Says Judge 'Erred' In Making Assumptions About The UAV, Interpretation Of FARs

The FAA has appealed an NTSB judges' ruling that a UAV flown by a private citizen in the vicinity of the University of Virginia is not subject to FARs, and the pilot of the UAV should not have to pay the agency's $10,000 fine.

Forbes reports that the FAA has filed a brief with the NTSB stating that the judge "erred" when he determined that the UAV, flown by Raphael Pirker, was not an "aircraft" under FAR definitions. They also hold that the judge incorrectly determined that the UAVs operation is not covered under current regulations.

Forbes' contributor John Goglia, who served 10 years on the NTSB, says that it is not logical for the FAA to suddenly determine that small UAVs no longer fall under the category of "model aircraft," which they have been considered for years. He also holds that the agency's distinction between commercial and non-commercial uses does not make sense if the issue is whether the UAV is an aircraft at all.

Goglia consulted with an attorney, who told him that the FAA definitely has the regulatory authority to control commercial uses of UAVs "of any size," but Congress has denied the FAA the authority to regulate model aircraft flown for hobby or recreational purposes. But, attorney Loretta Alkalay, who worked for the FAA before becoming an adjunct professor at the Vaughn College of Aeronautics, said that she does not think the FAA has properly crafted regulations for that purpose, and that it has created "its own legal confusion" in how it distinguishes between model aircraft and other aircraft.

The appeal will be heard by members of the NTSB who are responsible for reviewing appeals of FAA cases.

FMI: www.ntsb.gov, www.faa.gov