Drone Pilot Settles With FAA Over Video Flight

[Larry Dighera]

Drone Pilot Settles With FAA Over Video Flight

<http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Drone-Pilot-Settles-With-FAA-Over-Video-Flight223441-1.html>
A drone pilot who fought a $10,000 government fine for filming video with an
unmanned aircraft in 2011 has settled his case for $1,100 without admitting
guilt, Bloomberg reported
<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-22/drone-pilot-who-fought-10-000-reckless-flight-fine-settles-case.html>Thursday.
Raphael Pirker, a Swiss citizen, flew a drone over the University of Virginia
in 2011 to make a promotional video. In court, he challenged the FAA's
authority to wield enforcement powers over drone flights. The FAA has yet to
come out with a proposal to regulate commercial drone operations, even though
the agency said it would have one by the end of 2014.

"We are pleased that the case ignited an important international conversation
about the civilian use of drones, the appropriate level of governmental
regulation concerning this new technology, and even spurred the regulators to
open new paths to the approval of certain commercial drone operations," Brendan
Schulman, Pirker's lawyer, told Bloomberg. The settlement comes after three
years of legal sparring. A judge last March ruled in Pirker's favor, saying the
FAA lacked enforcement power over small drones. The NTSB overturned that ruling
in November after finding U.S. aviation regulations did apply to Pirker's drone
flight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-22/drone-pilot-who-fought-10-000-reckless-flight-fine-settles-case.html>

Drone Pilot Who Fought $10,000 Reckless-Flight Fine Settles Case
By Alan Levin Jan 22, 2015 2:12 PM PT 1 Comment Email Print

The drone pilot who challenged the U.S. government’s authority over unmanned
aircraft agreed to pay a reduced fine of $1,100 to settle his case.

Raphael Pirker, a Swiss citizen who flew a small unmanned plane without
government permission over the University of Virginia in 2011 to film a
promotional video, signed a settlement agreement this month while not admitting
guilt, his lawyer, Brendan Schulman, said Thursday in an e-mail.

The Federal Aviation Administration has struggled to keep up with the rising
popularity and accessibility of drones, including small copters costing less
than $1,000. Pirker, who had originally been fined $10,000, had challenged
whether the FAA even had the legal right to act as the drone police since no
explicit regulations had been issued regarding use of the unmanned aircraft by
civilians.

“We are pleased that the case ignited an important international conversation
about the civilian use of drones, the appropriate level of governmental
regulation concerning this new technology, and even spurred the regulators to
open new paths to the approval of certain commercial drone operations,”
Schulman said.

A judge hearing the case in March ruled in Pirker’s favor, saying the FAA had
no enforcement power over small unmanned aircraft. The National Transportation
Safety Board, which hears FAA legal appeals, overturned that ruling on Nov. 11
after finding U.S. aviation law did apply.

The FAA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

An FAA proposal for regulating commercial drone flights was due by the end of
last year, though it has been delayed by internal government review.

[george152]

