Drone Pilot Wins Case Against FAA

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"

Comments

How did this go to trial?

[kthreadd]

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?

[bobthesungeek76036]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 2: Guy accepts payment for same.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[smittyoneeach]

Should've filmed some cops doing their job.
That would've put burrs under saddles.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[dimko]

It appears that authority doesnt like idea that he can fly for-profit drone. They believe there is legislation, that controlls flights, unmanned ones, both for-profit flights and amateur ones and they basically want money for that, especially from for profit ones.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Capt.Albatross]

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:How did this go to trial?

[FatLittleMonkey]

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, turning it into a Federal case is unnecessary. Overcharging and regulatory creep should never be condoned. Not just the inherent dangers to us when TPTB use a law beyond its original intent; but also because, as in this example, if it annoys the judge, TPTB may end up with a legal precedent that might be manipulated in a case where the law is intended to apply.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[N1AK]

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.

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:How did this go to trial?

[Luckyo]

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:How did this go to trial?

[Luckyo]

Trashy TV shows do it all the time from the helicopters. They especially like car chases.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Alioth]

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?

[ShanghaiBill]

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?

[Charliemopps]

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 I lost in court because sidewalks have a 5mph speed limit (how the hell you're supposed to know that I'm not sure) So I won the parking bit... I had a permit... but the DA refused to lose so I got the other ticket and lost on that. Mt defence in court was "I had no idea if I was breaking the limit, my speedometer starts at 15" which didn't go over well with the judge.

I'm sure they went to this guy, tried to give him some minor ticket to "teach him a lesson" and make a point... he refused, and something that should have been relatively minor turned into a full blow case like mine.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:How did this go to trial?

[Registered Coward v2]

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?

[Half-pint HAL]

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:How did this go to trial?

[jbmartin6]

The FAA doesn't need to be involved, there are plenty of reckless endangerment and negligence laws to cover someone buzzing a crowd and almost hitting people.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[ScentCone]

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:How did this go to trial?

[Wycliffe]

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, 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. Just like you can't walk through my backyard without my permission
you shouldn't be able to fly through my backyard without my permission or some sort of
relationship with me. A UPS driver gets temporary permission to walk through my yard and a
public sideway gives temporary permission to walk through my yard but otherwise it's mostly
considered my yard.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[dywolf]

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:How did this go to trial?

[JoeMerchant]

They saw the product? It is a reasonable assumption that the video was paid for.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[JoeMerchant]

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:How did this go to trial?

[ShanghaiBill]

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 of Manila). The result is more convenient travel and lower prices. Taxis are just a price fixing scam.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[JoeMerchant]

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:How did this go to trial?

[dywolf]

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?

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[ScentCone]

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:How did this go to trial?

[mrchaotica]

Meanwhile, I can legally put in a path 10' wide and infinitely long, and pave it with wood.

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:How did this go to trial?

[sycodon]

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:How did this go to trial?

[Half-pint HAL]

Nope, I don't agree at all. I have been to many cities where ride sharing is legal (such as the jeepneys 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 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 £10.

As for competition, the problem with any unregulated market is the "drive to the bottom". Is it cheaper to hire an uninsured, inexperienced driver in an unmaintained car, or an experienced driver in a well-maintained vehicle with fully comprehensive insurance? Food regulations were first introduced in the UK to deal with "adulterated" ready-made foodstuffs during the industrial revolution. Real food was too expensive, so meat pies were padded out with sawdust -- price competition trumped quality, particularly when the negative effects weren't immediately obvious to the customer.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Half-pint HAL]

PS. I see from your link that they're thinking of banning the Jeepneys due to shonky business practices. Race to the bottom...?

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Rich0]

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 territory, 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. It isn't like somebody operating a plane isn't going to notice a helicopter landing 50 feet away.

Sure, the FAA's rules might be written broadly, but they probably shouldn't be.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[fuzznutz]

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:How did this go to trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

Within 50 feet != buzzing anything, especially with an aircraft with a wingspan of 56 inches. Be less special. Evasive action my fucking ass.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[tompaulco]

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:How did this go to trial?

[Half-pint HAL]

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 speaking in their own language in the back of his cab.

That's not to mention the problems of uninsured drivers and excess working hours leading to dangerously tired drivers in unregulated markets. Regulating taxis and private hire vehicles certainly is a safety issue.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[tompaulco]

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?

[Missing.Matter]

Actually FAA rules are written so broadly, if a window is open and you're flying a paper airplane indoors, yes absolutely the FAA has jurisdiction.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[tsqr]

(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, but what about this, this, and this?

Re:How did this go to trial?

[JoeMerchant]

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:How did this go to trial?

[tompaulco]

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 populated areas and so forth, further threaten our freedom to fly.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[tsqr]

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:How did this go to trial?

[Isaac-1]

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:How did this go to trial?

[tsqr]

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?

[ScentCone]

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:How did this go to trial?

[InvalidError]

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 the-powers-that-be, too many/severe complaints will get the bad taxi's license reviewed and possibly revoked

Re:How did this go to trial?

[jbmartin6]

Being.
Snide.
Isn't
Useful.


The FAA was originally created as part of the Department of Commerce to provide regulation for commercial aviation. As in, common traffic lanes, signaling standards, and so on. Which is probably why this rule about commercial use of a drone is part of the story. The creation of the FAA had nothing to do with annoying hobbyists, nor was there any mandate to "regulate anything that flies".

Laws regarding reckless endangerment, negligence, public nuisance, and so on had nothing to do with the FAA since they pre-exist that agency by several centuries.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[noh8rz10]

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?

[FatLittleMonkey]

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:How did this go to trial?

[deadweight]

You own NO air above you or your house. The FAA regulates everything or flying would be impossible with a patchwork of 5,000 local laws. Just FYI, if I am flying my own airplane over your house I am legally required to be 500 feet away from you in the country and 1,000 feet above you in a populated area.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[JoeMerchant]

Lived there for many years without a problem, it's one particular neighbor who calls in the DEP when she gets a mean streak going - not just on me, pretty much everyone...

Actually, yes, the whole county is pretty full of stupid regulations, regulatory officials, political bozos, ignorant bigots, etc. We left a year ago.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Obfuscant]

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.

