Section 333

[Josh Curtiss]

Was your "let's tell the whole story" post supposed to be countering or negating Steve's post? From what I can tell from everything I've read, the FAA wanted their pound of flesh from the guy. They were legally impotent to exact it from the law. So they wrangled a few ounces of flesh just because he wanted the legal crap off his back. Although this was a sacrifice on his part, it was still a legal failure on the FAA's part, don't you think?

Put it this way: do you think the FAA came out ahead or in the hole, financially, from that case?

Do your think they'll pursue such a case again until the can change the rules and thus change the game?

The more I read, I'm seeing a toothless tiger here. Don't you think?

 

[SteveMann]

Not confusing at all. Follow the rules and avoid trouble.

Which rules?

Pirker was charged with the FAA's Trump Card - 91.13 Careless and Reckless. the FAA charges every pilot with at least two charges, the first being the actual violation they don't like and the second is 91.13. Everyone charged gets 91.13 added. An amazing number of pilots, mechanics and others charged with violating a rule plead down to *just* the 91.13 charge. The FAA rarely has to go before an NTSB ALJ. The pilots pay a fine and keep flying after a short suspension. . If they are also convicted of other rules, then professional pilots risk their job.

Pirker settled without any admission of guilt for a fine of $1100. The FAA dropped the case.

The NTSB's conclusion:

C. Conclusion
This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” for
purposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We must
look no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14
C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includes
any aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and reckless
operation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than those
subject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing to
determine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as to
endanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a).
​

The NTSB full board said that model aircraft are aircraft for the purposes of enforcing 14 C.F.R. §91.13. ONLY. No other rule was mentioned. They did not say that your Phantom has to follow every rule that a 747 pilot does. Just that you can be charged with a 91.13, or a TFR violation if you happen to be stupid enough to fly over a wildfire with a pop-up TFR active or over the White House.

Here is an interview with Pirker's lawyer before the FAA appealed the first NTSB judge's decision. (Pirker is now an employee of DJI)

 

[Deleted member 29014]

I don't work for the FAA, nor am an adoring government fan. But I do think postings on specific cases should not mislead but provide all the relevant facts. Pirker did have to pay at the end. There are kids and other youngins reading this forum and they should understand the consequences of taking on the govmn't, the feds never lose, they have unlimited resources (our money!).

You are funny, Steve:

"Which rules? (then go one to quote the rule he violated, YEAH, that rule)

Pirker was charged with the FAA's Trump Card - 91.13 Careless and Reckless..."
Taking on the feds just for spite is not very wise; but as long as one has the time and the $$$ and wishes to be a "rebel without a cause " then I say enjoy the ride and go with God. Me, I'd rather wait for my 333 and bid my time.

 

[SteveMann]

And the part 107 rules will develop a ground school and practical with a UAV in order to receive a "UAV Certificate" right?

No Practical test since the configurations are all over the place. just a written test. It at least proves you read the rules and guidelines.

 

[SteveMann]

You are funny, Steve:

"Which rules? (then go one to quote the rule he violated, YEAH, that rule)

You said "follow the rules" as if there was a clear set of rules. to which I asked, "which rules".
91.13 is clearly not clear. It's subjective to the extreme. Was Pirker's buddy who was trying to hand catch the styrofoam aircraft life in danger? The FAA thought so.

Pirker paid an administrative fine with NO ADMISSION OF GUILT.

 

[JKDSensei]

Not confusing at all. Follow the rules and avoid trouble.

Strongly disagree.
Following the rules does not always keep you out of trouble.

 

[Deleted member 29014]

plus a little common sense...which is not very common.

 

[JKDSensei]

There are times when you can do everything right and by the books, and using common sense and still get into worlds of trouble. Once got in a world of trouble in a small rural town because apparently, the locals were using the local sheriff's office as a great revenue source. Never broke a single rule or law...just passing through quietly and totally legally...but boy did I pay the price. Wrong place / wrong time. Real life JD Hogg / Rosco P. Coltrain situation. It happens. Life.

 

[Deleted member 29014]

"Never broke a single rule or law" if you say so...

 

[JKDSensei]

"Never broke a single rule or law" if you say so...

I do. I was there. And whether you do or not is up to you.

You must be very young to believe life is always "fair"

 

[snerd]

Lol! 'Ole Luis........... everyone is guilty until proven innocent!

 

[JKDSensei]

Lol! 'Ole Luis........... everyone is guilty until proven innocent!

+1
lol

I've also had some unbelievably good luck too. It all balances out.

 

[Deleted member 29014]

I do. I was there. And whether you do or not is up to you.

You must be very young to believe life is always "fair"

or very old...62.

 

[snerd]

Whatever.......................... it's nice to see other old farts on here!!

 

[JKDSensei]

or very old...62.

Then you should know better than to say something like that.

We better get back on topic or else the forum Police will get us soon....

 

[TAZ]

...the FAA charges every pilot with at least two charges, the first being the actual violation they don't like and the second is 91.13. Everyone charged gets 91.13 added.

Many believe different things, but the fact is, you are incorrect. Pirker was never issued an Order of Assessment charging a violation in regards to commercial use. It was solely for violating 91.13. If you'd like to see the actual Order of Assessment, you can find it here: http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/Documents/Pirker-CP-217.pdf (page 10-12). This is not what he "pled down to" it is precisely what he was initially, and finally fined for (subsequently the fine was reduced). To state the FAA charges every pilot with at least two charges is not true generally, and certainly not true in the Pirker case. There was not a charge in regards to the commerciality, only 91.13 (unsafe use).

So stating above, "Raphael Pirker was the first and only drone operator that the FAA charged with flying for commercial purposes without a commercial pilot certificate.", is misinformed. To date, no pilot has been charged with flying a UAS for commercial purposes without a license, including Pirker.

You go on to quote the decision of the NTSB. And state:

"The NTSB full board said that model aircraft are aircraft for the purposes of enforcing 14 C.F.R. §91.13. ONLY. No other rule was mentioned. They did not say that your Phantom has to follow every rule that a 747 pilot does.",

As if to imply had this board felt model aircraft been subject to other rules...they would have, or should have mentioned them....or the absence of such an opinion is telling in some manner. You fail to note on the decision you quote, this was an appeals board of which there was only one question....did the ALJ err in granting a dismissal, concluding a "model aircraft" was not subject to 91.13. There were no other questions before this appeals board, so of course there was no mention of the applicability to other rules. It would have in fact been unexpected, and inappropriate for them to rule any more broadly. And to be perfectly clear, this board was the Appeals Board in regards to the ALJ dismissal of Pirkers charges. Their sole task was to rule on if the ALJ had erred in his dismissal.

I think you're misinformed as to specifics of how the FAA works, in general possibly, but certainly in regards to Pirkers case...but heck, I'm sure I am too on more aspects than not.

 

[JKDSensei]

That's an impressive rebuttal taz.

 

[SteveMann]

Many believe different things, but the fact is, you are incorrect. Pirker was never issued an Order of Assessment charging a violation in regards to commercial use. It was solely for violating 91.13.

You are correct and I bow to you, sir.

My following of the Pirker case was clouded with the reporting that it was his commercial use that attracted the attention of the FAA. Pirker's Team Black Sheep business was on the FAA's radar for quite a while before the University of Virginia flight and they (wrongly) thought that this would stop him.