Drone Pilot Wins Case Against FAA 236
schwit1 writes "In a David vs. Goliath battle that pitted the Federal Aviation Administration against the operator of a small model airplane, a federal administrative judge has sided with the aircraft's pilot. The 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"
How did this go to trial? (Score:4, Funny)
1. Guy flies radio-controlled model plane.
2. ?
3. Guy is in court.
What happened a step 2?
Re:How did this go to trial? (Score:5, Informative)
1. Guy flies radio-controlled model plane. 2. ? 3. Guy is in court.
What happened a step 2?
From TFA: ...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...
My guess is one of the "numerous individuals" whined to the Police/F.A.A.
Re:How did this go to trial? (Score:4, Insightful)
You should be very skeptical of any claim of someone having to take "evasive measures". We have seen time and time again government workers make stuff up which later proved to be false when the defendant produces video.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you say "whined"? It sounds like several people probably had valid cause for complain. I certainly don't want random assholes buzzing me with their drones or RC aircraft, or getting in the way of manned aircraft.
Exactly. If he was operating as alleged, he has made things more difficult for responsible operators, because this will expedite regulation.
Re: (Score:3)
this will expedite regulation.
Good. The current regulations are idiotic. Why should buzzing a crowd be okay, but buzzing a crowd FOR PROFIT be illegal? He didn't get in trouble because he was flying recklessly, but because he was trying to earn a living.
Re:How did this go to trial? (Score:5, Insightful)
this will expedite regulation.
Good. The current regulations are idiotic. Why should buzzing a crowd be okay, but buzzing a crowd FOR PROFIT be illegal? He didn't get in trouble because he was flying recklessly, but because he was trying to earn a living.
No, buzzing a crowd is illegal independent of wether it is for profit or not. My guess is since he was doing it for profit is was easier for the FAA to use that to fine him. No that a judge has said they can't do that they need to decide wether to drop the case, appeal, and or charge him with other violations of the CFR. While some rules may seem, or actually be, idiotic, there needs to controls on how airspace is used to ensure everyone's safety. If he did operate the a/c as described in the article he deserves to be slapped. It's the people who act irresponsibly that result in rules being made that negatively impact all of us who don't.
Re:How did this go to trial? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Federal.
Aviation.
Admistration.
Yes, they absolutely need to be involved. It's specifically and exactly the sort of thing the FAA was created for and falls exactly within the FFA's jurisdiction. Those laws you cite? They came from the FAA.
Re: (Score:2)
Federal. Aviation. Admistration.
Yes, they absolutely need to be involved. It's specifically and exactly the sort of thing the FAA was created for and falls exactly within the FFA's jurisdiction.
No. No they don't. As GP stated there are plenty of reckless endangerment and negligence laws or are you suggesting the Department of Transportation should get involved every time a tractor trailer cuts me off in traffic?
Perhaps you also think paper airplanes should be heavily regulated too. You could lose an eye, you know.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How did this go to trial? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should buzzing a crowd be okay, but buzzing a crowd FOR PROFIT be illegal?
That's an easy one. In many fields, it is considered onerous to regulate hobbyists because the cost of registration and testing would be prohibitive. If you're making a living doing something, if you can't make enough money to cover the costs of proper training, regulation and insurance, then it's not a viable business.
Obligatory car analogy: in most places, it's legal to give your friends a lift in your car on a normal driving license, but you'll need a taxi license to take paying passengers. This, I hope you'll agree, is fair, as it aims to protect the public without encroaching on personal leisure-time liberties.
Another analogy: public parks. Many cities are now introducing bye-laws/ordnances to stop trainers running profit-making bootcamps etc without a permit. This is because these commercial users are typically much heavier users than members of the public, and therefore use up more of a limited resource, increasing grass damage and ground compaction. Even where the space isn't otherwise needed, there is still the issue of their activity and noise affecting nearby park users. Airways are also public space, and it's fair to the owners (everyone) that those extracting commercial value are controlled and perhaps even pay back in.
Note, though, that this ruling isn't about the personal use vs commercial use argument -- the judge's decision was that the regulations for UAVs are not directly relevant to model aircraft (differences in size and flight range are not inconsiderable between commercial drones and hobbyist vehicles). As such, expect to see the FAA bring in new regulations for model aircraft, categorising model aircraft by top speed, effective range, fuselage size etc.
