The Pirker Case On or about October 17, 2011, a Swiss national, Raphael Pirker, flew his Ritewing Zephyr powered glider aircraft in the vicinity of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia for monetary compensation from Lewis Communications for video and photographs taken during that flight (Administrator v. Pirker, 2014a). A few months later, on April 13, 2012, the FAA advised him through a Notice of Proposed Assessment that he was to receive a civil penalty amounting to $10,000 pursuant to 49 USC §§46301(a)(1) and (d)(2) and 46301(a)(5) (Administrator v. Pirker, 2014a). The FAA alleged that Pirker was the pilot in command of the Ritewing Zephyr powered glider, or UAS as they classified it, although he did not possess a pilot certificate issued by the FAA. Furthermore, Pirker was alleged to have deliberately operated the UAS at extremely low altitudes over vehicles, buildings, people, streets, and structures. More specifically, Pirker allegedly operated the UAS at altitudes of approximately 10 feet to approximately 1,500 feet over the University of Virginia in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another in violation of 14 CFR § 91.13 (FAA, 2015b). Additionally, Pirker was alleged to have operated the UAS directly towards an individual standing on the sidewalk causing the individual to take immediate and evasive maneuvers so as to avoid being struck by the UAS. Among other allegations, Pirker operated the UAS within approximately 100 feet of an active heliport at the University (Administrator v. Pirker, 2014a). Upon receipt of the FAA’s Notice of Proposed Assessment, Pirker retained an attorney from the firm of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, LLP and appealed to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) (Administrator v. Pirker, 2014a). On March 6, 2014, the opinion came down from Judge Patrick G. Geraghty, that Pirker’s motion to dismiss should be granted and the Order of Assessment be dismissed. The reason was simply because his UAS was not an “aircraft” but instead a model aircraft subject only to the voluntary compliance with safety guidelines stated in Advisory Circular 91-57 (FAA, 1981). Additionally, Judge Geraghty was of the opinion that the Policy Notices 05-01 and 08-01 were issued and intended for internal guidance for FAA personnel and were not a jurisdictional basis for asserting 14 CFR § 91 enforcement authority on model aircraft operations (FAA, 2005, 2008). Neither did Policy Notice 07-01 establish a jurisdictional basis for asserting 14 CFR § 91.13 enforcement on Pirker’s model aircraft operation (FAA, 2007). More importantly, out of this ruling came this statement: “Specifically, that at the time of Respondent’s model aircraft operation, as alleged herein, there was no enforceable FAA rule or FAR Regulation [sic] applicable to model aircraft or for classifying model aircraft as an UAS” (Administrator v. Pirker, 2014a, p. 8). Naturally, the FAA attorneys were displeased at Judge Geraghty’s ruling and appealed, this time as procedure in an enforcement action dictates, to the full board of the NTSB (Administrator v. Pirker, 2014b). On November 18, 2014, the full board ruled that the term “aircraft” for the purposes of 14 CFR § 91.13 means “any device used for flight in the air” and therefore includes any aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small, thereby including Pirker’s Ritewing Zephyr powered glider (Administrator v. Pirker, 2014b). Pirker’s case was thus remanded to the ALJ for a full factual hearing to determine whether he had operated his UAS in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another, contrary to 14 CFR § 91.13 (Administrator v. Pirker, 2014b). On January 22, 2015 Pirker announced that rather than go to trial once again, he would settle the charges with the FAA for $1,100, which was a fraction of the original $10,000 penalty (Aviation International News, 2015). The two-page settlement agreement signed by both Pirker’s attorney and the FAA’s supervisory attorney stated that Pirker did not admit to any allegation of fact or law contained in the FAA’s assessment order and that he settled to avoid the expense of litigation (Aviation International News, 2015).