FAA Grounds Missing-Persons Search Group


Source: http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303847804579481281535674284-lMyQjAxMTA0MDAwNjEwNDYyWj

A Texas group that searches for missing people is fighting a Federal Aviation Administration order to stop using drones for its searches, adding a new challenge to the agency's authority to prohibit drones in the U.S.

The drone industry is challenging the FAA's legal authority to regulate drones. Gene Robinson, right, launches a drone as Jacob Elson handles the controls. Mr. Robinson is a volunteer drone pilot for Texas EquusSearch. RP Flight Systems

The group, Texas EquuSearch, has been using small drones, or unmanned aircraft, since 2006 to map search areas and conduct searches itself. In February, the FAA in an email ordered the group to stop immediately.

Texas EquuSearch last month responded with a letter to the FAA asserting the agency has no legal authority to prohibit drone use and threatening to take legal action if the agency didn't rescind its order in 30 days.

The spat could further emboldenentrepreneurs and companies that are growing restless with the FAA's pace in setting rules for unmanned aircraft.

The FAA effectively bans commercial use of drones in the continental U.S., and has been sending cease-and-desist letters to companies and individuals it suspects are violating that policy, including aerial photographers, journalism professors and tornado researchers, according to the letters, which were obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

The FAA says it must limit the use of drones to preserve the safety of the national airspace, at least until it finalizes rules for small drones in the U.S., which isn't expected until late 2015 at the earliest.

But the drone industry and its advocates are challenging the agency's legal authority to regulate drones at all. Last month, they won a significant victory when a federal administrative-law judge ruled that commercial drones are, in effect, already legal in the U.S.

Tim Miller, who founded Texas EquuSearch after his daughter was abducted in 2000, said drones "save a tremendous amount of time" in mapping search areas for missing-person searches, "and we know in the very beginning that time is very, very important." In about a dozen cases, drones have directly "located bodies we never would have found," he said.

In 2012, for instance, Texas EquuSearch brought in its volunteer drone pilot Gene Robinson and his 4-pound drone as authorities were wrapping up a dayslong search for a 2-year-old boy in southwest Texas. Within hours, the drone spotted a red shirt in a swampy area that led to the discovery of the boy's body.

The February email to Texas EquuSearch from Alvin Brunner, an FAA aviation safety inspector, said: "I understand the pressure to get [drones] integrated into the [national airspace] is mounting, but it must not be at the sacrifice of what is right or safe."

The group halted its use of drones in response. But it hired Brendan Schulman, a New York lawyer and drone enthusiast, to challenge the order. "There is no basis whatsoever, in law, in policy, or in common sense, to prohibit the operation of a model aircraft for volunteer search and rescue activities," Mr. Schulman wrote in his March 17 letter to the FAA.

Texas EquuSearch plans to sue the FAA in federal court if the agency doesn't rescind its order, he said in an interview.

The FAA said it must authorize anyone who wants to operate a drone in the U.S.—unless it is for recreation—and that Texas EquuSearch should obtain "emergency certificates of authorization" from the agency for its missions. The FAA grants those emergency authorizations only to police departments, public universities, or other public entities that already hold certificates for nonemergency use.

The FAA said Texas EquuSearch should try to find one of the more than 500 eligible certificate holders to sponsor its searches, such as a law-enforcement agency involved in a search that also holds an FAA authorization for drone use. It said it issued an emergency authorization within hours last year to the California National Guard to monitor the Rim Fire in the Sierra Nevada.

The agency said it planned to respond to Texas EquuSearch's letter.

Mr. Schulman also represented the man who successfully challenged the FAA's first fine for operating a drone. The Austrian videographer was hit with a $10,000 penalty for allegedly operating a drone recklessly while filming in Virginia.

Last month, administrative law judge Patrick Geraghty with the National Transportation Safety Board overturned the fine, ruling that the FAA has issued nonbinding safety guidelines and policy notices for such aircraft but "no enforceable FAA rule."

Mr. Geraghty deemed commercial drones to be the same legally as model aircraft, which he wrote aren't considered aircraft under federal law—in part because the FAA itself historically hasn't required model aircraft to comply with its rules for manned aircraft. If the FAA's argument that all types of flying devices are aircraft, the judge wrote, then the agency should also regulate "paper aircraft, or a toy balsa wood glider."

The FAA has appealed to the full boardand said the ruling by the administrative law judge is stayed until the NTSB's full board rules. The agency has said: "Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft—manned or unmanned—in U.S. airspace needs some level of authorization from the FAA."

Mr. Geraghty's ruling has helped fuel the ambitions of some drone entrepreneurs.