Note also that in most countries that do have specific provisions for model aircraft, Pirker would still have been breach of the law due to the proximity to the helipad. Not only that, but FPV flying (Pirker flies with a camera and head-mounted display) is technically illegal in most jurisdictions, because the designation of model aircraft mandates that the pilot must maintain direct line-of-sight with the aircraft at all times. The need to maintain line-of-sight kept issues of range as effectively redundant in the designation of model aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
it's legal to give your friends a lift in your car on a normal driving license, but you'll need a taxi license to take paying passengers. This, I hope you'll agree, is fair
Nope, I don't agree at all. I have been to many cities where ride sharing is legal (such as the jeepneys [wikipedia.org] of Manila). The result is more convenient travel and lower prices. Taxis are just a price fixing scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I don't agree at all. I have been to many cities where ride sharing is legal (such as the jeepneys [wikipedia.org] of Manila). The result is more convenient travel and lower prices. Taxis are just a price fixing scam.
Ride sharing is legal in most places. It's driving for profit that's a problem. For example, the site BlaBlaCar [blablacar.com] is very popular. They allow the driver to charge money to recuperate costs, and in order to avoid anything that may be considered "profit", they limit the amount a driver can collect to the business milage rate specified by the HMRC (UK tax department). If I could claim £10 tax relief if the journey was for business purposes, then the government recognises the cost of the journey as £1
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree that taxis do feel a lot like a cartel in many ways, I can think of at least two legitimate reasons to treat them differently:
- in places with a mandatory public insurance regime built into license and plate fees, the higher taxi fees are there to cover the higher risk exposure associated with those drivers and vehicles
- a licensed taxi is (hopefully) more trust-worthy and reliable than random people - at the very least, you can file complaints against them and if those get taken seriously by
Re: (Score:3)
increasing grass damage and ground compaction.
Gotta love that ground compaction argument - the local (county) department of natural resources had me remove a play-swing from my backyard because my two children using it might cause undesirable ground compaction. Meanwhile, I can legally put in a path 10' wide and infinitely long, and pave it with wood.
Re: (Score:2)
That almost sounds halfway reasonable: a wood-paved path would avoid ground compaction by distributing the weight (while not being an impervious surface, unlike a concrete path).
What's unreasonable is that the county particularly cares how compacted your backyard is in the first place (unless it's so excessive that you're causing runoff issues for your neighbors).
Re: (Score:2)
The path doesn't have to be wood paved, but that is the option, and, as you say, it has a basis in some reasonable thought.
The further reasoning about the play swing is that it is "high traffic / high impact" while a path would carry less foot traffic.
I put the path in, no paving, and now it carries a whole lot of "hoof traffic" (deer, probably 30-40 "trips" a day, according to the trail cam.) I can't imagine that a couple of kids playing on a swing a few times a week could do more to compact the soil.
Re: (Score:2)
What is wrong is that you choose to live somewhere with such stupid regulations, if your neighbors feel the same way you should all get together and get things changed / vote people out of office. If they don't they one of you needs to move.
Re: (Score:2)
(differences in size and flight range are not inconsiderable between commercial drones and hobbyist vehicles).
Really? I'll grant you the difference between hobbyist UAVs and drones like this [af.mil], but what about this [avinc.com], this [avinc.com], and this [avinc.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
For a long while, Scotland had controls on "hackney carriages" (taxis that pick you up off the street) but not "private hire cars" (prebooked hires). This changed when a rash of crimes were committed by individuals and gangs using radio scanners to intercept dispatch orders. Some of them were just pinching business from the company in question, others were mugging or sexually assaulting the fares.
In Glasgow, a taxi driver recently had his license temporarily revoked for kicking a group of tourists out for s
Re:How did this go to trial? (Score:4, Informative)
He didn't get in trouble because he was flying recklessly, but because he was trying to earn a living.
No. This was specifically because he was being reckless. His videos showing him flying at street level through traffic, buzzing the hospital heliport, etc.
The reason the FAA became aware of his asshattery is that he uses his jerky stunt flying to promote his business (he sells multirotor hardware, among other things). He's an attention whore, and puts together his videos with a deliberately provocative tone, and it caught up with him. The issue of commercial vs. hobby was incidental, and the administrative judge's ruling didn't speak to that directly anyway.
Regardless, this isn't even a "final" ruling. For now, he's had his fine dropped. Heavy, onerous regulations are coming for RC/FPV operators, and it will be ugly (licensing, air worthiness certificates, medical exams, etc).
