maxwelltub
Member
Last edited by a moderator:
NTSB Court Rules on FAA vs. Pirker Appeal...18nov2014
- Thread starter maxwelltub
- Start date
SamaraMedia
Active Member
Damn...Not surprised though. If at first you don't get the result you want, appeal it until you do. It's legal, it's not legal. This is going to be a long and brutal process that will be interesting to watch. How will manufacturers like DJI, TBS, 3DR, to name a few react to this kind of ruling. Will they stop making the Phantom, the new Inspire, Disco Pro, Iris? Not likely, but if it's now illegal to fly one, what is the point in buying one? Never mind the high end of the spectrum, who's is going to invest tens of thousands (if you haven't already) into a business or hobby that could be grounded for good? Or until they come up with rules that will cost you tens of thousands more to qualify for?
I just spent two hours working on a DIY 3 axis gimbal for my new Lumix LX100 that I was planning on mounting under my hexacopter but after reading this I'm not sure I'm going to be able to keep a positive attitude towards a new future. I've been trying to be patient for four years, making a plan for business when things got sorted out but now, who knows?
I just spent two hours working on a DIY 3 axis gimbal for my new Lumix LX100 that I was planning on mounting under my hexacopter but after reading this I'm not sure I'm going to be able to keep a positive attitude towards a new future. I've been trying to be patient for four years, making a plan for business when things got sorted out but now, who knows?
Av8Chuck
Member
It is bad, but not in the way that article made it out to be. There was absolutely no mention of whether flying a drone commercially is legal, the entire appeal was in regards to the definition of the term "Aircraft" and whether the drone Pirker was flying fell into that definition, which the appeals court ruled that it did in context of the FAA's ability to fine him relative to the safe conduct of his flight. There was no mention of compensation or whether it was legal to do the flight just whether or not it was conducted safely.
Now they have to go back to court and prove that he conducted the flight recklessly which might be harder to do than you think. They gave a couple of examples of why the FAA felt it was an unsafe flight, flying through a tunnel with moving cars in it, flying under a construction crane and someone having to move because they feared they might be struck by his drone, on the surface I'm guessing he's going to have to pay up some money. However, even though the Appeals Court ruled that the FAA could define the drone as an aircraft, not all aircraft are created equally, although it would be unsafe to fly a full sized helicopter in a tunnel with moving cars that's not necessarily the case for a small drone so this will lead to an interesting ruling on how you define "safe."
Now they have to go back to court and prove that he conducted the flight recklessly which might be harder to do than you think. They gave a couple of examples of why the FAA felt it was an unsafe flight, flying through a tunnel with moving cars in it, flying under a construction crane and someone having to move because they feared they might be struck by his drone, on the surface I'm guessing he's going to have to pay up some money. However, even though the Appeals Court ruled that the FAA could define the drone as an aircraft, not all aircraft are created equally, although it would be unsafe to fly a full sized helicopter in a tunnel with moving cars that's not necessarily the case for a small drone so this will lead to an interesting ruling on how you define "safe."
lightman281
Member
Chuck, I'm going to have to disagree with you. I just read the entire brief from
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf and it would seem they ruled that "any device to be used for flight" is regulated under the current FARs. Including part 91 commercial operations. What they did was to redifine what drones, model planes, helicopters, and multirotors, free flight models, balloons, teathered balloons, or any other “device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.” as strait up aircraft. While we have guidelines and administrative exemptions from the FAA for model aircraft those are not laws and this ruling prempts those guidelines from being covered under the existing FARs.
So, I'm gunna go out in my yard and fly my unlicensed, unnumbered, electrically powered unmanned aircraft over my own property, wreaklessly while under 400 feet AGL (see brief), in a populated area (by me and my dog), in and around, close to, and around structures. Then I'll be posting that video to youtube with an account that contains advertising to be compensated for that flight. Come fine me FAA.
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf and it would seem they ruled that "any device to be used for flight" is regulated under the current FARs. Including part 91 commercial operations. What they did was to redifine what drones, model planes, helicopters, and multirotors, free flight models, balloons, teathered balloons, or any other “device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.” as strait up aircraft. While we have guidelines and administrative exemptions from the FAA for model aircraft those are not laws and this ruling prempts those guidelines from being covered under the existing FARs.
So, I'm gunna go out in my yard and fly my unlicensed, unnumbered, electrically powered unmanned aircraft over my own property, wreaklessly while under 400 feet AGL (see brief), in a populated area (by me and my dog), in and around, close to, and around structures. Then I'll be posting that video to youtube with an account that contains advertising to be compensated for that flight. Come fine me FAA.
Bartman
Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
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
Bartman
Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
Quickly reading through the brief, i agree with lightman281. the purpose of the appeal was to determine if the judge in the original case was correct or not in determining that "model aircraft" were not "aircraft" where the application of full scale rules prohibiting wreckless operation were concerned. Now that the appeals court ruled that "model Aircraft" do in fact qualify as "aircraft" the FAA will attempt to reimpose the $10,000 fine on Raphael Pirker
Commercial being legal or not is not addressed but the landscape has been so obscured by so many rules, delays, judgements, etc. it's hard to know who will have what to say about it anymore.
