Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
The case that saw a see-saw battle between a commercial drone operator and the FAA has been settled (last I read was that the original judge during his handling of the remand was asking the FAA whether the case could go forward since the FAA hadn't followed its own procedures with regard to foreigners like Pirker; and the judge had still not got around to addressing several other points the defense had made.)
Here's one article on the settlement that seems to address its scope and the reasons for it:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...e-about-legality-of-commercial-use-of-drones/
The above article links to the settlement document itself, but here it is again:
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/pirkerdeal.pdf
The settlement makes reference to the original complaint, where it says several allegations shall be omitted, such as 9(a), 9(c), and so on, so here is the original complaint where those items occur:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/10/Complaint.pdf
Here's one article on the settlement that seems to address its scope and the reasons for it:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...e-about-legality-of-commercial-use-of-drones/
The above article links to the settlement document itself, but here it is again:
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/pirkerdeal.pdf
The settlement makes reference to the original complaint, where it says several allegations shall be omitted, such as 9(a), 9(c), and so on, so here is the original complaint where those items occur:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/10/Complaint.pdf