A Drone? A Really Big Bird? A UFO? What Did Alitalia Pilot See Near JFK?
FAA Looking Into Pilot's Claim Of Seeing Unmanned Or Remote-Piloted Aircraft
March 4, 2013 7:40 PM
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — A mystery in the sky over New York City on Monday got one commercial airline pilot’s attention.
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating a report from the pilot, who claims he saw an unmanned or remote-controlled aircraft while on his final approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport.
The pilot, who was at the controls of Alitalia Flight AZA 60, spotted what may have been a drone about four to five miles southeast of the airport at an altitude of 1,500 feet while on final approach to Runway 31 Right at about 1:15 p.m.
The Alitalia flight landed safely minutes later.
Please stay with CBSNewYork.com for more on this developing story
Comments
That is an interesting question we've been debating over at rcgroups at some length. As best I can tell, commercial UAS operations are prohibited by FAA policy, but policy statements do not have the force of law in themselves, but only insofar as they provide official interpretations of regulations, which are the only things that are directly legally binding. So while there is a policy against commercial operation, it is not actually prohibited by any regulation. So it's not authorized, but it's not directly prohibited either. I haven't yet done enough research to determine if the FAA's position that any aircraft operation that is not specifically authorized is prohibited, though I know laws usually work the opposite way. If there is an actual law or regulation saying that it's illegal to fly any kind of aircraft without specific authorization from the FAA, then it would in fact be illegal. But if not, then I rather doubt the FAA's prohibition on commercial UAS operations is actually enforceable. Perhaps that's why they've never gone all the way and done a full enforcement action against a commercial UAS operator. They've sent threatening letters plenty of times, and I even know of one case where they issued a fine against someone but then dropped the matter and didn't take it any further. Perhaps they know secretly that they really don't have any legal grounds to prohibit commercial operations and they just won't admit that pubicly.
Patrick,
Thanks for clarfying your position for me. Knowing where your coming from makes all the difference to me. Being a lawyer you are familiar with the concept that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law correct? That being the case I usually err in taking even reccomendations as Law, especially when they are for the benefit of the greater good. That said I am glad to hear from someone in the know that if I'm not flying at a club field and I'm not it the vicinity of an airport or airport traffic pattern that I'm in the clear with respect to the altitude 'reccomendation'. One must always be mindful of the fact however that we are responsible for our aircraft and with it's interaction with aircraft/people/property intended or unintended. Situational awareness is limited if flying beyond VLOS either with FPV or when in fully autonymous flight beyond VLOS.
Regards,
Nathaniel ~KD2DEY
Patrick, it's refreshing to hear from an actual lawyer on these matters.
Do you have an opinion on the common statement that "it is illegal to operate a commercial UAV/AP business in the US"?
Fair enough. I just happen to be a lawyer and get annoyed when I see people misrepresenting what the law is. My main concern is with what is legal and what's illegal. What's moral and prudent is up to individual FPVers. Personally here again, my main flying field at the park near my house is right in the approach route to a fairly busy general aviation airport about 3 miles away, with planes constantly going over around 800-1000 feet. So when I fly there I adhere rigidly to the 400 foot recommendation and in fact I usually try to stay below 200 feet to be safe. Elsewhere when I'm well away from airports, I have no problem flying up to one or two thousand feet, especially when climbing up to the top of a mountain to proximity fly down the side. But my judgment of what's prudent may not be the same as yours, so in an objective sense, I care primarily about legality and am content to leave specific choices about safe flying to the individual.
All this differentiation between weather something is a rule or a law makes no sense to me. just because you may not be able to be prosecuted for breaking a law doesn't mean it's either right or wrong. It is safe to say that if people push the envelope too far beyond the reccomendations or guidelines and exhibit poor judgement in their activities we will all suffer the consequences of those action with very restrictive laws that can be enforced if we don't see outright bans as are being proposed in at least 13 states right now.
Regards,
Nathaniel ~KD2DEY
It's common to break them because they AREN'T RULES. Neither the FAA's recommendations in Advisory Circular 91-57 nor the AMA Safety Code are legally binding and enforceable documents. To quote Jack Sparrow, "they're more like guidelines than actual rules." As for the Public Law, it doesn't establish legally binding rules for modeling either. All it does is define the parameters of a "safe harbor" style exemption from FAA regulations, regulations which haven't even been written yet. So while it's true for example that beyond visual line of sight FPV would not be able to take advantage of the exemption, you don't even need to at this point because there are no rules to be be exempt from. The provisions of the Public Law are not rules in themselves.
The topic of the 400' altitude limit is a subject I have been considering for some time now as well as the 3 mile rule (or 5 mile depending on what you read, more on that later). As a matter of fact I have scheduled a meeting of club members at my local field to discuss these topics later this month. There are 4 documents I have referenced below, some of wich have been referred to by several other people above. The fist is the FAA Advisory Circular
AC 91-57 this was originally released June 9, 1981 and has been the guidepost by which we hobbyists have been expected to govern our actions. It states the following with respect to altitude and proximity to an airport:
By comparision the AMA safety code statees the following:
Note the difference in punctuation between the two excerpts? AC91-57 makes two separate statements, one about altitude and one about proximity to an airport; the AMA safety code makes one single statement with two distinct parts. In AC 91-57 it clearly states 'DO NOT fly higher than 400' above ground level.' That's a period at the end of that statement! Separately it states that 'WHEN you are within 3 miles of an airport, notify the airport operator'. Meanwhile the AMA Safety Code makes it sound as though it is only necessary to limit your altitude to below 400' IF you are withinn 3 miles of an airport. Does anyone else read this the way I am?
Next there are differences in several documents with regard to proximity to an airport. FAA AC 91-57, AMA Safety code both show a distance of 3 miles, however the newer Public Law 112-95, dated February 14, 2012, in Sec 336 a-5
So which is it, three miles or five and is PLAW 112-95 a guide or Law as the name suggests?? Based solely on the date I would tend to go with the 5 mile distance.
Lastly is the subject of range of flight. Througout all these documents there is one common thread VLOS. Visual Line Of Sight is to be maintained at all times by the operator of model aircraft. This means sight without the aid of any measn other than standard prescription eyewear not FPV equipment. AMA-560 'Advance Flight Systems' states the following about Autonymous flight:
I know it is very common for people to break these rules, and people make the analogy of speeding 5 mph over the posted speed limit 'everybody does it'. Everybody might be doing it but the media isn't whipping up hysteria over the issue like they are with Drones and model aircraft it the National Airspace.
Food for thought.....I'd really like to here other peoples interpretations of these documents.
Regards,
Nathaniel ~KD2DEY
FAA AC 91-57 (via AMA ModelAircraft.org)
2012 AMA Safety Code (via AMA ModelAircraft.org)
See and Avoid Guidance (via AMA ModelAircraft.org)
PLAW 112-95 (via FAA.gov)
Advanced Flight Systems AMA-560 (via AMA ModelAircraft.org)
Either this copter was out of control or it was loitering there on purpose. Maybe this nimrod was taking video of ariving airliners and hopefully he will post it on youtube so the FBI can trace his ip address and get this idiot. Endangering an airliner has got to be a serious federal offence. I hope they make an example out of him.
Well, no manned aircraft is supposed to. The FAA has not published any rule making airspace class restrictions applicable to model aircraft. So while it's probably a bad idea to fly in restricted airspace, it is not illegal.
-
12
-
13
-
14
-
15
-
16
of 16 Next