NTSB Rules Against Pirker

eckoner said:
I guess it comes down to opinion. I have not watched the video but i will either agree or disagree and thats the funny thing.
So i say its dangerous and others think its not...Who is right?

Thats what gets ironed out with regulation and a framed discussion.

True enough, however, the only opinion that matters is that of the FAA and the ALJ.
 
SilentAV8R said:
SteveMann said:
eckoner said:
The regulation was not passed solely because of Pirker, He could have been Smith, Jones, or Bush
The regulation was going to happen regardless as it should
FAR 91.13 has been on the books since the 1950's. The danger here, that few seem to grasp, is the determination that our vehicles are aircraft and subject to the same rules as a Cessna or a Boeing 747.

Although at this point the NTSB Board seemed to restrict it to the application of 91.13. However, the FAA itself has made clear that they may, at their discretion, apply other FARs to us. This is their way of trying to get around the prohibition in Section 336 of promulgating "new" regulations affecting model aircraft.

It is this patchwork approach that has many concerned. What FARs will they apply to us? Under what circumstances? Is that end run even legal (AMA and others are suing right now to test that.)

I think that the FAA Interpretation published in June gives some disturbing insight into how they plan to "not regulate" model aircraft.

The system is working
The issues have started the discussion
Regulators are terrified to rule one way or the other due to ignorance of the issues at hand and not wanting to isolate its $$$
Lobbyist's have now entered this game and its gets interesting now
The lobbyist will open the checkbooks if regulation is written the way those who pay the lobbyist want

Who benefits from paying a lobbyist to lobby officials?

DJI, 3DR, Parrot, just to name a few.
 
eckoner said:
Who benefits from paying a lobbyist to lobby officials?

DJI, 3DR, Parrot, just to name a few.

So far I have not seen much of an effort on that front from those companies. I have seen an extensive effort from Lockheed, Boeing, General Atomics, Aerovironment, etc.
Consider this as well, these are the current participants on the sUAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee:

http://www.suasnews.com/2011/11/10245/uas-arc-2-0/

I do not see DJI, 3DR, etc. on that important committee. Plain and simple, we do not even have a seat at the table, especially when it comes to commercial uses. It will be very interesting to see the sUAS NPRM when it comes out. That will be the FAA's opening salvo when it comes to commercial use. From what I have heard from those close to this issue as far as the FAA feels, the model aircraft part is settled. So far, nearly 2 months after the close of the comment period, we have not heard a peep regarding their interpretation. But we have seen that they have informed their field personnel to use it when required for incidents involving model aircraft.
 
Well, this is disappointing. The NTSB clearly caved into FAA pressure.

The real question is what does this mean? If anything? Does this give the FAA anything beyond a renewed sense of machismo? Are all drone flights now vulnerable to such a fine? Or is it still only commercial use? What constitutes reckless? Not having a transponder, N numbers and medical cert? What isn't an aircraft?

The worst part of this is the confusion. No one knows what is what.

Finally, for those of you that think this is all because Pirker was reckless and he ruined it for the rest of us, you need pull your head out of the clouds. It has nothing to do with Pirker. He's a fall guy. The primary reason the FAA pursued him was because he was paid. And he did it before most anyone else did.

And it was a piece of flying styrofoam. If you think that was unsafe, maybe you shouldn't leave your house without wearing a helmet. You could get hit in the head by a bird having a heart attack. Or someone might beam you with a nerf bat.
 
SteveMann said:
GoodnNuff said:
You can see the pedestrian throw his arms up in a defensive move when the plane buzzes him, right before it appears to go into the trees.
That was a friend of Pirker trying to catch the plane.


At that speed? You serious?

They are idiots.
 
Before everyone goes into a total panic ...

Read the decision of the NTSB. Recognized that it applies to an act which occurred on October 17, 2011. Notice that all the law applied by the NTSB was law in effect at that time.

Now recall that shortly thereafter, Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Recognize that, under §336 of that Act, the FAA "may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft" as long as the device fits that definition and is operated under certain limitations, unless the operation "endanger(s) the safety of the national airspace system," which will require a significant act of endangering.

Do some of us operate outside the limitation of §336? Sure. But as long as we are within those limitations and don't do anything to significantly endanger "the national aircraft system," the FAA cannot promulgate rules to the contrary. Remember that they are a federal administrative agency, subject to the limitations placed on them by Congress, whether they like it or not.

Notice that the NTSB cleverly avoided any mention of subsequent legislation in 2012. While this decision is not favorable to us, it is not as scary as they want it to be.
 
GoodnNuff said:
SteveMann said:
GoodnNuff said:
You can see the pedestrian throw his arms up in a defensive move when the plane buzzes him, right before it appears to go into the trees.
That was a friend of Pirker trying to catch the plane.


