NTSB Rules Against Pirker

[ianwood]

Not buying this apples to oranges comparison. And besides, this is not safety/extent of injury debate as has been repeated numerous times in this thread. It's a discussion of the ruling.

And Deathcode, if you think treating RC planes as real planes is a good thing, I have no idea what to say. Applying the same rules to a Phantom as those that apply to a 747 is laughable.

 

[Koz]

I'm not sure what you pulled that out of but that's the same non-sense argument you always hear from people who don't understand (or feel they are above) the concept of recklessness. The laws aren't protecting me from me, they are protecting me (and the public in general) from YOU. If you feel that you should be allowed to do as you please as long as no one HAPPENS BY CHANCE to not to get hurt, then I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to explain such a simple concept to you. This type of ruling is aimed squarely at people like you who just don't get it. Unfortunately, the rest of us more responsible operators must suffer as a result. That's life.

I agree with you completely. One of the big problems we have today is that terms like "freedom", "liberty", and "rights" have been corrupted by individuals and special interest groups to suit their own agendas. In the U.S. "We the people..." is now "Me the people..." Instead of applying common sense we now defer to the politically correct.

There was a line uttered by Spock in an old Star Trek movie (yeah, I know) where he says, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Our society would be much better if people and politicians would practice that instead of self serving interests.

 

[Koz]

And those deaths were from a 5.5 oz ball to the head, not 6+ lbs of dense foam, batteries and camera equipment to the head...

Most of the youth baseball deaths are caused by the ball hitting a player in the chest and causing the heart to stop. I've coached youth baseball for many years and always suggest that parents purchase a heart guard compression shirt for all players.

A 5 pound model aircraft flying at 40 mph hitting someone in the chest could easily cause the same type of injury.

 

[SilentAV8R]

Can you guys PLEASE start your own thread about the various potential mortality rates of baseball, ping pong, etc. and leave this thread to discuss the Pirker decision and its potential impact on our hobby??

 

[Koz]

I'm just going to suspect it's dangerous to be hit by a Phantom or Zephyr or Aspire -1 etc., until someone volunteers to be hit and proves my suspicion wrong.

Any takers? :lol:

That sound like a show for Mythbusters! They can make one of those gel dummies and fly their new DJI Inspires into it.

 

[DrJoe]

Gents:

It is unbelievable to me that there is even a discussion of the damage to the human body that can occur from a moving object with spinning propellers. Our Phantoms have the potential to cause bodily injury, potentially severe or catastrophic injury. Argument over.

Now, the FAA got the NTSB to rule that drones can be considered aircraft. But Congress has stated that model aircraft shall not have rules promulgated against them. Interesting. Here is my take.

A model aircraft, frisbee, paper airplane, etc becomes an "aircraft" once it violates the rules of model aircraft. Excessive speed, reckless operation, flights above 400 feet, flights above large crowds, FPV without LOS... in effect, anything that violates the AMA safety guidelines makes your "model aircraft" a real one, and the FAA can then come down on you.

This may be good news on a few fronts.

• It sets the stage for the FAA being in charge of air regulation, not state, local or municipal goverments. Bye bye stupid local rules... they cannot supercede the authority of federal law.
  It clearly states what is expected of model aircraft operators.
  It sets the stage for certification of equipment and operators for flights, as well as safe parameters of flight. There is no reason a drone cannot be used in the same way as a helicopter. Its going to have to be allowed, but with many of the same certifications and restrictions.

As I have said, I will try and follow the AMA rules. I am now a member. I will exercise caution. If something goes wrong, my homeowner's policy and AMA insurance will cover me because I am not breaking the rules. And, as I said previously, if I do accidentally break a rule, it was only because my equipment malfunctioned (who wouldn't believe a DJI Phantom could flyaway)!

I know the long distance FPV guys and the high-altitude flyers and the Black Sheep Squadron guys that have enjoyed this hobby in its wild west stage are disappointed, but the great majority of us should be fine.

