Gun-Firing Drone Under Investigation

Pirker's attorney, the nation's first and preeminent "drone attorney," Brendan Schulman, filed and won a Motion to Dismiss. In March 2014, Administrative Law Judge Patrick Geraghty, in a well-reasoned, logical and scathing decision, granted Schulman's Motion to Dismiss and the FAA lost. The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") held that drones (which he referred to as "model aircraft.") are not aircraft under the federal definitions, and therefore the FAA had no jurisdiction over Pirker's flight. Not surprisingly, the FAA appealed the decision immediately to the full NTSB Board.

In November 2014, the NTSB issued its appeal decision, reversing the ALJ's granting of Pirker's Motion to Dismiss. It held that drones are aircraft as the word is defined under federal law and therefore subject to the recklessness regulation. It remanded the matter to the ALJ to decide whether Pirker's flight was, in fact, conducted recklessly.

The NTSB's decision was very narrow in one respect: it held that because drones are aircraft, FAR 91.13, the only FAR at issue in the matter, applies to drones. It did not address "commercial use" since that was not addressed by the Judge, and it did not hold that any other FAR applies to drones.

The Board's decision was very broad in another respect: it did not qualify which size drones are aircraft. So both a 1-ounce child's "toy" drone and a 55-pound industrial-sized drone are aircraft, and both are equally subject to FAR 91.13. In fact, given the extremely broad federal definition of aircraft, even paper airplanes are now subject to FAR 91.13. Yes, there is a manufacturer of paper airplane drones.

As for Raphael Pirker, there was no decision on remand to the ALJ. Judge Geraghty first demanded that the FAA explain its authority to bring the recklessness action against a foreign national in the first place, since according to the FAA itself, it's not supposed to. The FAA's Order 2150.3B (Chapter 6, paragraph 34(a)) makes that clear. It reads:

34. Violations of FAA Regulations by Foreign Persons.

a. General. Legal counsel for the region with geographic responsibility for the investigation processes a case against a foreign person who violates the Federal Aviation Regulations. Legal counsel takes legal enforcement action against an airman who [1] commits a violation while exercising the privileges of his or her FAA airman certificate, a foreign individual who [2] commits a passenger violation, or [3] a foreign air carrier operating under 14 C.F.R. part 129. All other violations committed by foreign persons, except Canadian persons, are referred to the appropriate foreign aviation authority through the Department of State. Violations committed by Canadian persons, for whom legal enforcement action is not taken, are referred directly to Transport Canada. (Emphasis added.)

Pirker's actions did not fall under any of the emphasized language above. He is not an FAA certified airman. He did not commit a passenger violation and he is not a foreign air carrier. This means that the entire Pirker matter, should have been handled by the "appropriate foreign aviation authority" through the Department of State, not by the FAA— a fact that had been argued by Schulman.

In the end, Pirker settled the case that never should have been brought against him by the FAA, for $1,100.00, with no admission of wrongdoing on his part. The FAA got an NTSB decision that drones are "aircraft" as that term is defined under the federal statutory and regulatory definitions, and subject to a single FAR— 91.13 (recklessness). Unless and until definitions of aircraft change, or a new definition for drones is created, drones will remain aircraft.

A drone, in a technological context, is an unmanned aircraft.

Drones are more formally known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Essentially, a drone is a flying robot. The aircraft may be remotely controlled or can fly autonomously through software-controlled flight plans in their embedded systems working in conjunction with GPS. UAVs have most often been associated with the military but they are also used for search and rescue, surveillance, traffic monitoring, weather monitoring and firefighting, among other things.

nicko wrote:Victor, used to go goose shooting on the Wash,,a little place called Gedney Drove End.Once met a fellow name of Macenzie Thorp in a pub there, he was with that big bearded actor James Robertson Justice together with Peter Scott the wildlife expert.  If you can get a copy of Colin Willocks book,  " Kenzie The Wild Goose Man" do so, a brilliant tale of shooting and all true!

nicko wrote:It is a Punt gun didge  they were placed in a small narrow flat bottomed boat facing forward,the "gunner" lay behind it and paddled with a small table tennis like wooden paddle in each hand. They tried to approach a "Raft" of duck without disturbing them,when within range the Gunner would bang his foot on the bottom of the boat causing the duck to leap into the air just as the gun was fired. Some bags were of 70 or 80 duck killed. Not very sporting but these men sold them to feed their families the only way they knew.