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. 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...
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"
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
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.