Información jurídica inteligente
 Argentina | +1 (305) 890 29 82

Sentencia contra FAA

Document Citado por Relacionados
Vincent
Páginas572-584
Served:
March
6,2014
UNITED
STATES
OF
AMERICA
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY
BOARD
OFFICE
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW
JUDGES
$
#
$
$
FJ
$
#
SFC
J}I
#
#
IFE
#
#
I|
^ ^
MICHAEL
P.
HUERTA,
*
ADMINISTRATOR,
*
FEDERAL
AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION,
*
*
Complainant,
*
*
Docket
CP-217
v.
*
*
RAPHAEL
PIRKER,
*
+
Respondent.
*
*
*
JFT
>[
I{
HI
>{
$
JFJ
LF{
IFL
$
#
I]I
$
#
SJC
5FT
>J
$
*
JFT
F,
# #
SERVICE:
Brendan
M.
Scbukuan,
Esq.
Kramer,
Levin,
Naftalis
&
Frankel,
LLP
117
Avenue
of
the
Americas
New
York,
NY
10036
(Certified
Mail
and
FAX)
Brendan
A.
Kelly,
Esq.
Office
of
th.e
Regional
(Counsel
FAA
Eastern
Region
1
Aviation
I'kiza
Jamaica, NY
11434
(FAX)
DECISIONAL
ORDER
Thi
s
matter
is
before
the
Board
upon
the
Appeal
of
Raphael
Pirker
(herein
Respondent),
from
ail
Order
of
Assessment,
which
seeks
to
assess
Responden
t
a
civil
penalty
in
the
sum
o
f
$10,000,00
U.S.
dollars.
The
Order
was
issued
against
Respondent
by
the
Administrator,
Federal
Aviation
Administration
(FAA),
herein
Complainant,
and
that
Order,
as
provided
by
Board
Rule,
serves
as
the
Complaint
in
this
action.
rci#r
ivietii
•JIT
• •
V''''"
V
'»•
•W'MF'+MR-TO
The
Complaint
is
comprised,
of
eleven
Numbered
Paragraphs
of
allegations.1
In
the
.first
paragraph,
it
is
alleged
that
Respondent
acted
on
or
about
October
17,2011,
as
pilot
in
command
of
"a Mewing
Zephyr
powered,
glider
aircraft,
in
the
vicinity
of
the
Universi
ty
of
Virginia.
(11VA)
Charlottesville,
Virginia..The
next
allegation
Paragraph
avers
that
that
aircraft,
"...is
an
Unmanned
Aircraft
System
(UAS),.It
is
further
alleged
that
Respondent's
flight
operation,
was
for
compensation,
in
that
payment
was received
for
video
and
photographs
taken
during
that
flight.
As
a
consequence
of
those
allegations,
and
the
remaining
factual
allegations
set
forth
in
the
Complaint,
it
is
charged
that
Respondent
acted
in
violation
of
the
provisions
of
Part
91,
Section
91.13(a),
Federal
Aviation
Regulations
(FARs).3
Respondent
has
filed
a
Motion
to
Dismiss,
seeking
dismissal
upon
the
assertion
that
the
Complaint
is
subject
to
dismissal,
as
a
matter
of
law,
in
the
absence
of
a
valid
rule
for
application
of
FAR
regulatory
authority
over
model
aircraft
flight
operations.
Complainant
has
submitted
a
Response4
in.
opposition,
arguing
that
the
Complaint
is
not
deficient
in
that,
as
the
non-moving
Party,
the
allegations
of
the
Complaint
must
be
assumed
true,
and
the
Complaint evaluated
in
manner
most
favorable
to
Complainant
This
argument
is
premature.
Respondent's
Motion
does
not
challenge
the
sufficiency
of
the
Complaint,
and
stipulates
therein
that,
solely
for
purposes
of
his
Motion,
the
Complaint's
allegations
are
to
be
assumed
as
true.
Any
dispute
and
argument,
as
to
the
efficacy
oft.be
Complaint
must
be
deferred,
pend
ing
resolution
of
the
threshold
issue
of
Complainant's
authority
to
exercise
FAR
regulatory
action
over
model
aircraft
operations.
1.4
C.F.R.
Part
11
Section
1.1
states
as
the
FAR.
definition
of
the
term
"Aircraft"
a
.
