The FAA has finally provided the first set of documents in response to a FOIA request I filed back in April 2013, requesting copies "of all records related to investigations and enforcement actions related to alleged violations of regulations, rules, policies, or advisory circulars by operators of unmanned aerial systems." After months of delays, excuses, and requesting extensions, they have provided copies of 17 cease and desist letters sent by various FAA regional offices to UAS operators in 2012 and 2013.
I filed my FOIA request after this article was published by TheIndyChannel in Indianapolis last April, which described documents they received in response to a FOIA request, stating that:
Since the Indianapolis news outlet did not make the documents they received public, I filed a FOIA request of my own in an effort to obtain the same documents. Nine months after my request was filed, the FAA has only been able to provide me with copies of the cease and desist letters they have sent out (now numbering 17). They are still searching for other records relating to investigations and enforcement proceedings initiated by their regional offices, which their latest communication estimates will be available in mid-March.
Here is the response letter I received from the FAA, followed by the responsive documents themselves (unfortunately Scribd documents do not seem to embed properly on this site). The documents are also available for download as attachments to this post.
View on Scribd: FAA FOIA Response Letter 2-4-14
View on Scribed: FAA FOIA Response 2-4-14
While I have not yet have time to go over the provided documents in detail, here are my initial impressions:
In all of the provided letters, the FAA actively misrepresents that status of the law regarding both commercial and hobbyist model aircraft, as well as the legal effect of key documents and legislation.
1. The FAA misrepresents the legal status of commercial UAS
The most significant misrepresentation is the repeated assertion that flying unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes is prohibited. The FAA repeatedly states that commercial operators are using UAS "without proper authorization" and are therefore "in violation of FAA guidance for UAS," or "in violation of FAA mandates for UAS," warns UAS operators that "operations of this kind may be in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations and result in legal enforcement action," speaks of "devastating liability" in the event of an accident, and concludes with a command either requiring or "advising" the subject to cease UAS operations.
Each of these letters is premised on the notion that the FAA's 2007 Policy Notice creates a mandatory prohibition that is binding on the general public. However, by law a mere "policy notice" by a federal agency cannot create legally binding and enforceable obligations on the general public. Only "regulations," passed through the proper notice and comment procedures dictated by the Administrative Procedures Act, can be considered mandatory. This is one of the central issues in the ongoing case regarding Raphael Pirker ("Trappy"). In fact, in a legal filing in that case, the FAA even admitted:
"To the extent that the Respondent is arguing that the information contained in the AC 9157 and
the 2007 Notice supersede the operational requirements contained in 14 CFR part 91 regulations, it
2 is clear that compliance with the regulations is mandatory, while the policies addressed in AC 91-57
and the 2007 Notice are not mandatory."
Despite this admission, the FAA continues to label failure to abide by the 2007 Policy Statement's prohibition on commercial use of unmanned aircraft as a "violation" which could subject operators to legal enforcement action. This begs the question, how can someone be penalized for failure to obey a non-mandatory policy? What regulation are they violating, and on what basis could the FAA initiate an enforcement action if compliance is not mandatory? The FAA has no answers to these questions, which is likely why they have never initiated an enforcement action against someone solely for operating a commercial UAS. Yet they continue to misrepresent the law and tell people such operation is illegal, despite having no legal basis for this claim.
2. The FAA Misrepresents the legal status of hobbyist RC aircraft
The boilerplate statement regarding hobbyists in the most recent versions of the FAA's letter says:
Advisory Circular 91-57 for recreational hobbyists. Those who use UAS only for recreational enjoyment and not for compensation or hire, operate in accordance with Advisory Circular 91-57. This generally applies to operations in remotely populated areas away from airports, persons and buildings, below 400 feet AGL and within visual line of sight. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012, now Public Law 112-95, Section 336, also defines Model Aircraft and their allowed uses, restricting their operation to visual line of sight operations and to hobby or recreational purposes.
This statement misrepresents both AC 91-57 and Public Law 112-95. Both by its nature as an advisory circular and by the express terms of its text, compliance with AC 91-57 is entirely voluntary. Contrary to the FAA's clear implication here, there is no implied condition that hobbyists must comply with every provision in AC 91-57 in order to qualify as hobbyists. Given that there are AMA model aircraft fields located in the middle of major cities like New York and on active airport grounds, model aircraft are obviously not restricted to rural locations away from airports. AC 91-57 also contains no mention of the term "visual line of sight." Considering it was written in the 1980s, long before long-range FPV capability existed, this is not surprising.
The first mention of the term "visual line of sight" in reference to hobbyists occurred in the FAA's 2007 Policy Statement, and not even in the actual "policy statement" portion of the document, but in the descriptive section above it. The actual wording was, "The FAA expects that hobbyists will operate these recreational model aircraft within visual line-of-sight." Not even the 2007 Policy Statement says hobbyists are required to remain within visual line of sight. Rather, the non-operative preamble of the document states that the FAA "expects" that hobbyists will remain within visual line of sight. (This expectation, incidentally, is clearly contrary to reality, given that thousands of FPV hobbyists regularly fly beyond visual line of sight all the time.) To the extent the FAA implies that AC 91-57 or the 2007 Policy Statement impose a visual line of sight condition in order to qualify as a hobbyist, they are misrepresenting their own documents.
The same goes for the idea introduced in the 2007 Policy Statement that AC 91-57 somehow provides "authorization" for hobbyists to operate RC aircraft, when the very document says nothing of the kind. Nowhere in AC 91-57 is there any kind of statement of authorization or any other indication that this document is intended to confer some kind of legal authority to operate model aircraft. By its own terms, "This advisory circular outlines, and encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators." Nothing more. To interpret this document as providing the sole legal basis for model aircraft operation is a legal ret-con unworthy of serious consideration.
Second, the FAA misrepresents the legal effect of the FAA Reauthorization Act. The letters state that the model aircraft exception in Sec. 336 restricts model aircraft to non-commercial use within visual line of sight. That is simply false. Section 336 begins:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into
Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this
subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
By its own terms, the only entity subject to the provisions of Sec. 336 is the FAA itself. The Model Aircraft Exception serves only to restrict the FAA's authority to regulate model aircraft, and the definition of model aircraft it provides only defines what is considered a model aircraft for the purposes of that exemption. The Act in no way purports to establish a general definition of what is and is not considered a model aircraft. Neither does it have any legal effect on the general public or restrict how citizens are allowed to operate remote control aircraft in any way. When you consider that the hobby exception occurs in the context of a congressional directive to the FAA, ordering the agency to create regulations for unmanned aircraft, it is obvious that the only thing the Act restricts is the FAA's authority to regulate. To suggest that this act imposes restrictions on modelers at large is disingenuous at best.
From the above, it is clear that the FAA is actively misrepresenting the legal status of unmanned aircraft in order to cow business offering unmanned aerial photography services into compliance with an improperly adopted prohibition that is in all likelihood unenforceable. It's time for drone enthusiasts to realize that the 2007 Policy Statement is most likely toothless, and to begin calling the FAA on their illegal attempts to enforce a non-law.