What I would really like to know is why it is illegal to fly one in some places. What's wrong with under 400 feet on the Hudson if you have notified local airports within 5 miles? Or 50 feet away from the George Washington Bridge? Nothing... according to the FAA do's and don'ts, but maybe local laws. Those local laws need to be challenged, if the FAA is to maintain jurisdiction. I for one would rather have the FAA in charge of the rules instead of the mayor of NY, or the town council in Malibu.

 

[SilentAV8R]

Now, the FAA got the NTSB to rule that drones can be considered aircraft. But Congress has stated that model aircraft shall not have rules promulgated against them. Interesting. Here is my take.

What the NTSB did was rule that for the complaint against Pirker HIS model can be considered an aircraft with regard to assessing a penalty under 91.13. It is a very narrow ruling. And it very clearly speaks ONLY to respondent's (Pirker) model.

For now models are authorized to operate under Section 336, and to be on the safe side a;so in accordance with the FAA's "twist",.. I mean "interpretation". But all this panic that the FAA is going to ground all RC aircraft is simply wrong.

As far as no new rules goes, here is what Section 336 says about what the FAA can do now:

(b) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of
the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who
endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

BTW..

I know the long distance FPV guys and the high-altitude flyers and the Black Sheep Squadron guys that have enjoyed this hobby in its wild west stage are disappointed, but the great majority of us should be fine.

Well said!!!

 

[sdtrojan]

I agree, very specific ruling to address the specific case they were prosecuting, and it was warranted in my opinion. I don't think we are going to see a monumental shift in policy or enforcement.

 

[bobbycwall]

Gents:


This may be good news on a few fronts.

• It sets the stage for the FAA being in charge of air regulation, not state, local or municipal goverments. Bye bye stupid local rules... they cannot supercede the authority of federal law.
  ...
  
  What I would really like to know is why it is illegal to fly one in some places. What's wrong with under 400 feet on the Hudson if you have notified local airports within 5 miles? Or 50 feet away from the George Washington Bridge? Nothing... according to the FAA do's and don'ts, but maybe local laws. Those local laws need to be challenged, if the FAA is to maintain jurisdiction. I for one would rather have the FAA in charge of the rules instead of the mayor of NY, or the town council in Malibu.

• 
  
  
  Just incidentally, you have the rule of law reversed. Local governments can make things *more* restrictive than the federal government and state government anytime they want, and do, all the time. It's the other way around that they cannot do; a city could, for example, ban smoking in all public places, but they could not make it legal everywhere in a state that has a smoking ban in restaurants. In the case of the Federal government, the supremacy clause which is part of article 6 of the constitution spells this out as federal law trumping state and local, *but* and this is the misunderstood part - applies to situations where a state has granted *more* rights than the federal law allows, not less; ie, the federal government can prosecute you for child pornography, or drugs, or whatever, even if your state has made it legal. But the feds could make something legal and a state or local jurisdiction could, legally, pass voter approved laws that restrict that something further.

 

[petersachs]

Just incidentally, you have the rule of law reversed. Local governments can make things *more* restrictive than the federal government and state government anytime they want, and do, all the time. It's the other way around that they cannot do; a city could, for example, ban smoking in all public places, but they could not make it legal everywhere in a state that has a smoking ban in restaurants. In the case of the Federal government, the supremacy clause which is part of article 6 of the constitution spells this out as federal law trumping state and local, *but* and this is the misunderstood part - applies to situations where a state has granted *more* rights than the federal law allows, not less; ie, the federal government can prosecute you for child pornography, or drugs, or whatever, even if your state has made it legal. But the feds could make something legal and a state or local jurisdiction could, legally, pass voter approved laws that restrict that something further.

Sorry, that's 100% incorrect.

The FAA (and only the FAA) may regulate flight. It's called "field preemption." States may regulate only two things with respect to flight: (1) they may regulate their own agencies flight activities, and (2) they may regulate "flight-related" ground activities— specifically, locations on the ground from which a drone pilot may not be launched, landed or operated.

Other than that, state and local governments are without authority to regulate flight in any manner.