.device
that
is
used
or
intended
to
be
used
for
flight
in
the
air..."
And
Part
9.1,
Section
91.1
states
that
Part,
.
.prescribes
rules
governing
operation
of
aircraft.Premised
upon
those
FAR
provisions
and
•l
$ee
Attachment
1,
0rder
o£
Asse&sment,
for
a
full
statement
of
the
a11©gations.
See
Attachment
2
Specifications:
Ritewing
Zephyr
11.
i
Part
91,
Section
91.13(a)
provides:
No
person
may
operate
an.
aircraft
in
a
careless
or
reckless
manner
so
as
to
endanger
the
life or
property
of
another.
4
The
Parties
were
granted
leave
to
file
supplemental.
Briefs,
and
all
submissions
have
been
considered.
2
r^tvioii
^EASYIJN.K
those
of
49
IJ.S.C.
Section
40102(a)(6)Sl,
Complainant
axgues
that
Respondent
was
operating
a
device
or
contrivance designed
for
flight
in
the
air
and,
therefore, subject
to
Complainant's
regulatory
authority.
The
term,
"contrivance"
is
used
in
the
49
U.S.C
Section 40102(a)(6)
definition,
"aircraft",
whereas
Part
1,
Section
1,1,
defines
an
"aircraft"
as
a
"device";
however,
the
terms
are
basically
synonymous,
as
both
refer
to
an
apparatus
intended
or
used
for
flight,6
It
is
argued
by
Complainant
that,
under
either
definition
of
the
term,
"aircraft",
the
definition
includes
within
its
scope
a
model
aircraft.
That
argument
is,
however,
contradicted in
that
Complainant
FAA
has,
heretofore,
discriminated,
in
his
interpretation/application of
those
definitions.
Complainant
has,
historically,
in
their
policy
notices,
modified
the
term
"aircraft"
by-
prefixing
the
word
"model",
to
distinguish
the
device/contrivance
being
considered.
By
affixing
the
word,
"model"
to
"aircraft"
the
reasonable
inference
is
that
Complainant
FAA
intended,
to
distinguish
and
exclude
model
aircraft
from
either
or
both
of
the
aforesaid
definitions
of
"aircraft".
To
accept
Complainant's
interpretive
argument
would
lead
to
a
conclusion
that
those
definitions
include
as
an
aircraft
all
types
of
devices/contrivances
intended,
for,
or
used
for,
flight
in
the
air.
The
extension
of
that
conclusion
would
then
result,
in
the
risible
argument
that
a
{light
in
the
air
of,
gig.,
a
paper
aircraft,
or
a
toy
balsa
wood
glider,
could
subject
the
"operator"
to
the
regulatory
provisions
of
FAA.
Part
91,
Section.
91.13(a).
Complainant's
contention
that
a
model
aircraft
is
an
"aircraft",
as
defined
in
either
the
statutory
or
regulatory
definition,
is
diminished
on
observation
that
FAA
historically
has
not
required
model
aircraft
operators
to
comply
with
requirements
of
FAR
Part
21.,
Section
21.1.71
§t
seq
and
FAR,
Part
47,
Section
47.3,
which
require
Airworthiness
and
Registration
Certification
for
an.
aircraft.
The
reasonable
inference
is
not
that
FAA
lias
overlooked
the
requirements,
but,
rather
that
FAA
has
distinguished,
model
aircraft
as
a
class
excluded
from
the
regulatory
and
statutory
definitions,
b
49
U.S.C.
Section
40102(a)(6):
Aircraft
means
any
contrivance
invented,
used/
or
designed
to
navigate
or
fly
in
the
air.
6
Webster's
New
Dictionary
of
Synonyms,
"contrivance"
at
188;
"device"
at
236.
Roqet's
Thesaurus
4th
Ed.
At
348.1.
"
3
While
Complainant
states
in
his
Sur-Reply
Brief
that
he
Is
not
seeking
herein
to
enforce
FAA
Policy
Statements/Notices
concerning
model
aircraft
operation,
a
consideration
of
those
policy
notices
is
informative.7
Complainant
FAA
issued
Advisory
Circular
(AC)
AC
91-57,
entitled
"Model.
Aircraft
Operating
Standards",
stating
the
purpose
as
.encouraging
voluntary
compliance
with
safety
standards
for
model
aircraft
operators..
