NTSB Court Rules on FAA vs. Pirker Appeal...18nov2014

[k5beason]

Yup, Both instances are correct and fine. Sorry if it read as an accusation. Glad to hear you are applying for the exemption. I've worked for an Aerial Survey Company flying 206's and also done some aerial photography work. I do think a sUAS can be safer than a manned aircraft flying low, slow, and in what would normally be considered an undesirable aircraft state. At the same time flying a multi rotor over a crowd of people at low altitudes might be more dangerous than a full sized aircraft with the ability to control the craft in the event of an engine failure and avoid the crowd of people.

I've applied for the exemption. The FAA has a 120 day review period so we won't know till February. I have no problem with regulation. We are one Joe Smith away from going to the local hobby shop picking up a Phantom and crashing into someone. Right now there is no difference between him and I. With proper regulation and certification we can atleast differentiate ourselves from him. There will be some costs but I'm going to assume its not going to cost as much as a private pilot or commercial certificate costs currently.

True. Forgot about that.

I am commercial rated and plan on filling for exemption. I understand the need to regulate. It only takes one idiot to mess it up for everyone. I also feel that safety is first in all of it. I just need to cut cost for my photography and using a UAV is a great way. Even with the video above flying fpv through a crowed area is a bad idea. Something can go wrong and hurt someone bad. Even in my flying ad skydiving we are always talking about safety. You don't just have your life at risk but the people below you as well.

 

[Bartman]

What's also amazing is that it doesn't have that many views.

that's a repost of the original video by sUAS news. i'm not sure where the original video is posted or how many views it has

 

[k5beason]

But the FAA's definition has not changed. The NTSB simply went back and reviewed policies, laws, regulations, that established the definition and affirmed the definition. If you narrow the scope of definition you may exclude something in the future. The FAA is not going to regulate footballs, frisbees, and baseballs. Nor are they going to regulate 10 cent balsa gliders. But the ruling affirms the FAA the ability in the court of law to prosecute people like Trappy who endanger bystanders. No new power has been given.

The ALJ was not incorrect. Since the definition of aircraft is so broad, technically it now does include frisbees, footballs and baseballs and this is a problem.

Trappy's flight was reckless and not worthy of compensation but that's another issue.

 

[Bartman]

i agree but if one chooses to throw frisbees at landing aircraft then the FAA (and the police probably) will have the authority to impose fines.

 

[scotth]

This incident should have been dealt with at the local level, with existing reckless endangerment laws.. and the tort system. I would tend to agree that flying over the heliport was not a good idea, and that does seem like place the FAA should be involved. But again, that brings us back to voluntary compliance with AC 91.57. It's a mess.

 

[k5beason]

Yes, if you throw a frisbee at a landing aircraft or any object regardless if the designed intent of that object was to fly through air you will most likely have a conversation with the FAA and the local police. As a Pilot, I'm ok with this. Same goes for laser pointers and any other device used to distract or that could cause serious harm to the aircraft, passengers, or bystanders.

The definition is clear as mud and intentionally so. If as a hobbyist you operate solely for recreation the affirmed definition has no implication for you. If you are operating commercially you have been doing so illegally and will be illegally doing so unless you receive an exemption or comply with the regulations once released.

And please don't throw frisbees at landing aircraft, dents, windows, turbines, paint... its all very expensive.

i agree but if one chooses to throw frisbees at landing aircraft then the FAA (and the police probably) will have the authority to impose fines.

 

[DucktileMedia]

I still don't fully understand why the target is those who charge for their services. This has baffled me from the beginning. Although this doesn;t go for everyone, those who charge are trying to make a name for themselves and therefore have more at stake and a personal interest to not make careless errors. Compare this to a kid who gets a phantom for xmas. What does he care if he smacks it into the neighbors house? It's mommy money so the little yuppie larvae can stop whining that he was the only one on his block without a drone. Are the courts made of morons?

 

[k5beason]

But he wasn't operating in compliance with AC 91.57. He was receiving compensation and not flying for hobby or recreation. The intent was also that you would be a member of an organization such as the AMA and fly in accordance with their rules and regulations. The Modernization Act of 2012 further emphasized the organization requirement.

