Well it's begun and this case will have an impact on all of you in the USA in one way or another. For those that did not hear about it Trappy is facing a $10,000 dollar fine.
The Complaint alleges that on or about October 17, 2011, Mr. Pirker (a Swiss citizen residing overseas) was the “pilot in command” of a “Ritewing Zephyr powered glider aircraft” in Charlottesville, Virginia. Compl. It next asserts that “[t]he aircraft referenced above is an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS).” As a matter of undisputed public record, a Ritewing Zephyr is in fact a popular type of radio-control model airplane made of a kind of styrofoam and weighs approximately four and a half pounds once equipped with batteries, radio, motor, and other components.
The Administrator alleges that Mr. Pirker’s Zephyr was equipped with a camera, that Mr. Pirker operated the model for the purpose of supplying aerial video and photographs of the University ofVirginia campus to an advertising agency, and that he was compensated by that firm for the video and photographs. 4-6. The Complaint notes that Mr. Pirker does not hold an FAA pilot’s certificate.
The balance of the Complaint sets out a list of allegedly dangerous characteristics of Mr.Pirker’s operation of his model airplane on October 17, 2011. It alleges that he “operated the abovedescribed aircraft at extremely low altitudes over vehicles, buildings, people, streets, and structures.” More specifically, it alleges, inter alia, that he operated the model airplane “through a UVA tunnel containing moving vehicles,” “below tree top level over a tree lined walkway,” “within approximately 15 feet of a UVA statue,” “within approximately 50 feet of railway tracks,” “within approximately 25 feet of
numerous UVA buildings,” and “directly towards a two story UVA building below rooftop level and made an abrupt climb in order to avoid hitting the building.”
Patrick Egan of sUAS News was given access to documents today and he wrote:-
Without a doubt, there is a lot riding on this issue for both the community and FAA. As we have seen in the past, people start to line up on those different sides of those issues with independent views on how the law works, what image the community should portray. Whatever the eventual outcome, we should at the very least have a better understanding and some clarification on how the process is supposed to work, and discern where exactly the U.S. RPAS community stands.
More at http://www.suasnews.com/2013/10/25375/trappys-defence-moves-to-dismiss/
Trappy, along with Chris Anderson is a speaker next week at the Drones and Aerial Robotics Conference
Comments
Can that sheet of paper sustain flight and be controlled in three axis?? If not its not a UA. BTW UAV stopped existing a few years ago, its RPAS in the brave new world.
So folding a sheet of paper into something that flies is illegal in the US and A ? Oh, I see a ban on confetti coming. Their purpose is to fly, they are heavier then air and are seldom used for commercial purposes.
I am afraid that I am with the FAA on this one, maybe they have not phrased it the best way, it is however the way the world has always been. Most people I guess on here do not have pilot or ATC certificates, so they would not be not really that aware of what the law is, civil aviation (which UAVs come under unless operated by the state) is heavily regulated. Ignorance of the law is no defense.
To be clear, a UAV is considered to be an Aircraft by the FAA (14 CFR part 1 Definitions)
"Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.
Airframe means the fuselage, booms, nacelles, cowlings, fairings, airfoil surfaces (including rotors but excluding propellers and rotating airfoils of engines), and landing gear of an aircraft and their accessories and controls.
Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.
Rotorcraft means a heavier-than-air aircraft that depends principally for its support in flight on the lift generated by one or more rotors."
An armature with no formal training has never been able to go down to the local hardware, purchase items, build an aircraft, and then take passengers up for reward. You can build you own aircraft, however you will still need to follow procedures, and be trained to be a pilot, there is a process, and certification involved.
That minimum certification however does not make you a Part 91 operator with the ability to charge for your services. Having a divers licence does not mean you can drive a taxi, having a car does not mean you can operate it as a taxi. Rules are in place when it comes to hire and reward.
There has always been a mandate laid down by the public (i.e. your elected government) to protect people from aerial activities. This goes a long way back to 1944 ICAO Chicago convention (which superseded the 1919 Pars convention), two parts of which are applicable here.
First :
The term "Hire or Reward" was coined here, where the state (i.e. USA) can "impose such regulations, conditions or limitations as it may consider desirable."
