A federal administrative judge has dismissed a proposed $10,000 fine against businessman Raphael Pirker, who used a remotely operated 56-inch foam glider to take aerial video for an advertisement for the University of Virginia Medical Center.The FAA alleged that since Pirker was using the aircraft for profit, he ran afoul of regulations requiring commercial operators of “Unmanned Aircraft Systems” to obtain FAA authorisation.
But the judge on Thursday agreed with Pirker that the Federal Aviation Administration overreached by applying regulations for aircraft to model aircraft, and said no FAA rule prohibited Pirker’s radio-controlled flight.
Thursday’s ruling is believed to be the first to address the issue, but it was not immediately clear whether the FAA would appeal, or what impact it would have on others hoping to use UAS for profit.
The FAA has recently publicized its restrictions on commercial use of UAS. In a press release headlined “Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft,” it stressed that enthusiasts could not use UAS for commercial purposes.
“A commercial flight requires a certified aircraft, a licensed pilot and operating approval. To date, only one operation has met these criteria, using Insitu’s ScanEagle, and authorization was limited to the Arctic,” the FAA’s Busting Myths release said.
“There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations,” the FAA continued. “Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft-manned or unmanned-in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.”
The FAA could not be reached Thursday night for comment on the Pirker ruling. Pirker’s attorney, Brendan Schulman, called it “a tremendously significant decision for model aircraft and commercial drone operators.” “As a general matter, the decision finds that the FAA’s 2007 policy statement banning the commercial use of model aircraft is not enforceable. It would appear to me to have a very significant impact on other operators,” Schulman said.
Pirker’s flight occurred Oct. 17, 2011, when he remotely piloted a $130 RiteWing Zephyr II aircraft at the campus medical centre.
The FAA investigated, and the following April it proposed a $10,000 civil penalty, saying that Pirker operated the plane “in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.”
Pirker operated the aircraft within about 50 feet of numerous individuals, about 20 feet of a crowded street, and within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport at UVA, the FAA alleged. One person had to take “evasive measures” to avoid being struck by the aircraft, the agency said.
Pirker appealed the case to the National Transportation Safety Board, where Judge Patrick Geraghty ruled Thursday, dismissing the FAA order. Schulman said Thursday night that his client had not yet learned of the ruling. “I think he’s still asleep. He lives in Hong Kong and they’re 12 hours off,” Schulman said, adding, “I’m sure he’d be happy about it.”
Michael Toscano, president & CEO of AUVSI, released the following statement on the National Transportation Safety Board’s Pirker Decision:
“We are reviewing the decision very carefully and we have also been in touch with the FAA to discuss its implications and the agency’s response. Our paramount concern is safety. We must ensure the commercial use of UAS takes place in a safe and responsible manner, whenever commercial use occurs. The decision also underscores the immediate need for a regulatory framework for small UAS.”
Photo: Ritewing Zephyr 2
Source: CNN
Thank you to the judge in this case who used common sense to make the absolute right decision.
The FAA has been blustering and dragging their feet for a decade about rules and regulations. Time for them to step up and actually DO something for a change.
“The Rise of the Drones” time in American History is now.
ALJ’s denial of FAA’s UAS jurisdiction reason to reconsider whether it fits?
by Sandy Murdock on March 10, 2014
ARTICLE: Commercial Drone Pilots Cheer Judge Finding Against FAA
rw-z
The first major decision on the FAA’s jurisdiction over Unmanned Aerial Systems has been issued by NTSB Administrative Law Judge Geraghty . It did not go well for the FAA, but unlike the above linked article’s headline, it is premature to exult. However, this event may be reason for the FAA, DoT and Congress to review whether the FAA can and should be the primary regulator of this exploding UAS industry.
