Board Determines That FAA Has The Authority To Regulate Aircraft Regardless Of Size

The NTSB has served the FAA and respondent Raphael Pirker with its opinion and order regarding Mr. Pirker's appeal in case CP-217, regarding the regulation of unmanned aircraft. In the opinion, the Board remanded the case to the administrative law judge to collect evidence and issue a finding concerning whether Pirker's operation of his unmanned aircraft over the campus of the University of Virginia in 2011 was careless or reckless.

The FAA appealed an NTSB administrative law judge’s decision after the judge dismissed the FAA’s order requiring Pirker to pay a civil penalty of $10,000 for allegedly operating an unmanned aircraft in a careless or reckless manner.

In his decision, the judge compared Pirker’s unmanned aircraft to a model aircraft, and found the FAA had not enacted an enforceable regulation regarding such aircraft.

In reaching its decision, the Board determined the FAA may apply the regulation that prohibits operation of an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner to unmanned aircraft.

"The Administrator’s authority to ensure aviation safety largely rests upon the Administrator’s statutory responsibility to regulate the operation of “aircraft,” the decision, posted on the NTSB's website. "12 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 are clear on their face. Even if we were to accept the law judge’s characterization of respondent’s aircraft, allegedly used at altitudes up to 1,500 feet AGL for commercial purposes, as a “model aircraft,” the definitions on their face do not exclude even a “model aircraft” from the meaning of “aircraft.” Furthermore, the definitions draw no distinction between whether a device is manned or unmanned. An aircraft is “any” “device” that is “used for flight.” We acknowledge the definitions are as broad as they are clear, but they are clear nonetheless."

The Board stated an administrative law judge would need to review evidence showing the operation was careless or reckless to determine if Pirker was in violation of any federal aviation regulation.

"This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of “aircraft” for purposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation," the board concluded. "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. (emphasis ours, editor)

"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.”

FMI: Opinion and Order