Dave Allen
Member
Around June 27, 2014 the Pittsburgh Pirates put out this statement:
“During last night’s game, a man standing on the River Walk flew his small, personal drone over the ballpark. Our security staff quickly identified the operator and alerted onsite Pittsburgh Police officers. The officers immediately addressed the issue by ordering the man to stop the use of the drone. The man was informed of the seriousness of the situation and warned that if he returned he would face further police action.”
The FAA responded to this particular activity with this claim:
"If a UAS flight is not for hobby or recreation purposes, the operator needs FAA authorization. The FAA authorizes commercial operations on a case-by-case basis. A commercial flight requires a certified aircraft, a licensed pilot and operating approval. To date, two operation have met these criteria and authorization was limited to the Arctic. Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons does not require FAA approval, but hobbyists must operate according to the agency’s model aircraft guidance and the rules in the 2012 FAA Reauthorization law.
In a Federal Register notice Monday, we gave examples of what type of flights would be considered as hobby or recreation, and which would not. Using a UAS as part of a business, e.g., photography, would not qualify as being for hobby or recreation. To date, we have not authorized any commercial photography UAS operations.”
Apparently the FAA is still refusing to abide by a binding Federal Court Judges ruling as FAA claims their appeal stays the Pirker ruling.
Here is the motion to block the stay
Now some here have tried to mirror false claims made by the FAA that multirotors are "aircraft", and I have responded that a kids paper airplanes then must also be an aircraft.
While my response was met with some derision, the Federal Judge said exactly the same thing:
“Complainant has, historically, in their policy notices, modified the term "aircraft" by prefixing the word "model", to distinguish the device/contrivance being considered. By affixing the word, "model" to "aircraft" the reasonable inference is that Complainant FAA intended, to distinguish and exclude model aircraft from either or both of the aforesaid definitions of "aircraft".
To accept Complainant's interpretive argument would lead to a conclusion that those definitions include as an aircraft all types of devices/contrivances intended, for, or used for, flight in the air. The extension of that conclusion would then result, in the risible argument that a flight in the air of, i.e.., a paper aircraft, or a toy balsa wood glider/ could subject the "operator" to the regulatory provisions of FAA. Part 91, Section. 91.13(a).”
Here is the actual court Pirker Ruling
If you wish to follow the Texas Equaasearch motion to stay the FAA appeal stay herein referenced, it can be done so here
“During last night’s game, a man standing on the River Walk flew his small, personal drone over the ballpark. Our security staff quickly identified the operator and alerted onsite Pittsburgh Police officers. The officers immediately addressed the issue by ordering the man to stop the use of the drone. The man was informed of the seriousness of the situation and warned that if he returned he would face further police action.”
The FAA responded to this particular activity with this claim:
"If a UAS flight is not for hobby or recreation purposes, the operator needs FAA authorization. The FAA authorizes commercial operations on a case-by-case basis. A commercial flight requires a certified aircraft, a licensed pilot and operating approval. To date, two operation have met these criteria and authorization was limited to the Arctic. Flying model aircraft solely for hobby or recreational reasons does not require FAA approval, but hobbyists must operate according to the agency’s model aircraft guidance and the rules in the 2012 FAA Reauthorization law.
In a Federal Register notice Monday, we gave examples of what type of flights would be considered as hobby or recreation, and which would not. Using a UAS as part of a business, e.g., photography, would not qualify as being for hobby or recreation. To date, we have not authorized any commercial photography UAS operations.”
Apparently the FAA is still refusing to abide by a binding Federal Court Judges ruling as FAA claims their appeal stays the Pirker ruling.
Here is the motion to block the stay
Now some here have tried to mirror false claims made by the FAA that multirotors are "aircraft", and I have responded that a kids paper airplanes then must also be an aircraft.
While my response was met with some derision, the Federal Judge said exactly the same thing:
“Complainant has, historically, in their policy notices, modified the term "aircraft" by prefixing the word "model", to distinguish the device/contrivance being considered. By affixing the word, "model" to "aircraft" the reasonable inference is that Complainant FAA intended, to distinguish and exclude model aircraft from either or both of the aforesaid definitions of "aircraft".
To accept Complainant's interpretive argument would lead to a conclusion that those definitions include as an aircraft all types of devices/contrivances intended, for, or used for, flight in the air. The extension of that conclusion would then result, in the risible argument that a flight in the air of, i.e.., a paper aircraft, or a toy balsa wood glider/ could subject the "operator" to the regulatory provisions of FAA. Part 91, Section. 91.13(a).”
Here is the actual court Pirker Ruling
If you wish to follow the Texas Equaasearch motion to stay the FAA appeal stay herein referenced, it can be done so here
Last edited:
