The article in question concerns itself with drone regulation and, in particular, drones that are used in recreational applications. It is a report on a case filed before a federal court challenging an existing law regarding registration and use of privately operated drones. Until this determination, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had been enforcing a regulation requiring operators of drones to register their aircrafts with a nationwide drone registration system. However, the law applied to specific categories of aircrafts, yet the FAA made blanket enforcement on all operators of aircrafts.
The article appears to have been written with the intention of informing technology lobbyists and other private users of drones of development in the legal framework regarding the use of drones for recreational purposes. As such, it is an informative article updating drones enthusiasts that they no longer need to worry about the legal requirement of FAA to register their drones with the regulatory authority for a license of operation. In the ruling, the federal court holds that it is illegal for FAA to impose a fee or prescribe jail terms on persons who failed to register their drones with the authority. The crux of the ruling was that the application of the FAA contravened another existing law which spelled out the categories of aircrafts that needed to be under strict supervision of the aviation authority. In other words, the author is informing private drone operators that they have the liberty to explore the airspace without worrying of the prying eyes of the FAA.
The fact that the author is reporting details of a determination of a court of law offers credence to what the author has written in the article. The information being given originates from a federal court. Such a source substantiates the factuality of the content of the article in the sense that all that one needs to do is to request for the records from the courts to verify the information that is being presented by the author. As a matter of fact, a determination of a case cannot be attributed to any court of law if such event never took place in the first place. Due to the mentioned reasons, one can conclude that the information contained in the article is credible and, therefore, can be relied upon for decision making regarding the use of drones for noncommercial purposes.
Despite the accuracy of the report provided in the article, the choice of words, however, suggests that the author may have had a leaning towards deregulation of noncommercial application of drones. For instance, the author seems to have made a deliberate action in choosing the title of the article. The words of the title appear to suggest that the news of the federal courts decision seems to have come as a vindication of the position the author held regarding the use of drones for noncommercial engagements. However, the interviews reported on the reaction of various parties to the federal courts ruling seem to indicate that the author entertains the position that the FAA retains its responsibility (despite the court ruling) to ensure that the USs airspace is safe for smooth movement of aircrafts.
In conclusion, the article reviewed advances the idea of deregulation of noncommercial drones. The subject matter is a court decision barring the FAA from regulating the noncommercial application of drones. Although the report comes from credible sources, the position of the author intimates some form of bias towards deregulation.
References
Vanian, J. (2017). You No Longer Have to Register Your Drone. Fortune.
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