."8
That
Complainant
FAA
issued
an
AC
urging
model
aircraft
operators
to
voluntarily
comply
with
the
therein
stated
"Safety
Standards"9
is
incompatible
with
the
argument
that
model
aircraft
operators,
by
application
of
the
statutory
and
regulatory
definition,
"aircraft"
were
simultaneously subject
to
mandatory
compliance
with
the
FARs
and
subject
to
FAR
regulatory
enforcement.
,
That
FAA
has
not
deemed
every
device
used
for
flight
in
the
air
to
be
within
the
FAR
Part
1,
Section
1.1
definition,
and
thus
subject
to
provisions
of
Part
91
FARs,
is
illustrated
on
consideration
of
the
FA
A
regulatory
treatment
of
Ultralights.
An
Ultralight,
a
device
used
for
flight
In
the
air,
is
nevertheless
governed
by
the
provisions
of
Part
103
FARs,
and
whereupon
meeting
the
criteria
stated
in Section
103.1
is
defined,
not
as
an
"aircraft",
but
as
an
"Ultralight
Vehicle",
subject
only
to
the
particular
regulatory
provisions
of
Part
103,
FARs.
It
is
concluded
that,
as
Complainant:
has
not
issued
an
enforceable
FAR
regulatory
rule
governing
model
aircraft
operation;
has
historically
exempted
model
aircraft
from
the
statutory
FAR
definitions
of
"aircraft"
by
relegating
model
aircraft
operations
to
voluntary
compliance
with
the
guidance
expressed
in
AC
91-57,
Respondent's
model,
aircraft
operation was
not
subject
to
FAR
regulation,
and
enforcement,
As
previously
noted,
Complainant
lias
disclaimed
that,
in
this
litigation,
he
is
seeking
to
enforce
FAA
UAS
policy;
however,
the
Complaint
asserts
that
the
"aircraft"
being
operated
by
Respondent,
"is
an
Unmanned.
Aircraft
System (UAS)",
Since
the
classification
UAS
does
not
appear
in
the
FARs,
it
is
necessary
to
examine
the
FAA
policy
for
the
existence
of
a
rule
imposing
regulatory
authority
concerning
UAS
operations.
7
FAR
Policy
Notices
are
addressed
subsequently.
8
Attachment
3,
Advisory
Circular,
AC
91-57,
June
9,
1981.
9
Id.
at
Paragraph
3.
4
PAA
issued,
on
September
16,
2005,
Memorandum
AFS-400
UA.S
Policy
05-01
(Policy
05-
01)10,
which,
was
subsequently
cancelled,
revised,
and
re-issued
on
March
13,
2008,
as
Interim
Operational
Approval
Guidance
08-01
(Guidance
08-01),11
The
stated
purpose
of
those
Memoranda
was
to
issue
guidance,
not
to
the
general
public,
but,
rather
as
internal
guidance
to
be
used
by
the
appropriate
FAA
personnel.12
Significantly,
both
Memoranda
specifically
eschew
any
regulatory
authority
of
the
expressed,
poli
cy,
stating
respectively
that,
"thi
s
policy
is
not
meant
as
a
substitute
for
any
regulatory
process...
3
As
policy
statements
of
an
agency
are
not
-
aside
from
the
fact
that
the
guidance
policy
therein,
expressed
is
stated,
as
for
internal
FAA
use
-binding
upon
the
general
public14,
and
as
any
regulatory
effect
is
disclaimed,
these
Policy
Memoranda
cannot
be,
and
are
not,
found
as
establishing
a
valid
rule
for
classifying
a
model
aircraft,
as
an
UAS,
or
as
finishing
basis
for
assertion
of
FAR
regulatory
authority
vis
&
vis
model
aircraft
operations.
On
February
13,2007,
FAA
Notice
07-01
was
published
in.
the
Federal
Register
with
the
stated
purpose/action
of
serving
as
"Notice
of
Policy;
opportunity
for
feedback..
Under the
Section
captioned
"Policy
Statement",
it
is
stated
that
for
an
UAS
to
operate
in.
the
National
Airspace
System
(NAS),
specific
authority
is
required,
and
that, pertinent
here,
for
civil
aireraft
that
authority
is
a
special
airworthiness
certificate.
It
excludes
from
that
requirement
"modelers"
~
recreational/sport
users
and
the
operational
safety
authority
is
iterated,
as
AC
91-57.