Why should buzzing a crowd be okay, but buzzing a crowd FOR PROFIT be illegal?
Buzzing a crowd isn't OK either way. Regardless of the state of the FAA's pending new regs, plenty of local laws against reckless endangerment can be brought to bear, and this sort of ruling is going to pour gas on the fire of a thousand local jurisdictions throwing together a patchwork nightmare of laws against Evil Drones. This ruling is actually a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming the "one person had to take evasive measures" wasn't an aircraft, how is it an FAA matter? If he'd been using a large RC car in a public park to harass people, would it be dangerous driving because it's less than 50 feet from a road?
Most regions already have "creating a public nuisance" and "endangering the public" type laws that could already cover this. Even "Conducting a business activity in a public space without a permit". This likely could have been taken care of at the city/county level, tur
Re:How did this go to trial? (Score:5, Informative)
It's an FAA matter because the FAA regulates the National Airspace System in which this RC aircraft was flying. No one else regulates airspace in the United States, not cities, not states, airspace is a federal matter and many cases have settled this (for example when cities try to enact their own overflight rules, the FAA slaps them down, and has been doing for a long time). It doesn't matter what you're flying, you are still subject to 14CFR if you fly something. It doesn't matter how small or light it is.
The FAA doesn't regulate cars, RC or otherwise so the RC car example is not relevant.
Re:How did this go to trial? (Score:4, Informative)
Also from the FAA's own page (http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240) there's a few concrete and relevent statements that cannot be ignored:
-The FAA is responsible for the safety of U.S. airspace from the ground up.
-Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.
-Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons doesn’t require FAA approval, but hobbyists must operate according to the agency's model aircraft guidance, which prohibits operations in populated areas
-You may not fly a UAS for commercial purposes by claiming that you’re operating according to the Model Aircraft guidelines (below 400 feet, 3 miles from an airport, away from populated areas.)
-The agency is still developing regulations, policies and standards that will cover a wide variety of UAS users, and expects to publish a proposed rule for small UAS – under about 55 pounds – later this year. That proposed rule will likely include provisions for commercial operations.
Re:How did this go to trial? (Score:5, Interesting)
the FAA regulates the National Airspace System in which this RC aircraft was flying.
The FAA only gets to regulate objects within the "airspace" within very narrow limits. It has deliberately tried to blur those limits to include RC devices as "aircraft". This judge slapped them down for overreach.
Do I need a NOTAM to throw a frisbee, or fly a kite? And what magically happens to turn a 5 foot wide foam glider from an unregulated toy into a regulated "aircraft" because it was used commercially. Did it suddenly become more dangerous because the footage was going to be sold commercially, and if so... how did it know?
It doesn't matter what you're flying,
Judge seems to disagree.
The FAA doesn't regulate cars, RC or otherwise so the RC car example is not relevant.
Well done you for deliberately missing the point. That's always so productive.
Re: (Score:3)
the FAA regulates the National Airspace System in which this RC aircraft was flying.
The FAA only gets to regulate objects within the "airspace" within very narrow limits. It has deliberately tried to blur those limits to include RC devices as "aircraft". This judge slapped them down for overreach.
Actually, it appears the judge ruled on a very technical point. The FAA never formally went through the rule making process but rather relied on policy statements to fine the operator. The judge basically said you can't do that. So until the FAA issues the final rules their enforcement ability is in doubt. I say in doubt because another judge could overrule the first one.
Re: (Score:2)
No mod points, but would bump it up for the astute observation of if evasive manuevers were an AC or not and the point on regulatory creep.
The FAA would be involved if the evasive maneuvers had to be performed by an aircraft, or if the object they were evading was an aircraft, which it was.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, the issue seems to be that the FAA sued him for using the drone without their permission and the judge slapped them down for the attempted land grab. If the bloke flew it dangerously then he should have been prosecuted for that (or laws should exist to make that a crime).
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, but it's not worth being in court over. Usually these things work in the same way I got my "Speeding on the sidewalk" ticket...
So I was a Pizza delivery driver in college. I had a special permit to park on the "service" roads that lead to the front of the dorms. Well, the local police decided for some reason that 1 dorm was off limits. I was given a ticket despite my permit. The DA wanted me to settle for $50 but I'm a man of principle. In the end, they added a charge of "Speeding on a sidewalk" which
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you say "whined"? It sounds like several people probably had valid cause for complain. I certainly don't want random assholes buzzing me with their drones or RC aircraft, or getting in the way of manned aircraft.
