GoodnNuff said:
It insults me to be called a fear monger, but it is an insult to common sense to think that an RC plane hitting you in the head will just be a little owie you can walk away from.
Then, stop fear-mongering.
Stop focusing on Pirker's airplane. Stop focusing on Pirker's actual flight. Pirker's flight is irrelevant. Pay attention instead to what this means for the rest of us.
I forgot where I copied this, (maybe sUASNews.com), but it's appropriate:
The FAA’s existing aircraft regulations cannot be reconciled with its guidelines for model aircraft flights. The statute that the FAA used to fine Pirker suggests that any flight by an “aircraft” below 500 feet can be considered reckless. The FAA’s model aircraft guidelines, meanwhile, suggest that any flight over 400 feet by a drone is unsafe and potentially illegal. ” With this decision, the NTSB has declared model aircraft, paper airplanes and even children’s toys to be ‘aircraft,’ subject to the same regulations as 747s, which ignores entirely the fact that for decades none has ever been treated as such,” Peter Sachs, a Connecticut-based lawyer and founder of the Drone Pilots Association told me. “I don’t think that’s what Congress ever intended or that common sense and logic support today’s NTSB’s decision.”
I said this near the start of this thread, but it needs repeating:
The regulation Pirker was charged with is FAR 91.13, Careless or Reckless Operation which says, in part:
"... No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."
FAR 91.13 is for the Cessna pilot buzzing a football game. FAR 91.13 is for the pilot who flies is airplane past refueling opportunities and then runs out of gas. FAR 91.13 is for the VFR pilot who doesn't get a weather briefing then flies into a storm and crashes. FAR 91.13 is for the airline pilot who had a few drinks before entering the cockpit. These are the kind of operations where FAR 91.13 is appropriate. People's lives were endangered. However, a four pound styrofoam R/C airplane would at it's worst, cause some bruises. This simply does not raise to the level of careless or reckless.
The first NTSB judge found that there were no regulations covering small UAV's like Pirkers styrofoam airplane, so he dismissed the charges.
The appeal by the FAA to the full NTSB board basically declared that for the purpose of FAR 91.13, anything that flies is an aircraft.
This means that if you throw a Frisbee at the park and accidentally clonk someone, then you could be charged with careless and reckless operation of an aircraft. (A Frisbee meets the FAA definition of an aircraft because it is designed to fly through the air due to it's airfoil shape).