FAA Investigating Drone Use After Tornado
The FAA investigating drone use after tornado in Mayflower, Arkansas last week. In the FAA’s crosshairs are the Fox19 news channel and the operator of the UAV that posted a video of the aftermath of last weeks tornado. The FAA has stated in a policy letter that UAVs for commercial use are illegal. There’s several 
issue with their logic. First, there has never been any interest by the FAA to regulate remote controlled airplanes. Second, Federal statutes, regulations and case law concerning RCMA do not exist. Third, an NTSB judge tossed out a lawsuit Huerta (FAA administrator) v Pirker in which the FAA levied a 10k fine against this man for using his UAV to make a commercial. Why was it tossed out? Simple. In the absence of any federal statute, regulation or case law that prohibits a particular activity, that activity is legal. In a statement by the FAA, the agency claims that any organization posting a UAV aerial video for commercial purposes will face charges….that’s a whole different blog post.
Is my UAV not considered a remote controlled model airplane? It’s remote controlled, it’s a model built by me, and it happens to be capable of making video which I could use for commercial purposes. Remote-controlled model aircraft are not “aircraft,” as defined in federal statutory and regulation language. So, what is considered an aircraft. According to regulations it is, “a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.” What’s next? Paper airplanes meet the definition of “aircraft” according to the federal aviation regulations. Does this mean they too need to be regulated by inspections? Can they only be operated by licensed pilots? More importantly, if one flies into the eye of an unsuspecting bystander causing a severe injury the FAA and NTSB are required by law to investigate. So it goes to reason that the FAA has never considered paper airplanes as aircraft. So, replace paper airplane with remote controlled model airplane. Just like paper airplanes it meets the definition of aircraft yet the FAA has never had any interest whatsoever in the regulation of RCMA. If they did then the FAA and NTSB would be very busy investigating every crash video on youtube. It goes to reason that the FAA doesn’t consider RCMA aircraft and hasn’t since the first one flew fifty some years ago. It’s an interesting argument and one that’s tested. Just so you know I’m no lawyer, but I have read a lot of rules, regulations, blogs and news articles.