The general consensus on the forums for no apparent reason is my aicraft is under 55 pounds so I'm exempt from all FAR's. The FAA has repeatedly said that is not the case but everyone only hears what they want to hear. If you are operating your aircraft commercially meaning receiving compensation in any form (The FAA has a loose definition of compensation as well) then you are doing so not in accordance with AC 91.57. Regardless of if you are operating in accordance with AC 91.57 the applicable FARs are still applicable. You can't operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner and if you do and post it to the internet and the FAA catches wind of it you will face enforcement action.

There is never a "grey area" with the FAA. I've met some enforcement lawyers at the FAA. There is no legal way to use a drone commercially except to apply for a receive an exemption. Is everyone going to see a letter from the FAA? No they don't have the resources to do so. But if your silly enough to post your carless and reckless video to the internet, advertise your services and receive compensation for your services than you really have no defense regardless of if it hurts your business or how silly you may think it is to regulate a small "toy" helicopter.

This incident should have been dealt with at the local level, with existing reckless endangerment laws.. and the tort system. I would tend to agree that flying over the heliport was not a good idea, and that does seem like place the FAA should be involved. But again, that brings us back to voluntary compliance with AC 91.57. It's a mess.

 

[Bartman]

i'm glad that we agree for the most part that unmanned aircraft regulations are necessary and that we should maintain our freedom as hobbyists to fly so long as we are responsible and safe.

i think of all the balloons floating in the sky at the moment, the one that has 'commercial' on it also happens to have a string attached to it and because of that the FAA has grabbed it and won't let it go. at the very very low level that most of us operate or have tried to operate it makes no sense to have so tightly around the neck but we're lumped in as 'commercial' operators with the larger community of far more complex aircraft also being operated commercially.

 

[scotth]

Interesting that they did not address the compensation aspect of the original complaint. So, if he were in hobby mode, then it reverts back to voluntary compliance with AC 91.57..

But yes if you agree with the FAA's policy on these matters everything you say is correct. Part of the debate has been whether policy means law, and with this decision there is now case law that does support that.

Reasonable thinking suggest that the FAA really needs to establish some authority over this type of thing before a phantom ends up in the fan of some jet, or through a windshield. I agree. Dodging the turkey buzzards is bad enough.

 

[Ronan]

The definition is clear as mud and intentionally so. If as a hobbyist you operate solely for recreation the affirmed definition has no implication for you. If you are operating commercially you have been doing so illegally and will be illegally doing so unless you receive an exemption or comply with the regulations once released.

And please don't throw frisbees at landing aircraft, dents, windows, turbines, paint... its all very expensive.

I'v got 2 lawyers here (three if you count Brendan Schulman) that will beg to differ. I'v also got 50+ companies that have been utilizing commercial drones for 10-15 years in the US, that will also beg to differ (some of them are heavyweight in their fields, talking ten's of billions of dollars).

99% of us await proper regulations and certifications. Of course, our gut feelings tells us we will get screwed (over complicated, over-priced, etc).

 

[k5beason]

All I'm conveying is that There seems to be this "internet fact" spreading that makes people believe its perfectly legal to operate these drones or multirotors for hire and its loosely based on the now overturned ruling and the fact that sUAS is not defined in the federal aviation regulations.

To operate an aircraft in a for hire operation the operator must be a commercial pilot with a 2nd class medical. The aircraft also must be certified in the appropriate class and category. No Multirotor, I know of, has met the certification process. Thats why operators are applying for the exemption. They seek to exclude the aircraft from the certification process and lower the airmen requirements to the private pilot level. They also apply for exemption for minimum safe altitudes so they can operate in closer proximity to people and structures.

So maybe you have three lawyers that say yeah we can defend you, thats fantastic for you but the average Joe won't have those resources. I don't have those resources. I have an FAA issued Airline Transport Pilot certificate that the FAA has the ability to take emergency action against and revoke my privileges instantly. The FAA can also take action and prevent the applicant from being issued future certificates. So you flying your sUAS for hire now could prevent you from being able to apply and be issued a certificate to legally operate in the future. When a person argues it is legal they should do so in a manner to not mislead average Joe into thinking he can go buy a mulitrotor and fly it for hire with no worry of legal issues in the event he operates careless or reckless or worse injures a bystander.

