The FAA's Smoke-and-Mirror Act
Following the Amazon Prime Air commercial and 60 Minutes interview with Jeff Bezos, the FAA released a statement on Monday saying, "The FAA is committed to safe, efficient and timely integration of unmanned aircraft systems into our airspace. The FAA approves UAS operations by public entities on a case-by-case basis. So far, only a single commercial UAS operator has been approved to operate, and it is in the Arctic. UAS operators must abide by local, state and federal privacy laws. Over the next several years the FAA will establish regulations and standards for the safe integration of remote piloted UAS to meet increased demand. Autonomous UAS operation is not currently allowed in the United States."
Of special importance is this sentence: "So far, only a single commercial UAS operator has been approved to operate, and it is in the Arctic." The FAA is not-so-subtly telling us that Amazon does not hold a Special Airworthiness Certificate, often cited as the "permit" to operate a commercial UAS in the United States. (It is held by oil prospecting company ConocoPhilips Alaska.)
So here is my question: if it is true that commercial operations of UAS without an FAA-issued permit are "illegal," then why is the FAA issuing the relatively banal and benign statement above rather than announcing legal action against Amazon?
Note that the closing sentence reads, "currently not allowed," rather than "illegal." In fact, while they like to use words like "prohibited" or "banned" quite a lot, the FAA has never, to my knowledge, used the word "illegal" to describe commercial UAS operation. I suspect that this is because the FAA is keenly aware of the fact that their statements have no - or at best, only a tenuous - basis in law.
They've been able to scare smaller operators into submission with cease & desist letters, but if the FAA were to press a company like Amazon, they would almost certainly have to prove their case in a court of law. The scare tactics that they have used to buy time until regulations are in place would be exposed as the smoke-and-mirrors act that they always have been.
In short, the FAA is ruling by fiat rather than law. And that, my friends, is the definition of tyranny.
Of special importance is this sentence: "So far, only a single commercial UAS operator has been approved to operate, and it is in the Arctic." The FAA is not-so-subtly telling us that Amazon does not hold a Special Airworthiness Certificate, often cited as the "permit" to operate a commercial UAS in the United States. (It is held by oil prospecting company ConocoPhilips Alaska.)
So here is my question: if it is true that commercial operations of UAS without an FAA-issued permit are "illegal," then why is the FAA issuing the relatively banal and benign statement above rather than announcing legal action against Amazon?
Note that the closing sentence reads, "currently not allowed," rather than "illegal." In fact, while they like to use words like "prohibited" or "banned" quite a lot, the FAA has never, to my knowledge, used the word "illegal" to describe commercial UAS operation. I suspect that this is because the FAA is keenly aware of the fact that their statements have no - or at best, only a tenuous - basis in law.
They've been able to scare smaller operators into submission with cease & desist letters, but if the FAA were to press a company like Amazon, they would almost certainly have to prove their case in a court of law. The scare tactics that they have used to buy time until regulations are in place would be exposed as the smoke-and-mirrors act that they always have been.
In short, the FAA is ruling by fiat rather than law. And that, my friends, is the definition of tyranny.