The FAA does have the authority to apply its rule prohibiting careless and reckless flight to the operators of unmanned aircraft, the NTSB said on Tuesday. The safety board offered the opinion (PDF) in its review of the case of Raphael Pirker, who was fined $10,000 by the FAA for allegedly operating an unmanned aircraft in a "careless or reckless manner" in 2011. An NTSB administrative law judge had dismissed the fine in March, agreeing with Pirker that the drone was essentially a model aircraft and not subject to the FAA rule. The FAA appealed to the safety board. The board said it's now up to an administrative law judge to review the evidence and decide whether or not Pirker is guilty of a violation.
The case has been closely watched in the proliferating community of drone users and advocates who are eager to use the aircraft for aerial photography, farm inspections and other commercial uses. The FAA says Pirker, who was being paid to provide aerial photographs and video, piloted the unmanned aircraft -- a Ritewing Zephyr -- in a series of maneuvers around the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville, Virginia, at altitudes from 10 feet AGL to 1,500 feet AGL, including flight "directly towards an individual standing on a . . . sidewalk causing the individual to take immediate evasive maneuvers … through a . . . tunnel containing moving vehicles … under a crane … [and] within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport." A video that purports to be from the disputed flight is posted on YouTube.
In a statement released Tuesday, the FAA said it is "pleased" with the NTSB decision. "The FAA believes Mr. Pirker operated a UAS in a careless or reckless manner, and that the proposed civil penalty should stand," the FAA said. "The agency looks forward to a factual determination by the Administrative Law Judge on the 'careless or reckless' nature of the operation in question." A corrected version of the FAA statement, released later on Tuesday, deletes the "pleased" remark, and instead notes that the FAA "has a responsibility to protect the safety of the American people in the air and on the ground."
The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International also responded to the NTSB decision. "Safety is an important consideration in the integration of UAS into the National Airspace System," AUVSI said in a statement. "However, the ruling still leaves unanswered important questions about whether the FAA can prohibit commercial operations in the absence of UAS rules. The FAA needs to immediately move forward with its small UAS rulemaking to provide clarity for all users of the technology."
They are going to have to come up with some regs for these things. A small drone that weighs a few pounds should not be regulated the same as a 747.
>at altitudes from 10 feet AGL to 1,500 feet AGL, including flight "directly towards an individual standing on a . . . sidewalk causing the individual to take immediate evasive maneuvers … through a . . . tunnel containing moving vehicles … under a crane … [and] within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport."
If true, then this individual needs a slap IMO. Under no circumstances should anyone be required to flee an approaching UAV. That is arrogance of the pilot beyond common sense.
I note however that much of this paragraph appears to have been significantly altered to make it appear a worse case scenario (based on the frequent use of ...).
I agree, but there idiots out there that think they can do anything they want without consequences. For instance, as a pilot of a real plane I don't want some self absorbed idiot thinking they can fly around in close proximity to an airport where real planes fly. You mention a 747, well I bet one of these ingested into the engine of a 747 won't do it any good.
Or the voyeur that will fly around in a city and peek into windows.
Or can you imagine 40 of these things prying into the private moments of a family at a funeral? It will happen.
Rules for legitimate uses - yes. Very stiff penalties for nut jobs - YES.
I agree, Dave. I hope that some kind of certification will be required for anything other than pure hobbyist.
And I hope they will require ADS-B out on any UAV used commercially. The requirement for all piloted planes is 2020, including GA. I hear talk of people saying that is too soon, in my opinion it can't come soon enough. I fly with ADS-B in, not to a panel but to my tablet. It of course has limitations currently because many (most?) small planes and a lot of big commercial planes do not have ADS-B out yet. But I will feel much safer once ADS-B is fully operational and required on everything.
I would suspect that there are already laws on the books that would cover reckless behavior that endangers the public other than enforced by the FAA.
