This paper is a critique of the article “FAA's drone registration rule faces legal challenge from think tank” by Kent Hoover. This critique will discuss some of the author’s main points and will examine the overall effectiveness of the article as well as the author’s stance in the end.
The article being reviewed today is called “FAA's drone registration rule faces legal challenge from think tank” by Kent Hoover. This article briefly describes what the drone registration policy is and uses a company called “Tech Freedom” as an example of the opposition to the FAA drone policy.
The beginning of this article is fairly straight forward. The author states that “Tech Freedom” believes that the Federal Aviation Administration’s new drone rules have exceeded the FAA’s authority. The rule is simple. It states that drones weighing more than 0.55 pounds and less than 55 pounds need to be registered with the FAA for a fee of 5 dollars and is good for 3 years. At this point in the article, the author begins to side with the FAA. A few examples he gives are that the FAA needs to register drones in order to track operators who fly in restricted areas and that registration of a drone is a good way to educate yourself if you are new to the world of drone operation or aviation. The author then focuses on Tech Freedom again stating that these rules could be consequential due to the fact that it was rushed and didn’t give the public an opportunity to question it. Tech Freedom also states that the FAA “could not fully consider the real-world complexities of regulating drones.”
The author seems to keep the FAA in a positive light in this article. He offers examples of why registration is needed for the accountability of operators as well as overall safety. On the other hand, the author doesn’t present Tech Freedom with a very strong argument. The arguments given by this company seem to be quite vague. An example...