 

[N017RW]

Thanks for that Peter.

At least we know who were "talking to" with your posts.

P.S.
It must be amusing reading all these 'legal' opinions.

 

[bobbycwall]

You're saying that a city couldn't 100% ban drone use within it's borders?

 

[Foosy]

I believe the FAA has many more critical issues to deal with than our flying drones.
Of course this lawsuit has brought drones in the center of OUR attention, but it is far from being the only thing on the FAA table.

If a drone falls on someone, there could be someone injured and even killed. But this is true for commercial aircraft as well. Actually if a 747 falls from the sky when flying over a busy metropolitan, there could be thousands hurt or dead, yet I don't see the FAA banning flights over densely populated areas.

The discussion of recklessness, as we have seen in this thread is a matter of interpretation. Further, someone could be reckless and nothing may happen, but on the same token, someone could be flying their drone with the utmost care, and an unpredictable event can cause the drone to harm other individuals. As long as OTHERS can be harmed as a result of this hobby, we need laws to MINIMIZE the risks others are subjected to.

At this point we practically do not have any laws governing the use of drones, but we do need them. Having them is not the end of the hobby. On the contrary: good laws will allow most of us to enjoy flying our drones without paranoia. This is not different than driving cars. We all do it, but we do it according a myriad of laws that govern how, where and when (under what conditions) we can drive.

It's the absence of laws that allows people to use the ambiguity to define things any way THEY want. This is the biggest danger: Last thing we need is a disgruntled neighbor calling the FAA and informing them you were recklessly flying your drone over their house. Do you even want to defend that argument? Do you want to spend time in court proving you were not reckless?

The thing that makes it worse is that currently, it does not even have to be reckless. You could be slammed with flying your drone in "noise sensitive areas". Noise sensitive for who? you may ask. For people, for the habitat, for the environment... Go fight this claim. I was stopped from flying my drone over a river because "I was disturbing the Salmons". I am not saying that the drone wasn't making noise, but at the same time there was a 4 lane highway crossing the river, with cars making plenty of noise, there was at a certain point in time a helicopter hovering up higher, making significant more noise....

The point is not if you were really flying recklessly or in noise sensitive areas, rather what certain people can use at this point due to ambiguity, to prevent you from flying. This ambiguity is not good for us pilots.

I will add one more interesting anecdote- I was disallowed to fly my drone in an archaeological site. While the site, a touristic one, was mostly empty, I received various reasons why not to fly. The more I pushed for a reasonable explanation, the more absurd the excuses I received. Finally they offered me the capability to fly my drone if I would pay them $50. The explanation I received was that this would cover their liability insurance in case they were sued by a visitor, should something happen....

There is paranoia out there on both ends. Paranoia of the those who cant stand you having a capability they do not have, paranoia of those thinking you are invading their privacy (what do they have to hide is a different question), paranoia of those afraid you are going to hurt their ________ (house/ kids/ dog / ....). But there is also paranoia on our end of those that think their creative capabilities are going to be limited, or those that think their freedom is going to be taken.
Paranoia does not serve either side. Good laws that make sense are necessary along with proper understanding and enforcement of those laws.

We are in the midst of a change. Until it materializes, fly responsibly and in case of a conflict do not escalate it. It is up to us pilots to prove that we are responsible. :!:

 

[ianwood]

Other than that, state and local governments are without authority to regulate flight in any manner.

Interesting. So I assume that technically baseballs, frisbees, paper airplanes, etc. would also be included. Once in flight, those objects are under the jurisdiction of the FAA and not the local municipality.

If a drone were to take off and land legally, would a city have no jurisdiction over anything it does while it is flying?

 

[sdtrojan]

Other than that, state and local governments are without authority to regulate flight in any manner.

Interesting. So I assume that technically baseballs, frisbees, paper airplanes, etc. would also be included. Once in flight, those objects are under the jurisdiction of the FAA and not the local municipality.

If a drone were to take off and land legally, would a city have no jurisdiction over anything it does while it is flying?

