Trappy's Counsel File Motion To Dismiss

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

@AeroProject Re: "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...'"

How do you respond to the passages and 6 page section in the motion to dismiss discussing how the FARs exclude unmanned/model aircraft?

Note that the 2007 Notice defines UA as including model aircraft, and that this Notice is only a plan for future regulations and does not represent any previous regulation.

Section I.B on p.5: "[FAA] expressly made clear that their [model aircraft's] operation was not subject to its Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) and was instead governed only by “voluntary” guidelines"
Section I.C on p.9: "These reports confirm, in yet another way, that model aircraft operation has never been subject to any FAR..." Note that 'these reports' refer to the cited NASA reports where representatives of the Flight Standards District Office explicitly stated that the FARs are not applicable.
Section III.F.3 on p.27-33 -To paraphrase some of the points:
- Applying FARs to model aircraft creates inherent contradictions, such as when a pilot is required to instruct the onboard crew-members on using safety belts before they can take off, implying that the FAR definition of aircraft requires at least one person onboard. p28 paragraph 3
- FARs require that aircraft must be above 500 AGL, yet AC 91-57 states they must be below 400 AGL, creating a FAR definition that is either contradictory or excludes unmanned aircraft. p29 paragraph 2
- One particular FAR section goes out of its way to specify how that section applies to unmanned aircraft, which would not have been done if all FARs applied to unmanned aircraft. p29 paragraph 3

Of course, I only use these points to show that the FARs do not regulate UAVs. There are two other documents that may be seen as regulation, but are not: AC 91-57 is a set of voluntary guidelines, and does not qualify as regulation. The 2007 Notice is a notice for development of future regulations, and carries no weight of law (extensively discussed in the motion to dismiss).

Looking forward to hearing your response, thanks.

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

Join diydrones

Comments

W. Joe Taylor October 26, 2013 at 10:28pm

If ya'll have not seen the post by Ed Kirk it is very relevant to the FAA disvussion. It is long but really great food for thought.

http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/documentary-goes-missing?xg_sou...
W. Joe Taylor October 26, 2013 at 10:19pm

Thanks Tyler
Tyler McGahee October 26, 2013 at 2:42pm

@W. Joe Taylor
After a little bit of Google, it sounds like the time period is at the judge's discretion, and several lawyers reported that it has taken up to a year, which is really a shame.
Tyler McGahee October 26, 2013 at 11:49am
@AeroProject Re: "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...'"

How do you respond to the passages and 6 page section in the motion to dismiss discussing how the FARs exclude unmanned/model aircraft?

Note that the 2007 Notice defines UA as including model aircraft, and that this Notice is only a plan for future regulations and does not represent any previous regulation.
- Section I.B on p.5: "[FAA] expressly made clear that their [model aircraft's] operation was not subject to its Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) and was instead governed only by “voluntary” guidelines"
- Section I.C on p.9: "These reports confirm, in yet another way, that model aircraft operation has never been subject to any FAR..." Note that 'these reports' refer to the cited NASA reports where representatives of the Flight Standards District Office explicitly stated that the FARs are not applicable.
- Section III.F.3 on p.27-33 -To paraphrase some of the points:
  
  Applying FARs to model aircraft creates inherent contradictions, such as when a pilot is required to instruct the onboard crew-members on using safety belts before they can take off, implying that the FAR definition of aircraft requires at least one person onboard. p28 paragraph 3
  
  FARs require that aircraft must be above 500 AGL, yet AC 91-57 states they must be below 400 AGL, creating a FAR definition that is either contradictory or excludes unmanned aircraft. p29 paragraph 2
  
  One particular FAR section goes out of its way to specify how that section applies to unmanned aircraft, which would not have been done if all FARs applied to unmanned aircraft. p29 paragraph 3
Of course, I only use these points to show that the FARs do not regulate UAVs. There are two other documents that may be seen as regulation, but are not: AC 91-57 is a set of voluntary guidelines, and does not qualify as regulation. The 2007 Notice is a notice for development of future regulations, and carries no weight of law (extensively discussed in the motion to dismiss).

Looking forward to hearing your response, thanks.
W. Joe Taylor October 25, 2013 at 8:20pm

Does anyone know when the Judge will rule on the motion to dismiss?
Moderator

Dwgsparky October 25, 2013 at 4:48pm

@andy sorry but I don't agree, his dedication and exception flying skills have encouraged many new pilots to this activity and he has not been convicted if any offence, he has broken no law.
Maybe some of his flights were more risky than flights that I would be comfortable doing BUT that does not make them wrong
Moderator

Dwgsparky October 25, 2013 at 5:49am

@ 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.
Andrew Rabbitt October 22, 2013 at 2:05am

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...
Andrew Rabbitt October 21, 2013 at 9:48pm

It sounds like you've got a job for the prosecution, Aeroproject, but be prepared to back all your claims with evidence...
Bill Patterson October 21, 2013 at 9:49am

of 7

This reply was deleted.