I would mostly agree with this except that he was presumably doing this on university property at
a request of the university so even if he was buzzing people this is something that needs to be
taken up with the university not with the FAA or the police. Laws for drones probably need to be
completely rewritten. If he is low enough to the ground to "buzz" people then in my opinion he
would fall into a vague "university airspace". Likewise if someone is flying over my house low
enough to "buzz" me at my house,
Re: (Score:2)
He is the worst possible example of someone doing business in this area.
Re: (Score:2)
His videos show eye-level flights along public streets dodging cars. He shows himself flying directly over an active hospital heliport. He shows people having to duck low-level passes in public spaces....He is the worst possible example of someone doing business in this area.
Sure, but doesn't the fact that people have to duck the plane speak to this really being outside of FAA jurisdiction?
If I throw a rock at you, clearly you will have to duck. Clearly I've broken the law. And yet, this isn't considered something appropriate for the FAA to deal with. It just doesn't make sense to regulate stuff that happens within 100' of the ground in the same way as you'd regulate aircraft flying thousands of feet up.
Now, the bit about the helipad alone does start to encroach into FAA ter
Re: (Score:2)
If I throw a rock at you, clearly you will have to duck. Clearly I've broken the law. And yet, this isn't considered something appropriate for the FAA to deal with.
For garden-variety rocks, you're correct. But a rock is not a remotely piloted aircraft, is it? If the rock is remotely piloted, it is appropriate for the FAA to deal with.
Re:How did this go to trial? (Score:4, Insightful)
If I throw a rock at you, clearly you will have to duck.
But the FAA's policies make specific reference to model aircraft, and repeatedly get into things like "guided" and "sustained" flight. Meaning, the reason an RC drone isn't a rock is that you're actually sending it, under control, through a sustained flight in the air. The FAA's authority begins an inch off the ground, not 100' or 10,000' - which is why they're still in charge of safety when a 747 is 1' off the runway, or 1,000' off the runway.
but I'd say they would only have a case there if a helicopter were attempting to operate in the area and the guy kept flying his plane
A hospital helipad is a 24x7 controlled bit of air space. And more to the point, the pilot in question is all about goggles-on FPV flight. He's seeing where he's going by watching through a small nose camera and a relatively low-res RF video downlink. The guy we're talking about ("Trappy" Pirker) makes a big deal about how he flies FPV out of line of sight. Flying that way, he's got absolutely no situational awareness (say, a medivac helicopter coming in from above or from the side, out of his FPV cam's forward view).
Re: (Score:2)
if someone is flying over my house low enough to "buzz" me at my house, then are in my "air space" aka "personal space". There should probably be some minimum distance that every property owner is allowed to claim as their own personal airspace.
There is, and since no one is going to pay any attention to your concerns, the FAA is there to back you up.
Re:How did this go to trial? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the free market culture we have, it is very probable that the person filing the complaint (possibly anonymously) was the one who lost the bid for the job.
Estimates of distance and portrayal of peril can be very subjective.
Re: (Score:2)
There don't need to be consequences for things that MIGHT lead to something more serious. If he caused any actual damage or injury, he could be prosecuted for that.
Right. Let's repeal the Motor Vehicle Code. As long as you don't hit any pedestrians or cause any wrecks, running red lights and driving drunk and tailgating and excessive speed shouldn't be a problem at all.
Re: (Score:2)
That would've put burrs under saddles.
Re: (Score:3)
Trashy TV shows do it all the time from the helicopters. They especially like car chases.
Re: (Score:2)
Never Underestimate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Never Underestimate the drive of any government agency to expand its sphere of influence and control. Whether its the FAA wanting to control a park full of kids and their radio control toys or the IRS making up laws out of whole cloth, they never miss an opportunity to take more control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What color is the sky on your planet, where corporate management is devoid of power hungry, empire-building narcissists?
Re:How did this go to trial? (Score:5, Informative)
From the TFA:
The 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".
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. Videos shot from air need a platform to shoot them from.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Like all those people strapping GoPros to balloons?
Close. Presumably, if they try to sell those videos, or use them as commercial advertising, the the FAA would get interested. If the balloon has directional controls, such that it qualifies as "piloted" and not just floating at the whim of the wind, then those people might also run afoul of FAA rules.
Re: (Score:2)
They saw the product? It is a reasonable assumption that the video was paid for.