It
further
provides
that
when
the
model
aircraft
is
used
for
"business
purposes'*16
AC
91-57
is
not
applicable,
as
by
such
use
the
model
aircraft
is
deemed
an
UAS,
requiring
special,
airworthiness
10
Title:
Unmanned
Aircraft
Systems
Operations
in
the
U.S.
National
Airspace
System
-
Interim
Operational
Approval
Guidance,
11
Title:
Unmanned
Aircraft
Systems
Operations
in
the
U.S.
National
Airspace
System.
u
Policy
05-01
at
1;
Guidance
08-01
at
2.
13
Policy
05-01
at
1;
Guidance
08-01
at
2,3.
14
Sync
or
lnt/1
Corp.
v.
Shalala,
56F.
3d
592,
595
(5
th
Cir.
1995).
18
72
.'Fed
f
Reg.
"
668
f'~2
007)
.
16
Id
at
6690
(2007),
Policy
Statement
"business"
is
not
defined,
so
it
is
unclear
if
the
term
Is
limited
to
ongoing
enterprises
held
out
to
the
general
public,
or if
it
includes
a
one-time
operation
for
any form
or
amount
of
compensation.
'
5
certification..1'
In
my
view,
the
iteration,
of
the
authority
of
AC
91.-57,
even
though,
restricted
here,
undercuts
the
contention
that
model
aircraft
were
considered
an
aircraft
as
defined
in
the
FARs,
or
the
Code,
and
subject
to
Part
91
FAR
regulation.
Notice
07-01
expressly
states
that
its
action/purpose
is
to
set
forth
the
current
FAA
policy
for
UAS
operations,
and
the
requirements
are
stated,
as
noted
above,
under
the
Section
captioned
"Policy
Statement".
As
self-defined
as
a
statement
of
policy,
it
cannot
be
considered
as
establishing
a
rule
or
enforceable
regulation,
since,
as
discussed
supra,
policy
statements
are
not
binding
on
the
general
public.
As
Notice
07-01
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register,
even,
though
stated
as
a.
"Notice
of
Policy",
it
could,
be
argued
that
it
could
be
considered
as
legislative
rulemaking
purporting
to
set
out
new,
mandatory
requirements/limitations
requiring
public
compliance.
Notice
07-0.1
does
not,
however,
meet
the
criteria
for
valid.
legislative
rulemaking,
as
it
was
not
issued
as
a
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(NPRM),
and
if
intended
to
establish,
a
substantive
rule,
it
did
not
satisfy
the
requirements
of
5
U.S.C.,
Section
553(d),
which,
requires
publication
of
notice
not
less
than
30
days
before
the
effective
date.18
As
it
is
shown
as
being
issued
on
February
6,
2007,
and.
published
as
a.
Notice
of
Policy
February
13,2007,
it
fails
this
requirement.
It
is
significant
that
upon
comparison
of
the
allegations
in
the
Complaint
with
the
statements
put
forward
in
the
Policy
Statement
Section
of
Notice
07-01,
that
the
allegations
made
in.
Complaint
Paragraphs
2,
5,
and
6,
mirror
the
Policy
Notice
provisions.
That
fact
contradicts
Complainant's
assertion
that.
Policy
Notice
07-01
plays
no
part
in
this
litigation.
Those
allegations
are
also
found
as
being
inconsistent
with
the
assertion
that
model
aircraft
were always
included,
in
the
FAR
Part
1,
Section
1.1
definition, and
thus
subject
to
Part
91
FAR
regulation.
If
so,
it
was
unnecessary
to
allege
-
as
in.
Paragraphs
5
and
6
•»»
flight
for
compensation/payment
which
appears
to
be
for
the
purpose
of
re-classifying
Respondent's
model
aircraft
as
an
UAS
within
the
terminology
of
Notice
07-01.19
17
72
Fed. Reg.
6690
(2007).
18
5
U.S.C.
Section
553
-
Rulemaking,
The
exceptions
stated
in
Section
553(d)
are
not
applicable,
particularly
Exception
(2),
in
that
Notice
07-01
does
not
interpret
an
existing
rule
or
policy
statement
-
it
is
a
statement
of
current
policy.
19
On.
