Drone entrepreneur settles US 'reckless flying' case

A European entrepreneur who challenged the right of US authorities to regulate small drones has settled his case with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), his lawyer said Thursday.

Raphael Pirker will pay $1,100 in the settlement after the FAA had initially slapped Pirker with a $10,000 fine for reckless flying.

The fine came when he used a five-pound (2.25 kilogram) Styrofoam to shoot a promotional video at the University of Virginia in 2011.

It was the first time the US civil aviation authority had mounted a case against the operator of a remote-controlled , or UAV.

When Pirker contested the fine, a federal administrative law judge ruled in March that his drone was a model aircraft not subject to FAA rules.

The FAA appealed that decision to the National Transportation Safety Board, which in November ruled in its favor, even though the agency has yet to come up with a comprehensive set of drone regulations.

In a statement, Pirker's lawyer Brendan Schulman called the settlement "favorable." The settlement does not amount to an admission of wrongdoing.

A dual national of Austria and Switzerland, Pirker runs a Hong Kong-based company called Team BlackSheep that sells drones worldwide.

Flying UAVs for commercial purposes is not allowed in US skies without FAA authorization—a situation that critics say is undermining US competitiveness in the fast-growing civilian drone industry.

Despite the settlement, Schulman, a New York-based attorney specializing in drone-related legal issues, said the case had proven worthwhile.

"It not only prompted a vigorous international public discussion about the existing framework, but also has encouraged regulators to open new paths forward," he said.


Explore further

US aviation agency to appeal drone ruling

© 2015 AFP

Citation: Drone entrepreneur settles US 'reckless flying' case (2015, January 23) retrieved 26 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-01-drone-entrepreneur-reckless-case.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
29 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 23, 2015
The settlement does not amount to an admission of wrongdoing.


Isn't paying the fine an admission of guilt? Why else pay the fine if the person is not in the wrong?

Jan 23, 2015
I am sure maintaining his lawyer for a longer time frame would cost more than the "fine" itself.

Jan 24, 2015
I am delighted that this episode is over with for Raphael. Having to deal with the FAA and lawyers etc must have extremely stressful as well as time consuming. Drones are being used for many purposes now. Raphael must have been thinking "why me" when this started with the FAA. Delighted it's over and done with for him.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more