There is no law or regulation that clearly states you can not, thats the nature of the federal aviation regulations. But I think there are a lot of videos and people offering these services that are operating in a manner that in the event of emergency the would not be able to prevent injury to structures and bystanders and that by definition is operating in a careless and reckless manner no different than Trappy.

I want to see sUAS integrated into the national airspace and I want to build a business around their operation. But I won't mislead clients, bystanders, or myself in to believing it is legal without the proper exemption.

I'd love to be convinced otherwise but I have not heard any solid arguments. Trappy's only argument was that his aircraft was not an aircraft and was exempt. That was the defense. The NTSB just made that defense void.

I'v got 2 lawyers here (three if you count Brendan Schulman) that will beg to differ. I'v also got 50+ companies that have been utilizing commercial drones for 10-15 years in the US, that will also beg to differ (some of them are heavyweight in their fields, talking ten's of billions of dollars).

99% of us await proper regulations and certifications. Of course, our gut feelings tells us we will get screwed (over complicated, over-priced, etc).

 

[jetkrazee]

FAA Ruling

Just found this article. Sorry if it's already been posted.

http://rt.com/usa/206639-faa-regulations-drones-safety/

 

[maxwelltub]

hey sorry for the late reply, certainly change it if you still want to

maxwell, i was just reading about this elsewhere. would you mind if i change the title of the thread to make it more obvious what it is that we're discussing as this is going to be a hot topic for the foreseeable future.

thanks,
bart

 

[Ronan]

I highly suggest you go do more research before posting. You are missing a lot of information, which has been covered in previous posts/threads/etc.

There is no law that stops sUAV business's from operating, i know, i checked, hired lawyers, contacted the FAA, and even registered a business. Some of those business's have been in business for 10+ years, with millions invested. ONLY when UAV's became more affordable did the FAA came down hard, with nothing. Previous e-mails and letters sent to sUAV business's have been revoct by the FAA claiming they were not official. Also, the only person misleading people is the FAA with it's broad statement that sUAV used commercially are illegal. No they are not. Using them recklessly is though, that's what they have on Mr. Pikar, and that's completely normal (and kind of a duh statement).

Also a sUAV is not the same as an aircraft, the same thing with a r/c airplane, paper airplane, etc. The latest turn of event is a new agency stating it is, good luck with that in court, especially at the federal level. No mention of sUAV business's, since the FAA knows they have no case there.

So in your case, i wouldn't get within 100 feet of a sUAV since the FAA controls your real pilot license completely. After all, they can revoke it for anything. Luckily, most people aren't owned by the FAA in that sense, which honestly, is dictatorship and scary. Also right now, 6 month wait to get that special permission (maybe even more, a colleague waited 1 year). Most of us are waiting on 'the list'.

I would also think that most of the people in this business have a talk with their clients about this. It's only proper business ethics. But don't get me wrong, no one is breaking the law.

All I'm conveying is that There seems to be this "internet fact" spreading that makes people believe its perfectly legal to operate these drones or multirotors for hire and its loosely based on the now overturned ruling and the fact that sUAS is not defined in the federal aviation regulations.

To operate an aircraft in a for hire operation the operator must be a commercial pilot with a 2nd class medical. The aircraft also must be certified in the appropriate class and category. No Multirotor, I know of, has met the certification process. Thats why operators are applying for the exemption. They seek to exclude the aircraft from the certification process and lower the airmen requirements to the private pilot level. They also apply for exemption for minimum safe altitudes so they can operate in closer proximity to people and structures.

So maybe you have three lawyers that say yeah we can defend you, thats fantastic for you but the average Joe won't have those resources. I don't have those resources. I have an FAA issued Airline Transport Pilot certificate that the FAA has the ability to take emergency action against and revoke my privileges instantly. The FAA can also take action and prevent the applicant from being issued future certificates. So you flying your sUAS for hire now could prevent you from being able to apply and be issued a certificate to legally operate in the future. When a person argues it is legal they should do so in a manner to not mislead average Joe into thinking he can go buy a mulitrotor and fly it for hire with no worry of legal issues in the event he operates careless or reckless or worse injures a bystander.

There is no law or regulation that clearly states you can not, thats the nature of the federal aviation regulations. But I think there are a lot of videos and people offering these services that are operating in a manner that in the event of emergency the would not be able to prevent injury to structures and bystanders and that by definition is operating in a careless and reckless manner no different than Trappy.