Nonsense. Land owners do not get to create private regulations for the use of the airspace over their property, nor can they waive federal regulations that already exist governing that airspace. It doesn't matter if the "land owner" is the state of Virginia or not.

If he is low enough to the ground to "buzz" people then in my opinion he would fall into a vague "university airspace".

Please stop. You have no clue. There is no "vague university airspace". If you look at the sectional chart for the airspace around CHO (Charlottseville Airport) you see some dashed lines that either encompass the UVA heliport or come really damn close. That dashed line means the airspace is controlled from "the ground up". It is there to protect the safety of all flight, not just the flights of people who want to participate in the regulations.

Likewise if someone is flying over my house low enough to "buzz" me at my house, then are in my "air space" aka "personal space".

You can no more authorize a pilot to violate the 500 foot rule so he can buzz your house than UVA could authorize this guy.

Just like you can't walk through my backyard without my permission you shouldn't be able to fly through my backyard without my permission or some sort of relationship with me.

Well, you'll be happy to know that unless your backyard is huge and the pilot can remain further than "500 feet [ftom] any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure", AND you live in a sparsely populated area, flying through your backyard is already illegal. If you're in a more populated area, the rule becomes "1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet of the aircraft." But nowhere in the aviation regulations does it say you can waive that rule. It doesn't matter if the pilot has a "relationship" with you, nor can you give your permission.

A UPS driver gets temporary permission to walk through my yard and a public sideway gives temporary permission to walk through my yard but otherwise it's mostly considered my yard.

What law gives a UPS driver "temporary permission" to walk through your back yard? It's considered your back yard, not "mostly considered". UPS has no special privileges, there is no easement for UPS deliveries through people's back yards. Now, it is hard to get one arrested for trespassing until you've explicitly told one to leave (or posted the area explicitly) but that doesn't mean he has "temporary permission" to be there.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[JoeMerchant]

Depends on how much of a hard-on you have for enforcing particular laws.

If it was an ad for a "smoke shop" and it showed paraphernalia for illegal materials, you bet there are people who will follow up.

The drone space is very competitive right now, even if the regulatory officials don't particularly care, some of the competitors will be prodding them into action just to bring each other down...

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what you get.

Is it cheaper to hire an uninsured, inexperienced driver in an unmaintained car, or an experienced driver in a well-maintained vehicle with fully comprehensive insurance?

Taxis do not carry fully comprehensive insurance. Each taxi cab is created as a separate corporation. It balances its books every night, pays daily fees for maintenance services, dispatch services, gas and other operating costs, and declares and immediately pays any remaining as a dividend to the corporate parent. The "1-car taxi corp" effectively maintains zero assets. It buys only the state-required minimum insurance. If the taxi driver runs over you, there's nothing to claim but that minimum insurance even if accident results in permanent paralysis and a need for lifelong medical care. New York presently requires a $100k liability. Washington DC sets an incredibly low $25,000 floor.

Yes, this is common. Yes, it's been litigated and upheld by the courts. Read Walkovsky v. Carlton, 18 NY2d 414 (1966). It's just another way that corporations structure themselves privatize the profits while shifting the cost of their actions to an unconsenting someone else. In this case, they shift the cost of their driving accidents onto the victims of those accidents.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[James-NSC]

I fly 33" to 65" with a POV link to the ground (FatShark) and a GoPro onboard - it's a very common configuration. Everyone I know (and "know" via the Internet) posts videos to YouTube and some even make money from adds on YouTube. So if it's just about shooting video from the air via a radio controlled craft and making money from the resulting video, there are thousands (if not more) of people across the country guilty of this.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Registered Coward v2]

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:How did this go to trial?

[tahuti]

Rules are very clear, you need permission to fly commercial drones. The only drones that can get licence is experimental and military/police drone or somewhere far away in boonies, like Alaska. There is no commercial permit for drones that most people are interested to get. Like photographing a house for sale. Even Amazon could no get it, all those videos filmed elsewhere.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Luckyo]

Asshattery - people doing their jobs.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[suutar]

I think a closer analogy would be getting the DoT involved when your RC car freaks out the neighbor's dog.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[suutar]

The FAA covers airspace from elevation 0 up (FAA myths). They currently don't bother with noncommercial hobby stuff if it's under something like 500 feet and not otherwise being a pain, but they could if they wanted to deal with the paperwork.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Rich0]

If the rock is remotely piloted, it is appropriate for the FAA to deal with.

Why? I get why it is necessary to regulate air traffic in general, because collision is a very real threat and it really can only be prevented via compliance with standardized procedures. That doesn't apply to stuff near the earth.

I'm not saying that it should be legal to fly rocks into cars any more than it shouldn't be legal to drop rocks on cars from bridges. If you put fins on the rock and added laser targeting, I wouldn't regulate it any differently.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Rich0]

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.

So, first I'm not aware of any FAA rule that makes reference to model aircraft. There is an advisory circular which as far as I can tell isn't legally binding at all. However, I'm talking about how the FAA SHOULD operate, not how it DOES operate, so the FAA's actual policies aren't really important at all. Their policies SHOULDN'T govern aircraft close to the surface outside of airports and their immediate approaches.

As I already said in my post, I'd view operating aircraft in the vicinity of an in-use airport differently, including helipads.

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).

So, hospital helipads generally aren't controlled airspace in the typical definition of the word (they are not Class A-D airspace unless there is a control tower, and hospitals generally don't have those). However, I'm fine with banning FPV flight in the immediate vicinity of airfields unless the aircraft has some certified technology for collision avoidance (which the FAA should first evaluate/etc).

That said, unless he was remotely piloting from a considerable distance he probably still had situational awareness for the helipad. The last time a helicopter operated anywhere within a mile of me I was well aware of it whether I had line of sight or not - they are LOUD!

I'm not saying that drones should be anything-goes (go ahead and land it on the active at SFO and try to miss the rocks). I'm just saying that a complete ban on commercial operations anywhere is overkill. Just limit them to some altitude and horizontal proximity to airports. Piloted aircraft are also limited in minimal altitude for the same sorts of reasons, if for no reason other than every cell tower with a support wire isn't plotted on the sectionals.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Rich0]

The FAA covers airspace from elevation 0 up (FAA myths). They currently don't bother with noncommercial hobby stuff if it's under something like 500 feet and not otherwise being a pain, but they could if they wanted to deal with the paperwork.