First, the case involves an admittedly commercial flight by Raphael Pirker taking pictures of the University of Virginia campus from his Ritewing Zephyr UAS. The FAA imposed a $10,000 fine and Mr. Pirker’s law firm submitted a well-reasoned motion to dismiss. The FAA attacked that motion arguing procedural deficiencies .Judge Geraghty decided against the FAA; his opinion found that the FAA’s own history defeats its claim that the UAS is an “aircraft” subject to the jurisdiction of 14 CFR Part 91. Mr. Pirker’s counsel and ALJ Geraghty effectively refute this assertion by reciting a number of FAA actions, statements and policies which distinguish “model aircraft” from “aircraft”. The FAA has filed a notice that it intends to appeal the decision .
The appeal avenue may or may not affirm the ALJ’s opinion and it is likely that the FAA will file a more robust argument in its next pleading. If it is successful, the cheering will stop. But even if the case is affirmed, the FAA will likely issue an emergency action reestablishing its jurisdiction and curing its historical actions inconsistent with the “model” distinction found in the Pirker opinion. The FAA can make this correction well before the full regulatory policy pronouncement.
It might be worthwhile to use this time to reconsider the decision to include the world of UAS operations within the FAA’s mission. Unless someone has failed to notice, the FAA is BUSY. Unlike most of the federal government, this administration runs a very large commercial enterprise, the Air Traffic Control system, 24 hours a day 365 days a year spanning from Hawai’i in the West to the North Atlantic in the East, Alaska to the North and The Florida Keys to the South.
That task is further exacerbated by the largest and most complex civil project redesigning the technology of the ATC, NextGen. The Congress, the DoT Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, almost every think tank and the FAA frequently voice their opinions about the FAA’s inability to meet its current demands. In fact the IG sharpened its critical pencil to write that the FAA is resistant to change .
And did we mention that it was decided to add space to the FAA’s jurisdiction in 1994 ; that is another sector of major activity and growth. The airspace and space are contiguous, but the engineering, physics and missions of commercial spacecraft are not really an extension of what the FAA does.
While all of these activities increase the FAA’s workload, the administration’s budget continues is shrink. While there are greater demands on the agency with fewer resources, aviation safety is considered by the populace to be a top mission for the federal government and demands a lot of attention.
The UAS’ industry reaction to Pirker is to urge the FAA to issue its full panoply of rules applicable to their nascent, innovative and potentially omnipresent business. . An expedited rule will have to deal with incredible complex issues; to name a few:
· from what constitutes commercial flight
· to what privacy protections can/should be created and enforced
· to how these new UAS aircraft should be separated from traditional aircraft and each other
· to how these new vehicles can be certificated before they operate, and
· a myriad of other difficult and emerging problems.
Quick decisions on the host of questions posed in the FAA UAS Roadmap are not likely to be well considered answers.
Here are a few serious observations which militate against the FAA assuming this dynamic regulator mantle:
-The FAA has no historical competence on privacy issues, a major concern that many citizens have with these tiny vehicles. How will it cope with these complex concerns which have no intellectual connection to flight?
-The FAA is hard pressed to surveil the large aircraft which have been its primary mission and now it will be expected to see UAS and sUAS vehicles in every neighborhood. Will the FAA need a massive infusion of inspectors to be “traffic cops” (a Congressional term) to these thousands of sUAS ’s?
– The IG has pointed to a culture resistant to change in the FAA dealing with an aviation industry which has grown slowly (safety regulators by nature tend to be cautious); whereas every commentator about the future of UAS predicts its speed of development to be hypersonic. With major players like Amazon and Facebook driving innovation in this UAS business, will the risk adverse FAA be able to respond to these demands?
With the addition of these requirements to its already heavy-burdened agenda, will the FAA be able to meet the expectations of excellence which the Congress and the populace place on its dedicated public servants? Might it be better to consider another organization to regulate the burgeoning UAS industry?
Judge Geraghty’s unexpected decision serves as a useful catalyst to think about what Congress has wrought. It might be best to establish a new team to take on the tasks of managing the safety of UAS aircraft and of insuring privacy. Perhaps integrating UAS into the FAA is the right decision, but if it is, then the necessary, substantial resources must be allocated.