There's been a lot of discussion here about the Pirker decision and whether or not commercial drones are legal in the U.S. The discussion I've seen on this forum has been confusing and in some cases inaccurate, so I am asking for some clarification. Is anyone aware of any enforcement action by the FAA against anyone for commercial use of multirotors or similar hobbyist-type craft? Before you answer yes, Pirker, I don't believe that qualifies. I'll explain below, but there could be other cases, such as filmmakers, farmers, etc. who use them commercially and have been cited for not having a UAS pilot's license.
As I read the decision of the ALJ in Pirker, the ruling did not involve the fact the pilot was paid for his work. He was cited for operating an aircraft recklessly in violation of 14 CFR § 91.13. The Order of Assessment mentions that the pilot was being paid, but it appears to me that if it had been an unpaid hobbyist flying as described (various reckless actions were alleged) the hobbyist would also have been cited since the FAA definition of an aircraft is any "device" or "contrivance" intended to be flown in the air. The regulation itself does not say anything about only commercial aircraft. Any aircraft appears to be subject to the regulation. The ALJ ruled that model aircraft are exempted from the definition of aircraft by virtue of the FAA's practice of non-enforcement against them. In essence he ruled that the FAA has tacitly admitted by its actions that model aircraft are not covered by its existing regulations. The ALJ never got to the questions of fact since he ruled solely on the threshold question of whether the FAA had regulatory authority, but if the fact of commercial operation was essential to the question of whether the craft was an "aircraft" within the meaning of the regulation, he would have had to hold a factual hearing to determine whether the operation was commercial. He didn't. So if it's a "model" (commercial or not) then it's not an aircraft under Pirker.
This, of course, does not answer the question of what is a "model" aircraft under Pirker. I believe the Pirker decision is vulnerable on appeal, because the ALJ did not define what he considered model aircraft, and although he pointed out the 2012 Act did not apply, he called it "instructive" and seemed to imply that it was important in making this determination. The problem with that is that the Act requires a model aircraft to be for hobby or recreational purposes, which would mean Pirker's plane was NOT a model aircraft and should be controlled by the regulation. The 2012 Act defines it pretty clearly and that will no doubt be used for rule-making in the future, but in the meantime the real question I'm asking is whether commercial use is even relevant to the FAA? Does anyone have knowledge of FAA's current practice? A lot of US Phantom owners are reluctant to charge for services, but the FAA may not even care as long as you aren't reckless or violate any other rules.
As I read the decision of the ALJ in Pirker, the ruling did not involve the fact the pilot was paid for his work. He was cited for operating an aircraft recklessly in violation of 14 CFR § 91.13. The Order of Assessment mentions that the pilot was being paid, but it appears to me that if it had been an unpaid hobbyist flying as described (various reckless actions were alleged) the hobbyist would also have been cited since the FAA definition of an aircraft is any "device" or "contrivance" intended to be flown in the air. The regulation itself does not say anything about only commercial aircraft. Any aircraft appears to be subject to the regulation. The ALJ ruled that model aircraft are exempted from the definition of aircraft by virtue of the FAA's practice of non-enforcement against them. In essence he ruled that the FAA has tacitly admitted by its actions that model aircraft are not covered by its existing regulations. The ALJ never got to the questions of fact since he ruled solely on the threshold question of whether the FAA had regulatory authority, but if the fact of commercial operation was essential to the question of whether the craft was an "aircraft" within the meaning of the regulation, he would have had to hold a factual hearing to determine whether the operation was commercial. He didn't. So if it's a "model" (commercial or not) then it's not an aircraft under Pirker.
This, of course, does not answer the question of what is a "model" aircraft under Pirker. I believe the Pirker decision is vulnerable on appeal, because the ALJ did not define what he considered model aircraft, and although he pointed out the 2012 Act did not apply, he called it "instructive" and seemed to imply that it was important in making this determination. The problem with that is that the Act requires a model aircraft to be for hobby or recreational purposes, which would mean Pirker's plane was NOT a model aircraft and should be controlled by the regulation. The 2012 Act defines it pretty clearly and that will no doubt be used for rule-making in the future, but in the meantime the real question I'm asking is whether commercial use is even relevant to the FAA? Does anyone have knowledge of FAA's current practice? A lot of US Phantom owners are reluctant to charge for services, but the FAA may not even care as long as you aren't reckless or violate any other rules.
