Sorry for the double USA politics posts for the day but this is incredibly important. So the FAA just got the teeth they needed to continue their governmental overreach brought on by the fearmongering of the news media.The news has propagated the fact that UAVs are dangerous to everyday people AND aircraft which is simply not the case. It goes as far as to state that any object that flys through the air is defined as an aircraft. This is a gross over reach of government authority, paper airplanes are now subject to full FAA approval and regulation. The original affidavit also cites the lack of an FAA approved private pilots license as necessary to operate an RC plane. Edit to add: In the complaint, the Administrator also asserted respondent operated the aircraft, inter alia, “directly towards an individual standing on a . . . sidewalk causing the individual to take immediate evasive maneuvers so as to avoid being struck by [the] aircraft” watching the UVA video it appears he was attempting to catch the aircraft thus it was purposeful flight Title 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) defines “aircraft” as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.” Similarly, 14 C.F.R. § 1.1 defines “aircraft” for purposes of the FARs, including § 91.13, as “a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.” ... the definitions draw no distinction between whether a device is manned or unmanned. An aircraft is “any” “device” that is “used for flight.” ... In summary, the plain language of the statutory and regulatory definitions is clear: an “aircraft” is any device used for flight in the air. Conclusion for those that dont want to read the whole thing: This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” for purposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We must look no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14 C.F.R. § 1.1: an “aircraft” is any “device” “used for flight in the air.” This definition includes any aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and reckless operation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any “aircraft” other than those subject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing to determine whether respondent operated the aircraft “in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another,” contrary to § 91.13(a). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Administrator’s appeal is granted; 2. The law judge’s decisional order is reversed; and 3. The case is remanded to the law judge for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:37:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015