THE FAA'S INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT

摘要

As shown from the foregoing, model aircraft is an innovative industry that does not need to be regulated. Through Posner's economical approach and Dworkin's evaluation of past precedent and constitutional principles, both theories of jurisprudence show model aircraft should not be regulated by the FAA and that air safety can best be achieved by allowing innovation to continue. Posner's view takes into account the judicial decision's effect, but ignores precedent and notions of morality. An analysis under this economical form of jurisprudence would probably determine that the government wastes resources in regulating an industry that does not pose harm to society and that has already created its own set of self-regulating practices. Dworkin's approach is more structured and less flexible but promotes consistency and fairness by adhering to previous decisions. An analysis under Dworkin's jurisprudence would determine that the government has a history of not regulating an industry until wide-scale harm has happened and that innovation, which could lead to safer practices than regulation could create, should be favored until society is harmed. Given the need for the environment of an innovation to be reliable in order to thrive, Dworkin's jurisprudence would be the best reasoning because it promotes a predictable environment that would allow for the most innovation for model aircraft. Therefore, the FAA would create the safest environment for model aircraft by allowing continued innovation in the industry, and the proposed interpretation of the special rule should be nullified.