That's like saying the FAA could require security screeners to do interrogations under torture. Just because the airspace is their domain doesn't mean that the public wants them to be able to do anything at all in the regulation of it.

There is no public good served by having central Federal regulation of drones at low altitude not operating unmonitored near airports. The FAA should only be regulating things when it serves the public good.

By all means ticket somebody who flies model planes into crowds, just like you'd handle somebody throwing rocks at a crowd. It just isn't a federal issue and it isn't best handled with absolute bans until somebody gets blessed with a $800k light commercial drone design.

Now, at altitude the FAA should be progressive and allow UAV flights using the right technology for collision avoidance/etc. Of course, they can't even modernize their ATC for manned aircraft, so I'm not holding my breath for that. As much as I'd love to be able to fly unsupervised at 14k feet, I recognize the real danger that presents to air travel and fully support not allowing it until procedures are defined. One thing the FAA should do at a minimum is create certification requirements for drone operators that actually reflect the nature of their operations. There is no point training drone operators to land Cessnas with yoke and rudder when the drone is just programmed with waypoints and an FMS. On the other hand, the need for proper procedures around flight planning and testing transponders and dealing with TCAS/etc are more vital than on a piloted aircraft.

Bottom line is the FAA shouldn't treat a UAV like a tiny airliner. It needs to treat them for what they are with regulations that make sense.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[suutar]

I agree with you. My statement was not about what they should regulate but what they are allowed to regulate, and currently they regulate all flights with commercial purpose.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Half-pint HAL]

This is a bunch of bullshit. There isn't any way to apply for a license to operate a UAV for profit legally. You can't do it even if you had all the money in the world.

There is, and the FAA note that only one company has ever been licensed.

If you had argued that that method of applying is heavy-handed or unfair... well then you'd be agreeing with the judge. I am not standing up for the current regulations -- just stating that in principle, making a distinction between amateur and professional use is perfectly justifiable.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Half-pint HAL]

It buys only the state-required minimum insurance.

...quad erat demonstrandum. Let people go cheap, they'll go cheap. Remove the regulations, and they won't even have that basic level of cover.

The problem here isn't "regulation" it's "inappropriate regulation". I agree that when regulation simply protects vested interests, it's bad. But that doesn't mean we'd be better off without regulation at all.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[sjames]

No, they don't. Other examples of reckless endangerment and negligence would include buzzing the pedestrians on your motorcycle or in your car, or walking by while swinging a baseball bat carelessly. Or throwing rocks into the crowd. The FAA has nothing to do with any of those equivalently negligent actions.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Rich0]

I agree with you. My statement was not about what they should regulate but what they are allowed to regulate, and currently they regulate all flights with commercial purpose.

Well, by law they're probably allowed to regulate paper airplanes. :) We're on the same page though.

That's my frustration with the FAA. It isn't so much that they shouldn't be regulating jets flying overhead. The frustration is that they do a really lousy job of it. The system works, but only at tremendous cost. Cost is also a barrier to safety. There is no reason you couldn't build an ADS-B transponder /TCAS for the cost of a smartphone (it is a GPS, radio, display, and some software). Cost and certification requirements results in most aircraft not having them at all. Clearly that isn't improving safety. Even if the device missed a collision some percentage of the time it would still be a net positive over not having it at all since the procedures don't rely on it - it is an extra safety measure.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[jimbolauski]

If I remember correctly balloons that have a diameter less then 6 feet are exempt, it was about 10 years ago when I was using weather balloons to lift calibration targets so I could be wrong.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Dare nMc]

>paper airplane indoors, yes absolutely the FAA has jurisdiction.

True, the FAA take was there are 2 types of flying objects over US soil, manned planes and drones, both under there jurisdiction. They allow drones if they are not for profit..., but you need a permit to fly one professionally.
Lucky Brett Favre retired, because he wasn't throwing footballs he was launching drones, and so his all time passing record should put him on the FAA's most wanted list.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[tsqr]

If the rock is remotely piloted, it is appropriate for the FAA to deal with.

Why?

Because the FAA has authority over things that fly in US airspace under human control. Look, I understand your argument, but you're trying to apply logic to a situation governed by law and not by logical argument. How YOU would regulate it is immaterial; you're not the Federal government.

By the way, the FAA has authority over things that fly in US airspace but not under human control (e.g., fully autonomous drones flying a flight plan) as well; I just didn't want to complicate the discussion. And no, a rock falling through the air does not qualify as a drone flying a flight plan, even though its path through the air is determined by the laws of physics and prevailing weather conditions.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Rich0]

Look, I understand your argument, but you're trying to apply logic to a situation governed by law and not by logical argument. How YOU would regulate it is immaterial; you're not the Federal government.

We're obviously talking past each other.

I fully concede that Federal Law gives the FAA the legal power to regulate just about anything with wings.

My whole point is that it is not in the public interest for this kind of activity to be regulated in the manner the FAA is seeking to regulate it. I'm arguing what is right, not what is legal. The law is immaterial. :)

Re:How did this go to trial?

[bill_mcgonigle]

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?/I

Because money, so you don't have any right to self-determination or a making a living.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Spliffster]

These statements show exactly why the FAA cannot be trusted about matters of small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. I am an sUAS operator myself and I am doing it for charity (check http://conservationdrones.org/ if you want to find out more).

Raphael's statement has always been, that he is operating an RC plane. The FAA does not regulate RC planes. There are no binding rules at least. They gave out recommendations and acted as if they were binding rules. Since 2007 the FAA has been grounding aerial photography businesses on the grounds of these recommendations.

Raphael was the first to challenge it in court. And the Judge ruled that this is non of the FAA's business. At least not as long as they come up with proper regulations as I understand this. The FAA has been dragging it's feets for 7 years now and they will most probably not have any regulations in place by 2015 (the next deadline).