On 24/01/2015 2:05 p.m., Larry Dighera wrote:
> Drone Pilot Settles With FAA Over Video Flight
>
> <http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Drone-Pilot-Settles-With-FAA-Over-Video-Flight223441-1.html>
> A drone pilot who fought a $10,000 government fine for filming video with an
> unmanned aircraft in 2011 has settled his case for $1,100 without admitting
> guilt, Bloomberg reported
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-22/drone-pilot-who-fought-10-000-reckless-flight-fine-settles-case.html>Thursday.
> Raphael Pirker, a Swiss citizen, flew a drone over the University of Virginia
> in 2011 to make a promotional video. In court, he challenged the FAA's
> authority to wield enforcement powers over drone flights. The FAA has yet to
> come out with a proposal to regulate commercial drone operations, even though
> the agency said it would have one by the end of 2014.
>
> "We are pleased that the case ignited an important international conversation
> about the civilian use of drones, the appropriate level of governmental
> regulation concerning this new technology, and even spurred the regulators to
> open new paths to the approval of certain commercial drone operations," Brendan
> Schulman, Pirker's lawyer, told Bloomberg. The settlement comes after three
> years of legal sparring. A judge last March ruled in Pirker's favor, saying the
> FAA lacked enforcement power over small drones. The NTSB overturned that ruling
> in November after finding U.S. aviation regulations did apply to Pirker's drone
> flight.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-22/drone-pilot-who-fought-10-000-reckless-flight-fine-settles-case.html>
>
> Drone Pilot Who Fought $10,000 Reckless-Flight Fine Settles Case
> By Alan Levin Jan 22, 2015 2:12 PM PT 1 Comment Email Print
>
> The drone pilot who challenged the U.S. government’s authority over unmanned
> aircraft agreed to pay a reduced fine of $1,100 to settle his case.
>
> Raphael Pirker, a Swiss citizen who flew a small unmanned plane without
> government permission over the University of Virginia in 2011 to film a
> promotional video, signed a settlement agreement this month while not admitting
> guilt, his lawyer, Brendan Schulman, said Thursday in an e-mail.
>
> The Federal Aviation Administration has struggled to keep up with the rising
> popularity and accessibility of drones, including small copters costing less
> than $1,000. Pirker, who had originally been fined $10,000, had challenged
> whether the FAA even had the legal right to act as the drone police since no
> explicit regulations had been issued regarding use of the unmanned aircraft by
> civilians.
>
> “We are pleased that the case ignited an important international conversation
> about the civilian use of drones, the appropriate level of governmental
> regulation concerning this new technology, and even spurred the regulators to
> open new paths to the approval of certain commercial drone operations,”
> Schulman said.
>
> A judge hearing the case in March ruled in Pirker’s favor, saying the FAA had
> no enforcement power over small unmanned aircraft. The National Transportation
> Safety Board, which hears FAA legal appeals, overturned that ruling on Nov. 11
> after finding U.S. aviation law did apply.
>
> The FAA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
>
> An FAA proposal for regulating commercial drone flights was due by the end of
> last year, though it has been delayed by internal government review.
>

All that is going to happen is that at some stage one of these 'drones'
is going to take out an aircraft.
Then watch laws get enacted by yesterday

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 16:48:02 +1300, george152 > wrote:

>
>All that is going to happen is that at some stage one of these 'drones'
>is going to take out an aircraft.
>Then watch laws get enacted by yesterday

That's historically what it has taken to get many new regulations. Transponders
come to mind...

It's not the small ones that worry me so much as the Predators and Reapers
whose manufacturers refuse to equip them with sense-and-avoid technology while
demanding that they be permitted to operate within the NAS despite their
inability to comply with CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS Title 14 Chapter I
Subchapter F §91.113 as all other flights must.

Because the drone operators are safely on the ground, their mind-set is
fundamentally different from that of an actual pilot of an airborne vehicle who
has placed his personal well being, not only in his skills, but the cooperation
of fellow pilots in complying with federal regulations.

Drone pilots have little to lose as a result of violating regulations; the
potential consequences are far more grave for airborne pilots. That
inescapable fact is the fundamental issue that is not being addressed, or even
discussed, by the FAA in its attempts to regulate UAS operations.

My personal experience encountering an unresponsive Predator at 8,500', 12
o'clock and five miles while operating on a flight plan en route from KLAS to
KSBA is what galvanized my opinion of drone operations within the NAS. There
was no chase aircraft observing the drone (required), and the operator failed
to answer repeated radio calls from Joshua Approach Control, causing me to
divert my flight path to avoid the unresponsive drone. This nonchalant
attitude of drone operators is the heart of the UAS issue, and the arrogance of
the drone manufacturers is amazing, not to mention the apathy of airline
passengers.

At some point, as you said, they will all get a wake up call, and the true
hazard UAS' pose will be undeniably revealed in the grizzly results.

[george152]

On 25/01/2015 4:04 a.m., Larry Dighera wrote:

> My personal experience encountering an unresponsive Predator at 8,500', 12
> o'clock and five miles while operating on a flight plan en route from KLAS to
> KSBA is what galvanized my opinion of drone operations within the NAS. There
> was no chase aircraft observing the drone (required), and the operator failed
> to answer repeated radio calls from Joshua Approach Control, causing me to
> divert my flight path to avoid the unresponsive drone. This nonchalant
> attitude of drone operators is the heart of the UAS issue, and the arrogance of
> the drone manufacturers is amazing, not to mention the apathy of airline
> passengers.


