AMA TODAY에서 퍼왔습니다. (Drone의 법적인 문제)

[snaproll 이종헌]

AMA TODAY에서 퍼왔습니다.

NTSB judge rules FAA ban on commercial UAS/Drones unenforceable

In a ruling late Thursday, 3/6, NTSB Administrative Law Judge Patrick Geraghty ruled that the FAA policy banning the commercial operation of unmanned aircraft is “non-binding”, hence unenforceable. The judge found that the policy wasn’t written as part of a formal rulemaking process and the FAA hadn’t complied with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. The FAA policy was published in the Federal Register in 2007 and has effectively banned the operation of commercial and public use UAS in the national airspace over the past seven years.

This finding came as part of the judge ‘s ruling on attorney Brendan Schulman’s motion to dismiss FAA’s Order of Assessment against Raphael Pirker, aka “Trappy”. Mr. Pirker was fined $10,000 by the FAA under 14 CFR 91.13 for allegedly operating an aircraft in a careless and reckless manner while flying a UAS through the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville, Virginia.

This ruling effectively lifts the ban on the commercial operation of small unmanned aircraft, those aircraft that would otherwise meet the description of a model aircraft.

It’s a bit too soon to say how the FAA will respond to the ruling, or what this means to the UAS community. But, by all accounts, this is a game changer.

Click the link below and read the complete story as reported by Kevin Robillard on POLITICO.com

Judge strikes down small drones ban

A federal judge slapped down the FAA’s fine for a drone operator, saying there was no law banning the commercial use of small drones.

The judge’s decision could open up the skies below 400 feet to farmers, photographers and entrepreneurs who have been battling the FAA over the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles.

NTSB Administrative Law Judge Patrick Geraghty ruled Thursday that the policy notices the FAA issued as a basis for the ban weren’t enforceable because they hadn’t been written as part of a formal rulemaking process.

The ruling, for now, appears to make it legal for drones to fly at the low altitude as part of a business — whether that’s delivering beer, photographing a baseball game or spraying crops.

The case, Pirker v. Huerta, concernedRaphael Pirker, a Swiss drone operator who was fined $10,000 by the FAA for operating a drone recklessly while filming a commercial for the University of Virginia’s medical school. Pirker is the only person the FAA has fined for violating the rule, but the agency has sent letters and made informal calls to other drone operators. The judge’s ruling dismisses the FAA’s fine.

The FAA didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Any appeal of the ruling would go to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The FAA could also attempt to issue an emergency rule banning small drone use.

The ban was based on a FAA policy advisory given to agency employees who had asked questions about how to handle problems with model aircraft. Since 2007, the agency has insisted its rules applied to drones, as well. Pirker’s lawyer, Brendan Schulman, argued the advisory wasn’t enforceable, and Judge Geraghty agreed.

The agency had struggled to enforce the ban as more and more uses for the small drones popped up. Photographers and videographers were using drones to film everything from “The Wolf of Wall Street” to the Washington Nationals’ spring training. A video showing a Minnesota beer company delivering beverages to thirsty ice fishers went viral, forcing the FAA to shoot down the proposal.

The FAA has said it intends to propose a rule on small drone use by the end of the year. The ruling doesn’t affect larger drones that tend to share airspace with helicopters and planes.

A judge has struck down the FAA’s ban on the commercial use of small drones, potentially freeing up the skies below 400 feet for farmers, photographers and entrepreneurs.

NTSB Administrative Law Judge Patrick Geraghty ruled that the policy notices the FAA used as a basis for the ban weren’t enforceable since they hadn’t been written as part of a formal rulemaking process.

The case, Pirker vs. Huerta, concerned Raphael Pirker, a Swiss drone operator who was fined $10,000 by the FAA for operating a drone recklessly while filming at the University of Virginia. The judge’s ruling dismisses the FAA’s fine.

Filmmakers and others have increasingly flouted the FAA’s rule in recent months. The agency has pledged to propose a formal rule for small drones by the end of the year.

The FAA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. If appealed, the case would go the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

[snaproll 이종헌]

영어도 잘 못하고, 번역하기도 귀찮아서리... -_-

대충 이런뜻인가요?
미국 국가교통안전국(NTSB)의 심사관은 연방항공국(FAA)이 상업적인 무인비행체계/드론(UAS/Drone)을 금지하는 것은 강제력이 없다고 규정한다.

그런데 미국의 항공법상 class G공역(uncolntrolled airspace)의 허용고도가 공항인근등은 AGL 700ft(210m)이고 대부분은 1200ft(360m)로 규정되어 있는데 여기서는 400ft(120m)이하로 나오네요.