Second :
Pilotless Aircraft : "No aircraft capable of being flown without a pilot aircraft shall be flown without a pilot over the territory of a contracting State without special authorization by that State and in accordance with the terms of each authorization. Each contracting State undertake to insure that the flight of such aircraft without a pilot in regions open to civil aircraft shall be so controlled as to obviate danger to civil aircraft,"
I hold licences from a number of countries that permit me to to operate around 50 types of aircraft, largest being over 800,000lb for hire and reward, and UAVs. However as an operator, I cannot go around accepting funds for work performed unless it is done under the appropriate certificate and procedures.
It takes planning and application to gain these authorizations, and you also need to be insured. That is the difference between armature and commercial operations.
A commercial operator will have procedures in place to reduce the risk of damage to person or property, their insurer will want to know they are a "good risk", often placing greater restrictions on them than the regulators. If an unlikely tragic event happened where there was loss of life or major trauma, an armature would be eaten alive by the courts. If it were a commercial operation, the procedures from inspecting the aircraft, planning the flight, contingencies, training would all come under scrutiny like any aircraft accident.
As a community we need to encourage the use of armature UAV development and use, however if people want to go to the next level and make money from it, go to the next level with the appropriate accreditation, training etc.
What will happen if more events like this occur, or the quad copter that crashed on a sidewalk in NYC this week, is that it will be next to impossible to fly hobby UAVs, and the availability to make a living from it next to impossible.
I am sorry, I like what these guys are able to do, I cannot agree with the way they are going about doing it. It will ruin it for everyone. Remember the FAA does control all airspace, from ground level up, they can close it all down to all UAVs. Don't give them a reason to.
I liked 50 feet from railroad tracks! Ever see a deer when it got hit by a train? As for the statue any perching pigeons in Charlottesville? Does this mean birds will also be banned there down the road ? What caught my eye they are bringing water back up over the dam. The" incident "happened 2 years ago.Is Trappy not just being used as an example to "Fortify" there pre -conceived notions of how things should be in the future?Kind of if you hit the little guy hard enough.nobody will dare try to do anyting ? Good Luck Trappy I admire your pilot skills and your ability to "Push the Envelope' the "Nay Sayers will come back screaming "Reckless!"but deep down they might be just a little bit 'Envious?"
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that drones will not be purchased, leased, borrowed, tested, contracted or otherwise used by any agency of the City of Charlottesville."
Sounds like he did break that one, so no help there.
Trappy is not an "agency" ...
Agreed, the local bi-laws cannot be enforced retroactively.
You missed the point, The case that is being defended is between the FAA and the accused. The laws and rules in the city were made after the alleged offense was committed and are not relevant even if the city did or does have any jurisdiction.
Good luck Trappy.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that drones will not be purchased, leased, borrowed, tested, contracted or otherwise used by any agency of the City of Charlottesville."
Sounds like he did break that one, so no help there.
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, declares Charlottesville a No Drone Zone, and instructs the City Attorney to perform the necessary legal tasks to transform this declaration into an Ordinance wherein drones are hereby banned from airspace over the City of Charlottesville, including drones in transit, to the extent compatible with federal law. "
THIS is where he could (and most likely will) be acquitted of his charges if the case isn't dismissed, which, knowing the vindictiveness of the man who got the ordinance passed in the first place, I don't see happening. Currently, there aren't any federal regulations for such actions, nor are there any federal guidelines on punishments for such activities, because these activities are not illegal by federal regulation. I think, if anything, Charlottesville will be able to stick a few reckless endangerment charges on him for the type of flying he conducted, but beyond that, I do not think that the ordinance will be able to hold. If Charlottesville is smart for its own reputation as a "Drone-Free" environment, they will drop the charges. That doesn't mean the ordinance is safe from being contested and challenged in the court of law for questionably legality and enforcability, as well as possibly overstepping a lot of bounds on regulation. Not by a long shot.
Also, the FAA has no reason to even attend to begin with. They have no legal standing regulations on vehicles of this sort besides the classification as a model aircraft, and therefor have nothing of any argumentative value to input into this case.
Hope he has a good lawyer, cause he'll need it.
I can say, if he flew in Australia with the same regard to aviation law, he'd be in much more hot water than what is currently being aimed at him in the USA...
Ahhhhh.....The ordinance was originally only for police drones..... Good thing is, I live in Albemarle technically, the surrounding county. Charlottesville has no jurisdiction :)
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
of 9 Next