Here's a story that gives more details than we have been reading here and in other places about the ruling against the FAA with regards to drones. A couple of things to pay attention to here:
- It was not a Federal Court Judge that ruled, but rather an NTSB Administrative Law Judge.
- The FAA has appealed. And quite frankly they don't pay much attention to the NTSB judges.
- There will need to be some defined regulations because you can't have 1000's of those things flying around cities or other congested airspace.
So at any rate, here's the text of a more complete story:
Update: On Feb. 7, the FAA announced that it has appealed the dismissal of its civil penalty action against commercial drone operator Raphael Pirker to the full National Transportation Safety Board. The appeal has the effect of staying the law judge's decision until the full Board rules.
NBC News reported that a National Transportation Safety Board law judge dismissed a civil penalty action brought by the Federal Aviation Administration against a commercial drone operator. In 2011, photographer and reported skilled hobbyist Raphael Pirker flew his Zephyr II drone over the University of Virginia campus, recording photos and videos, which he sold to the university. In 2012 the FAA brought a civil penalty action against Pirker, fining him $10,000 for a number of violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations, including what attorneys refer to as the FAA’s standard complaint: operating an aircraft in a careless and reckless manner. Following a motion by Pirker’s attorney, Brendan Schulman, to dismiss the penalty based on questions regarding the FAA’s authority to regulate drones, the NTSB ruled in Pirker’s favor. Civil penalty actions of this sort are brought by the FAA and heard through an administrative law process before an NTSB administrative law judge with appeal rights to the full Board of the NTSB and a portion of the U.S. federal court system.
The order dismissing the penalty action included the statement 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 model aircraft as an [Unmanned Aircraft System].” The NTSB’s ruling “mean that if you have this kind of aircraft [the FAA] is not going to be in a position to fine you," Ryan Calo, professor of law at the University of Washington, told NBC News. He expects the FAA will act to close the gap in their regulation ability, or file an appeal. "I don’t think it’s time to let a thousand drones fly, it’s time to watch and see how the FAA reacts," he said. On Feb. 26, the FAA placed a strongly worded posting on its website asserting that it does currently regulate commercial UAS operations and that they are prohibited without FAA approval. Unless reversed on appeal, the NTSB ruling overcomes that assertion, at least until the FAA enacts new regulations. Congress has directed the FAA to come up with a plan for “safe integration” of UAS into the national airspace system by Sept. 30, 2015. The FAA has said that such integration will be incremental.
the odd thing to me is that it only becomes illegal if a person charges for it. hobbyists? no problem. government, heh?
Odd indeed, in light of the fact that there is no material difference in what would actually occur in the air...
I have to agree on this one. I read about a guy that got shut down by the FAA, and he asked, why is it that ANYONE can go to a hobby shop and buy one of these and fly it with zero training or experience. But another guy might be an R/C expert, might have a ton or training and experience, might fly R/C crafts everyday, with his professional reputation and expensive equipment on the line ... but is grounded because he's a "professional".
It's a good question.
Does it really matter which classification of judge made the ruling? If so, please explain. Also,
"The Administrative Law Judges conduct formal hearings and issue initial decisions on appeals by airmen filed with the Safety Board. The NTSB serves as the "court of appeals" for any airman, mechanic or mariner whenever certificate action is taken by the Federal Aviation Administration or the U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, or when civil penalties are assessed by the FAA."
Looks to me like they are exactly the judicial venue that makes rulings on FAA issues like this.
I don't follow your logic on how the FAA can just ignore the ruling. The case was dismissed. The FAA has no position against Pirker.
Now, whether the FAA wins the appeal or uses a different strategy to curtail hobby drone use for business is another issue altogether.
I disagree that "nothing really happened".
Whereas before the ruling, there was some level of ambiguity about the operation of hobby drones for commercial use, this ruling has given a shot in the arm to those waiting on the sidelines or currently operating hobby drones for business use and were hoping for such a ruling. The floodgates have opened. If the FAA had a hard time policing this area before (I believe they did), it's going to get a lot more difficult.
> Here's a story that gives more details than we have been reading here and in other places about the ruling against the FAA with regards to drones. A couple of things to pay attention to here:
>
> - It was not a Federal Court Judge that ruled, but rather an NTSB Administrative Law Judge.
>
> - The FAA has appealed. And quite frankly they don't pay much attention to the NTSB judges.
>
> - There will need to be some defined regulations because you can't have 1000's of those things flying around cities or other congested airspace.
>
> So at any rate, here's the text of a more complete story:
>
> Update: On Feb. 7, the FAA announced that it has appealed the dismissal of its civil penalty action against commercial drone operator Raphael Pirker to the full National Transportation Safety Board. The appeal has the effect of staying the law judge's decision until the full Board rules.
>
> NBC News reported that a National Transportation Safety Board law judge dismissed a civil penalty action brought by the Federal Aviation Administration against a commercial drone operator. In 2011, photographer and reported skilled hobbyist Raphael Pirker flew his Zephyr II drone over the University of Virginia campus, recording photos and videos, which he sold to the university. In 2012 the FAA brought a civil penalty action against Pirker, fining him $10,000 for a number of violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations, including what attorneys refer to as the FAA’s standard complaint: operating an aircraft in a careless and reckless manner. Following a motion by Pirker’s attorney, Brendan Schulman, to dismiss the penalty based on questions regarding the FAA’s authority to regulate drones, the NTSB ruled in Pirker’s favor. Civil penalty actions of this sort are brought by the FAA and heard through an administrative law process before an NTSB administrative law judge with appeal rights to the full Board of the NTSB and a portion of the U.S. federal court system.
>
> The order dismissing the penalty action included the statement 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 model aircraft as an [Unmanned Aircraft System].” The NTSB’s ruling “mean that if you have this kind of aircraft [the FAA] is not going to be in a position to fine you," Ryan Calo, professor of law at the University of Washington, told NBC News. He expects the FAA will act to close the gap in their regulation ability, or file an appeal. "I don’t think it’s time to let a thousand drones fly, it’s time to watch and see how the FAA reacts," he said. On Feb. 26, the FAA placed a strongly worded posting on its website asserting that it does currently regulate commercial UAS operations and that they are prohibited without FAA approval. Unless reversed on appeal, the NTSB ruling overcomes that assertion, at least until the FAA enacts new regulations. Congress has directed the FAA to come up with a plan for “safe integration” of UAS into the national airspace system by Sept. 30, 2015. The FAA has said that such integration will be incremental.