![]() ![]() Pirker operated the aircraft within about 50 feet of numerous individuals, about 20 feet of a crowded street, and within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport at UVA, the FAA alleged. The FAA investigated, and the following April it proposed a $10,000 civil penalty, saying that Pirker operated the plane “in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.” The flight that got Pirker in trouble occurred October 17, 2011, when he remotely piloted a $130 RiteWing Zephyr II aircraft at the campus medical center. airspace needs some level of FAA approval.” “Anyone who wants to fly an aircraft-manned or unmanned-in U.S. “There are no shades of gray in FAA regulations,” the FAA continued. To date, only one operation has met these criteria, using Insitu’s ScanEagle, and authorization was limited to the Arctic,” the FAA’s Busting Myths release said. “A commercial flight requires a certified aircraft, a licensed pilot and operating approval. ![]() In a press release headlined “Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft,” it stressed that UAS enthusiasts could not use drones for commercial purposes. It would appear to me to have a very significant impact on other operators,” Schulman said.īut the decision confounded the FAA, which as recently as last week had publicized its restrictions on commercial use of drones. “As a general matter, the decision finds that the FAA’s 2007 policy statement banning the commercial use of model aircraft is not enforceable. Pirker’s attorney, Brendan Schulman, called it “a tremendously significant decision for model aircraft and commercial drone operators.” Geraghty said FAA regulations approved for manned aircraft did not apply to unmanned aircraft any more than they applied to paper airplanes or balsa wood planes. ![]() “The agency is concerned that this decision could impact … the safety of people and property on the ground,” the FAA said in a statement. On Friday, less than 24 hours after losing its case, the FAA said it was appealing the decision by Patrick Geraghty, an administrative law judge with the National Transportation Safety Board. The FAA said Pirker’s flight ran afoul of its strict rules governing the commercial use of drones. The case involves Raphael Pirker, a drone enthusiast fined $10,000 by the FAA for using his 56-inch foam glider to take promotional videos of the University of Virginia Medical Center. skies, the Federal Aviation Administration on Friday quickly appealed a judge’s ruling that the agency does not have the authority to regulate commercial drones. Fearing that flocks of unmanned aircraft might soon traverse U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |