View the step-by-step solution to:

SERVED: November 18, 2014 NTSB Order No. EA-5730 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D. Adopted by the NATIONAL...

Cases are available. Students are to read bothPirker Decisions and do a case comment comparing the decision ofPirkerIandPirkerII.   The Formant of the Case Comment should be no longer than 1500 words and will contain an introduction, background information, the holding of the particular Court and most importantly, the student analysis of the case law on aviation, if any.  Which decision in your opinion is correct, is it the ALJ inPirkerIor the the full NTSB board inPirkerII.  Case comments will be evaluated on proper formatting, complete sentences, punctuation, and grammar.   Proper formated of citations must be used as found in Chapter One of theFundamentals of Aviation Law, the Course Text Book.  The main goal is to ascertain that a student can read a case, state the law and predict the case law effects on aviation.  

8603 SERVED: November 18, 2014 NTSB Order No. EA-5730 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. Adopted by the NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD at its office in Washington, D.C. on the 17th day of November, 2014 __________________________________ ) MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ) Administrator, ) Federal Aviation Administration, ) ) Complainant, ) ) Docket CP-217 v. ) ) RAPHAEL PIRKER, ) ) Respondent. ) ) __________________________________ ) OPINION AND ORDER 1. Background The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) appeals the decisional order of Administrative Law Judge Patrick G. Geraghty, issued March 6, 2014, vacating the Administrator’s order of assessment against respondent. 1 The assessment ordered respondent to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000.00 based on a violation of 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a) for 1 A copy of the decisional order is attached.
Background image of page 01
2 alleged careless or reckless operation of an unmanned aircraft. 2 The law judge’s order terminated the enforcement proceeding against respondent, and found § 91.13(a) did not apply to respondent’s unmanned aircraft because the device was not an “aircraft” for purposes of the regulation. For the following reasons, we reverse the law judge’s decisional order and remand for further proceedings. The Administrator issued an assessment order, which served as the complaint in the underlying proceeding, on June 27, 2013. The complaint alleged respondent remotely piloted an unmanned aircraft—a Ritewing Zephyr—in a series of maneuvers around the University of Virginia (UVA) campus in Charlottesville, Virginia, on October 17, 2011. The complaint alleged respondent operated the unmanned aircraft at altitudes ranging from the “extremely low”—10 feet above ground level (AGL)—up to 1,500 feet AGL. In the complaint, the Administrator also asserted respondent operated the aircraft, inter alia , “directly towards an individual standing on a . . . sidewalk causing the individual to take immediate evasive maneuvers so as to avoid being struck by [the] aircraft”; “through a . . . tunnel containing moving vehicles”; “under a crane”; “below tree top level over a tree lined walkway”; “under an elevated pedestrian walkway”; and “within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport.” Respondent allegedly conducted these maneuvers as part of flights for compensation, as the aircraft was equipped with a camera and respondent was “being paid by [a third party] to supply aerial photographs and video of the UVA campus and medical center.” Respondent appealed the Administrator’s order, and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law. The Administrator contested respondent’s motion, and 2 Section 91.13(a) prohibits operation of “an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.”
Background image of page 02
Show entire document
Background image of page 01
Background image of page 02
Show entire document
Sign up to view the entire interaction

Top Answer

Here is a detailed explanation... View the full answer

Aviation charges and appeal.doc

1
Running head: AVIATION CHARGES AND APPEAL Aviation charges and appeal
Student’s name
Institution 2
AVIATION CHARGES AND APPEAL
Aviation Charges and Appeal
Introduction
The FAA has the mandate...

Sign up to view the full answer

Why Join Course Hero?

Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors.

-

Educational Resources
  • -

    Study Documents

    Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access.

    Browse Documents
  • -

    Question & Answers

    Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed!

    Ask a Question
Ask a homework question - tutors are online