This means that hollywood has to hire foreign countries abroad to use multirotors for some of the footage they want. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Thousands of farmers, civil engineers, maintenance workers, security workers, you name it have been forced to stop doing their business for 7 years without a resolution in sight. This ruling clears up the matters for commercial drone use in the US.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[bugnuts]

Tethered balloons (blimps), and quite legal to use for commercial use.

Untethered blimps don't have much control for commercial use, and have other legal issues.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Rich0]

I'm perfectly fine with restricting the use of drones/etc in the immediate vicinity of airports when they are operating or without coordination with the airport or having adequate supervision.

Of course, most airports do not have controlled airspace around them, and certainly most hospital helipads do not as well. How many Class D hospital helipads even exist in the US? Obviously some hospitals are going to be located in class B/C airspace to the surface.

My point wasn't that the FAA doesn't have some kind of legal basis for authority here. My point was that they SHOULDN'T be regulating these kinds of activities.

Flights of light autonomous aircraft within a few hundred feet of the ground not in the immediate vicinity of an airfield shouldn't be regulated by the FAA at all. If somebody has a problem they should just call the police, who should handle it no differently than somebody throwing rocks at people.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[tsqr]

We're obviously talking past each other.

I fully concede that Federal Law gives the FAA the legal power to regulate just about anything with wings.

My whole point is that it is not in the public interest for this kind of activity to be regulated in the manner the FAA is seeking to regulate it. I'm arguing what is right, not what is legal. The law is immaterial. :)

Ok, right and wrong; legal and illegal, I understand.

A bit upthread, you said, " I get why it is necessary to regulate air traffic in general, because collision is a very real threat and it really can only be prevented via compliance with standardized procedures. That doesn't apply to stuff near the earth." But it absolutely does apply to stuff near the earth. Part of the FAA's charter, and a major topic in the FARs, is preventing damage and injury to property and people on the ground. This is not something new with the advent of UAVs.

In parting, If you really think the law is immaterial, you should take another look at the subject line of this thread ;-)

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Rich0]

Part of the FAA's charter, and a major topic in the FARs, is preventing damage and injury to property and people on the ground.

I don't have a problem with that, but there needs to be reason applied. If a fully-fueled 777 carrying cargo crashes that could destroy the better part of a small town. If a quad-copter crashes maybe somebody might need some stitches. They simply shouldn't be regulated in the same way.

You can be injured by a bicycle, and yet we don't regulate those at all (beyond basic tort law). There just isn't that much potential for permanent injury where bikes are concerned.

You could set a threshold based on maximum kinetic energy of the aircraft (even in a vertical dive there is a limit for any design), or just use weight or thrust. Or you could just wait and see how things develop - heavy/fast drones aren't exactly cheap so people flying them aren't going to be looking to have them crash. Sometimes reactive regulation is better - that's why amatuer RC aircraft are basically entirely unregulated - there are a few guidelines but nothing in the CFRs.

My gripe isn't really with the concept of regulation, but rather with just how ham-fisted the FAA seems to be with just about everything.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[InvalidError]

Everyone who drives already has to buy liability insurance.

Some places have multiple different layers of insurances drivers must sign up for. Where I live, basic collective insurance built in the license and plate fees and drivers are required to buy additional vehicle liability insurance for a minimum of 1M$ on top of that. The mandatory collective insurance regime covers the balance of claims that exceed the mandatory minimum private insurance and cases where there is no insurer to file claims against such as hit-and-runners who don't get caught or people who drive illegally without vehicle insurance.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[terjeber]

Free is not the same as unregulated. A market can be both free and regulated.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[terjeber]

Are you familiar with the term "helipad", do you see it anywhere in the documentation?

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Rich0]

Are you familiar with the term "helipad", do you see it anywhere in the documentation?

Yes

Re:How did this go to trial?

[terjeber]

So your comment "That doesn't apply to stuff near the earth" was not really all that smart then? Particularly considering your comment "because collision is a very real threat ".

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Rich0]

So your comment "That doesn't apply to stuff near the earth" was not really all that smart then? Particularly considering your comment "because collision is a very real threat ".

That's why I said, "Now, the bit about the helipad alone does start to encroach into FAA territory, 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."

Re:How did this go to trial?

[crbowman]

No the FAA has regulatory authority over those things it makes regulations over pursuant to it's grant of authority to regulate. In order to exercise that authority they must create regulations using the recognized federal regulatory process. Otherwise they haven't created regulations. The judge ruled that in this instance they didn't follow that process. Instead he decided they issued a policy statement and then behaved as if that was a regulation. I think in this case he found, for instance, that there wasn't a publishing of the proposed regulations and a comment period. Therefore theses weren't regulations. Therefore he found there are no regulations covering the activity involved independent of the profit motive. I don't know what the statutory grant of authority was but throwing a rock probably is ok because there are no regulations covering it (just as their aren't for RC aircraft) but if the FAA chose to properly invoke the regulatory process and create regulations they probably could.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[terjeber]

So, if a dude flies his model airplane for profit over an airport runway, it is only FAA business if a plane is trying to take off or land at the time? Sure.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Rich0]

So, if a dude flies his model airplane for profit over an airport runway, it is only FAA business if a plane is trying to take off or land at the time? Sure.

Why not? If the area is being monitored so that there is no risk of conflict, then there is no opportunity for somebody to be harmed.

If the airspace were controlled it would make sense to coordinate with the controlling authority. If the airspace were uncontrolled then airplanes land without coordination all the time without anybody getting hurt.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[terjeber]

Why not? If the area is being monitored so that there is no risk of conflict, then there is no opportunity for somebody to be harmed

And there was monitoring going on in this case? Hardly. Also, safe monitoring assumes fault-free humans, hardly probable. I'd say we'd be just a little safer if we ban the flying of model aircraft in the area of an airport, or helipad.

Re:How did this go to trial?

[Rich0]

And there was monitoring going on in this case? Hardly.

He wasn't standing close enough to the helipad that he would have heard a helicopter in operation? If so, then I'm fine with legal action being taken - that would be reckless

Also, safe monitoring assumes fault-free humans, hardly probable. I'd say we'd be just a little safer if we ban the flying of model aircraft in the area of an airport, or helipad.