At that speed? You serious?

They are idiots.


It looked to me like the plane was flown into the bush on purpose, with the friend there to add a little hysterics and try to create an out of control scene. It definitely looks like the friend is doing a bit of acting, rather than actually trying to catch the thing.
 
Werz said:
Do some of us operate outside the limitation of §336? Sure.

Most on here I would venture to guess are not members of the AMA, which is the closest thing to a CBO we have right now. So right off the bat most people who think they are following Sec. 336 are missing one of its key components.

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
 
SilentAV8R said:
Werz said:
Do some of us operate outside the limitation of §336? Sure.

Most on here I would venture to guess are not members of the AMA, which is the closest thing to a CBO we have right now. So right off the bat most people who think they are following Sec. 336 are missing one of its key components.

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

This forum is nationwide community-based organization. We could set guidelines here and have the same effect.
 
And it was a piece of flying styrofoam. If you think that was unsafe, maybe you shouldn't leave your house without wearing a helmet. You could get hit in the head by a bird having a heart attack. Or someone might beam you with a nerf bat.

Next time you see your physician ask him/her what sort of trauma a 5lb block of dense foam traveling at 40 mph is capable of if it impacts with your face. Or the back of your head. Or a child's spine. Or if you have a buddy who is an engineer ask him the same question, considering the inertia and momentum at play when that block of dense foam impacts a stationary object.

I'm not fear mongering by any means. I've spent 30 years working in trauma centers, I'm pretty familiar with the damage a seemingly innocuous object propelled at high speed can do when it impacts the human body.

Do I think drone hits are going to be a common hazard? No. Pretty rare in fact. But to deny that they will happen or to hold the belief that 4 or 5 lbs of foam moving at 40 mph is akin to a game of dodge ball is just naive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Synnic
ianwood said:
This forum is nationwide community-based organization. We could set guidelines here and have the same effect.

Wishful thinking at best.THis is from the conference committee report on Section 336:

In this section the term "nationwide community-based organization'' is intended to mean a membership based association that represents the aeromodeling community within the United States; provides its members a comprehensive set of safety guidelines that underscores safe aeromodeling operations within the National Airspace System and the protection and safety of the general public on the ground; develops and maintains mutually supportive programming with educational institutions, government entities and other aviation associations; and acts as a liaison with government agencies as an advocate for its members.

Emphasis is mine.
 
Well, there's a bright side to the ruling...perhaps. *tongue-in-cheek*

If the redneck down the street shoots your Phantom out of the sky, they will be in prison for a long, long time.
Big difference between just destroying someone's property...and firing a weapon at an aircraft.
 
SilentAV8R said:
Werz said:
Do some of us operate outside the limitation of §336? Sure.

Most on here I would venture to guess are not members of the AMA, which is the closest thing to a CBO we have right now. So right off the bat most people who think they are following Sec. 336 are missing one of its key components.

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
The provision cited does not require membership; it just requires operation within those standards. I was going to pay for a membership a few months ago, and I forgot to do so. However, as long as you comply with the AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code, you have fulfilled the requirements, and I'm pretty sure Congress had the AMA in mind when they wrote that provision.

Note: Thanks for the reminder. I just paid for a year's membership with the Academy of Model Aeronautics.
 
Werz said:
SilentAV8R said:
Werz said:
Do some of us operate outside the limitation of §336? Sure.

Most on here I would venture to guess are not members of the AMA, which is the closest thing to a CBO we have right now. So right off the bat most people who think they are following Sec. 336 are missing one of its key components.

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;
The provision cited does not require membership; it just requires operation within those standards. I was going to pay for a membership a few months ago, and I forgot to do so. However, as long as you comply with the AMA National Model Aircraft Safety Code, you have fulfilled the requirements, and I'm pretty sure Congress had the AMA in mind when they wrote that provision.

Note: Thanks for the reminder. I just paid for a year's membership with the Academy of Model Aeronautics.

There is some degree of debate on that point. The term "within the programming" and the mention of a membership organization strongly infer that one must be a member of that organization in order to meet that requirement.
 
Fly the AMA's guidelines and your good.
  • Call airports within range
    No FPV without a buddy box
    No loss of LOS
    Avoid flying DIRECTLY over crowds
    No flights more than 400 ft agl
And remember, if you do get busted, it very likely could have been a "fly away", which is out of your control and not reckless. Read these boards and that's a believable story. It sounds like a crap-load of them smash into something, or go out of control or simply fly away and crash somewhere, at least a few times a week.

Safe sane FPV needs a really compelling argument to avoid becoming history.. Hope someone thinks of one quick.

The 3 miles out, blind, on a hacked ground station mission needs a really, really good argument.

