UAS: Too Slow Is Not Good . . . . Too Fast Is Worse

On May 12, 2015, Senators Cory Booker and John Hoeven introduced a piece of legislation called the "Commercial UAS Modernization Act" [LINK].  It's 11 pages long and is really nothing more than a Congressional attempt to pre-empt the ongoing FAA rulemaking process.  More ›

Not Quite A Doomsday Scenario . . . But Close

Earlier this week, we reported on an incident in Japan where a UAS carrying a small amount of radioactive material landed at the Japanese Prime Minister's residence.  The perpetrator, Yasuo Yamamoto, seems to be viewed by many people as a "protestor" who was simply carrying out a "stunt" to make a point.  But what if he had a more sinister motivation?  How much damage could be done?  The answer is, quite a lot.

When most people consider the possible terrorist use of a small UAS, they think of bombs.  That, however, is not the scenario with which you should be most concerned.  A small UAS, which can only carry a few pounds, is not an efficient way to deliver conventional explosives.  This is the reason car bombs, with the ability to deliver literally hundreds of pounds of explosives to a crowded street, is still the terrorist's vehicle of choice.   More ›

UAS: It Only Takes One . . .

Up until now, Japan has been able to combine widespread commercial UAS operations with a very "hands off" attitude towards regulatory restrictions.  All of that may be about to change.  More ›

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

We would like to thank those of you who were able to join us for our Webinar on April 21, 2015.  We were happy we could provide you with an update on the recent changes to the Section 333 approval process, blanket COA grants, and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Operation of Small UAS. 

For those of you who could not make it, you can find a copy of the presentation at this link.  If you have any questions or would like further information, don’t hesitate to contact us, and keep following the blog for the announcement of our next webinar. 

UAS: Some People Never Learn . . . .

Let's make believe for a minute. . . .You've robbed a bank and had one of your buddies film it on his iPhone.  After making a getaway, you post the video to YouTube where it becomes an instant sensation.

The local FBI agent, while surfing the internet, views your video, tracks you down and arrests you.

Your defense at trial is that all you were doing is exercising your First Amendment right of free speech and that your arrest is a violation of the protections offered under the Constitution. More ›

One Hour Delivery? Not Any Time Soon . . . .

Imagine for a moment that you are at home working on a project in your garage, when you realize that you don't have the right size socket wrench.  You get out your phone, and after a few taps, your wrench is on its way.  Up to this point in our story, you could do all of these things today.  What if, however, the wrench can be delivered to your driveway by a drone in less than 15 minutes from the time you bought it?  Is this the future? More ›

Freedom of Speech and YouTube . . . or Not

There was a great deal of controversy last month when some individuals who had posted videos of what appeared to be illegal UAS operations began receiving letters from the FAA.  This, in turn, caused a large number of people to take to social media to complain that the FAA was violating people's First Amendment rights by sending those letters.

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 ›

Haste Makes Progress

Over the past two and a half weeks, more than 75 Petitions for Exemption have been granted.  This means that in a 17-day period, the number of authorized commercial UAS operators in the United States has nearly tripled. 

 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 ›

UAS: Hobby or Commercial?

Over the last week, UAS blogs and news sites have been breathlessly asking whether a legitimate UAS hobbyist flight can be converted into a commercial operation after the fact. The answer is no. If it was a legitimate recreational flight, subsequent actions don’t "convert" it into a commercial flight. What does happen, however, is that your subsequent actions open the door to second guessing, and an argument from an objective outside observer that it was never a legitimate recreational flight to begin with.

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.

UAS: Throw The Book At Him! Or At Least The Checkbook!

As you all probably know by now, the US Attorney's office has decided there will be no criminal charges against the pilot of the Phantom UAS which crash landed on the White House grounds [Link]. The same report indicates the FAA is still reviewing the matter to determine if they will take any civil enforcement action, i.e. monetary penalty, against the pilot.

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?