Complainant'
s
theory,
Respondent
could
be
charged
directly
as
operating
an
"aircraft"
contrary
to
the
provisions
of
Section
Congress
enacted
the
FAA
Modernization
Re-authorization
and
Reform
Act
of
2012
(2012
Act),
and
therein,
addressed
in
Subtitle
B,
Unmanned
Aircraft
Systems.20
This
legislation
postdates
the
events
at
issue
herein.;
however,
the
language
of
provisions
of
the
2012
Act
is
instructive.
The
2012
Act
requires
FAA,
through
the
Secretary
of
Transportation,
to
develop
a
plan
for
integration
of
civil
UAS
into
the
NAS,
specifying
that
the
plan
contain
recommendations
for
rulemaking
to
define
acceptable
standards
for
operation
and
certification
of
civil
UAS,21
The
2012
Act
further,
in
the
Subsection
Rulemaking,
specifies
a
date
for
publication
of
"(1)
a
final
rule
on
small
UAS..,"
to
permit
their
operation
in
the
NAS.22
The
2012
Act
also
contains
a
provision
stating
that
the
Administrator,
FAA,.
.may
not
promulgate
any
rule
or
regulation
regarding
a
model
aircraft..where
the
model
aircraft satisfies
the
criteria
stated
therein.23
It
is
a
reasonable
inference
that
this
language
shows
that,
at
the
time
of
enactment
of
the
2012
Act,
the
legislators
were
of
the
view
there
were
no
effecti
ve
rules
or
regulations
regulating
model
aircraft
operation,
elsewise,
rather
than calling
for
enactment
of
such.,
the
2032
Act
would
have
called
for
action
to
repeal,
amend,
or
modify
the
existing
rules
or
regulations,
and
not
require
a
date
for
issuance
of
a
final
rule.
1
find
that:
1.
Neither
the
Part
1,
Section.
1.1,
or
the 49
U.S.C.
Section
40102(a)(6)
definitions
of
"aircraft"
are
applicable
to,
or
include
a
model
aircraft
within
their
respective
definition..24
2.
Model
aircraft
operation
by
Respondent
was
subject
only
to
the
FAA's
requested
voluntary
compliance
with,
the
Safety
Guidelines
stated
in
AC
91-57.
91.13(a).
Compensation/payment
could
arguably
then
be
a
factor
for
resolving:
careless
or
reckless
operation;
appropriate
sane
1:ion/severity
of
a
civi
1
pena
11y.
20
Public
Law
112-95,
126
Stat,
72
(February
14,
2012).
21
Id
at
Section
332(a)
(1) (2)
(1)
(b)
(i)
.
Id
at
Section
332(b),
Rulemaking,
Id
at
Section
332(a),
2*
Accepting
Compla1n
ant's
overreaching
1nterpret
atxon
o
f
the
definition
^aircraft",
would
result
reductio
acl
obsurdum
in
assertion
of
FAR
regulatory
authority
over
any
device/object
used
or
capable
of
flight
In
the
air,
regardless
of
method
of
propulsion
or
duration
of
flight.
'
"
7
3.
As
Policy
Notices
05-01
and
08-01
were
issued
and
intended
for
internal
guidance
for
FAA
personnel,
they
are
not
a
jurisdictional basis
for
asserting
Part
91
FAR
enforcement
authority
on
model
aircraft
operations.
4.
Policy
Notice
07-01
does
not establish
a
jurisdictional
basis
for
asserting
Part
91,
Section
91.13(a)
enforcement
on
Respondent's
model
aircraft
operation,
as
the
Notice
is
either
(a)
as
it
states,
a
Policy
Notice/Statement
and
hence
non-binding,
or
(b)
an
invalid
attempt
of
legislative
rulemaking,
which
fails
for
non-compliance
with
the
requirement
of
5
U.S.C,
Section.
553,
Rulemaking.
5.
Specifically,
that
at
the
time
of
Respondent's
model
aircraft
operation,
as
alleged
herein,
there
was
no
enforceable
FAA
rule
or
FAR
Regulation,
applicable
to
model
aircraft
or
for
classifying
model
aircraft
as
an
UAS,2s
Upon
the
findings
and
conclusions
reached,
I
hold
that
Respondent's
Motion
to
Dismiss
must
be
AFFIRMED.
1.1
IS
ORDERED
THAT:
1.
Respondent's
Motion
to
Dismiss
be,
and
hereby
is:
GRANTED.
2.