They can and will crucify you for flying over 400ft and endangering the National Airspace System, no argument will save you there. You may want to edit a few video posts, Gents. God forbid you are a licensed pilot (certificate holder), that guarantees stiffer penalties because the FAA says they should know better.

Doing commercial work? Better not. Commercial work is going to be an expensive proposition, as it clearly states you will no longer be considered an amateur operator with a model craft. Done. They will iron out something, but it is going to be expensive and a long process to get certified, with even greater restrictions.

My wife will make me miserable if Iget a $10,000 fine. Then again, so will the fine. I just joined the AMA. I was going to make up my own national organization ( http://www.ssupo.org/images/SSUPO%20Flyer.jpg ), but I'm much too busy flying. I'm gonna try really hard to mostly fly all of AMA rules, but I could break a few by accident a little.

Good luck, everyone.
 
ianwood said:
Well, this is disappointing. The NTSB clearly caved into FAA pressure.
Not exactly, the FAA almost ALWAYS includes 91.13 in the laundry list of charges against a pilot. It's their ace. If a pilot charged with other violations of FARs, 91.13 is their bargaining chip. "Agree with the 91.13 charge and we will drop the runway incursion...". This provides them with a 99% "conviction" rate. When a pilot appeals to the NTSB, it almost always goes for the FAA. In the rare case where the FAA loses, they can appeal and the full NTSB almost always sides with the FAA.
It's a stacked deck and it keeps aviation lawyers busy.

Look, even if you think flying a drone over the only other person in 20 miles is reckless, fine. But your paranoia is from the wrong reason. FAR 91.13 was made for people who buzz a crowd at a stadium in a Cessna. It is for the pilot who passes airports with fuel services only to run out of gas later. It is for the pilot who intentionally overloads his airplane and crashes on takeoff. It's for the pilot on cold medicine and just had one drink with dinner. These are examples of pilots who are careless and reckless and present a genuine threat to life. When a 2,000 pound airplane makes an unscheduled landing with a sudden stop - people on the ground could be injured or killed. (It happens to be rare even in General Aviation crashes). When a 4-pound styrofoam model crashes, even directly into a non-participant, there are going to be bruises, maybe even some non life-threatening lacerations. That does not raise to the level of threatening someone's life. The FAA would not even call it an accident. The NTSB defines an “aircraft accident” to mean
“an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.” The first portion of this definition is especially important to note for maintenance and ramp personnel. The initial threshold for classification as an aircraft accident is that the aircraft is being operated “with the intention of flight.”
A bruise or other boo-boo would not rise to the level of an "Accident". You have to do a lot of damage before it becomes an accident.

Sure, there may be cases when a drone or sUAV flight is truly endangering people and 91.13 could apply, but it should be the exception. Not as some posters here seem to think, anytime there any people anywhere near the drone flight.
 
SteveMann said:
Not exactly, the FAA almost ALWAYS includes 91.13 in the laundry list of charges against a pilot. It's their ace. If a pilot charged with other violations of FARs, 91.13 is their bargaining chip.
“an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.” The first portion of this definition is especially important to note for maintenance and ramp personnel. The initial threshold for classification as an aircraft accident is that the aircraft is being operated “with the intention of flight.”
Interesting perspective.
 
SteveMann said:
Sure, there may be cases when a drone or sUAV flight is truly endangering people and 91.13 could apply, but it should be the exception. Not as some posters here seem to think, anytime there any people anywhere near the drone flight.

Bust 400 feet. Go ahead. And post it. Send a link to the FAA. Bet you end up screwed. Same thing with FPV out of LOS.
Buzz a crowd when you could have covered from 50 feet away.
Do commercial work.

It's not just endangering. It's a lot more the FAA is looking to curtail.
 
DrJoe said:
Bust 400 feet. Go ahead. And post it. Send a link to the FAA. Bet you end up screwed. Same thing with FPV out of LOS.
Buzz a crowd when you could have covered from 50 feet away.
Do commercial work.

It's not just endangering. It's a lot more.

Drone shots are all over TV and professional productions. Mythbusters guys openly disclosed they're using multi-rotors in their shoots during the Inspire 1 announcement. 1,000s more videos online of FPV flights. And plenty of examples of buzzing crowds, blowing through 400ft and other generally bad practices. It would seem the FAA is making examples out of certain people, mostly egregious examples of really bad decision making. They're certainly not chasing the majority of what they would consider infractions.
 
DrJoe said:
Doing commercial work? Better not. Commercial work is going to be an expensive proposition, as it clearly states you will no longer be considered an amateur operator with a model craft. Done. They will iron out something, but it is going to be expensive and a long process to get certified, with even greater restrictions.
Or perhaps they could follow the lead of enlightened and civilised nations like Canada and Australia that are working toward letting pilots of sub-2kg machines work without licensing. Yeah .. I know that's a long shot.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31