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
I understand that several operators in Austrailia are authorised and cetrtified to operate UAV's, I do not know if they are aircraft or multicoptors.
In Canada we have an approval process with Transport Canada that allow UAV operation withing certain restrictions.
Trappy has a good lawyer who has a great understanding of the issues faced by Trappy and he writes in this forum.
People, RC models have existed for many years, They are flown every day with an exceptional safety record by skilled persons who work hard to make safe reliable models. The FAA accept this.
When people add cameras then they may use the same aircraft but they will operate them in a different manner to photograph the targets they may fly lower or in different areas. that does not mean they fly in an unsafe way. They have more money invested so they may fly safer!. I have had and used camera planes for over 40yrs in 3 countries and NEVER had an accident, I also accept that others may not take as much care and that is why we all need some workable rules.
My UAV flying over crops, nice and slow for the camera is not going to be as stressed as the same plane operated as a hot rod aerobatic ship. (mine is a flying wing so it can easily do both roles)
The is NO law in the USA that controls RC models or insists that they stay below 400 feet. there is an advisory notice from 1981.
The FAA is responsible for aircraft safety. I don't see many 747's flying at less than FL230 over my field. If they do I will get out of the way.
The big issue is that the FAA have failed in their mandated responsibility to control the integration of UAV's in the the NAS of the USA, other countries (like Canada and Australia) have managed this successfully and put in placed workable rules for UAV's Including commercial applications.
I think at the end of this case there will be a lot of FAA and government officials running around like headless chickens trying to keep their jobs.
But it's not a law of the country! It's a suggestion of the country.
arguing semantics or what exactly each word means or how something is worded is entirely moot. He knowingly operated an aircraft in a manner that is against the laws of that country.
It's always great to see a cool video, but do it properly by obtaining the permissions to do such activities from the appropriate authorities. In hindsight you could have been an advocate for doing the right thing, instead it's a shining example of what not to do. Such a pity really.
Hope you have a good lawyer, it's provided an example to the rest of the world of not how to aviate..communicate...navigate (oops that's taught at flight school to aviators...)
"Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air."
I believe this means it is a device that lifts you off the ground.
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,"
Hence the term: "Remotely Piloted Vehicle". So this does not apply. RPV, UAS, FPV etc. do have pilots.
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.
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?"
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.
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
of 7 Next