New
FAA Part 107 has made it even easier to Fly
Legally in the USA under 14 CFR Part 107. It's what we have all been
waiting for.
FAA Automatically Grants "blanket" COA'S -
As of March 23, 2015, the FAA will automatically
grant "blanket" COA's for flights at or below 200 feet to any UAS
operator with a Section 333 exemption, provided the aircraft weighs less
than 55 pounds, operations are conducted during daytime Visual Flight
Rules (VFR) conditions and within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the
pilots, and stay certain distances away from airports or heliports.
FAA Grants UAV Permits for Agriculture & Real Estate Companies -
The Associated Press reports that on Tuesday, the FAA issued exceptions
to the commercial UAV ban, permitting the monitoring of crops and real
estate use for aerial photographs of properties for sale. This is the
first time permits have been granted to agriculture and real estate
companies.
FAA
Poised to Include Limitations on Hobbyist UAVs -
The FAA is proposing to amend its
regulations to adopt specific rules for the operation of small unmanned
aircraft systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS).
HSE
Deploys the RDASS Q1000 UAV -
HSE announces the deployment of the
new RDASS Q1000 4 rotor electric UAV. The RDASS Q1000 series is
designed to meet the hi-tech needs of the user at a price to meet any
city or county budget.
Judge Rules Against FAA in ‘Landmark’ UAV Challenge -
In a decision dated March 6,
NTSB Judge Patrick Geraghty found that the
FAA has no regulations that apply to model
aircraft or that classify a model aircraft as an unmanned
aircraft system.
Arlington Police
Chief Will Johnson announced that the Federal Aviation Administration
has given the city permission to get the rotors turning on the police
UAV drone project.
Supreme Court & The
4th Amendment - The US
Supreme Court has held that individuals do not generally have
Fourth Amendment rights with respect to aerial surveillance. Can the
lower courts or State, county, city municipalities outlaw the use of
UAV's for law enforcement?
Congress - UAS Privacy & Transparency Act -
The proposed UAV Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2012
requires that police obtain warrants to use UAV drones for certain types
of surveillance.
UAV FAA Regulations
- For more
than five decades, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
compiled a proven track record of introducing new technology and
aircraft safely into the National Airspace System (NAS).
FAA Certificate of Authorization or Waiver (COA)
- Before you can operate a
UAV in National Airspace System (NAS) you must have a COA. The average
time to issue an authorization for non-emergency operations is less than
60 days,
New & Used UAV
For Sale-
Commercial, industrial, military, first responders
and police UAV's with 1 - 75 lb payload helicopter UAV. Autopilots,
cameras and more. Check them out!
Demo UAV For Sale
- Great Saving on our Demo Unmanned Aerial Vehicles UAVs For Sale.
All of our Demo UAV Units for sale have low flight hours and are in
excellent condition.
The UAV Blog - Find out what others are
saying about the World of UAVs. Share your 2 cents worth with
them! No
Sign-up required!
NTSB Rules FAA Has Jurisdiction To Fine ‘Careless or Reckless’ UAV
Operators
The US National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has affirmed FAA’s authority to
impose civil fines against commercial operators of small unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) engaging in “careless or reckless” flying.
NTSB’s closely watched ruling aims to define the boundaries of FAA’s
regulatory authority regarding unmanned aircraft as FAA works through
the process of establishing rules for integrating unmanned aircraft
systems (UAS) in the national airspace. The case in question involves
Raphael Pirker, who operated a Ritewing Zephyr equipped with a camera in
October 2011 in Charlottesville, Virginia to film a promotional video
for the University of Virginia.
FAA fined Pirker $10,000, saying he hadn’t gotten permission to operate
an unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes and that he had operated
the UAV recklessly, at one point causing an individual standing on a
sidewalk “to take immediate evasive maneuvers so as to avoid being
struck.” FAA also said the UAV, which flew up to 1,500 feet above the
ground, came within 100 feet of an active heliport and flew through a
tunnel in which vehicles were moving.