Complainant's
Order
of
Assessment
be,
and
hereby
is:
VACATED
AND
SET
ASIDE.
3.
This
proceeding
be,
and
is:
TERMINATED
WITH
PREJUDICE.2*
ENTERED
this
6Lh
day
oi'March.
2014,
at
Denver,
Colorado.
25
On
the
FAA's
decades
long
holding
out
to
model,
aircraft
operators/public
that
the
only
FAA
policy
regarding
model
aircraft
operations
was
the
requested
voluntary
compliance
with
the
.Safety
Guidelines
of
AC
91-57,
it
would,
likely
require
for
assertion
of a
Rule
or
FAR
authority
concerning
model
aircraft
operations,
for
the
FAA
to
undertake
rulemaking
as
required
by
5
U
.
S
•
C
•
S
ec
t
i
on
5
5
3
Ru
1
ema
k
i
n
g
.
A1
a
a
k
a
P
r
o
f
e
s s
1
on
a
1
H.u
n.
t
e
r
s
Association,
Inc.
v.
Pedera
1
Avlat.1.on
Adroinistration,
17
7
F.
3d
1030
(D.C.
Cir.
1999),
Shell
Offshore,
Inc.
v.
Babbitt,
238
F.
3d
6
2
2
(5th
C
i
r
.
2
0
01)
.
"
"
26
In
light
of
the
decision
reached
herein,
other
issues
raised,
and
argument
made
need
not
be,
and
are
not,
addressed,
8
PATRICK
G.
GERAGHTY
JUDGE
ATTACHMENT
1
Eastern
Region
1
Aviation
Plaza
Regional
Counsel
Jamaica,
NY
11434
Telephone;
718
553-3Z69
'
Facsimile:
(718)
088-6099
FEDERAL
EXPRESS,
REGISTERED
MAIL
-
RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED.
AND
ELECTRONIC
MAIL
.
Raphael
Pirker
Mielchutistrasse
47
8304
Zurich
Switzerland
Docket
No.
2012EA210009
ORDER
OF ASSESSMENT
On
April
1.3,
2012,
you
were
advised
through
a
Notice
of
Proposed
Assessment
that
the
FAA
proposed
to
assess
a
civil
penalty
in
the
amount
of
$10,000.
After
consideration
of
all
the
available
information,
it
appeai-s
that:
1.
On
or
about
October
17,
2011,
you
were
the
pilot
in
command
of
a
Ritewing
Zephyr
powered
glider
aircraft
in
the
vicinity
of
the
University
of
Virginia
(UVA),
Charlottesville,
Virginia.
2.
The
aircraft
referenced
above
is
an.
Unmanned
Aircraft
System
(UAS).
3.
At
all
times
relevant
herein
you
did
not
possess
a.
Federal
Aviation
Administration
pilot
certificate.
4.
The
aircraft
referenced
above
contained
a
camera
mounted
on.
the
aircraft
which
sent
real
time
video
to
you
on
the
ground.
5.
You
operated
the
flight
referenced
above
for
compensation,
6.
Specifically,
you
were
being
paid
by
Lewis
Communications
to
supply
aerial
photographs
and
video
of
the
U
VA
campus
and
medical
center.
7.
You
deliberately
operated
the
above-described
aircraft
at
extremely
low
altitudes
over
vehicles,
buildings,
people,
streets,
and'stractures,
U.S.
Department
of
Transportation
Federal
Aviation
Administration
vlUN
2
7
2013
By
reason
of
the
foregoing,
you
violated
the
following
section(s)
of
the
Federal
Aviation
Regulations:
• •
a.
Section.
91.13(a),
which
states
that
no
person
may
operate
an
aircraft
in
a.
careless
or
reckless
manner
so
as
to
endanger
the
life
or
property
of
another.
NOW
THEREFORE,
IT
IS
ORDERED,
pursuant
to
49
U.S.C,
§§46301(a)(1)
and
(d)(2)
and
46301(a)(5),
that
you
be
and
hereby
are
assessed
a
civil
penalty
in
the
amount
of
$10,000.
You
may
pay
the
penalty
amount
by
submitting
a
certified
check
or
money
order
payable
to
the
"Federal
Aviation
Administration."
to
the
Office
of
Accounting,
1
Aviation
Plaza,
Jamaica,
NY
11434.
In
the
alternative,
you
may
pay
your
civil
penalty
with
a
credit
card
over
the
Internet.
