FAA Grants Additional Waivers for Commercial UAS Operations

Unmanned Aerial Systems ("UAS") colloquially referred to as “drones” continue to be a hot topic in commercial aviation.  This year the NTSB upheld the FAA’s right to regulate UAS for commercial purposes as aircraft in the National Airspace System.  Today, the industry learned that the FAA issued waivers of operation of UAS for commercial purposes to seven new companies.  That brings the total to 11 companies properly authorized to conduct commercial UAS operations. 

There are currently 167 applications pending with the FAA to obtain waivers for authorized use of UAS in a multitude of different industries.  The initial approvals were all granted to companies involved in movie production.  The latest round of approvals were granted to commercial operations ranging from aerial surveying, to construction site monitoring, and oil rig flare stack inspections. 

Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx outlined policy going forward on this quickly developing segment of aviation as follows:  “Unmanned aircraft offer a tremendous opportunity to spur innovation and economic activity by enabling many businesses to develop better products and services for their customers and the American public.  We [the FAA] want to foster commercial uses of this exciting technology while taking a responsible approach to the safety of America’s airspace." 

As different businesses embrace the technology, it is clear that companies who intend to remain competitive are acting now to obtain FAA approval in order to utilize UAS to make their operations more efficient and poised for growth.   If you are interested in submitting an application to the FAA for commercial UAS approval, then contact Aviation Attorney Ronnie Gipson at 415.692.6523 or by email at Gipson@higagipson.com.   

Clearing Up the Confusion With Aircraft Accident Reporting

            There continues to exist a great deal of confusion in the general aviation community about the reporting requirements after an aircraft accident or incident.  There is a huge difference between an accident and incident, especially with respect to the reporting requirements.  An airman or operator who gets the reporting requirements wrong could become subject to a revocation or suspension action by the FAA unnecessarily. 

            Code of Federal Regulations Part 49 section 830.5 mandates that a report of an aircraft accident shall be filed with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) immediately or no later than within 10 days after the accident.  In comparison, a report is not required if the aircraft is involved in an incident, unless the pilot in command or operator is specifically directed to file a report by the NTSB.

            An accident, as defined in 49 CFR §830.2 means, “an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft that takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death, or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.”  The regulations then go on to define “substantial damage”.  It is important to note that in the definition, the regulations specifically exclude certain types of damage to the aircraft from qualifying as “substantial damage”.  For example, damage sustained to the landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wing tips of an aircraft are not considered “substantial damage” for reporting purposes. To make the point clearer, if a pilot damages the landing gear during the flight, then absent other more serious factors such as serious injury or death, then an accident has NOT occurred and the pilot/operator is NOT required to file a report.

            Another complicating factor that is prevalent in the reporting process is that pilots/operators for some reason instinctively contact the FAA to report an accident.  The NTSB is the Federal agency charged with conducting aircraft accident investigations in the United States.  It is the practice of the NTSB to delegate the investigative function for less serious accidents within the general aviation segment of the industry to the FAA.  However, the NTSB is still responsible for identifying the probable cause for any aircraft accident regardless of who conducts the investigation.  For a pilot/operator to initially contact the FAA instead of the NTSB opens a confusing can of proverbial worms because the FAA has the power to pursue enforcement actions against pilots/operators for alleged infractions of the Federal Aviation Regulations that they may discover while conducting an investigation.  Pilots and aircraft operators take heed, if the regulations require the filing of a report due to an aircraft accident, then that report must go to the NTSB and not the FAA.

            Should you have any questions about “substantial damage” to an aircraft or the filing requirements after an aircraft incident or accident, then contact Aviation Attorney Ronnie Gipson at 415.692.6523 or by email at Gipson@higagipson.com.

Recap to An Active Week in US Aviation Law

          This week the aviation industry saw a lot of activity in the legal arena that could have a significant impact on general and commercial aviation.   

          First, President Obama sent his budget proposal to Congress for 2015.  In the proposed budget, the President is again seeking a $100 user fee for both commercial and general aviation flights in the National Airspace System.  The congressional leadership kicked into gear immediately sending a strongly worded letter to the President indicating that this aspect of the budget proposal would not pass.  Aviation advocacy groups such as EAA and AOPA issued statements condemning the proposal as the wrong way to fund the services provided by Air Traffic Control.  Advocacy groups reiterated that the current system of collecting excise taxes on fuel purchases is an equitable way to extract proportionate tax revenue from users of the system based on demand.  While Higa & Gipson will continue to monitor the user fee proposal, we encourage airmen and aviation business owners to reach out to their congressional representatives and unequivocally let them know that user fees are not the way to fund ATC services.   

