UAV Operator Was Subjected To 'Emergency Revocation', But Agency May Have Acted Improperly

Ralph Rebaya is in the midst of fighting an emergency revocation of his private pilot certificate for flying a seven-pound UAV in a way the FAA says was reckless and dangerous. But the person issuing the revocation may not have had the authority to do so.

Forbes reports that Regaya's case is the first of its kind, and is currently being argued before an NTSB administrative law judge.

In its revocation order, the FAA says that Rebaya, who owns a commercial drone company, had been hired by Magellon Entertainment to operate a DJI-S-900 for the purpose of aerial filming. But Rebaya violated several clauses of his section 333 exemption, including filming in close proximity to people and operating in Class C airspace within five nautical miles from Bob Hope Airport (KBUR) There is a laundry list of other complaints, but six months after the filming took place in December, the "administrator" determined that an emergency existed and his PPL should be revoked immediately.

Forbes reports that Rebaya's attorney D. Damon Willens has based the his challenge on whether the FAA's determination that his actions were so egregious that it warranted revoking his pilot certificate for a year, and that the FAA official who issued the revocation order did not have the authority to do so.

According to Willens, the revocation order was issued by the FAA's Deputy Chief Counsel, but that position is not one of those listed in the rule delegating the authority to take such actions.

An attorney contacted by Forbes said that the FAA is generally very diligent about making sure that a person issuing such an order generally has the right to do so.

The case is still unresolved, and Rebaya's pilot certificate is still suspended. Since he needs that to fly his UAV under his Section 333 exemption, he's currently out of business.

FMI: Full Story, Revocation Order