Despite An Admitted Lack Of Official Policy, FAA Fights For Its Unofficial Stance

In the aftermath of the story ANN broke about the NTSB's reversal of the fines and actions taken against drone operator, Raphael "Trappy" Pirker, there was the potential that the FAA would not take this defeat quietly... and it hasn't.

Despite a drone policy that has been roundly criticized across the nation (and elsewhere), the FAA has decided to fight for its unofficial policy and attempt to stem the tide of what are expected to be thousands of drones, in all shapes and sizes, coming into our airspace in the coming years.

Last October, the FAA fined Pirker, the pilot of an R/C airplane, which it classified as a UAS, $10,000 for what the agency says was the reckless and careless operation of a Ritewing Zephyr powered glider aircraft in the vicinity of the University of Virginia (UVA), Charlottesville, Virginia. The Order of Assessment (Docket No. 2012EA210009) charged that the 'pilot' operated the aircraft with a camera aboard that sent real-time video to the ground; that the flight was performed for compensation; and that he operated the aircraft at altitudes of approximately 10 feet to approximately 400 feet over the University of Virginia in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

When the matter finally came before an NTSB Administrative Law Judge, on March 6th, 2014; NTSB Law Judge Patrick Geraghty (the same Judge who had to deal with Aero-Conman, David Riggs, last year), ruled that:

• 1. Neither the Part 1, Section 1.1, or the 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)6) definitions of "aircraft" are applicable to, or include a model aircraft within their respective definition.
• 2. Model aircraft operation by Respondent was subject only to the FAA's requested voluntary compliance with the Safety Guidelines stated in AC 91-57,
• 3. As Policy Notices 05-01 and 08-01 were issued and intended for internal guidance for FAA personnel, they are not a jurisdictional basis for asserting Part 91 FAR enforcement authority on model aircraft operations.
• 4. Policy Notice 07-01 does not establish a jurisdictional basis for asserting Part 91, Section 91.13(a) enforcement on Respondent's model aircraft operation, as tho Notice is either (a) as it states, a Policy Notice/Statement and hence non-binding, or (b) an invalid attempt of legislative rulemaking, which fails for non-compliance with the requirement of 5 U.S.C Section 553, Rulemaking.
• 5. Specifically, that at the time of Respondent's model aircraft operation, as alleged herein, there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation applicable to model aircraft or for classifying a model aircraft as a UAS.

The FAA, however, in a presser released in the last few minutes before the close of business, Friday, stated simply that, "The FAA is appealing the decision of an NTSB Administrative Law Judge to the full National Transportation Safety Board, which has the effect of staying the decision until the Board rules. The agency is concerned that this decision could impact the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground."

FMI: www.ntsb.gov, www.faa.gov, www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240