Is there any chance we can stop calling them pilots?
They appear to be operators

> At some point, as you said, they will all get a wake up call, and the true
> hazard UAS' pose will be undeniably revealed in the grizzly results.
>

Is there any possibility that some form of complaint could be made that,
when the inevitable happens, those 'lawmakers' could be imprisoned and
this new system explained to the sluggards ?

We lost a lot of local ATC here and as a result had a couple of midairs
and a number of close calls.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 08:35:20 +1300, george152 > wrote:

>On 25/01/2015 4:04 a.m., Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> My personal experience encountering an unresponsive Predator at 8,500', 12
>> o'clock and five miles while operating on a flight plan en route from KLAS to
>> KSBA is what galvanized my opinion of drone operations within the NAS. There
>> was no chase aircraft observing the drone (required), and the operator failed
>> to answer repeated radio calls from Joshua Approach Control, causing me to
>> divert my flight path to avoid the unresponsive drone. This nonchalant
>> attitude of drone operators is the heart of the UAS issue, and the arrogance of
>> the drone manufacturers is amazing, not to mention the apathy of airline
>> passengers.
>
>
>Is there any chance we can stop calling them pilots?
>They appear to be operators
>

I hear you. However, FAA is attempting to mandate that UAS operators hold a
valid airmans certificate: See: <https://www.faa.gov/uas/faq/#qn9>.

<https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/notice/n_8900.227.pdf>
"b. Policy.
Policy identifies Unmanned Aircraft (UA) as “aircraft” flown by a “pilot”
regardless of where the pilot is located. Aircraft and pilots must demonstrate
compliance with applicable sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) to operate in the NAS. However, UA are not compliant with
certain sections of 14 CFR. For instance, the absence of an onboard pilot means
that the “see-and-avoid” provisions of 14 CFR part 91, § 91.113, cannot be
satisfied. Without an onboard pilot, there is a significant reliance on the
command and control link, and a greater emphasis on the loss of functionality
associated with lost link.

Furthermore, for air traffic control (ATC) operations requiring visual means of
maintaining in-flight separation [VMC], the lack of an onboard pilot does not
permit ATC to issue all of the standard clearances or instructions available
under the current edition of FAA Order 7110.65, Air Traffic Control.
Consequently, to ensure an equivalent level of safety, UAS flight operations
require an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) or risk control to address
their “see-and-avoid” impediments to safety of flight, and any problems they
may generate for ATC. In the future, permanent and consistent methods of
compliance will be needed for UAS operations in the NAS without the need for
waivers or exemptions."

>
>> At some point, as you said, they will all get a wake up call, and the true
>> hazard UAS' pose will be undeniably revealed in the grizzly results.
>>
>
>Is there any possibility that some form of complaint could be made that,
>when the inevitable happens, those 'lawmakers' could be imprisoned and
>this new system explained to the sluggards ?
>

Ha Ha. What makes you believe they would be able to comprehend it? :-(

>
>We lost a lot of local ATC here and as a result had a couple of midairs
>and a number of close calls.
>

Where's "here?"

[george152]

