In a unanimous decision, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has ruled that operators of small unmanned aerial systems (UAS) are subject to Federal Aviation Regulations prohibiting the careless and reckless operation of aircraft.
Served on Tuesday, Nov. 18, the decision overturns a ruling earlier this year by Administrative Law Judge Patrick G. Geraghty in a landmark case against the private “drone” operator Raphael Pirker.
Pirker was fined $10,000 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for allegedly operating his Ritewing Zephyr aircraft in “a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another” while conducting commercial filming activities on the University of Virginia campus in 2011.
Pirker appealed the fine, arguing that the provisions of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 91.13(a) — which prohibits the careless and reckless operation of aircraft — do not apply to model aircraft. Law Judge Geraghty agreed, finding that at the time of Pirker’s flight, “there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR regulation applicable to model aircraft.”
With a final FAA rule for small UAS still years away, Geraghty’s ruling appeared to sanction commercial use of remote-controlled aircraft in the U.S. without subjecting them to any regulatory requirements. The FAA swiftly appealed the case to the NTSB, which rejected Geraghty’s logic that aviation regulations categorically do not apply to model aircraft.
“Even if we were to accept the law judge’s characterization of respondent’s aircraft, allegedly used at altitudes up to 1,500 feet AGL for commercial purposes, as a ‘model aircraft,’ the definitions on their face do not exclude even a ‘model aircraft’ from the meaning of ‘aircraft,’” the NTSB ruling states. “Furthermore, the definitions draw no distinction between whether a device is manned or unmanned. An aircraft is ‘any’ ‘device’ that is ‘used for flight.’ We acknowledge the definitions are as broad as they are clear, but they are clear nonetheless.”
With its ruling, the NTSB remanded the case to the law judge for “a full factual hearing” to determine whether Pirker did, in fact, operate his small UAS contrary to the provisions of FAR 91.13(a).
Following the ruling, the FAA stated, “The National Transportation Safety Board affirmed the agency’s position that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) meet the legal definition of ‘aircraft,’ and that the agency may take enforcement action against anyone who operates a UAS or model aircraft in a careless or reckless manner.
The FAA believes Mr. Pirker operated a UAS in a careless or reckless manner, and that the proposed civil penalty should stand. The agency looks forward to a factual determination by the Administrative Law Judge on the ‘careless or reckless’ nature of the operation in question.”
Meanwhile, Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International president and CEO Michael Toscano reiterated the need for clear regulations for UAS. “Safety is paramount in the integration of UAS into the National Airspace System,” he stated. “The ruling today underscores the need for the FAA to immediately move forward with its small UAS rulemaking and to finalize the rules as quickly as possible. Until the rule is finalized, U.S. businesses will be unable to realize the benefits of this technology.”
