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
Maybe some of his flights were more risky than flights that I would be comfortable doing BUT that does not make them wrong
Trappy is a privileged, arrogant button pusher that has been putting all of us in a bad spotlight for a long time. There is no good outcome for this case. The fact that it started will herald the coming of more draconian measures the bureaucrats are jut itching' to impose. He knows he broke the rules and now he wants to see how far he can push it. In the meantime, this is hype the UAV community needs like a hole in the head.
@ Aeroproject, If we have to take this approach then we would all need government sized bank accounts. This is probably the last thing that ANYONE involved in UAV's would want or accept!!
" What it will means is that people wanting to do commercial operations will need to purchase an approved design, with approved parts, assembled by an approved person, and flown by an approved pilot. This is how government agencies go about flying their UAV's on government business." Approved = MONEY
The big difference is that the UAV's on government business are flying at 20,000 feet and 100miles for more from home, then what you say is valid but 99% of small commercial or hobbyist drones will never try to get to that point, they just want to fly LOS (or close to it ) and get paid for their work of taking images. What you should be doing is trying to promote a 2 class system.
Class 1/ less than 5kg /70mph and Class 2/ over 5kg/ 70mph.
Simple self certification + insurance for class 1 and government /FAA approval for the big and fast stuff.
The very idea of the FAA trying to approve a 3kg foam wing with a gopro attached would be to stupid for words.
This case is primarily against the commercial use of a model aircraft that the FAA have no jurisdiction to control.
My apologies if this posy is a little of topic.
So, the FAA's definition of aircraft covers paper planes, kites, bullets and golf balls even. All are intended to fly through the air in some fashion.
The next question to ask is: used by whom? Birds, insects and bats use their devices called wings to fly through the air, but the FAA has so far demonstrated no jurisdiction here either...
As I posted earlier, this has been in the FARs longer than I have been alive, 14 CFR part 1 definitions, which clearly covers anything the flies, an UAV, hobby or commercial. To state there is no regulation that covers UAVs is false.
"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."
Also look at
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/
It is absolutely silly for us as a community to think that UAVs are unregulated, they are aircraft, they are heavily regulated. As a hobby community we should be pushing for something like Part 103 for ultralight aircraft, again this is only for non commercial use, however it defines simple clear limits. What I am really worried about is a member of the general public getting seriously hurt, politicians getting involved, laws getting passed, and it becomes next to impossible to enjoy this as an intellectual hobby.
As a community we have recognized the value UAVs can be with various commercial applications. We should be proactive about setting up pilot licencing, pilot training, design organisations design approvals, production approvals, maintenance standards etc. What the FAA is wants is a transparent process and standards, and insurance to cover liability. If an incident occurs they can then go back a look at the process and standards and change them if deficient so an accident does not reoccur. The point of the regulation is not to stop people from performing commercial activities, it is to promote safety. UAVs, model aircraft, model helicopters can all cause serious damage to property and/or persons, even death.
What it will means is that people wanting to do commercial operations will need to purchase an approved design, with approved parts, assembled by an approved person, and flown by an approved pilot. This is how government agencies go about flying their UAVs on government business. It would not be impossible for a singular person to have all of these approvals, however one would need to prove they have the process in place. It might even be possible for "diydrones" to hold an air operators certificate, and pilots work under the "diydrones" AOC with approved airframe, by an licenced pilot in commercial operations. As a community we could look to other organisations like the Soaring Society of America how they go about their group insurance.
It is my view wanting for people not passionate about UAVs to setup UAV commercial regulations is a recipe for disaster. As a community we should be proactive, rather than reactive, and sit down with the FAA to move forward.
We should be able to take this event as a mechanism to move forward, and not see it as a roadblock.
It sounds like you've got a job for the prosecution, Aeroproject, but be prepared to back all your claims with evidence...
There are procedures already in place for legitimate commercial use of these aircraft, I posted the link earlier in this thread.
People need to stop cutting corners and abide by the regulations, if you are doing a hobby they do not want to know about you. If you are doing commercial activities they do. This guy is no better than the people selling illegal taxi services at airports. Having a drivers licence and a car does not entitle you to be a hire for reward taxi.
This has always been the case.
@Dwgsparky, that defence document didn't come for free, nor does it guarantee a home run.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 9 Next