

The laws already changed to give them these powers - the 2012 FAA Modernization Act authorizes the FAA to make rules about UAS.

However, the FAA's rulemaking abilities are limited by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and they haven't made any yet.

So, even if the FAA's appeal fails, there will be a very short window (probably a year or less) before drones are explicitly regulated on less shaky footing.

> The laws already changed to give them these powers - the 2012 FAA Modernization Act authorizes the FAA to make rules about UAS.

So claims the FAA. I can't make my way through the text of the law, nor can I find any legal summary or analysis other than the FAA's own claim that it gives them the authority to regulate UAS.

Let me save you the trouble. As a lawyer, familiar with reading legislative text, it clearly requires them to do rulemaking about UAS, and grants them the authority to do so.

Everybody is arguing if they have the authority or not the more important question is why do they want to?

I find the FAA's attempt at banning anything commercial relating to drones a bit curious.

Step 1. Ban/regulate all commercial Drones.

Step 2. Require a license for commercial use.

Step 3. Profit?

The FAA's goal in life is to ensure safety in the air. Drones are obviously within their field of interest. When commercial drones take off, there will obviously be a lot more drones in the air than the recreational drones and toy aircraft now, since there is a lot of money to be made, while comparatively few people fly things for a hobby.

If that was the intent they would be putting rules in place to prevent people from getting hurt not outright banning them which is what their doing now.

This looks more like a move to kill an industry before it takes off if you pardon my pun.

Not to mention there's nothing to regulate at the moment no people have been hurt by drones and there's very few companies actually looking into them.

So the next logical question is who would loose money if commercial drone delivery services become the norm?

> I don't see something as potentially risky as drones running around unregulated.

Really? How about people hitting baseballs with bats unregulated? That's a heck of a lot more dangerous than most hobbyist drones, perhaps unless you're deliberately trying to do harm (in which case regulations don't matter).

It's risk assessment time. How many people are hitting baseball bats with unregulated bats today versus the number of drones that will be flying around cities delivering things all the time (and bumping into people on the sidewalks)? It takes little imagination to see that once drones are accepted as an efficient method of transportation, then companies will want to use them as much as possible, thus possibly creating a situation where we might want them to be regulated. Perhaps it's hard to see this happening from the few examples we've of hobbyist usage today but that is probably going to change (if they're accepted, etc, etc).

This downvote pattern in HN is really interesting. Instead of discussing ideas people seem to downvote based on how they agree with it or not. The argument's validity usually is dismissed if it goes against someone's view. And, of course, serious replies rarely follow. Talk about bias bubble SV :)

That's interesting. Is it well-accepted that an appeal stays the decisions? If not, then this might just be another case of the FAA claiming its desires. And even if the appeal is stayed, what is the default state?

In the case of the NTSB court, yes, a "timely" appeal stays the decision by default. 49 CFR § 821.43

It's a valid point but does it matter in reality? If it's not the FAA's then some other govt agency (or even a new one) will regulate things that fly around in our cities. The way I see it, the FAA is just getting ahead of future events.

Regardless of the legal enforceability of these rules, I do think Amazon and the FAA need to be certain that a swarm of package-delivering drones don't cause, say, a passenger airplane crash or the failure of an airport's air traffic control system, before we see general deployment of these drones.

I suspect the true difficult technical challenge here will be upgrading the planes and airports to handle hundreds of little drones flying around, with the legal framework to follow.