I want to see sUAS integrated into the national airspace and I want to build a business around their operation. But I won't mislead clients, bystanders, or myself in to believing it is legal without the proper exemption.

I'd love to be convinced otherwise but I have not heard any solid arguments. Trappy's only argument was that his aircraft was not an aircraft and was exempt. That was the defense. The NTSB just made that defense void.

 

[Bartman]

Ronan,

As a professionally employed pilot it is indeed a rascally wildcard that they could choose to bring my pilot certificates into an enforcement action against me as a commercial sUAS operator. It's what ultimately forced me to hang up my aerial media spurs.

I may be back, we'll see how things go. still building and flying so i'm not completely out of it. want to try quad racing next, just not near any airports.

Bart

 

[k5beason]

It all comes down to interpretation. Your argument is a sUAS is not an aircraft by definition and thus can not be regulated utilizing the existing federal aviation regulations. The same defense Trappy used. The NTSB ruling certainly effects that interpretation. I don't believe there has been any prior case which the Law Judge acted against the NTSB's interpretation, however.

I guess my confusion is then why are you requesting the special permission (which I assume you are referring to an exemption?)? Why go to the trouble if you feel the FAA has no jurisdiction over your operation? What type of sUAS business are we referring to? The companies manufacturing the aircraft or the companies flying the aircraft for hire? Obviously the military has utilized drones and there are industries supporting those operations but that is a completely different topic.

The movie industry has sought for exemption for a reason, as have many other companies and organizations. If it is clearly legal, why? Many companies have shifted testing to Canada and other more done friendly places. Google has been conducting drone tests in Australia. Again if it is so clearly legal why would companies go to such trouble?

It's all up for good debate and interpretation. I don't view the FAA as a dictatorship, Flying is a privilege, the same as driving a car. With these privileges comes responsibility. The FAA has the power to revoke those privileges and also prevent people from gaining those privileges.

I highly suggest you go do more research before posting. You are missing a lot of information, which has been covered in previous posts/threads/etc.

There is no law that stops sUAV business's from operating, i know, i checked, hired lawyers, contacted the FAA, and even registered a business. Some of those business's have been in business for 10+ years, with millions invested. ONLY when UAV's became more affordable did the FAA came down hard, with nothing. Previous e-mails and letters sent to sUAV business's have been revoct by the FAA claiming they were not official. Also, the only person misleading people is the FAA with it's broad statement that sUAV used commercially are illegal. No they are not. Using them recklessly is though, that's what they have on Mr. Pikar, and that's completely normal (and kind of a duh statement).

Also a sUAV is not the same as an aircraft, the same thing with a r/c airplane, paper airplane, etc. The latest turn of event is a new agency stating it is, good luck with that in court, especially at the federal level. No mention of sUAV business's, since the FAA knows they have no case there.

So in your case, i wouldn't get within 100 feet of a sUAV since the FAA controls your real pilot license completely. After all, they can revoke it for anything. Luckily, most people aren't owned by the FAA in that sense, which honestly, is dictatorship and scary. Also right now, 6 month wait to get that special permission (maybe even more, a colleague waited 1 year). Most of us are waiting on 'the list'.

I would also think that most of the people in this business have a talk with their clients about this. It's only proper business ethics. But don't get me wrong, no one is breaking the law.

 

[Ronan]

Glad a you asked.

Because the FAA has put so much money and effort in telling everyone commercial drones are illegal, some clients refuse to do business with sUAV businesses. Even after providing legal paperwork and any issues/misinformation are overcome, the FAA has such a heavy pull, they dare not get in their way. The same goes for Google and other companies. What do you think the FAA would do if those companies come and ask for certificates, registrations, etc, for non-drone stuff? They would be denied very quickly.

I have actually lost a lot of money because of that and I know I am not the only one.

You know the old saying, "if you can't beat them, join them"? It's pretty much that... All of this is political drama bs, it should have been rectified and certified YEARS ago. it's a big anti-drone war, meanwhile some people have been using r/c airplanes to do pipeline and powerline inspections for 10+ years. Where was the FAA then? Ridiculous.

@Bartman I feel for you man...