We'd be safer still if we banned flying any aircraft in the area of an airport of helipad. They're operated by fault-prone humans as well. In fact, planes crash into each other in the vicinity of airports from time to time, even in controlled airspace (and most helipads aren't controlled). At most airports the only way to guarantee not hitting another plane is spotting it in the air. They're not required to announce their position on radio or be equipped with gear that broadcasts their location.

I think what makes more sense is coming up with reasonable procedures to make aircraft and drones safer, not outright bans.

model plane != plane

[QuasiSteve]

That's the meat of the verdict - since that's not given in the summary.

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.

Re:model plane != plane

[JaredOfEuropa]

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.

Re:model plane != plane

[Jarik C-Bol]

The difference is, Manned model ships serve a particular purpose. They are pretty much always used for training, as they are designed to handle and react like the full size versions. (they use them to train ship pilots to dock and maneuver at low speeds). There is no equivalent purpose for a model aircraft.

Re:model plane != plane

[C0R1D4N]

So if he stuck a camera on a kite the FAA should step in too?

Re: model plane != plane

[Anonymous Coward]

RC is not unmanned.

Re:model plane != plane

[Alioth]

If he does it commercially, yes.

Re: model plane != plane

[HybridST]

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

[Peter Simpson]

I wonder what the FAA's reaction would have been to a kite photo platform? It would have arguably been the same level of hazard to people and helicopters.

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 "helicopters coming in and out while the model was in the air".

Re:model plane != plane

[Half-pint HAL]

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....

Re: model plane != plane

[BitZtream]

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:model plane != plane

[Half-pint HAL]

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:model plane != plane

[anorlunda]

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 zeal with reason.

Re:model plane != plane

[dywolf]

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:model plane != plane

[Rich0]

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 accidents happen. If somebody's vase tips over then they should replace it.

The FAA would require a licensed pilot to operate a drone flying 50' over a concert taking photos (even if it wasn't directly over the crowd). The irony is that FAA certification is of fairly little value in operating a drone, and vice-versa. Typically you program a GPS course into them and they fly it - if something goes wrong it crashes. The safety comes from the fact that they typically have very little weight and are of course unmanned.

This is square-peg-round-hold thinking. If it flies, it must make sense to regulate it like an airliner. Even recreational pilots are dying out due to heavy-handedness - regulating quad-copters in the same way just makes no sense at all.

Re:model plane != plane

[Missing.Matter]

No, the kite is not powered, is controlled only by the wind, and is tethered. All these factors put it in a different class of aircraft than an RC airplane.

Re:model plane != plane

[tompaulco]

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 this guy did wrong.

Re:model plane != plane

[tompaulco]

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:model plane != plane

[ScentCone]

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:model plane != plane

[HeckRuler]

Because if, for whatever reason, there was a booming business of kite photography you'd have a lot of idiots flying their kites into electrical lines, into traffic, bickering over the right to recover lost cameras that fell on someon else's land, etc. You know, issues. And these sort of issues are excuseable and tolerated when it's hobbyists, and inexcusable when it's by a for-profit business?

Why? Because we know that supporting hobbyists get people into the field. It turns non-geeks into geeks. (at least while we're talking about HAM, drones, and arieal photography). And that has a benefit to society. On the other hand, if these are buisinesses doing it for profit, we should expect them to train their employees about eletrical lines, right of way, property rights, and how you REALLY shouldn't climb that phone pole to get back the $400 camera. They should damn well know better. It's their job. And they should have to follow the proper legal route to getting their shit back from the land-owners whose tree ate their kite. It's a business expense. Also entering into play is the moral hazard. If you can make a buck by doing it or not doing it, you are insentivised to do so. Hobbiests aren't there to make money, they're simply more trustworthy in that regard.

And there's some common sense here. It's simply a different scenario when it's a kid with a kite flying around in a park than when it's a minimum-wage-slave flying a kite over a privacy fence/treeline because his corporate overlord wants to buy another yatch. How do you codify that into law? Something a federal administration can cite in court? The profit factor.

Re: model plane != plane

[Obfuscant]

RC is not unmanned.

I don't know what you think RC stands for, but in my part of the world it means 'radio controlled'. If something is radio controlled, that's a pretty clear indication that there is no man (or woman) aboard the aircraft controlling it. And gee, what does "unmanned" mean? It means, in effect, the controller of the aircraft has no skin in the game when it comes to operating the aircraft in a safe and reasonable manner. "Oh, my UAV is about to crash into that building I'm buzzing, I guess I'll have to buy another one", versus "I'm not going to buzz that building because if I make a mistake I could die."

Those drones flown in Afghanistan by operators in Nevada are just as "unmanned" (the "U" in UAV, don't you know?) as any other RC controlled craft.

Re:model plane != plane

[Rich0]

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:model plane != plane

[ScentCone]

Since when do gliders have props spinning at high RPMs?

Who cares? The case in question wasn't about a glider. It was about someone flying FPV under power, diving under bridges through traffic, looping the hospital helipad, etc. That's not "glider" activity. The guy used the same style craft for his stunts buzzing the Statue Of Liberty and other high profile structures with lots of people right under his area of operation, while flying outside line of site. Props, spinning. Feel free to stick your nose or a finger into that while it's flying. I wouldn't.

Re:model plane != plane

[HeckRuler]

Not the FAA's problem.

Well, yes it is, because it flies. That's kind of why the FAA exists.

You don't need separate rules for profit and not for profit. You can't even enforce them anyway.

No, you don't strictly need separate rules. But it certainly helps hobbyists and the fields they're playing in.
And, yes, actually the FAA HAVE enforced rules about commercializing flight. But that's going to get harder and harder the cheaper and more accessible drones get. Maybe. I mean, the FCC still regulates the airwaves like it's the 1950's while radio transmitters are cheap as dirt. But sure, this here might be the tipping point.

What if I published my drone footage using public domain or creative commons, and someone used that in their for profit movie? Who broke the law then?

No one. No really, that scenario is fine. The public has bitchin footage and a commercial enterprise got something on the cheap. Everyone wins. You might draw the FAA's ire if Mr. BusinessEmployee blatently gets paid to go get some footage, ostensibly publish it online somewhere under guard of a leapord for a day, and then take it down after his business picks it up for use in a movie. But hey, this sort of case-by-case scenario is why we have legal courts.

