In light of the controversy, the FAA has decided to set a new National Policy to be followed by all Flight Standards District Office Aviation Safety Inspectors.  This Notice, entitled Aviation-Related Videos or Other Electronic Media on the Internet, is intended to give guidance on what actions should be taken once the FAA is notified that there are videos or electronic media that depict any aircraft operation that is "contrary to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) or statute."  More ›

UAS Operations and the
Section 333 Exemption Process:
What Has Changed, And How Can
You Take Advantage Of It?

April 21, 2015
1:30 – 2:30 pm EST

RSVP HERE!

Summary exemptions?  Blanket COAs?  Expedited timetables?  There have been major changes in the Section 333 exemption process.  As a result of these changes, the FAA more than doubled the number of certificated UAS operators in just two weeks. 

Despite what you may have heard, however, the FAA did not give blanket authority to anyone who wants to fly.  There is still an exemption process, and all commercial operators still need specific authorization from the FAA to fly legally.    More ›

 As a result of this effort, for the first time, the backlog of petitions is actually decreasing.  In fact, some of the most recent petitions were pending for 120 days or less, which was the goal originally set by the FAA last summer when the Exemption process was opened up to UAS operators.  

How has this been done?  The answer is "Summary Grant of Exemption."   More ›

Apart from the firm name change, readers of Plane-ly Spoken should not notice any difference. Moreover, those of you who are our clients will notice none either.  Same lawyers.  Same phone numbers.  Different firm name.  The blog will still have all the same contributors.  We will still bring you the latest news and updates on all things aviation and UAS.  Plane-ly Spoken will still have a viewpoint on the issues, and we will still inject our analysis with humor and irreverence. 

In keeping with this commitment to our readers, it is our privilege to announce that we will be hosting another in our extremely popular series of webinars on April 21, 2015.  There have been a number of major developments, both publicly and behind the scenes, affecting the Section 333 Exemption process.  We will be bringing you up to date on those changes, and what they mean for those who want to be involved in the UAS business before the release of the final Small UAS Rules go into effect sometime in 2017.

So, save the date, because a formal invitation to the free webinar will be sent out shortly.

Working with Deborah Thompson, a recognized expert in airline emergency response and family assistance, MLA will present a series of one-hour webinars "zooming in" on discreet subjects in the area.

The first of the series will focus on the hours immediately following an incident/accident and the role and response of station personnel.  More ›

NTSB Conference Center
420 L'Enfant Plaza 10^th Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20594 

On June 26, 2014, McKenna Long & Aldridge convened its first UAS Symposium.  Attended by over 200 registrants, we now find ourselves one year later.  The Federal Aviation Administration has been accepting and acting on exemption petitions, civil/commercial UAS operation have begun and the FAA has published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing an entirely new regulatory regime for the civil/commercial UAS industry.

This Symposium will, one year later, address where we are and where we're going.  In addition to the following, subjects, you will hear from experts from the FAA, the NTSB, the UAS industry and the legal profession on not only how to get into the commercial UAS business, but what to expect in the next 12 to 18 months. More ›

Under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, in order for a person to be able to take advantage of the hobbyist "safe harbor," the aircraft must be "flown strictly for hobby or recreational use." The FAA has further explained this standard in the Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, where it stated it would be guided by the dictionary definition of "hobby," which is a “pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation,” and "recreation," which is defined as “refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or diversion.”

Because recreation is defined essentially as the opposite of work, the two pursuits are not compatible. What if no money is changing hands? Doesn't that automatically mean it is a hobbyist flight?  The answer again, is no. The FAA has cast its net very broadly, and stated that "flights that are in furtherance of a business, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight." The words "incidental" and "in furtherance" of a person's business is significant because it captures flights where no money is changing hands. For example, if I offer to fly for someone for free because it helps build good will in a potential customer, or it will help promote future services, that is "incidental" or "in furtherance" of a business purpose, and the lack of compensation is irrelevant.

In addition, the FAA made clear that the Modernization and Reform Act's use of the phrase "strictly for hobby or recreational use" means that there can be no such thing as a dual purpose flight. In other words, if I am flying because I love to fly and because I might be able to make a little money on the side, it cannot be a legitimate hobby flight.

So, we have a system where the legitimacy of a flight depends on the subjective intent of the operator when he was flying. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people lie about their intent when they are caught doing something wrong. The only way to get to the bottom of the issue is to look at the objective facts, such as how the operator holds himself out to the public and what he has said to third parties about the flights.

So, when the FAA looks at a video on YouTube in response to a complaint, it is not punishing people for their free speech or going after people for exercising their First Amendment rights. The FAA is looking at the facts and trying to figure out whether these are hobbyist flights or commercial flights. While your subsequent actions, like receiving advertising money for the flight or using it to advertise a business, can't "convert" a hobby flight into a commercial flight, the more you do these things, the harder it is for the FAA to believe you when you claim that you have always been an innocent hobbyist.

Plane-ly Spoken is disappointed that criminal charges are being declined and will be even more disappointed if the FAA declines to impose a monetary penalty. The value of any deterrence to people out there who just don't seem to care about the fact that they're operating an aircraft in the NAS should not be underestimated. The FAA already made a mistake by letting Mr. Pirker off with a $1,025.00 settlement instead of enforcing the $10,000 fine they had imposed, especially after the decision by the NTSB affirming the validity of the FAA's Regulation framework [Link]. This mistake should not be compounded by letting Mr. Usman off simply because his lawyer says it was "unintentional" and "inadvertent." In any event, if it was "inadvertent," flying a UAS out the window of your apartment in a crowded city center strikes us a textbook example of both "careless" and "reckless" behavior.

The lack of criminal prosecution sends the wrong message. The failure to impose a significant monetary penalty simply emphasizes that message.

On February 15, 2015, the FAA issued its NPRM for small UAS. These Proposed Rules have set the bar pretty low for entry into the world of commercial UAS operation. While this will certainly have the effect of encouraging growth in the area, only through an aggressive enforcement policy will the FAA insure that potentially irresponsible operators are brought into line.

The stakes are too high to do anything other than have an aggressive enforcement posture. FAA . . . . what say you?