Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/211088332/Pirker-Decision
Timestamp: 2015-07-03 17:50:40
Document Index: 457396907

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 91', 'art 1', 'art 9', 'art 91', 'art 1', 'art 91', 'art 21', 'art 47']

P. 1Pirker DecisionPirker DecisionRatings: 5.0 (1)|Views: 89,842|Likes: 1Published by Jason KoeblerA judge dismisses the FAA's case against Raphael Pirker, the first man fined for flying a commercial drone. A judge dismisses the FAA's case against Raphael Pirker, the first man fined for flying a commercial drone. More info:Published by: Jason Koebler on Mar 06, 2014Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/211088332/Pirker-Decision05/08/2015pdftextoriginal Served: March 6,2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES $ $ $ FJ< $ # SF J}I # # IFE # I|< ^ ^ MICHAEL P. HUERTA, * ADMINISTRATOR, * FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, * Complainant, * * Docket CP-217 v. * * RAPHAEL PIRKER, * + Respondent. * * * JFT >[ I{ HI >{< $ JFJ LF{ IFL $ # I]I $ # SJC 5FT >J< $ * JFT F, # # SERVICE: Brendan M. Scbukuan, Esq. Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, LLP 117 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 (Certified Mail and FAX) Brendan A. Kelly, Esq. Office of th.e Regional (Counsel FAA Eastern Region 1 Aviation I'kiza Jamaica, NY 11434 (FAX) DECISIONAL ORDER Thi s matter is before the Board upon the Appeal of Raphael Pirker (herein Respondent), from ail Order of Assessment, which seeks to assess Responden t a civil penalty in the sum o $10,000,00 U.S. dollars. The Order was issued against Respondent by the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), herein Complainant, and that Order, as provided by Board Rule, serves as the Complaint in this action. rci#r ivietii •JIT V'''' V »• •W MF +MR-TO The Complaint is comprised, of eleven Numbered Paragraphs of allegations.
1 In the .first paragraph, it is alleged that Respondent acted on or about October 17,2011, as pilot in command of a Mewing Zephyr powered, glider aircraft, in the vicinity of the Universi ty of Virginia. (11VA) Charlottesville, Virginia..The next allegation Paragraph avers that that aircraft, ...is an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS),.It is further alleged that Respondent's flight operation, was for compensation, in that payment was received for video and photographs taken during that flight. As a consequence of those allegations, and the remaining factual allegations set forth in the Complaint, it is charged that Respondent acted in violation of the provisions of Part 91, Section 91.13(a), Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).
3 Respondent has filed a Motion to Dismiss, seeking dismissal upon the assertion that the Complaint is subject to dismissal, as a matter of law, in the absence of a valid rule for application of FAR regulatory authority over model aircraft flight operations. Complainant has submitted a Response
4 in. opposition, arguing that the Complaint is not deficient in that, as the non-moving Party, the allegations of the Complaint must be assumed true, and the Complaint evaluated in manner most favorable to Complainant This argument is premature. Respondent's Motion does not challenge the sufficiency of the Complaint, and stipulates therein that, solely for purposes of his Motion, the Complaint's allegations are to be assumed as true. Any dispute and argument, as to the efficacy oft.be Complaint must be deferred, pend ing resolution of the threshold issue of Complainant's authority to exercise FAR regulatory action over model aircraft operations. 1.4 C.F.R. Part 1
1 Section 1.1 states as the FAR. definition of the term Aircraft a . .device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air... And Part 9.1, Section 91.1 states that Part, . .prescribes rules governing operation of aircraft.Premised upon those FAR provisions and •
$ee Attachment 1, 0rder o£ Asse&sment, for a full statement of the a11©gations. See Attachment 2 Specifications: Ritewing Zephyr 11. i Part 91, Section 91.13(a) provides: No person may operate an. aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. 4 The Parties were granted leave to file supplemental. Briefs, and all submissions have been considered. 2 r^tvioii ^EASYIJN K those of 49 IJ.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6)
, Complainant axgues that Respondent was operating a device or contrivance designed for flight in the air and, therefore, subject to Complainant's regulatory authority. The term, contrivance is used in the 49 U.S.C Section 40102(a)(6) definition, aircraft , whereas Part 1, Section 1,1, defines an aircraft as a device ; however, the terms are basically synonymous, as both refer to an apparatus intended or used for flight 6 It is argued by Complainant that, under either definition of the term, aircraft , the definition includes within its scope a model aircraft. That argument is, however, contradicted in that Complainant FAA has, heretofore, discriminated, in his interpretation/application of those definitions. 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 {light in the air of, gig., 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). Complainant's contention that a model aircraft is an aircraft , as defined in either the statutory or regulatory definition, is diminished on observation that FAA historically has not required model aircraft operators to comply with requirements of FAR Part 21., Section 21.1.71 §t seq and FAR, Part 47, Section 47.3, which require Airworthiness and Registration Certification for an. aircraft. The reasonable inference is not that FAA lias overlooked the requirements, but, rather that FAA has distinguished, model aircraft as a class excluded from the regulatory and statutory definitions, b 49 U.S.C. Section 40102(a)(6): Aircraft means any contrivance invented, used/ or designed to navigate or fly in the air. 6 Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms, contrivance at 188; device at 236. Roqet'
s Thesaurus 4
th Ed. At 348
.1. 3 Activity (16)FiltersAdd to collectionReviewAdd NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and likeEric Goldstein liked thisLoad more
Similar to Pirker DecisionFAA Commercial Drone Cease-and-Desist ordersJason KoeblerFAA v Pirker Appeal BriefpeterwsachsFAA FOIA Response 2-4-14Patrick McKayPirker InvestigationJason KoeblerFAA FOIA Response Letter 2-4-14Patrick McKayLetter to Reject Anti-Poaching SettlementMikey CampbellTexas Equusearch orderJason KoeblerGarcia v. Google Emergency Motion for staymmasnickWarner Letter to FTC 7 9 14MarkWarnerFAA Letter to Texas EquuSearchJason Koebler
RecommendedFAA Commercial Drone Cease-and-Desist ordersJason KoeblerObtained via FOIA request, documents are from 2012-2013FAA v Pirker Appeal BriefpeterwsachsFAA FOIA Response 2-4-14Patrick McKayThe first set of documents released by the FAA in response to my FOIA request...Pirker InvestigationJason KoeblerFAA Pirker investigationFAA FOIA Response Letter 2-4-14Patrick McKayThe FAA's response letter included in their response to my FOIA request regar...Letter to Reject Anti-Poaching SettlementMikey CampbellLetter to Reject Anti-Poaching SettlementTexas Equusearch orderJason Koeblertexas equusearchGarcia v. Google Emergency Motion for staymmasnickGoogle's emergency motion for a stay in Garcia v. GoogleWarner Letter to FTC 7 9 14MarkWarnerFAA Letter to Texas EquuSearchJason KoeblerFAA letterPrevious|NextPage 1 of 3