NTSB: UAS And Model Aircraft Are Aircraft

[Henning]

So if model aircraft and UAV's are aircraft, do operators need to be certified under 61 or 141?

No pilot may operate/act as PIC...

That is what I foresee coming out of this. I see it simplest to either put them under PT 103 and have an annex for remotely piloted, or more likely the will form a new part and leave certification and training to be policed by the industry as with Pt 103. The easiest method of compliance I see is a pamphlet and DVD shipped with the product also available on YouTube that covers the operating rules and safe procedures. That will fulfill the manufacturer liability requirements and make the educational material ubiquitous. That will provide ample opportunity for the new operators to inform themselves of their restrictions and liabilities and educate them in how to operate it safely. It's not like there is a bunch involved. Now in the future hopefully we will prevent such further behavior, and when it appears we will have a clear process of jurisdiction and resolution.

 

[Silvaire]

...The FAA has not been "reaching" the FAA is being shuffled around in a pawn while trying to fulfill its previously assigned roll, to keep things in the air operating safely...

I agree. As I pointed out in another thread, nobody is eager to gain over reaching authority on this issue. It's being tossed around like a hot potato that nobody wants (or knows how) to take charge of. The NPS is one agency that stepped up and simply said look, you can't operate these things within National Park boundaries - period.

 

[Silvaire]

... The easiest method of compliance I see is a pamphlet and DVD shipped with the product also available on YouTube that covers the operating rules and safe procedures. That will fulfill the manufacturer liability requirements and make the educational material ubiquitous. That will provide ample opportunity for the new operators to inform themselves of their restrictions and liabilities and educate them in how to operate it safely. It's not like there is a bunch involved. Now in the future hopefully we will prevent such further behavior, and when it appears we will have a clear process of jurisdiction and resolution.

Actually, due to the nature of this emerging technology it is quite feasible for the industry to be self regulating by programming these devices to not operate in any restricted realm. That is, won't exceed 400 feet in altitude and won't operate within any restricted area such as a National Park or controlled airspace. There of course would have to be product laws to force it but it could easily be done. Yes, there would be hackers but they'd be breaking the law as always.

 

[Henning]

I agree. As I pointed out in another thread, nobody is eager to gain over reaching authority on this issue. It's being tossed around like a hot potato that nobody wants (or knows how) to take charge of. The NPS is one agency that stepped up and simply said look, you can't operate these things within National Park boundaries - period.

Yep, now that it has landed squarely in their lap, they can do what I said above and fulfill their obligations to public safety at minimum cost to the tax payer and minimum intrusion into people's lives or the progress of the industry, while simultaneously clarifying to the people what they are responsible for in operating safety and who they will have to answer to if they do not act accordingly. At the same time, the FAA can develop and define the "due process" required by law that people have the right to know beforehand.

This is just another glitch in adapting to a changing reality.

 

[Henning]

Actually, due to the nature of this emerging technology it is quite feasible for the industry to be self regulating by programming these devices to not operate in any restricted realm. That is, won't exceed 400 feet in altitude and won't operate within any restricted area such as a National Park or controlled airspace. There of course would have to be product laws to force it but it could easily be done. Yes, there would be hackers but they'd be breaking the law as always.

Yes, but that would add a lot of cost and burden, that isn't warranted yet. Lets try educating the operators in good procedure first, it is the simplest and least costly/intrusive thing to do. Always give people the choice to do the right thing first. Besides, designing them against other careless and reckless parameters is a lot more technologically complex than current machines are. That would require multiple types of sensor arrays. That is stuff going on in universities still and if required would stifle the market for at least a decade.

 

[Henning]

With the education material comes a card from the FAA that states the holder has reviewed and understands the operating restrictions that they sign and have when they operate the unit, basically a self certifying UAV/RC Airman's Certificate. This is to show proof of education and takes you on your honor, but is admissible in court as evidence in the fact that yes, indeed, you did know better, not that ignorance of the law is an excuse.

 

[Silvaire]

...That would require multiple types of sensor arrays...

Nope, just a periodically updated GPS based database. It's already being done, the capability is already there, just an app away.

 

[Henning]

Nope, just a periodically updated GPS based database. It's already being done, the capability is already there, just an app away.

What about moving people, cars, stuff on the ground? How do you preprogram that?

 

[Jim Logajan]

You misunderstand the issue, this about assigning the regulatory authority for a new and popular way for stupid people to hurt other people, an activity which we have tasked the government with controlling in general. So, the question becomes, "Who is assigned that responsibility?" Obviously someone called in the FAA, because I seriously doubt that it was someone from the FAA that took the initiative policing this guy. The originating authority couldn't see where they had jurisdiction since everything flying and related to flying is under the jurisdiction of the FAA, so they took it and applied the rules they saw fit, which appropriately enough was Careless and Reckless operation considering his altitude/airspace incursion and erratic operation within a proximity of people is such a way to threaten their safety. Since this is a recently developed phenomenon and law is reactive to action, there was no relevant finding in law that supported the craft being an "aircraft". The judge kicked it back to the governing authority, in this case the NTSB court, to get a ruling in law that establishes or denies the FAA's jurisdiction which they settled in a finding that the FAA does indeed have jurisdiction. Now the matter is back in the judges hands with that matter of law clarified.