To
pay
electronically, visit
the
web
site
at
http://div.dot.gov/fea.htiM
and
click
on
"Civil
Fines
and
Penalty
Payments"
which
will
bring
you
to
the
"FAA
Civil
Penalty
Payments
Eastern
Region"
page-
You
must
then
complete
the
requested
information
and
click
"submit"
to
pay
by
credit
card.
3
Specifications
MODEL:
Zephry
II
MANUFACTURER:
RiteWingRC
(ritewingrc.com)
DISTRIBUTOR:
RiteWingRC
TYPE:
electric
flying
wing
SMALLEST
FLYING
AREA:
football
field
IDEAL FOR:
intermediate
or
advanced
WTNGSPAN:
56
in.
WING
AREA:
770
sq.
in.
READY-TO-FLY
WEIGHT:
41bs
7oz
WING
LOADING:
16
oz
sq.il
PRICE:
$130.00
CENTER-OF-GRAVITY:
9
3/8"
back
from
nose
GEAR USED
Radio:
Spektmm
DX8,
Orange
rx,
(2)
Rite
WingRC
metal
gear
servos-elevons
Motor:
RiteWingRC
1200kv,
65amp
ESC
(ritewingrc.com),
Turnigy
Samp
26v
BEC
.
(hobbyki.ng.com)
hi+n7/r.Hii>:{.mnde1a.irnlanenews.com/wD-conteiit/uoloads/2012/06/Cairturel9.ioe?d3fc49
3/6/2014
ATTACHMENT
3
'4K.
.M.
M4RL.
^4B
T
ITOMK
AIMNLTP
.«««V.
1
LLWLIA
AC
91-57
DATE
JUNE
9,
1981
ADVISORY
CIRCULAR
DEPARTMENT
OF TKANSFORTATlON
P'firfera!
Aviation
Administration
Washington,
IXC.
Subject:
MODEL
AIRCRAFT
OPERATING
STANDARDS
PURPOSE*
This
advisory
circular
outlines,
and
encourages
voluntary
compliance
with,
safety
standards
for
model
aircraft
operators*
2*
BACKGROUND.
Modelers,
generally,
are
concerned
about
safety
and
do
exer-
cise
good
judgement
when
flying
model
aircraft.
However,
model.aircraft
can
at
times;
pose
a
hazard
to
full-acale
aircraft
in
flight
and
to
persons"mid
property
on
the
surface*
Compliance
with
the
following
standards
will
help
reduce
the
potential
for
that
hazard
and
create
a
good
neighbor
environment
with
affected
eontamnitles
and
airspace
users.
3.
OFKKAtlElG
STANDARDS*
a.
Select
an
operating
site,
that
is
of
Sufficient
distance
from
populated
areas,
Tine
selected
site
Bhould
be
away
from
noise.
sensitive:
areas
such
as
parks,
schools,
hospitals,
churches,
etc.
b.
Do
not
operate
model
aircraft
in
the
presence
of
spectators
until
the
aircraft
is
successfully
flight
tested
and
proven
airworthy.
c.
Do
not
fly
model
aircraft
higher
than
400
feet
above
the
surface.
When
flying
aircraft
within
3
miles
of
an
airport,
notify
the
airport
operator,
or
when
an
air
traffic
facility
is
located
at
the
airport,
notify
the
control
tower,
or
flight
service
station.
d.
Give
right
o£
my
to,
and
avoid
flying
in
the
proximity
of,
full-scale
aircraft.
Use
observers
to
help
if
possible.
e.
Do
not
hesitate
to
ask
for
assistance
from
any
airport
traffic
control
or
flight
service
station
concerning
compliance
with
these
standards
R.
J.
VAN
VUREN
*"""
\
'
Director,
Air
Traffic
Service
Initiated
by:
AAT-220
(hobbyki.ng.com)
hHrW/cdnK
.mndda.irn1anenew8.com/wD-content/unloads/2012/06/CaDturel9.ipa7d3fc49
3/6/2014

Para continuar leyendo

Solicita tu prueba

Búsquedas relacionadas:

VLEX utiliza cookies de inicio de sesión para aportarte una mejor experiencia de navegación. Si haces click en 'Aceptar' o continúas navegando por esta web consideramos que aceptas nuestra política de cookies. ACEPTAR