AVSIG: Drone Case Sent Back to ALJ By NTSB wwswsigarch.jpg (7236 bytes)

✈ . . . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . ✈ . ✈ . . ✈ . . . ✈ . . . . ✈ . . . . . ✈ . . . . . . Touch-and-Go to our Live Forum (This is a Read-only Archive of the 2004-2017 AVSIG Forum)


AVSIG Discussion Sections >> FAA Topics

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Re: Drone Case Sent Back to ALJ By NTSB [Re: Ward Miller POU-NY]
      #399715 - 11/20/14 07:46 PM

They've been kicking this can down the road for a long time, and now that the things are flying in large numbers they feel compelled to do something about it. Unfortunately, doing that correctly takes time and they should have started a few years back given the glacial pace at which they move rulemaking actions. So since the dog ate their homework, now they're pounding regulatory square pegs into round holes. All of my opinions here being strictly my opinions, I don't think this "everything is an aircraft" theory was very well thought through. If 91.13 applies, what ELSE in part 91 applies? Do model aircraft need 500 foot clearance from people and structures? Does flying a model in Central Park require 1000 feet AGL and 2000 from buildings? Visibility minima and cloud clearance rules? What else?

Once you say one part 91 rule applies, you've pretty much bought all of them except those that are clearly inapplicable unless there is some other means (like - wait for it...a proper rulemaking process!) to distinguish one from another. Without that, you're just extracting this "here's how we'd like it to be" stuff from your administrative posterior.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Russell Holton
AVSIG Member


Reged: 07/07/05
Posts: 14136
Re: Drone Case Sent Back to ALJ By NTSB [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #399718 - 11/20/14 09:53 PM

Quote:

All of my opinions here being strictly my opinions, I don't think this "everything is an aircraft" theory was very well thought through. If 91.13 applies, what ELSE in part 91 applies?




I hear 'ya. But at the same time it the document seems to make a pretty persuasive case that 91 includes more than just passenger carrying things with wings. They're just ruling on a specific point based on the language without trying to fix the whole thing.

It looks to me like the ruling is just saying 91.13 applies without saying just what other sections applies to "drones". It does suggest that the other sections do apply if they are "reasonable".


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Russell Holton
AVSIG Member


Reged: 07/07/05
Posts: 14136
Re: Drone Case Sent Back to ALJ By NTSB [Re: Russell Holton]
      #399721 - 11/20/14 11:51 PM

The drones available to consumers just keep getting better.

The dji Inspire 1

review and discussion


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Terry Carraway
Top Gun


Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 7098
Loc: Maryland
Re: Drone Case Sent Back to ALJ By NTSB [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #399723 - 11/21/14 03:49 AM

Previously they used the break point of model aircraft were flown for fun, but if there was money involved (incoming, plenty of outgoing with model aircraft) then the model aircraft letter no longer applied.

Caused a big stink among those doing paid aerial photography with RC helicopters.

--------------------
Terry
Mostly 0W3


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ward Miller POU-NY
Top Gun


Reged: 05/05/04
Posts: 10508
Loc: New York
Drone Case Sent Back to ALJ By NTSB [Re: Russell Holton]
      #399725 - 11/21/14 05:51 AM

Russell, 91.13 refers to operation of "an aircraft". It was written long
before there were drones. For some reason when I display the FAA Registry
Definitions, it begins with the C's, so I can't see their definition of
"aircraft". The FAA would probably say something like, "Any thing that
flies." But I would like to see the definition in writing. Can you find it?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Re: Drone Case Sent Back to ALJ By NTSB [Re: Terry Carraway]
      #399726 - 11/21/14 07:34 AM

But advisory circulars are not regulatory, either - so the commercial/non-commercial split was also based on nothing but vapor. And as far as I can tell, still is.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Re: Drone Case Sent Back to ALJ By NTSB [Re: Ward Miller POU-NY]
      #399727 - 11/21/14 07:37 AM

Title 49 U.S.C.§ 40102(a)(6) defines “aircraft” as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.” Similarly, 14 C.F.R. § 1.1 defines “aircraft” for purposes of the FARs, including § 91.13, as “a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.”

Hence the "if it flies, we own it" argument from FAA.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Scott Dunham (RDU)
Top Gun


Reged: 04/29/04
Posts: 6470
Loc: Chapel Hill, NC
Re: Drone Case Sent Back to ALJ By NTSB [Re: Russell Holton]
      #399728 - 11/21/14 07:40 AM

My view is that they indeed did not "fix the whole thing." In fact, the decision simply set up more confusion. 91.13 applies - guessing what else does is left as an exercise for the reader. That's the way cases are decided, of course, but this one turns a kid's Christmas present into a federally regulated aircraft and is in dire need of some limitation.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Russell Holton
AVSIG Member


Reged: 07/07/05
Posts: 14136
Re: Drone Case Sent Back to ALJ By NTSB [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #399738 - 11/21/14 12:42 PM

Quote:

91.13 applies - guessing what else does is left as an exercise for the reader. That's the way cases are decided, of course, but this one turns a kid's Christmas present into a federally regulated aircraft and is in dire need of some limitation.




Agreed. Likewise with the reasons for commercial/non-commercial for RC.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ward Miller POU-NY
Top Gun


Reged: 05/05/04
Posts: 10508
Loc: New York
Drone Case Sent Back to ALJ By NTSB [Re: Scott Dunham (RDU)]
      #399739 - 11/21/14 01:20 PM

Yep, I finally found that, Scott. So that means when I (successfully) landed
a paper glider on Mrs. Fuller's desk in English class without her knowing
where it came from, because of Part 1.1 and 9.13 I operated an "aircraft" in
a "careless and reckless manner" because it scared the crap outta her.

That was in the early 1940s. What's the Statute of Limitations?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)



Extra information
0 registered and 29 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Mike Overly 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 10818

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us AVSIG

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5

Logout   Main Index    AVSIG Aviation Forum