Federal Judge To Decide If Consumer Drones Are 'Aircraft' | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-06.23.25

Airborne-NextGen-06.24.25

AirborneUnlimited-06.25.25

Airborne-AffordableFlyers-06.26.25

AirborneUnlimited-06.27.25

Sat, Jun 11, 2016

Federal Judge To Decide If Consumer Drones Are 'Aircraft'

Decision Could Have Significant Impact On The UAV Industry

A court case that could have a significant bearing on the FAA's authority to regulate consumer UAVs is playing out in Connecticut largely out of the media glare.

The case stems out of the Pirker decision, in which an NTSB administrative law judge determined that small drones and model aircraft were not subject to FAA regulations. The NTSB appealed that decision, and determined that drones flown by hobbyists are indeed subject to the FAA's prohibition of "careless or reckless operation."

Analyst John Goglia writes in Forbes that the NTSB's decision is not the final word in the matter, and it is not binding in the FAA's case against Austin and Bret Haughwout, a father and son from Connecticut subpoenaed by the FAA for documents related to two videos posted by the pair which went viral. The videos show a modified UAV firing a handgun, and flaming a turkey on a spit. The Haughwouts have declined to submit the subpoenaed documents, or appear for depositions unless ordered to do so by a court.

The FAA brought the case to the Connecticut Attorney General's Office to force the two to comply with its demands.

Goglia said that in a conversation with Mario Cerame, the pro bono attorney assigned by the judge to represent the Haughwouts, Cerame said that the FAA's definition of an "aircraft" is "crazy." Cerame said that taken to its conclusion, the definition could extend from paper airplanes to bullets and flags.

In March, Judge Geffery Meyer told the parties to prepare their arguments concerning the FAA's authority over small UAVs, and oral arguments are scheduled for July 6.

Cerame told Goglia that for the judge to rule in favor of the Haughwouts, he would have to conclude that the FAA's stance is "obviously wrong."

It's a case that is likely being watched closely by the entire commercial UAV industry.

(Image from file)

FMI: Full Article

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (06.30.25): Ground Stop (GS)

Ground Stop (GS) The GS is a process that requires aircraft that meet a specific criteria to remain on the ground. The criteria may be airport specific, airspace specific, or equip>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (06.30.25)

Aero Linx: Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) improves safety and public confidence in aviation, marine and rail transport thro>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (06.30.25)

“The Palo Alto stopover confirmed—yet again—that flight schools and aero-clubs are no longer just curious about electric training; they are ready to buy. In just >[...]

NTSB Final Report: ICON A5

Pilot’s Failure To Maintain Clearance From The Water While Flying At A Low Altitude Analysis: The flight of two airplanes was in cruise flight on a north heading about 50 ft >[...]

Airborne Affordable Flyers 06.26.25: PA18 Upgrades, ‘Delta Force’, Rhinebeck

Also: 48th Annual Air Race Classic, Hot Air Balloon Fire, FAA v Banning 100LL, Complete Remote Pilot The news Piper PA-18 Super Cub owners have been waiting for has finally arrived>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC