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

Bill Patterson October 30, 2013 at 12:41pm

ALL these people got paid for flying RC.

http://www.extremeflightrc.com/html/rewards.html

Every single plane on this page was flown for money.There's video of them flying.

http://www.greatplanes.com/

I could go on for pages and pages and pages. Dozens, hundreds, even thousands of examples.

But Trappy allegedly did it, and it's suddenly a fine-able offense? Excuse me?
Will Snodgrass October 30, 2013 at 12:19pm

Question. How can you be flying professionally and not making any kind of money at the same time? Your obviously no doing it for your profession, if your not doing as a service, or as part of your profession. Right?
Andy Horka October 30, 2013 at 9:08am

@Austin

You are obviously a great ambassador for the UAV community and thanks for doing that. Trappy, when doing things like flying around the Statue of Liberty, is just whacking the hornets' nest.

@captaingeek

100% with you on that one!
Austin Suhler October 29, 2013 at 7:08am

It's funny you should say that. I was out flying my phantom wing on one of the large lawns on campus about the time that a group of senior citizens, who I later found out were taking classes with a life long learning program, arrived for a conference. With the sheer number of cries I heard for "drones," I thought it was going to be a political disaster for me, but it was quite the opposite. I instantly got swarmed by 40 year glider pilots, retired NASA engineers, and even a few people from the old days of balsa, tissue, and dope control line pilots.

I ended up displaying the plane and the APM system, talking about the AUVSI competition that my lab is gearing up for next summer, and the quadcopter emergency cellphone mesh network we're working on. Even after all this, the number one question was if I had a camera or not, and when I said no, in every case they asked me why I didn't. I explained that normally, people are worried about privacy and things of the sort, but they all replied fairly consistently, saying that after seeing the good things we're working on with Unmanned Aerial Systems, it only makes sense that we do something good with an eye in the sky viewpoint.

It's not what you do, it's how you do it, and the impression you leave on people that change people's perspectives.
Euan Ramsay October 28, 2013 at 11:09pm

Love or hate the guy - he is at least correct about one thing. Public perception of RC is actually pretty good, and the general media pieces on his flights are invariably well received...outside the RC community. Most of the public are simply stunned at what you can do with them these days.

Most of the condemnation comes from within the hobby itself - mainly because they're the ones doing the self-analysis.
captaingeek October 28, 2013 at 5:10pm

GOOD! burn his ass at the stake. He's taking advantage of our hobby and breaking the law. He should be jailed / deported.
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.

of 9

This reply was deleted.