Extending trespassing laws to a reasonable height would solve all these safety and privacy problems,

Are you fucking with me? You're literally bitching about a blanket law, and then propose a blanket law that will somehow "solve all safety and privacy problems"?

The FAA can regulate actions not intentions.

Right. Which is why if you perform the action of MAKING MONEY with something that flies, you need a waiver from them.

he was being a dick

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

He flew a model next to a helipad and wonders why the FAA are stomping on him. They apparently overreached a bit when going into the commercial motivations for flying the model, but he was being a dick and the FAA is not entirely wrong to stomp on people who are flying like a dick.

Re:he was being a dick

[Chrisq]

"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:he was being a dick

[captainpanic]

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:he was being a dick

[Lumpy]

He had big stickers all over it that says "MERICA!" terrorists would never do that.

Re:he was being a dick

[Chrisq]

He had big stickers all over it that says "MERICA!" terrorists would never do that.

Not with out the "Death to" prefix anyway

Re:he was being a dick

[SuricouRaven]

Not really. It's stereotyping people based on religion, not race. Very different thing, even if there is a statistical correlation.

Re:he was being a dick

[Anonymous Coward]

Muslims aren't a race, so it's not racism.

Re:he was being a dick

[JaredOfEuropa]

Since when do muslims constitute a race? Silly as that statement is, racism it aint.

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:he was being a dick

[JaredOfEuropa]

Doesn't the area around a helipad count as restricted airspace? Not sure how it is in the US, but over here model airplanes (including foam park flyers) are strictly banned from flying in such airspace. Breaking that rule will get you in trouble with airspace regulations; they won't just do you for trespassing.

Re:he was being a dick

[Jarik C-Bol]

He was being paid by the hospital, to use the model aircraft to get arial pictures of the hospital, for the hospitals advertising campaign. I doubt trespassing was the issue here. the FAA's primary problem is that he's running afoul of their "no drones for profit" rule, and they are using the bystanders and helipad presence to make him seem more vile and reckless. TBH, no one probably thought the idea through worth a hell. (really? your going to fly a model plane near a helipad?) but at the same time, the FAA's "You can't use a foam glider with a camera for profit" rule is over reaching.

Re:he was being a dick

[immaterial]

There can't possibly be this many people on Slashdot who are incapable of understanding a very clear and obvious joke. I hope there's some meta-joke here I'm not getting.

Re:he was being a dick

[C0R1D4N]

Active helipad means "concrete slab where we can land a heli for a medivac". It wasn't the penn station of helicopters.

Re:he was being a dick

[Overzeetop]

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 they were in on it, in that case.

The reassignment from the pedestrian "model aircraft" to the commercial/evil "drone" label seems to have emboldend the FAA to be more proactive in their regulatory stance. If (and that's a big if) model flying becomes much more common (like Amazon's delivery service) and crowded public airspace is genuinely a problem, then there would be a reason for concern. However, this was fulfilling a private contract on the land operated by one of the parties.

Re:he was being a dick

[CrimsonAvenger]

arial

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:he was being a dick

[geogob]

I thought he was quite font of his spelling.

Re:he was being a dick

[CrimsonAvenger]

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:he was being a dick

[Half-pint HAL]

That's racism, you know that right?

That was a satirical comment, you know that right? Chrisq was mocking mass hysteria....

Re:he was being a dick

[Rich0]

"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 regulated the same way as when people have to take evasive measures to avoid thrown rocks.

If this thing was operating at such an altitude that it would be a hazard for aircraft in flight (with the risk that the operator couldn't get it out of the way in time - such as if it were really high up with high endurance and it might lose contact) then I could see the FAA getting involved. For things that stay close to the ground why not treat them the same as you treat a baseball during a baseball game? Don't hit it in the direction of anybody's windows/etc.

The FAA should stick to stuff that actually becomes an operational hazard to other aircraft, or operations that are large enough to actually cause substantial damage on the ground (kind of like how we regulate cars differently from bikes).

Re:he was being a dick

[tompaulco]

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:he was being a dick

[HeckRuler]

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

[ray-auch]

Exactly. Though we don't know if he had coordinated with the hospital about flying near the landing zone,

His court filing is online (and linked from elsewhere in the thread) - it makes clear that he did in fact coordinate with them. http://www.wired.com/images_bl...

The FAA was very very wrong on this one

[EmagGeek]

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).

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.

Re:The FAA was very very wrong on this one

[Registered Coward v2]

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:The FAA was very very wrong on this one

[Half-pint HAL]

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 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".

FAA's side on this

[Mononoke]

The FAA's entirely overreaching position on "commercial drones"

I understand wanting to regulate full-sized military-style drones, but going after small commercial entities flying go-pro carrying quad-copters is a bit much.

Re:FAA's side on this

[plover]

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:FAA's side on this

[Mononoke]

They already have rules like these. Model airplane flyers have abided by them for years. What the FAA is trying to do is ignore those standing rules because there's money involved and they want their licensing fees.

Re:FAA's side on this

[dywolf]

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 explosion in their use. But there is a potential hazard in allowing them to be used without regulation. And the existing rules are not sufficient to govern them.

And it's not just some club of R/C guys in a field in the middle of nowhere. It's happening in crowded areas.
So they are adapting to the present reality.
And that present reality is that technology is now allowing model aircraft to perform tasks never really viable before.
Both autonomously and iunder direct control via camera feed.

So no. Your comments dont have a leg to stand on.
The FAA is right about this, even if they are lagging behind.
But eventually the regulations will catch up to what people are capable of.
I suspect we'll eventually see rules based on different classes of drone, based around weight, payload, size, usage, etc.

Kind of like the kite example earlier.
They really dont care care too much about a foam gliders, even big ones, in a field.
But start flying somethings recklessly around people, where negligence can lead to "BAD THINGS", and they start to care.
And they should.

Re:FAA's side on this

[PPH]

The FAA is right about this, even if they are lagging behind.

I agree, almost.

Its the "No commercial use" clause for RC craft that I wonder about. The rest of the regulations make perfect sense.

