Interesting. NTSB says drones are aircraft, subject to FARs.

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/ntsb-overturns-judges-ruling-pirker-uav-case?cmpid=enews111814&spPodID=030&spMailingID=21719165&spUserID=Nzc5NDA3ODI0NDMS1&spJobID=442050425&spReportId=NDQyMDUwNDI1S0

This means you're going to need an N number before you fly your next paper airplane.

It says that the NTSB overruled a judge. I do not think so. Only a higher judge can overrule a judge. That is why they call them judges.

Not a lawyer but my brother is and I have stayed at Smiley Creek.

Tim

Do you need an A&P to work on them? Type certificates? I don't think they thought this through.

Prosaria wrote:Do you need an A&P to work on them? Type certificates? I don't think they thought this through.

Experimental or light sport.

tim

It's hardly the end of it. Good guess that Mr. Pirker will be appealing the NTSB decision--he apparently has the financial wherewithal to do so.

FWIW, the judge who was overruled by the NTSB is an Administrative Law Judge who works for the NTSB but is given very independent authority. In the hierarchy of things, the NTSB is the "appellate court" for the decisions of an ALJ when an airman (or in this case, a non-airman who was nonetheless tagged by the FAA) has appealed an FAA decision. That first appeal goes to the ALJ, then whomever is dissatisfied with the ALJ's decision can appeal to the NTSB, presuming that they have legitimate grounds for the appeal. The next appeal is to the US District Court, and presumably the next appeal could go to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which that US District Court is located. As you can imagine, all this is pretty expensive litigation, both for the original appellant (Pirker) and the FAA.

Also FWIW, I believe that the ALJ was correct. He's both an experienced ALJ and an experienced aviation lawyer, formerly one of the FAA's finest. His basic premise in his opinion, which the NTSB has now overruled, is that for the FAA to enforce anything, it has to have regulations in place governing that activity. Since there are no regulations in place for the FAA to regulate drones, they can't do it. Makes good sense to me.

I haven't read the actual NTSB decision, just various summations of it in the press, so I don't know how they got around that. I will say that they are traversing a very slippery slope, but then, there's a lot of that within the Beltway these days.

Cary

Cary wrote:I haven't read the actual NTSB decision, just various summations of it in the press, so I don't know how they got around that.

This is the actual NTSB decision:
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/pirker/5730.pdf

I will say that they are traversing a very slippery slope, but then, there's a lot of that within the Beltway these days.

They remanded because they concluded the ALJ had not used what they felt was the unambiguous definition of "aircraft" that appears in title 49 of the U.S. Code.

I've written on another forum[1] that the main problem is that congress only delegated authority over navigable airspace to the FAA, not non-navigable air space. Title 49 states "The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace." "Navigable airspace" ... "means airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under this subpart and subpart III of this part, including airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."

Unfortunately for Pirker, he allegedly flew his UAV well above altitudes that the courts have considered the base of navigable airspace (details on what I think are the applicable court cases and my reasoning is referenced in the link below.)

[1] http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1378618&postcount=48

Thanks.

Now that I have read the NTSB decision, I maintain that they are sliding down a slippery slope. It's never good law, when the enforcer (the FAA in this case) is left with complete discretion to enforce or not. We all recognize that enforcers are given some minor latitude (allowing a speeder to exceed the speed limit by 2 or 3 mph, for instance), but broad-brushing that discretion is dangerous.

By succumbing to the argument that for practical purposes says that anything that man makes that flies (other than those particularly exempted contrivances) is an aircraft, the NTSB is telling the FAA that it can regulate any non-exempt flying contrivance. On the extreme end, even the balsa wood toy airplane could be regulated, unless the FAA in its discretion chose not to. The only issues are, will they, and what line must be crossed before they do. So far, the line they've used has been commercial vs. recreational use, but that's yet another slippery slope.

Perhaps, because they've been so tardy in developing workable UAV regulations and have received so much flack from many different sources because of that tardiness, I predict that they will take a draconian approach that over-regulates those things which have never been regulated, and there will be no difference between commercial and recreational uses. I suspect that they will start regulating UAVs which have never been regulated, such as 3 axis radio controlled airplanes of all types, not just current 4-rotor drones.

So now it's back to Judge Geraghty for a full evidentiary hearing. I suspect that he'll require the FAA to produce much more than the video to substantiate its allegations. Stay tuned, right?

Cary

Cary,

The point remains, however, that the FAA has in fact, structured "recommendations" for the operation of "model aircraft", and essentially stated that as long as we operate these devices within those guidelines, they won't take any punitive action. It seems to me that what the Board is saying here is that the respondent in this case operated outside those guidelines, and therefore it is reasonable for the FAA to take enforcement action as "careless and reckless".

While there is indeed discretion here in enforcing the regulations, the discretion is quite clearly spelled out in an Advisory Circular, so that in effect, there really is no discretion....if you operate within these guidelines, we won't enforce the regs....operate outside these guidelines, and you're going to be subject to the full force of the regs.

The question of unmanned or manned is a red herring, in my opinion. As the Board says, and aircraft is an aircraft....it makes no difference if there's a human aboard. A spacecraft carrying a mouse is still a spacecraft, even though it's not carrying a human. And, an umanned aircraft operating in the National Airspace System must operate within all the regulations, including "see and avoid" to protect all the users of the NAS.

The big sticking point, and I suspect the one that is giving the FAA the most heartburn, is how do you ensure separation between a manned aircraft and a drone? See and Avoid simply doesn't work. And, "Sense and avoid" supposedly enabled by ADS-B isn't functional yet. And, it may never be functional, at least in the airspace that many of us operate in.

It's a real conundrum, and I am really happy I'm not the FAA supervisor who's in charge of integrating drones into the NAS. THAT has to be a really shitty job.

MTV

Cary and/or MTV,

I encountered no drones on the pipeline. Kites and skinny FM antennas were scary. The waiver is for 200' in the country and 500' in built up areas. There is a DOT requirement to fly petroleum lines at least every twenty days. Is this becoming a problem? Is the other pipeline pilot on here encountering any drones?

Jim

Lest there be any confusion, I'm not suggesting that the FAA shouldn't regulate drones. What I am saying is that so far, they have published no real guidelines except those which are not regulations--ACs and policy letters aren't regulations, and they are too easily changed at the whim of "the Administrator", i.e., his minions. Instead of tussling with Pirker, they should have been doing what Congress mandated, getting those UAV regulations out through the proper processes, NPRMs, etc. While the NTSB may agree with the FAA that drones are aircraft, by choosing the wrong battle, the FAA may find that the Courts are less accommodating--and in any event, they're wasting a lot of valuable time and presumably brain power.

Cary