Re: (Score:3)
yes but do you see an ad on TV and think wait a minute I better check my records to make sure whatever filmed this ad had the appropriate permits!
Re:How did this go to trial? (Score:4, Insightful)
It went to trial because HE sued the FAA.
No, he didn't. The FAA fined him for operating recklessly, and he followed the usual administrative procedure to challenge that fine.
That's not to say that some law suits aren't appropriate in this area - if for no other reason than that the FAA is ignoring legal mandates from Congress to get this area sensibly on the books in short order. The Obama administration, and their people running the agency in question (which is part of the executive branch) is, just as they're doing by randomly and unilaterally modifying and ignoring hard dates and requirements in the ACA, are just blowing off the law on this matter. That, in and of itself, has no bearing on the case in question, but it's causing this to be dragged out for no reason, as hundreds of millions in new economic activity is sitting on the sidelines holding its breath. Thanks, administration. We can tell what your priorities are.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the best solution would be the creation of distinct classes of drones in order to seperate out the small relatively harmless things (like this guy's foam glider)
The glider itself may be harmless, but when put in the hands of an idiot like this, it becomes a lethal weapon. The video is full of full of things which a responsible hobbyist would never do. I am a private pilot and I have flown RC airplanes and this guy is a menace to both hobbies. He draws unnecessary attention to the hobby and causes people to view it as dangerous because of his stunt. The freedom to fly is already on shaky footing as it is, and people who buzz houses, fly at illegal attitudes in popu
model plane != plane (Score:2)
That's the meat of the verdict - since that's not given in the summary.
Re:model plane != plane (Score:5, Informative)
However the article implies that there is more to the case: "As a general matter, the decision finds that the FAA's 2007 policy statement banning the commercial use of model aircraft is not enforceable". In other words, the judge didn't say that the rule was not broken, but that the rule itself is poorly drafted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If he does it commercially, yes.
Re:model plane != plane (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. And the FAA has cited kites that fly too high, or are too large, or carry rather large payload. Or some combination thereof.
No, the FAA generally doesn't care about your little backyard peice of paper on a string. Just dont fly it near and airport and intentionally try to get it sucked into a jet engine.
However people have made kites a few hundred feet across, weighing a few hundred pounds, and capable flying thousands of feet in the air. The FAA starts to care about that. Particularly if it could interfer with aircraft.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And the "active heliport" sounds like BS to me. If the guy was taking an advertising video, I'm assuming he at least mentioned it to the operations department at the medical center, who would have verified that no activity was planned at the heliport while the video was being shot. "Active" in the FAA sense probably means "approved for use", not "heli
Re: (Score:2)
If the guy was taking an advertising video, I'm assuming he at least mentioned it to the operations department at the medical center, who would have verified that no activity was planned at the heliport while the video was being shot.
And the operations department, being competent in every way would have told him that although they have no plans for flights at that time, he really needed to talk to the FAA for approval.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. A model plane is not a regular aircraft, but it is an "unmanned aircraft system", and he was using it commercially i.e. to shoot an advertisement video. Sounds to me that the FAA is right to assert that this falls under their regulation. However the article implies that there is more to the case: "As a general matter, the decision finds that the FAA's 2007 policy statement banning the commercial use of model aircraft is not enforceable". In other words, the judge didn't say that the rule was not broken, but that the rule itself is poorly drafted.
Yup. The way I read it, the judge thinks the UAV designation doesn't fit the model plane in question. I mean, the only FAA-licensed commercial drone flyer is operating over vast tracts of Arctic tundra, whereas Pirker's craft flies above him in a relatively small radius where the radio signals are received. The safety mechanisms on a long-range drone are entirely inappropriate to something that never even goes a mile away from the operator.
Re: (Score:3)
A manufacturer of toy planes who test flies one before sale, is doing it commercially.
A retailer of rubber band powered balsa gliders who flies a demo inside his store is flying it doing it commercially.
A kid's video of his Xmas present balsa glider flying past the Xmas tree, and posted on YouTube with ads is commercial flying.
Strict interpretation of the FAA's words lead to horrible absurdities.
Horribles are what lawyers use to get laws stricken down by courts.
People who write regulations need to temper ze
Re: (Score:3)
Agree. Somebody buzzing crowds with a styrofoam plane certainly should be subject to public nuisance laws and such, but it really isn't in the same category as somebody who orbits a drone at 10k feet over a major city without a transponder.