Just how big will FAA have to be to adequately enforce all the UAV users? Why not just deal with the people that abuse other people's rights. The old stump, rusty knife and kerosine treatment would definitely cure the peeping tom sickos. Show that once on 20 20 and the problem would be solved. Quite honestly, I am tired of a very small percentage of the population causing honest citizens to have restricted rights. If someone buzzed a house out where I live the next thing you would hear would be PULL!
Might be time to get a 10 gage. If I see one of these hovering outside my window as far as I'm concerned I have a license to kill it!
I'd like to be able to use one of these drones as much as anyone else but safety, property rights and privacy need to be part of it. I don't want anymore regulation. Just make a reasonable privacy and trespassing law. Might be as simple as if you can shoot it down over your property it's trespassing. Before that happens any drone operator would likely get permission.
When I see climbers being buzzed, wildlife being harrassed and a slew of other behaviors it gives me pause. When somebody falls off a cliff it really won't matter to them if the drone was operated by 'one of the few idiots' or the head of the FAA. He will still land with the same force.
Licensing, regulation and enforcement will have to recognize the gravity (no pun intended) of irresponsible use...
If you really want to save lives ban automobiles.
ACRONYMS
I'm no aeronaut, and I know I'm a bit ADD, and I want to ROFLMAO, but I can't until I know WTF is ADS-B?
Thanks!
SS
No one has said ban them. Only responsible use.
ACRONYMS
ADS-B - I forget what the acronym stands for, but basically it means that a plane will be equipped to transmit it's location and receive the location of other nearby planes. In simplistic terms, every plane will have it's own radar display.
TY
.
I agree. Obviously, there will need to be restrictions around Airports and other sensitive areas. The point is that we already have laws that can be enforced for harassment and other activities. The FAA should restrict their regulations to aviation safety. This alone is a good reason to require that the operators should be licensed. In my opinion, this should apply to the hobbyist as well if they are operating the same equipment as the commercial operators.Operators should at least be able to demonstrate that they know how to safely operate the drone. A licensed operator that endangers Public Safety should be dealt with severely. Some of the scenarios given in this thread are covered by existing laws. Regulation are necessary, but should be a last resort.
It is already against the law to harass wildlife in any manner. No need to get FAA involved. Fish and Wildlife handles that.
If you were to fly a toy purposely near somebody, causing harm to then. You would likely be found negligent/reckless under existing laws.
I would suspect there are already laws on the books about "peeping" into people's bedroom windows with cameras that have nothing to do with the FAA.
Airspace limits need to be controlled for sure.
FAA ADS-B C?
I was sitting beside a US Airways captain deadheading on a flight recently. I asked if the planes he flies have ADS-B. He did not know what that was. I use flightradar24.com sometimes to track flights. They color code the planes to differentiate between those with and those without. If you look at Europe, it appears all have it, it may be required there. A year or two ago in the US most commercial flights did not, but that is slowly changing. The club I belong to has three planes, but I cannot convince them that we should install it now rather than later.
Interestingly, the FAA requires the various flight tracking web sites to delay the data it gets from the FAA by 5 minutes. But, the ADS-B data shown is from private providers, and is near instantaneous. Another example of a stupid government regulation that is still around but not really pertinent anymore (not that it ever was).
I have installed an ADS-B receiver on a large pole on my property that also has my weather station. I have not yet turned it on, just need some time to mess with it. Once I do, i will feed that data into someone who wants it for their web page. Here is a link to flightaware's page about it:
Last night on the 10pm news out of Louisiana a story about a guy that had a wall shelf full of quad drones that were equipped with cameras fitted for day, night, heat and motion sensitive vision. He was ready to go into action.
Then they talked with people in the area about how they felt knowing that the technology was in place there to spy on them.
The news was not welcomed and most everyone felt violated.
Personally, I'm pretty sure my air rights exist to the limit of the range of my Remington 1100.
Aren't there other systems, such as IFF, that report similarly? Great idea, especially for congested airspace.
IFF - "Identify Friend / Foe" is a military technology and works through radar. Is not practical for the issue being discussed.