The FAA has not been "reaching" the FAA is being shuffled around in a pawn while trying to fulfill its previously assigned roll, to keep things in the air operating safely. Every action by a government agency is not a power or money grab, sometimes they are just doing their job like they're supposed to.

It is clear that you haven't bothered to concern yourself with the actual claims:

"His FAA legal troubles began when he was on the job for the public relations firm Lewis Communications in 2011. His assignment: Capture images over the University of Virginia. The resulting video takes viewers on a wild ride, and the FAA’s citation says that it amounts to a series of violations — flying too low over vehicles, buildings, people, streets and structures, and even aiming the craft at a person.

That was his spotter, Pirker says."
http://www.wired.com/2013/10/drones-at-a-crossroads/

So the "threatened" person was his spotter, who would not have called anyone - likely some clueless bystander made that claim. He was flying his drone on behalf of a company working on behalf of the property owner. The FAA HAS been claiming jurisdiction over the airspace in people's living rooms - go read their claims.

Laws of treapass and all the usual laws of liability would have covered any civil or criminal activity just fine without the FAA's intervention.

 

[Henning]

Also we don't really want to restrict the technology in performance. This is just the beginning in the future of public aviation, and it will expand in scope and scale. This is just the start of squaring situation away for the development of what Amazon intended to put on line until the FAA said "Whoa, you can't do that, we're not ready for that yet." This is the first step in 'getting ready', this is the way our system works. It's imperfect and inefficient, but it's what we have and it's underfunded.

 

[Silvaire]

What about moving people, cars, stuff on the ground? How do you preprogram that?

I'm speaking only about the airspace issues. Reckless endangerment of people you can accomplish by throwing a baseball.

 

[Henning]

I'm speaking only about the airspace issues. Reckless endangerment of people you can accomplish by throwing a baseball.

Yes, but those aren't flying objects, they are ballistic projectiles so they don't apply here, but apply to municipal ordinances where the local police has jurisdiction and if you hit someone by throwing it you can be charged with assault by them.

What we are establishing is the jurisdiction and punishment when you are about to do it with a UAV/RC.

 

[Silvaire]

Yes, but those aren't flying objects, they are ballistic projectiles so they don't apply here, but apply to municipal ordinances where the local police has jurisdiction and if you hit someone by throwing it you can be charged with assault by them.

What we are establishing is the jurisdiction and punishment when you are about to do it with a UAV/RC.

I think it would be the same thing, you certainly could assault someone with one of these things but regardless, if the gps database can cover the airspace violations but not the personal assault violations that doesn't mean that it should be tossed out the window. It may not solve the whole problem but it certainly solves a big part of it.

 

[Henning]

I think it would be the same thing, you certainly could assault someone with one of these things but regardless, if the gps database can cover the airspace violations but not the personal assault violations that doesn't mean that it should be tossed out the window. It may not solve the whole problem but it certainly solves a big part of it.

You could, it's a second tier issue anyway, and you could just wait to see if education alone doesn't solve the problem.

 

[ClimbnSink]

A touch ironic scheming up ways to control other people's toys...

 

[Silvaire]

A touch ironic scheming up ways to control other people's toys...

Personally I'm not "scheming" up anything and don't even have a dog in this hunt. I'm just speculating as to what's gonna happen. If someone's Quadcopter were to bother or pester me or cause personal injury or property damage I'd certainly be concerned but as of now no, I don't much care about it.

I mean we're just having a discussion here, we're not lawmakers and I don't see any of us even writing letters. But it is a hot topic right now and I've watched it as it has developed - rapidly.

 

[jnmeade]

So if model aircraft and UAV's are aircraft, do operators need to be certified under 61 or 141?

No pilot may operate/act as PIC...

I've heard a number of UAS industry proponents at the field level saying "drones" will be just like CB radios in the 70s, that enough people will get them and operate them as they wish that the FAA will roll over and issue some kind of blanket license or authority.

The argument is interesting, but my reaction is that it's not likely to find a CB radio that can bring down an airliner if it gets in the engine, and that makes it different.

We'll see.

 

[Henning]

I've heard a number of UAS industry proponents at the field level saying "drones" will be just like CB radios in the 70s, that enough people will get them and operate them as they wish that the FAA will roll over and issue some kind of blanket license or authority.

The argument is interesting, but my reaction is that it's not likely to find a CB radio that can bring down an airliner if it gets in the engine, and that makes it different.

We'll see.

I believe that will be correct to a weight limit. The larger and more capable they get there will likely end up some added requirements.