There is also a matter of proportionality. If somebody tosses a styrofoam plane into the air and it bonks a passerby, it is very unlikely to cause significant physical harm. Tossing it into a crowd is irresponsible, but if a gust of wind or something comes along then a
Re: (Score:2)
If somebody tosses a styrofoam plane into the air and it bonks a passerby, it is very unlikely to cause significant physical harm
Have you actually seen these FPV "foamies?" We're talking about things that are carrying a camera, a brushless gimbal, flight controller with associated daughter components, one or more heavy/dense lithium batteries, a prop spinning at high RPMs (frequently made from very sharp carbon fiber), and ... the whole thing can weigh several pounds, with some of them easily flying at well over 50mph (some well over 100mph).
Care to get "bonked" by one of those?
Re: (Score:3)
In that case I'd treat it the same as throwing a rock into a crowd of people. It is negligent behavior at the very least.
I wouldn't require a license to handle rocks.
Re: (Score:3)
This.
Also: I can go purchase an rc plane/heli complete with cam transmitter and perform the same activity right now in a comparable location. There are TOYS that can accomplish this. Have the FAA complained yet about flying toys with video? Serious question.
Re: model plane != plane (Score:4, Informative)
Yes!
The DJI Phantom is a 'toy' that is causing them A LOT of problems with morons who can buy it, fly it, and get in trouble with it. They are in fact specifically mentioned in some FAA reports as they decide on how to deal with these issues.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA alleged that since Pirker was using the aircraft for profit, he ran afoul of regulations requiring commercial operators of "Unmanned Aircraft Systems" -- sometimes called UAS or drones -- to obtain FAA authorization. But a judge on Thursday agreed with Pirker that the FAA overreached by applying regulations for aircraft to model aircraft, and said no FAA rule prohibited Pirker's radio-controlled flight.
The judge was wrong. The FAA controls airspace. This vehicle operated in the airspace as a commercial operator. However, had he obtained permission from the FAA, which is certainly possible to do, he would STILL have been in violation of dozens of other regulations for street level flying, endangering persons on the ground and overflying a helipad (which he probably could also have gotten a waiver for, had he applied). Basically, the operating for profit was just the most notable of a long list of things t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It makes you wonder what defines a model plane? I could envision a big gray area surrounding that question.
That seems to be the nub of the case -- the judge seems to be of the opinion that the definition of UAV is targeted at bigger, longer range craft. If the FAA had had a specific regulation for small, short-range craft, I doubt the judgement would have favoured Pirker....
I was once a drone pilot, he says in a hushed tone (Score:2, Insightful)
I used to build and fly 2 meter gliders anywhere I could launch them, only FCC concerns I ever had was the frequency I was controlling them with.
Getting damn risky now.
FWIW my fav was the Gently Lady http://www.towerhobbies.com/pr... [towerhobbies.com]
Re:I was once a drone pilot, he says in a hushed t (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you were never a drone pilot.
You were an RC aircraft pilot.
The FCC governs radio rules, we're talking about the FAA, which governs airspace.
You were bound by the same laws as this guy for your aircraft to NOT be a drone. Once you break these rules, you become a drone and as such require full certification.
RC aircraft MUST be below 400 feet AGL.
RC aircraft MUST remain in line of site of the operator.
RC aircraft MUST NOT be operated for ANY commercial purpose.
If you break any of those you MUST have a waiver or a Certificate of Airworthiness for the aircraft (just like all commercial aircraft, including that Cessna some guy you know has) or you are breaking the law.
You were never allowed to fly your glider within 10 miles of controlled airport, and 2 or 5 miles of an uncontrolled airport. Ever.
Your ignorance of these rules does not mean they didn't exist.
FYI: I built and flew my first Gentle Lady (from Carl Goldberg!) when I was 14 :)
I've lost line of sight to my aircraft, not a good feeling when you are aware of how much damage EVEN a Gentle Lady could do if it hit someone in the head with that hardwood nose at 20 knots or so that they fly. Light they are, but still significant mass.
Now ... however, my aircraft ARE drones (all have ArduPilot or ArduCopters controllers in them now), now when I lose line of sight, I flip a transmitter switch and the aircraft brings itself home via autopilot ... it goes into fully autonomous mode and comes home :) Of course, this is exactly what the FAA wants to avoid since that 'flight home' has at times involved flying into the side of a house as it tried to regain altitude for the trip home. That bird was a lost cause anyway, but none the less, one can argue it never would have hit the house had it followed the original rules.