Pirker appealed the fine to an NTSB administrative law judge, Patrick
Geraghty, who in turn dismissed the case on the grounds that the
Ritewing Zephyr didn’t qualify as an “aircraft” under FAA’s regulatory
jurisdiction. The judge said allowing FAA to fine Pirker would mean that
the “operator” of “a paper aircraft” or “a toy balsa wood glider” could
be subject to FAA regulatory provisions.
FAA appealed the judge’s dismissal to NTSB, which has sided with FAA and
rejected Geraghty’s reasoning. NTSB’s Tuesday ruling reverses the
judge’s decision and sends the case back to Geraghty, who will now be
asked to rule on whether the flight in question was “careless or
reckless,” not on whether the UAV qualifies as an “aircraft.”
In a statement issued following NTSB’s ruling, FAA said it “believes Mr.
Pirker operated a UAS in a careless or reckless manner, and that the
proposed civil penalty should stand. The agency looks forward to a
factual determination by the administrative law judge on the ‘careless
or reckless’ nature of the operation in question.”
In issuing its ruling, NTSB noted that the “case has provoked interest
from a diverse set of stakeholders in the nation’s aviation system.”
While a variety of issues are potentially raised by the University of
Virginia incident, the board emphasized that it ruled narrowly on the
question of whether Pirker’s Ritewing Zephyr counted as an “aircraft”
that falls under FAA’s jurisdiction for prohibiting the operation of an
aircraft in a “careless or reckless” manner. “We answer that question in
the affirmative,” NTSB stated.
Pirker was the first UAV operator to be fined by FAA. In his appeal to
the judge, he argued that “the term aircraft means a device that
sustains one or more individuals in flight, thus excluding unmanned
aircraft from the definition.” NTSB succinctly countered, “We disagree.”
NTSB conceded that when the Federal Aviation Act creating FAA was passed
in 1958, “so-called drones were largely the currency of science
fiction.” However, NTSB said, “Congress demonstrated prescience … in the
early definition of ‘aircraft’; it expressly defined the term as any
airborne contrivance ‘now known or hereafter invented, used, or designed
for navigation of or flight in the air’.”
NTSB said there is no “distinction” in the legislative language between
manned and unmanned aircraft. “In summary, the plain language of the
statutory and regulatory definitions is clear: an ‘aircraft’ is any
device used for flight in the air,” NTSB stated, adding, “Therefore we
find the law judge erred in presuming the regulations categorically do
not apply to model aircraft. The plain language of the definitions and
regulation at issue simply does not support such a conclusion.”
James Williams, manager of FAA’s UAS Integration Office, told a
conference Tuesday morning on commercializing unmanned aircraft that he
couldn’t comment on the specifics of the NTSB ruling because he hadn’t
seen it, but added: “It’s good to know the NTSB is working with us.”
Homeland Surveillance & Electronics LLC
Mission is also to protect the privacy rights of the individuals and to work
with government agencies, organizations and businesses to help insure that those rights are not infringed. At HSE, the Constitutional Rights of the People come first. Maintaining an individual's privacy and protecting the civil liberties of all persons is of paramount importance to HSE! Together, we can help provide a great public service and keeping our Country safe while at the same time protecting "Our Rights". It's as simple as that!!!
It is the policy of Homeland Surveillance & Electronics to adhere
strictly to all U.S. laws and regulations covering the export,
re-export, and import of Defense related articles, technical data, and
services. Such laws and regulations include, but are not limited to, the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C.), the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR) (administered by the U.S. Department of
Commerce), the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2778), and the
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 C.F.R.)
(Administered by the U.S. Department of State). Further, Homeland
Surveillance & Electronics adheres to additional restrictions on exports
and re-exports contained in various country-specific regulations
administered by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC).
All Products sold by
HSE are warranted through the manufacturer, not through HSE.
Unless specifically statement in writing All Sales Are Final
All content subject
to change without notice.
Use of this website constitutes acceptance of our terms of use & privacy
policies.