The graduation of RC 'toys' to fully capable and safe UAVs is going to take money. And lots of it. Not being able to fly for commercial use keeps the development money out. Unless you are a Boeing or a Lockheed with military contracts, it is a chicken/egg situation. You have to invest in incrementally enhancing the capabilities of such craft while you are not permitted to get a return on your investment from those that operate under the existing RC rules.

Other countries that don't have this 'no commercial use' restriction are rapidly moving ahead of US developers. Once our FAA opens up a certification class for UAVs, the market will already be owned by foreign manufacturers.

heliport

[kqc7011]

Was the heliport the hospitals? By "active" does that mean that the heliport was actually being used at the time by a helicopter or that the heliport is used regularly but not at the time the drone was flying? If a helicopter was taking off or landing and if the drone was in flight and actually near the heliport at the time, then I could see the charges. There are many painted circles with H's in them that are not used very often. If these are going to be considered active heliports, lots of questions will need to be asked. We had one of these painted circles at work and if it was used as a heliport twice a year, that would have been a busy year for it.

Re:heliport

[C0R1D4N]

Active heliport just means a registered landing place with the FAA.

Re:heliport

[Overzeetop]

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:heliport

[kqc7011]

I was wondering if the "active" was for the charges only. As in, there was helicopter activity. Not generally available. No, all do not have restricted air space at all times. It, the pad could have restricted airspace when it is used as a heliport but when it is not being used it can be a parking lot with no restrictions. I have seen a house in a wildland fire area with a heliport, with a lighted landing area and a windsock. The owner built the heliport (to FAA specs.) just in case of a wildfire so that the firefighting helicopters could use it. The builder was a retired firefighter and wanted a little extra protection. It has been used for the firefighting helicopters too. But mostly it was a paved area that vehicles were parked on. Others that I have seen are larger piers that have a helicopter landing area designated that are used daily as a pier and seldom as a heliport. But it still is a heliport.

I was once a drone pilot, he says in a hushed tone

[Trax3001BBS]

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...

What the hell is going on around here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly how much time and tax-payer money did the U.S. prosecutor waste on this nonsense? So every kid with a model plane is now possible subject to a $10,000 fine?

WTF IS WRONG WITH AMERICA?

The judge should have disbarred the US attorney that brought this case, period!

Re:What the hell is going on around here?

[ScentCone]

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.

FAA & Public Safety

[redshirt]

I'd like to read the court's judgement to better understand the reason, but while the FAA may seem overbearing in this case, the FAA is charged with public safety, and they take it very seriously. Anyone that did complain to the police or the FAA had Good Reason. Incidents with RC aircraft are not uncommon. I have to agree with the FAA on this one. If someone is appearing to be reckless with their aircraft, regardless of the type, it needs to be addressed.

Re:FAA & Public Safety

[ray-auch]

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:FAA & Public Safety

[Rich0]

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 conventional controls when the device is computer-controlled and follows a GPS course and isn't really aerodynamically stable in the first place. If you gave a pilot a few handles to control fan speeds, they'd crash it every time.

This is an entire new domain, and they're trying to apply the rules associated with human-piloted passenger jets to quadcopters you can lift with two fingers flown by computers.

Re:FAA & Public Safety

[weiserfireman]

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:FAA & Public Safety

[ScentCone]

in other words they were prosecuting him for not having a licence that he couldn't possibly get

You mean, like you couldn't possibly get a permit to launch a multi-stage, liquid fueled rocket from your back yard into LEO? Well, since you can't get that permit, they would be total asshats for fining you if you did it anyway, right?

It is the point - address the recklessness

The pilot's recklessness is EXACTLY why he was fined. The administrative judge's initial ruling (it was just an initial one - this still has a long way to go, including eventually to an actual federal court if the agency wants that to happen) was that the rule making process that was used to back up the agency's policy wasn't properly followed. So the pilot wiggles out of his fine on a technicality, not because he actually deserved to avoid the fine.

Re:FAA & Public Safety

[ray-auch]

in other words they were prosecuting him for not having a licence that he couldn't possibly get

You mean, like you couldn't possibly get a permit to launch a multi-stage, liquid fueled rocket from your back yard into LEO? Well, since you can't get that permit, they would be total asshats for fining you if you did it anyway, right?

You need to comply with the regulation - FAR101 applies to model rockets and determines what permits you would need etc. - your back yard needs to be quite large.

In contrast, there is no regulation (FAR) that applies to model aircraft, and never has been.

The pilot's recklessness is EXACTLY why he was fined. The administrative judge's initial ruling (it was just an initial one - this still has a long way to go, including eventually to an actual federal court if the agency wants that to happen) was that the rule making process that was used to back up the agency's policy wasn't properly followed. So the pilot wiggles out of his fine on a technicality, not because he actually deserved to avoid the fine.

If the alleged recklessness was the issue, then there would be no reason to consider the commercial nature (or not) of the flight - it's either reckless use of a model aircraft or it isn't. Since there are no FARs covering model aircraft, that would be a police matter.

The reason the FAA says the flight is commercial is that they have said that commercial use of model aircraft is not covered by the previous guidance (which was only voluntary anyway and doesn't in fact mention that it does not apply to commercial use), and that because it is not covered by the guidance it must therefore be in fact banned (despite previously saying that model aircraft use was unregulated) - or more strictly that it must be subject to standard aircraft regulations which would be impossible to comply with in a model aircraft (the pilot must be strapped in... etc.). They've tried to institute this effective ban using a policy statement (effectively saying "we never regulated this before, but we never mentioned commercial use before and actually didn't intend to not-regulate commercial use") - and the judge has decided that they cannot make rules that way by the back door circumventing federal procedures. They didn't just "not follow" the rule making process - they never made any rules at all.

The guy doesn't wiggle out on a technicality, he simply didn't break any (FAA) rules, because the FAA hasn't made any that cover model aircraft. The FAA could get off their backside and actually make some rules and regulations to govern model aircraft - but they haven't.

The funniest bit is that if the pilot _was_ subject to FARs (if he'd been flying _in_ a full sized aircraft), then FAA is in breach of its own procedures again - because as he is a foreign national, the FAA are supposed to refer the pilot to his own aviation authority for enforcement / punishment.