On 26/01/2015 8:30 a.m., Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 08:35:20 +1300, george152 > wrote:
>
>> On 25/01/2015 4:04 a.m., Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>> My personal experience encountering an unresponsive Predator at 8,500', 12
>>> o'clock and five miles while operating on a flight plan en route from KLAS to
>>> KSBA is what galvanized my opinion of drone operations within the NAS. There
>>> was no chase aircraft observing the drone (required), and the operator failed
>>> to answer repeated radio calls from Joshua Approach Control, causing me to
>>> divert my flight path to avoid the unresponsive drone. This nonchalant
>>> attitude of drone operators is the heart of the UAS issue, and the arrogance of
>>> the drone manufacturers is amazing, not to mention the apathy of airline
>>> passengers.
>>
>>
>> Is there any chance we can stop calling them pilots?
>> They appear to be operators
>>
>
> I hear you. However, FAA is attempting to mandate that UAS operators hold a
> valid airmans certificate: See: <https://www.faa.gov/uas/faq/#qn9>.
>
> <https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/notice/n_8900.227.pdf>
> "b. Policy.
> Policy identifies Unmanned Aircraft (UA) as “aircraft” flown by a “pilot”
> regardless of where the pilot is located. Aircraft and pilots must demonstrate
> compliance with applicable sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
> Regulations (14 CFR) to operate in the NAS. However, UA are not compliant with
> certain sections of 14 CFR. For instance, the absence of an onboard pilot means
> that the “see-and-avoid” provisions of 14 CFR part 91, § 91.113, cannot be
> satisfied. Without an onboard pilot, there is a significant reliance on the
> command and control link, and a greater emphasis on the loss of functionality
> associated with lost link.
>
> Furthermore, for air traffic control (ATC) operations requiring visual means of
> maintaining in-flight separation [VMC], the lack of an onboard pilot does not
> permit ATC to issue all of the standard clearances or instructions available
> under the current edition of FAA Order 7110.65, Air Traffic Control.
> Consequently, to ensure an equivalent level of safety, UAS flight operations
> require an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) or risk control to address
> their “see-and-avoid” impediments to safety of flight, and any problems they
> may generate for ATC. In the future, permanent and consistent methods of
> compliance will be needed for UAS operations in the NAS without the need for
> waivers or exemptions."
>
>>
>>> At some point, as you said, they will all get a wake up call, and the true
>>> hazard UAS' pose will be undeniably revealed in the grizzly results.
>>>
>>
>> Is there any possibility that some form of complaint could be made that,
>> when the inevitable happens, those 'lawmakers' could be imprisoned and
>> this new system explained to the sluggards ?
>>
>
> Ha Ha. What makes you believe they would be able to comprehend it? :-(
>
>>
>> We lost a lot of local ATC here and as a result had a couple of midairs
>> and a number of close calls.
>>
>
> Where's "here?"
>
New Zealand.
In particular Paraparaumu and Fielding two fatals on circuit. I'll have
to look up the accident reports

[george152]

On 26/01/2015 12:59 p.m., george152 wrote:

> New Zealand.
> In particular Paraparaumu and Fielding two fatals on circuit. I'll have
> to look up the accident reports
http://www.taic.org.nz/ReportsandSafetyRecs/AviationReports/tabid/78/ctl/Detail/mid/482/InvNumber/2008-001/language/en-US/Default.aspx?SkinSrc=%5BG%5Dskins%2FtaicAviation%2 Fskin_aviation
and
http://www.taic.org.nz/ReportsandSafetyRecs/AviationReports/tabid/78/ctl/Detail/mid/482/InvNumber/2010-008/Page/0/language/en-US/Default.aspx?SkinSrc=%5BG%5Dskins%2FtaicAviation%2 Fskin_aviation

And of course they know that it was the pilots fault as usual :(

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:15:52 +1300, george152 > wrote:

>On 26/01/2015 12:59 p.m., george152 wrote:
>
>> New Zealand.
>> In particular Paraparaumu and Fielding two fatals on circuit. I'll have
>> to look up the accident reports
>http://www.taic.org.nz/ReportsandSafetyRecs/AviationReports/tabid/78/ctl/Detail/mid/482/InvNumber/2008-001/language/en-US/Default.aspx?SkinSrc=%5BG%5Dskins%2FtaicAviation%2 Fskin_aviation
>and
>http://www.taic.org.nz/ReportsandSafetyRecs/AviationReports/tabid/78/ctl/Detail/mid/482/InvNumber/2010-008/Page/0/language/en-US/Default.aspx?SkinSrc=%5BG%5Dskins%2FtaicAviation%2 Fskin_aviation
>
>And of course they know that it was the pilots fault as usual :(


Tragic indeed. Those accident reports sure do point out the limitations of
see-and-avoid.

And drone manufacturers in the US are insisting that the FAA permit them to
intermingle their products with airline traffic within the National Airspace
System WITHOUT being equipped with sense-and-avoid technology. It boggles the
mind....

[george152]

On 2/02/2015 10:45 a.m., Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Tragic indeed. Those accident reports sure do point out the limitations of
> see-and-avoid.
>
> And drone manufacturers in the US are insisting that the FAA permit them to
> intermingle their products with airline traffic within the National Airspace
> System WITHOUT being equipped with sense-and-avoid technology. It boggles the
> mind....
>
Yup.
When you look at the size of a drone compared to the size of a C150..
Will it be necessary to equip light aircraft with a proximity RADAR system ?
Not so much for airport traffic but ag flying, gliding and general
aviation..