            The second major development this week in aviation law pertains to the nascent commercial drone industry.  The FAA has banned the operation of commercial drones in US airspace until it has time to implement rules for the safe integration of commercial drones into the National Airspace System.  National Transportation Safety Board Administrative Law Judge Geraghty handed down a ruling that overturned a civil penalty imposed by the FAA against the operator of a drone on the basis that the FAA lacked the statutory mandate to impose the penalty for violation of policy guidance disseminated from the FAA and not from an official rule.  While the technology industry lauds the ruling as a step towards advancing the cause of integrating drones into the NAS, it may be too early to open the celebratory champagne.  Almost immediately, the FAA announced that it is appealing the decision to the full NTSB Board.  If the result of this appeal is still considered to be unfavorable by the FAA, then the FAA can launch another appeal to the US Court of Appeals.  Pending the appeals, Judge Geraghty’s ruling is stayed.  Thus, the ban on commercial drone use in the US airspace will continue until the issue is resolved by the appellate process. 

            There are serious ramifications for the introduction of commercial drones into the NAS without thoughtful and measured scrutiny.  For example, the appearance of a commercial drone into the flight path of a commercial jet while landing could cause the airliner to execute a missed approach, which would cost thousands of dollars in fuel costs for the extended flight time.  Then there is the obvious danger in allowing commercial drones too much leeway for operations in the NAS due to the prospect of a mid-air collision with a general aviation or commercial airliner due to an absence of certified technology that can detect the other aircraft’s presence and provide collision avoidance guidance.  These concerns all relate to the potential for significant loss of life and property damage and as such require that the FAA move forward with caution. 

            Should you have questions about the user fees proposal or the National Airspace System, then contact Aviation Attorney Ronnie Gipson at gipson@higagipson.com or by telephone at (415) 692-6520.

Government Officials Conducting Questionable Searches of General Aviation Aircraft

As we near the half way mark of 2013, the aviation community has seen a startling trend emerge – there are a growing number of reports from law abiding airmen being stopped by armed federal agents on the ramp and their aircraft being searched without a warrant.  The agency reportedly conducting the searches is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection Division. 

 The searches seem to be targeted at General Aviation and have raised concerns regarding privacy and civil rights intrusions by the Federal Government.  To place these searches into context, a little education is required.  The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from searches by the government without a warrant.  The Amendment further provides that a warrant may be issued only upon probable cause.  Cases decided in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence history stringently adhere to the warrant requirement for a search of a person’s property such as an automobile.  However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement that allow government actors to conduct a search without a warrant. 

There exist a lot of questions about whether the searches are properly authorized because the reported searches were conducted by armed Customs and Border Protection agents at airports a significant distance away from the U.S. border such as in Iowa City, IA.  The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) along with the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) have both demanded official responses from officials at the highest level of DHS with no response.  The affected airmen and AOPA have filed Freedom of Information Act requests to no avail.  The purpose of the demand for official responses is to identify the legal basis upon which the searches are being conducted to assess whether or not the searches comply with the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement or whether the searches qualify for one of the exceptions.  The searches, as they are reportedly being conducted, amount to harassment by government officials who wrongly believe that constitutional protections do not apply to GA pilots. 

To date, none of the airmen have been arrested in connection with the warrantless searches.  As a result, without legal action in the courts by the government agencies no one has been provided with the right set of circumstances to challenge or question the DHS’s expansion of searches before a sitting Judge.  Regardless of whether or not the government takes subsequent action, if the right set of circumstances come to pass, there may exist an opportunity to challenge the actions.

If you, as an airman encounter a situation where a law enforcement official endeavors to search the aircraft without a warrant, then there are some suggested steps for you to follow to protect your rights.  First, ask the law enforcement official(s) to explain the purpose of their search.  Next, request to see the law enforcement’s official identification and make note of their name, badge number, and agency.  Third, in response to a request for documentation, provide the information specified in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to officials from the following:   the FAA, the NTSB, Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies.  For example, a private, commercial, or ATP pilot must present their pilot certificate, medical certificate, and a photo id[1].  Additionally, the pilot must present a valid aircraft registration upon request.  The fourth recommendation is for you to ask the official to identify the authority for the search.  Ask if you are under arrest.  If you are not under arrest, then ask if you are being detained and if you are free to go.  Next, if the law enforcement official states that they are going to search the aircraft and its contents over your objection, then you should plainly state that you do not consent to the search, but that you will not interfere.  It would also be prudent to alert the law enforcement official that disassembly of any portion of the aircraft may render the aircraft unairworthy[2].  

If feasible and allowed to do so, then take steps to document the search such as with a camera of cell phone.  Make a detailed written report as soon as practical to preserve the sequence of events as close as possible to how they transpired.  Each situation is unique and it is not the intent of Higa & Gipson through this blog entry to provide legal counsel on a specific factual scenario.  If you find yourself presented with this frightening circumstance in California, then contact Aviation Attorney Ronnie Gipson to discuss the situation at (415) 692-6523 or by email at gipson@higagipsonllp.com.      

---

[1] Code of Federal Aviation Regulations § 61.51(i) (1) (WEST 2013).   

[2] Portions of the recommended steps were adopted from AOPA’s brochure titled, “What To Do If Stopped by Law Enforcement” dated June 19, 2013, and appearing on the Internet at http://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/News/All%20News/2013/June/CBPGuildelinesKneeboard.pdf