Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

NTSB Rules Against Pirker

Discussion in 'News' started by SilentAV8R, Nov 18, 2014.

  1. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
  2. knuckles

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Arizona
  3. MapMaker53

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    160
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    I hadn't seen the Pirker video before this, but having now seen it I don't blame the FAA for fining the a-hole $10,000 for recklessly using the drone - even if he had permission from the University to fly it. It's a perfect example of how one idiot can ruin things for everyone else.
     
  4. CRankin

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    17
    Well, now that our drones have been classified as "aircraft" perhaps we should expect all pilots to treat them as such. Maybe that means that we shouldn't bother landing when we hear manned aircraft flying in the area, as we should have just as much a right to flight as they do.

    Perhaps the FAA should be careful what it wishes for.
     
  5. malibusteve70

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2014
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    6
    - "So, for the time being, any drone flight by anyone in the country can be considered "reckless" by the FAA under the NTSB's latest ruling, meaning that the FAA can fine you $10,000 for flying one anywhere, for any purpose. And the fact that "any device that is used for flight" can be considered an aircraft seems to suggest that even tiny toy aircraft are subject to the FAA's whim"

    What is everyone take on what these new laws are going to be? Should we all sell our birds now before its to late? Or just fly ?
     
  6. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    The FAA might agree with you and say "fine, follow all parts of FAR 91 and have at it." So maybe we too should be careful of what we wish for!!
     
  7. doug86

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2014
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bi-Polar
    I'm kinda shocked that this isn't the top, busiest thread today. This ruling will have broad ramifications for the near term...
     
  8. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    It is also consistent with the FAA's "clarification" from back in June where they basically said that since Section 336 of the FMRA defined our models as "aircraft" that we are now subject to the whims of the FAA when they want to violate you using the FARs.
     
  9. tvleaker

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    my biggest concerns now th local police will think that drones are illegal. And they think they have the power to arrest people
     
  10. doug86

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2014
    Messages:
    290
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bi-Polar
    off topic, but surely the local police do have the power to arrest people. They might be wrong or incorrect when they do it, but they have that power.
     
  11. Buk

    Buk

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2013
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Iowa, United States
    Perhaps the discussion will pick up when the AMA responds to the ruling.
     
  12. AerialIris

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    *** holes like this are why we are at all restricted. Been in arguments with similar jerkwads in the Phantom forum who post their illegal flight videos, who believe rules and laws only apply to other people or are up for their uneducated interpretation. Stupid!
     
  13. garrock

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Portsmouth Ohio USA
    This means the appeal was granted and the case can be re-heard under the context of certain language clarifications.

    Now the defendant faces court hearings again to re-address the initial lawsuit.
    There is still a ways to go before this case is closed.

    ------------------

    Aircraft Definition: Page 12 Conclusion

    • 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14 C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.”

    FRISBEE or Boomerang:

    • Both of these device/contrivances incorporate a controlled airfoil surface which makes them an "aircraft" by the appeal-definition. Their navigational trajectory plot is pre-determined by the human operator.
      However, the FAA can simply not raise a complaint or law suit as they see fit to ignore such aircraft until something occurs (at their discretion) to raise as an incident... whatever.
     
  14. SteveMann

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    652
    Location:
    Westford, MA
    Really? Show me anywhere in the video that Pirker flew over a crowd or otherwise endangered anyone from his four pound winged, foam aircraft.
    ([youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4[/youtube])

    Is this where you fly, where you want everyone to fly?
    [​IMG]
     
  15. MapMaker53

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    160
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    If you don't recognize that as being reckless, then the law was made for you.
     
  16. garrock

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    Messages:
    466
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Portsmouth Ohio USA
    One Example:

    • YouTube Timestamp 2:31 going thru a tunnel with opposing traffic moving cars and just missed a walking pedestrian.

      The tunnel flight possibly has the highest chance of loosing temporary link; thus no fast flight-skill reflexes could correct.
      (what you don't see is the pilots real-time video downlink feed. If we could play that back and then discuss; opinions might further vary. You'd most likely see video dropouts and static.)

      At those speeds, if the aircraft motor shaft struck you with four pounds behind it, it could cause serious injury. Especially to the eye.
     
  17. CRankin

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    17
    At what point were hoards of people put in danger in the video? Were people running fearful and scared? Was significant damage done to property? Simply because you would not fly your drone in that manner does not necessarily means that it should automatically be classified as reckless.

    Personally, I'd rather that the government keep its uneducated, uninformed, and arrogant nose completely out of what I choose to do with the property I own which was bought with my money. The world would be a far better place if agencies like the FAA stuck to regulating manned commercial air operations and left everything else to those who actually have a clue.
     
  18. SteveMann

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    652
    Location:
    Westford, MA
    Again - WHAT in the video is reckless? Where was anyone in danger?
     
  19. MapMaker53

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    160
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    And I should be able to drive my own car that I bought with my own money while completely wasted behind the wheel, as long as I don't hit anyone. Boo hoo.

    Again.. If someone needs to explain it to you, the law was meant for you.
     
  20. yawnalot29

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    661
    Likes Received:
    116
    Darn, I guess I should take down the video of me flying over runway then?

    Hold on, let me take that video down first.