Slashdot Mirror
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"
1. Guy flies radio-controlled model plane.
2. ?
3. Guy is in court.
What happened a step 2?
"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?
Not really. It's stereotyping people based on religion, not race. Very different thing, even if there is a statistical correlation.
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.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
If he does it commercially, yes.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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"....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I thought he was quite font of his spelling.
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.
Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
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....
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
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.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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.
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.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
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.
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.
"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).
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.
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.
FYI, this is the video he got nailed for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.