From the legal brief
Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” forpurposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We mustlook no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includesany aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and recklessoperation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than thosesubject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing todetermine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as toendanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
Commercial being legal or not is not addressed but the landscape has been so obscured by so many rules, delays, judgements, etc. it's hard to know who will have what to say about it anymore.
From the legal brief
Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” forpurposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We mustlook no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includesany aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and recklessoperation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than thosesubject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing todetermine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as toendanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
R_Lefebvre
Arducopter Developer
Sounds like, you can do whatever you want, even if the FAA fines you, you'll be dead before it makes it's way through the courts, so who cares? 
Bartman
Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
i don't see this as a big problem for most hobbyists, so long as they're acting in a way that is safe and responsible. FPV may still be at risk as well as some form of basic, loosely regulated commercial ops but this appeals court decision doesn't seem to do anything other than define "model aircraft" as "aircraft".
i'm going to keep flying in all of the ways that I always have. if anyone is unsure of what it means to be safe they should join a flying club where there are plenty of ways to learn.
i'm going to keep flying in all of the ways that I always have. if anyone is unsure of what it means to be safe they should join a flying club where there are plenty of ways to learn.
Last edited by a moderator:
pepper
Member
What bothers me is that I started an aerial photography business. I am a licensed pilot as well. I shot pics from my airplane and now use a "drone". I heard They are coming down on pilots hard. Plus I shoot skydiving pics and video. What's the real difference in me taking pics using my UAV vs under canopy?
lightman281
Member
The way I read it, you will have to conform to Commercial operation FARs while under canopy and while operating a UAV. Got tail numbers for those yet? How about insurance(s). I know some countries will issue numbers for canopies. But they also issue numbers for UAV as well. You could operate and keep $10,000 stuffed away as insurance and just pay the fine once you get fined, or operate under the radar and keep a low profile working for editing money for private clients.
Since both footballs and baseballs are both designed for flight they must now be considered aircraft. Will quarterbacks and pitchers now be required to get a PPL and a COA to play commercially in outdoor stadiums? Will they even be allowed to play considering stadium TFR's? Should I drop Peyton Manning and my kicker from my fantasy football team? Will it now be run-only offenses? Will baseball players only be allowed to roll the ball? Will baseball now become cricket? These are the important questions?
Av8Chuck
Member
The trouble for hobbyists is the definition of "Aircraft" now includes "model aircraft" and it spells out the applicability of this definition. So this means that with respect to careless operation model aircraft are regulated under part 91, which in part states that you can't fly within 500ft of a person or property, yet Advisory Circular 91-57 outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators. The advisory circular directs such operators, for example, not to fly model aircraft higher than 400 feet above the surface.
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” for purposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We must look no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14 C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includes any aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and reckless operation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than those subject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing to determine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
If the standard for safety is set by part 91 Pirker might as well write the check today, I'm guessing it will be a substantially reduced fine so that the FAA can still claim victory, but more importantly set the standard. I think this is legislation through the court system. You know that thing we all voted in favor of...
You should expect the NPRM for commercial sUAS to be hugely restrictive and this ruling to have a profound effect on hobbyist. I do agree that just like the initial ruling, the appeal really doesn't change anything either.
Av8Chuck
Member
Pirker’s attorney, Brendan Schulman’s comment on the decision was:
"While we disagree with the decision, today’s NTSB ruling in the Pirker case is narrowly limited to whether unmanned aircraft systems are subject to an aviation safety regulation concerning reckless operation, an issue that the NTSB has said requires further factual investigation before a penalty is imposed. The more significant question of whether the safe operation of drones for business purposes is prohibited by any law was not addressed in the decision, and is currently pending before the D.C. Circuit in other cases being handled by Kramer Levin. We are reviewing the options for our next steps in the Pirker case."
To receive compensation for Aerial Photography you would need to be a Commercial Rated Pilot. In the FAA's eyes there may be little difference between you using your UAV or taking pictures under the canopy. The real issue is the amount of risk you are creating for bystanders. A multi rotor aircraft in my eyes can be more dangerous than someone landing with a parachute. The FAA has sought out one individual who was clearly operating carless and recklessly. The Law judge, in my opinion, made the error in determining that the drone, uav, rc aircraft was not an aircraft. If you operate your RC aircraft in a safe manner the FAA will have no issue with you. If you decide to operate in a careless and reckless manner I'd expect to here from the FAA. If you are operating and receiving compensation for your services without an exemption you are doing so illegally. The FAA has clearly defined the exemption process and you should take the time to apply for one. I don't think the requirements of the exemption will be much different than the final rules. The people who fly their multi rotors over populated areas such as concerts and parks where bystanders have not consented to the inherent risk will probably start to see enforcement action against them.
pepper
Member
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.
scotth
Member
Not exactly true. The photographer hires the aircraft and the pilot must be commercial rated if he/she receives compensation for the flight.