Steve Klindworth, chief executive of drone retailer UAV Direct, said sales have surged more than 25% to about $10,000 a day since the ruling. Dozens of people, including photographers, real-estate agents and roof inspectors, have called to inquire about drones under the perception that they are now legal for commercial use. "They're emboldened and we have to tell them to use caution," he said.

FlowerDeliveryExpress.com said the FAA told it to stop testing the delivery of flowers by drone in February. The company, based in Commerce Township, Mich., said it resumed testing after the ruling but then halted the program again after the FAA said the ruling was stayed.

"It's more than a little confusing," said CEO Wesley Berry. "Honest to God, if the FAA was around when the Wright Brothers started, there'd be no flight whatsoever."

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • The FAA is using the same justification that they used prior to the judgement "there are no rules so you can't do it" now they say since there is a appeal you still cant do it! they use big government fear tactics to stifle technological growth that would make them more and more unneeded. Remember there are some people who hold some certificates that the FAA can revoke, due to non compliance with their "POLICIES". On top of that no one wants to bad mouth the FAA for fear that it will end badly. Well if no one argues with them then they will get their way... and we all can be outlaws.

  • Yes it is indeed the most public guys the FAA can attack. But also the worst possible publicity the FAA could get. These are people with an amazing track record, fantastic safety protocols that integrate with other agency, found 300 people safely and recovered 11 bodies.

    The public would not care if the FAA would go after a real estate agent or someone who shot a commercial for a university. However take away an important tool to find missing children and force a successful charity with a proven record to stop will provoke a very negative sentiment about the FAA by the general public
  • No they will attack the most public guys to make an example out of them!  The more word gets out on what you do, the more they will be interested in your operation because it will have the most effect on the most users.  If they stop one guy who nobody knows, it won't make a difference to the community.  But stop on group who is very vocal, very successful, has forged relationships with other government agencies, is safe, and has an excellent track record and people take notice.  I don't agree with it, but it is their strategy and always has been.

  • He should tell the FAA where to go and what to do with their letters.  They have no authority to issue such orders and therefore I would think Gene has no obligation to listen to them. The FAA is about as smart as the gun control lobby with this stuff.  Lets ignore the real problems because that would require work.  Instead we'll attack the good guys since they're too nice to fight back.

  • The FAA is trying hard to keep some semblance of control. It has been the ultimate source of authority of the US airspace for a very long time. The recent surge in UAV use must feel like a sort of coup attempt on its powers.

    In the end, there may be licensing regulations put into place, and possibly restrictions in the use of UAVs to specific regions and purposes. Perhaps even restricting use to certified manufacturers, such as DJI and 3DRobotics. 

  • Moderator

    Gene has been stopped by the FAA whilst actually out on a search before.

  • How does the FAA just say that an appeal equals a stay to the ruling?  Only judges can do that.  Without congress passing laws the FAA has no written authority.  That is what we have argued for over a decade and that was deemed true by the administrative judge.  Those that are letting the FAA stop them are allowing them the authority that they do not possess.  

    Those of us in the urban farming movement have stated similar things as far as local food production is concerned.  Seeking the USDA approval to grow gardens and vegetables is empowering them with authority over my fundamental right to grow and distribute locally produce.  My neighbors can come shake my hand and volunteer in our farm to see that we do not put the poisons on our food that are allowed and encouraged by USDA policy.

    Similarly, my clients for UAV work can shake my hand and look at my past work to evaluate my ability to carry out a safe and effective product mission for them.  These guys from Equusearch have a long and effective reputation for carrying out these missions.  For the FAA to step in without authority is simple bullying.  Those that allow them to stop them without authority are relinquishing their fundamental rights afforded them under the current law.

  • A pretty convincing letter, Brendan! The mission statement inclusion at the end was a particularly nice touch. :-)

  • Many thanks Gary, I have indeed read Gene's book and taken meticulous notes on it. Gene is also on the Advisory Board of the Humanitarian UAV Network that I founded:


    On a related note re the FAA, see this lawyer's reply to the FAA:


    Promoting the safe, responsible and effective use of UAVs in a wide range of humanitarian and development settings.
  • Moderator

    You might consider buying Genes book or hear him speak at the http://www.sUSBExpo.com show in May. we are having a space limited SAR workshop at it. Chris Anderson and the head of the FAA's airspace integration effort are also speaking.

    Genes book http://www.suasnews.com/first-to-deploy/


    You can watch Gene here

    He is also one of the presenters of our podcast http://www.blogtalkradio.com/suasnews

This reply was deleted.