My son was born last year, I already ordered him a Gentle Lady to build, and a Sophisticated Lady for myself (The gentle lady with a T tail and electric motor instead of winch/tow/upstart launch.
Re: (Score:2)
RC aircraft MUST be below 400 feet AGL.
RC aircraft MUST remain in line of site of the operator.
RC aircraft MUST NOT be operated for ANY commercial purpose.
Citation? The only thing I can find on the first two is an advisory from the 80s that doesn't really look like it went through rulemaking. Compliance appears to be voluntary. At least, that seems to be all the laws/regulations say.
I haven't read the commercial rules - they might be more specific, but judging by how this court case went I'm skeptical.
Video in question (Score:3)
FYI, this is the video he got nailed for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:he was being a dick (Score:5, Funny)
"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."
This must have been very frightening. How were the people present to know that the operator wasn't a muslim and the plane about to explode?
Re: (Score:2)
With such an attitude, you must be terrified everywhere, all the time. The bomb can be hidden everywhere, and often you don't know who is driving that car/truck or who is flying that airplane. The terrrorist might even be a pedestrian. Can you tell the difference at a distance?
Frankly, with such an attitude, the only thing you should really be afraid of it your own head. Your paranoia is making your life miserable.
Also, such a remark is pure discrimination.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He had big stickers all over it that says "MERICA!" terrorists would never do that.
Re: (Score:2)
He had big stickers all over it that says "MERICA!" terrorists would never do that.
Not with out the "Death to" prefix anyway
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. It's stereotyping people based on religion, not race. Very different thing, even if there is a statistical correlation.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes yes, and telling someone not to get their panties in a twist is racism. And suggesting we eat the rich is racism. And Screaming down with darky is racism. And not subsidizing mortgages is racism. And mortgages is racism. It's all racism. We got it.
Seriously, the race card is getting a little frayed at the edges from all that use.
Re:he was being a dick (Score:4, Informative)
With that said, no terrorist of any persuasion would be so dumb as to stick a (tiny) bomb in an R/C plane. There are much easier and effective ways to blow up people.
Re: (Score:2)
That's racism, you know that right?
That was a satirical comment, you know that right? Chrisq was mocking mass hysteria....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Though we don't know if he had coordinated with the hospital about flying near the landing zone, but one would hope he checked with the department before filming - as most responsible adults (and anyone versed in model aircraft) would have done. Those helicopters don't just suddenly appear - when they get call out it's a fairly big deal, and personnel are waiting for their arrival. If it was a shot of the helicopter on the pad, there are always responders in the support building and I would expect
Re:he was being a dick (Score:4, Insightful)
Aerial.
Once again, don't try to write words you've only heard, not seen in print.
And special caveat, don't use "The Little Mermaid" as a guide to how to spell "aerial"....
Re: (Score:3)
I thought he was quite font of his spelling.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad joke! Bad!
Seriously, arial font occurred to me just as I hit "submit", but I admit I wouldn't have come up with something as clever as you did....
Re: (Score:2)
He was flying near (not overflying) a medical centre helipad on the request of said medical centre in order to make a promotional video for said medical centre.
That doesn't matter. The FAA controls airspace, not the medical center. There still needs to be permission from the FAA. You can't give an electrician permission to rework your electricity without pulling a permit just because it is on your property and you said it was ok.
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Define "active." A local hospital has an "active" helipad and you could put a chair on it and eat lunch with little risk of being disturbed. If it was actually in use and he flew nearby then I'm all for tossing the book at him. However, "active" probably just means that it is on the chart and a helicopter could land there at any time. As long as the operation of the aircraft was supervised I don't see a problem with that. You shouldn't throw rocks at helicopters either.
One person had to take "evasive measures" to avoid being struck by the aircraft, the agency said."
Sounds like that should be regula
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
By active, they generally mean available for landing/takeoff. They all have restricted airspace around them 24/7, just like airports. It's a bit overreaching for the FAA to get all wrapped around the axle when they guy was working for the owner of the pad (UVa/UVa Health).
Re: (Score:2)
Do the Go-pro carrying quad-copters fly in a different atmosphere than commercial aircraft? No? Then at some point the two can come in contact with each other. The FAA needs to have some regs that govern the places where these two could meet. "No flying anything (toys, kites, balloons, drones) within X of an airport" seems perfectly reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think created those rules?
The FAA.
The FAA is not ignoring those rules.