Here we go again, right?

I think what is so different and uncharted about UAVs (drones, quadcopters, whatever) is that people are not limited on where they are able to fly them based on geography and topography, plus the advances in technology make them easier to fly than a airplane or helicopter. You typically do not see Joe Schmuckatelli flying his fixed wing RC plane in the neighborhood, or even at the local park, beach, etc. But that is exactly where you are seeing folks flying their UAVs because the scenery is what the pilots are going after. FPV is, in my opinion, what has added a whole new dimension to the hobby and is changing where participants are wanting to fly. Back when my Dad built and flew RC aircraft, there was no FPV and guys would gather at the local community college on the weekends to fly over the football/soccer field. Today, everyone wants to get that incredible photo or piece of footage. FPV has changed everything.

 

[petersachs]

You're saying that a city couldn't 100% ban drone use within it's borders?

That's correct, although some small towns have passed ordinances that purport to do just that. A city does not own or control the sky above its borders, therefore it has no jurisdiction over that sky. Only the FAA has such jurisdiction.

 

[petersachs]

Interesting. So I assume that technically baseballs, frisbees, paper airplanes, etc. would also be included. Once in flight, those objects are under the jurisdiction of the FAA and not the local municipality.

If a drone were to take off and land legally, would a city have no jurisdiction over anything it does while it is flying?

The NTSB held, "an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includes any aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small." Given that very broad definition, it is arguable that it includes baseballs, frisbees and paper airplanes. If that argument is successful, a local municipality would have no say in the flight activities of those objects as it would fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FAA.

I know, it sounds absurd because it is. I've not heard of any local regulations or ordinances that are specific to the flight activities of baseballs, frisbees or paper airplanes. I've only heard of and seen regulation of ground activities, (e.g. no ball playing, no frisbees, etc.).

And yes, if a drone were launched, landed an operating from a ground location that was not "off limits" per the local municipality would have no say about its overflight.

 

[Foosy]

Interesting. So I assume that technically baseballs, frisbees, paper airplanes, etc. would also be included. Once in flight, those objects are under the jurisdiction of the FAA and not the local municipality.

If a drone were to take off and land legally, would a city have no jurisdiction over anything it does while it is flying?

The only reason you and others are bringing this argument is because you/they are upset about what can happen to our hobby. You can add an argument as such to almost any decree. Obviously in a court of law things are judged by the intent of the law and reasonable expectations.

The FAA will not control your baseball in flight nor your paper airplane. It will also not get involved if you commit suicide by jumping from the 20th floor, even if you are considered to be flying in the process...

 

[petersachs]

The only reason you and others are bringing this argument is because you/they are upset about what can happen to our hobby. You can add an argument as such to almost any decree. Obviously in a court of law things are judged by the intent of the law and reasonable expectations.

The FAA will not control your baseball in flight nor your paper airplane. It will also not get involved if you commit suicide by jumping from the 20th floor, even if you are considered to be flying in the process...

The hobbyist really has nothing to worry about (unless a hobbyist were to fly "recklessly). I'm bringing it up (in response to other postings) because of the legal aspects only. (I'm an attorney and that's what we do.)

You are correct that in a court of law things are supposed to be judged by the intent of the law and reasonable expectations. The NTSB here did not do that (in my opinion). In fact, it did just the opposite by declaring any device used for flight in the air, manned or unmanned, large or small to be an "aircraft." That is absurdly and illogically broad, and neither the intent of Congress nor reasonable. But, it's now the law (unless and until overturned on appeal or changed by an act of Congress).

You're also correct that the FAA will not attempt to control a baseball or a paper airplane because it would make them look pretty silly.

 

[SteveMann]

Other than that, state and local governments are without authority to regulate flight in any manner.

That's one of the benefits of being classified as an Aircraft by the FAA. The classification brings with with it Federal preemption and it makes interfering with a flight operation (I.E. shooting down a drone) a federal offence (18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities).

The FAA wants to call our drones "aircraft" then we will take the positive that goes with it.