Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

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

Pirker Case Development

Discussion in 'News' started by SilentAV8R, Dec 16, 2014.

  1. Morgon

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2014
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    Glen Burnie, MD
    Interesting. So if I'm reading this right (legalese is ridiculous), this all boils down to the applicability of the laws due to Pirker's nationality? Sucks for the rest of us (since it doesn't call into question the enforcement on its face, just essentially whether the FAA has jurisdiction), but good for him, I guess.
     
  2. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    WHat it shows is how absurd the FAA is. I cannot wait to see how they try to twist the law around now. It's funny, I had that question from Day One. He's not a US Citizen so how can our FARs apply??
     
  3. sdtrojan

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2014
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    You are subject to laws applicable in the jurisdiction you are breaking them in. Any other take on this would be silly. Something like getting arrested for smoking pot in California but having it dismissed because you are a resident of Colorado. I think this defense is meritless.
     
  4. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    You need to read the actual document. Aviation law has some interesting twists written into it.
     
  5. sdtrojan

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2014
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I read it. What is says is that is the defense he is presenting. There is enough wiggle room in any law on the books to twist it the way the prosecuting authority wants to. He will never get away from this.
     
  6. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    The ALJ ruled that the FAA has 20 days to file a brief explaining why they did not follow their own procedure and refer this to the State Department for prosecution by his home country. When this first happened there were several people who brought this point up.
     
  7. sdtrojan

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2014
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I understand that, and I am sure the FAA was aware of his citizenship status when they decided to pursue the case. They may have simply been using him as "an example" to let others know they will be bringing down the hammer, and perhaps they don't feel his home country can/will prosecute. But I will again play Devils advocate and ask the following:

    1) how long had he lived in the US and is there a reasonable expectation he should have known the rules he is accused of violating?

    2) if he did this as a commercial enterprise, was he properly sanctioned with business licenses etc to perform as a commercial entity? If so, did he have FAA approval???

    I think that he will still be held accountable, just my opinion.

    8 days until I get to unwrap my Phantom 2 and there is freaking rain in the forecast for the 25th in San Diego!
     
  8. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    Nothing in the FAA Rules cited by the ALJ contains any reference to residency length, duration, or similar, so that seems like a moot point. The FAA did not bring enforcement action based on a commercial flight. They did mention it among the 11 allegtions they made, but their violation is based on FAR 91.13 - Reckless or Careless Operation. The full NTSB Board ruled that Pirker's model met the definition of an "aircraft" for the purposes of enforcing that rule. 91.13 is the sole basis of the proposed fine.

    The ALJ in the case issued the order yesterday without being asked to. He was the prime mover in its issuance. He seems very much disposed to want to be done with this case and it will be interesting to see what happens next. Basically the FAA has to convince him that there is cause to ignore the provision pertaining to foreign nationals in the FAA's own enforcement regulations.

    It seems to me that the ALJ wants this to go away.
     
  9. ianwood

    ianwood Taco Wrangler
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2014
    Messages:
    4,930
    Likes Received:
    1,801
    Location:
    Lost Angeles
    So, if I understand this correctly...

    - A small flying toy is a small flying toy. Except if someone pays you to fly it.
    - If someone pays you to fly it, a small flying toy is an airplane. Except if you're a foreign national.
    - If you're a foreign national, you can do as you please but the FAA may tell your parents.

    I predict these will be the next rulings we'll get:

    - US citizens are required to become fully certified astronauts before operating any small flying toy.
    - On the third Tuesday of each month, non-astronauts may operate small flying toys if they yell out "All hail Michael Huerta" three times before each flight.
     
  10. eckoner

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    9
    I read it 3 times already and each time i get a different message. One thats clear is they are making this up as they go and they are not really sure about the steps they themselves are taking.
     
  11. houldsworth1

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    15
    Thank you...I needed that :)
     
  12. N017RW

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    6,256
    Likes Received:
    1,617
    Location:
    Palm Beach Co.- FL
    Maybe Mr. P. Sachs will offer some insight soon.
     
  13. sdtrojan

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2014
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
  14. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    Here's a question. If the case is thrown out by the ALJ due to a lack of jurisdiction will the decision by the NTSB Board still stand? In other words, will their classification of models as aircraft for enforcement purposes still stand??
     
  15. msinger

    Approved Vendor

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    19,096
    Likes Received:
    5,623
    Location:
    US
    If so, I'm assuming the FAA will need to pick up a few hundred more employees to start investigating all of the model aircraft crashes.
     
  16. sdtrojan

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2014
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Yeah, there will be quite a few to investigate on 12/25....hopefully not including me
     
  17. Great Pumpkin

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    35
    Location:
    Santa Barbara County, California, USA
    I read one estimate that a quarter of a million NEW multicopters will be in the air after 12/25. Scary!
     
  18. sdtrojan

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2014
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I know! I saw that too. I took the slow route, bought a small Husban to learn how to fly first, heard it just gets easier from there. I am planning on start slowly, methodically at first, simply getting the hang of flying first, then going to start wearing the goggle after I feel comfy.
     
  19. SteveMann

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    653
    Location:
    Westford, MA
    A business license is a state jurisdiction - nothing at all to do with the FAA.