Re:FAA & Public Safety

[ScentCone]

despite previously saying that model aircraft use was unregulated

Their answer to that, of course, is that it's no longer "modeling" when you're flying something through the air for commercial use.

I agree that they need to follow proper rule making procedures, and get this done for real. In the meantime, it's a complete mess, and the administration is thumbing its nose at the law (from congress) that set a timetable for having this wrapped up. Deliberate foot-dragging with no consequences for anyone except all of the people looking to earn and spend money in this area. For an administration that pretends that it cares about the economy and jobs, this is just more of the same BS.

Re:FAA & Public Safety

[ray-auch]

despite previously saying that model aircraft use was unregulated

Their answer to that, of course, is that it's no longer "modeling" when you're flying something through the air for commercial use.

And that one's BS too - their non-regulation specifically refers to the operating / flying of model aircraft, not the modeling part (i.e. the building of them, flying or static).

Their argument seems to be that:

1. model aircraft are not mentioned in the FARs, therefore they are not regulated
2. we issued a note to make that clear, with some voluntary guidelines
3. the guidelines / note didn't mention commercial use (or otherwise) - therefore commercial use was not covered by it
4. because commercial use was not mentioned we must have intended to regulate it under the FARs which don't mention it either, so actually we must have intended to ban it all along
5. operators should have known all along that it was banned even though it wasn't ever mentioned in any of the rules as being banned, because clearly not being mentioned as allowed means that it's banned, unless it's not commercial in which case not being mentioned means it is not regulated at all
6. oh and by the way, we've never defined (since we've never mentioned in any rules) commercial / non-commercial flight w.r.t. model aircraft - just be aware that one is banned and one isn't and we'll fine you if you do the banned one

Re:I was once a drone pilot, he says in a hushed t

[BitZtream]

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.

Never Underestimate...

[sycodon]

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:Never Underestimate...

[frog_strat]

So it's just governments ? Not corporations, churches, every type of organization ?

Re:Never Underestimate...

[noh8rz10]

no, corporations don't want control, they just want money. they're not going to sieze control of something just for the heck of it or to boost their egos. they'll do it if it raises the stock.

Re:Never Underestimate...

[spike2131]

What color is the sky on your planet, where corporate management is devoid of power hungry, empire-building narcissists?

Re:I was once a drone pilot, he says in a hushed t

[Rich0]

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.

Re:I was once a drone pilot, he says in a hushed t

[SysPig]

> You were never allowed to fly your glider within 10 miles of controlled airport, and 2 or 5 miles of an uncontrolled airport. Ever.

The above is demonstrably false.

Our AMA field boundary is less than 500' from the end of the runway of an uncontrolled, International US Airport - not in line with approach/departure obviously, but perpendicular to the runway. It's been there for 20+ years. We see commercial flights daily, and from our flight stations can easily make out the tail numbers on aircraft landing and taking off.

Further, the same government entity that owns the airport leases the land the field is on to us.

There's zero chance the FAA isn't well aware of our site.

Interesting Precident to Set

[X!0mbarg]

Looks like 'we' will have to right to use drones of our own to do fairly non-invasive things like monitor our own property, take aerial images and videos, and patrol for intrusion.
Expect corporate drones to roll out fairly soon now that it's not considered illegal.

Next step: Armed Drones. They'll probably start will paint-ball chemical/visual tags, and work up the lethality scale slowly, but surely from there.
At least the paint-balls aren't too directly life-threatening... unless you're knocked off a high-rise structure...

The video in question

[Control-Z]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4

Really very cool IMO.

Re:I was once a drone pilot, he says in a hushed t

[Dare nMc]

I don't think you read the article. The FAA made it very clear
> "the FAA continued. "Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft-manned or unmanned-in U.S. airspace needs some level of FAA approval."

The article made it very clear, FCC considers every RC plane, regardless if it is solely controlled by a conventional controller or capable of self flight as covered under it's drone guidance. The guidance given allowed for hobbyist use, but it still falls under the FCC's definition of a drone. The FAA position is that all RC plane use is also regulated by them, and the guidance given is there "permission" but the drone laws still apply.

Close cases make bad law

[hatuman]

It looks like the FAA is at a fork in the road: it doesn't know what to do with RC aircraft with the new-found popularity of drone aircraft (apparently built to be flown out of your line of sight). FAA has a valid interest in keeping safe aircraft that carry people. If RC aircraft and drones are a danger to aircraft with people in them then the FAA should be creating concise, limited rules like 'no flying over __ feet' or 'no flying within __ feet of an airport'. As for rules about what a drone or RC can do within those parameters then the local community can handle the rules, if any. In fact, most situations are likely already handled by existing laws. The commercial purpose of the RC in this case is irrelevant. The facts relevant to any FAA intervention is the location of the helipad, how close the plane was flown to people-carrying aircraft, and how high the plane was flown. Everything else seems irrelevant for FAA regulation.

Video in question

[Hobadee]

FYI, this is the video he got nailed for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:I was once a drone pilot, he says in a hushed t

[Trax3001BBS]

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.

The subject title "I was once a drone pilot" was me being facetious of such an absurd charge for flying an RC plane. I was wrong in I thought the FCC was involved; one of those click submit at the same time noticing an error, but too late.

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.

And ignorance is what I'd of pleaded. I thought I was fairly close to an air port but didn't realize just how close http://i60.tinypic.com/x1ka52.... From the air port to the High School was less than a mile, sure along mile.

The only rule I was aware of was checking transmitter flags to make sure I was on a different frequency. There was one other that flew at that school, using the 100 feet of surgical tubing method. I built a pod for a .079(?) engine to take me up - just sweet.

I wasn't in a club or with others who flew, so knew zero on the legalities of gliding, or flying.

I built 3 Gentle Ladies, the third - the wing and it's angles are perfect, not having others to talk to about how to do "stuff" I stretched my mylar with a cloths iron :}. A heat gun I found out later was the preferred method and sure would of been heck of a lot easier.

At the time Helicopters were the big thing and where I'd of gone if not for a life changing event, I bought an Amiga.