Previously, those rules involved "direct control of the aircraft" and it must be within visual range of the operator, and not in crowded areas.
So no autonomous vehicles, and no using a camera feed to pilot it.
But now technology is gotten to the point where its actually viable and attractive (for various reasons, such as commercially and educationally) to want to do those things with small scale aircraft. It's leading to an expl
Re: (Score:2)
One of two possibilities:
1) The FAA does not understand the difference between a drone (which does not require visual contact with the operator to be flown) and a toy airplane (which cannot be controlled out of sight of its operator).
Actually, visual contact is not needed to control a model plane, it's just hard to determine how it is actually responding.
2) The FAA is trying to consolidate more power to government by conveniently misinterpreting the rules to give them the ability to ensnare model airplane owners in a tangled web of onerous regulation and raise more money.
My vote is on #2.
More like the guy was operating in a manner that was irresponsible and they decided to take action. Quite frankly, it's people who operate model a/c in such a manner that makes life difficult for those who enjoy the hobby safely and responsibly, and I am glad to see the FAA take action against irresponsible operators.
Re: (Score:2)
One of two possibilities:
1) The FAA does not understand the difference between a drone (which does not require visual contact with the operator to be flown) and a toy airplane (which cannot be controlled out of sight of its operator).
Many model aircraft pilots now wear goggles and use a camera to fly by first-person-view. Raphael Pirker [personal-drones.net] is one of them. This is a fairly recent development, and regulators need to adapt to it. However, for the moment, the knock-on effects in terms of range and "busy-ness" of the surrounding landscape make it a pretty practical way to make a distinction between "drone" and "model aircraft".
Re:FAA & Public Safety (Score:4, Interesting)
If someone is appearing to be reckless with their aircraft, regardless of the type, it needs to be addressed.
Then address it under the laws about being reckless with a model aircraft, or being reckless with any other type of potential weapon - which is something the police would deal with (and I think have in past cases, e.g. where RC helicopter killed someone in NY).
The FAA tried to prosecute the guy for not having a licence, because (they claimed) it was a commercial flight. This would have massive implications for model a/c flyers who would all require pilots licences. It was a huge attempted land-grab (or simply laziness on the part of the prosecutor not wanting to collect the evidence to charge him with assault or whatever, so we'll just nail him with this licence thing) and the judge saw through it.
It's like a parent on the school run (allegedly) runs a few red lights and drives on the sidewalk, so the city decides to prosecute them for not having a taxi licence because they were giving a lift to another child.
"but if we accept this, it means that every parent who ever gives a lift to another child would need a taxi licence"
"no, that's not the point - the city has a responsibility for taxi safety, if this parent was reckless with their car, regardless of type, it needs to be addressed"
It is the point - address the recklessness, not the lack of a licence that was never needed in the first place (and a licence which, as far as I can see the FAA doesn't actually issue, yet - only experimental/non-commercial approvals - in other words they were prosecuting him for not having a licence that he couldn't possibly get).
Also, the FAA claim that the original guidance for model aircraft (ac91-57) excludes commercial use - love to see someone quote where it does, as the word "commercial" does not appear in it, at all. They are probably trying to argue that being a "model aircraft" necessarily means being non-commercial but that is ridiculous as it would always have been possible to e.g. hire/rent a model aircraft for money, which would be a commercial. Even a model shop demoing an RC a/c for sale would be commercial.
Re: (Score:2)
Ac91-57 is a joke anyway - it is a "circular" and as far as I can tell is not a rule (CFRs).
Agree with all you said - this should be like throwing a rock at a car. You don't regulate the rock as an aircraft, and you don't regulate it as a military missile system either.
The FAA proposed regs for commercial operations are also over-the-top when you apply it to something like a quad-copter with a camera on it. How does it add value to have a licensed pilot who is tested in their ability to land a plane with
Re: (Score:2)
Requiring the operator of an RC Plane to be a "Licensed" Pilot if it is for commercial use, but any joe smuck if it is for hobby use seems to be a problem for me.
For one reason, Piloting an RC aircraft, from the ground, is a different skill set than Piloting a small plane from inside the aircraft itself.
Re: (Score:2)
So every kid with a model plane is now possible subject to a $10,000 fine?
Does "every kid" use an out-of-line-of-sight FPV RC plane to fly at street level through traffic, buzz a hospital's active helipad, and make people on public streets duck while the pilot is making video that he uses to show off the stuff he sells? Interesting.