Legal

§212(a)(l ). The FAA ignored the Congressional mandate, promulgated new rules in the form of Part 117 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, but left cargo pilots subject to the old provisions of Part 121 based upon a "cost versus benefit analysis.

The author's purpose in writing this article is to refine and expand our thoughts about the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Pilot's Bill of Rights, Pub. L. 112-153, August 3, 2012, 126 Stat. 1159 (hereinafter the "PBR").

American Government, both State and Federal, is in chaos as it seeks to contain the explosion of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs/drones) being flown by inexperienced and untrained operators.

In this article we will review whether an order revoking or rescinding a Statement Of Acrobatic Competency "SAC Card" can be appealed to the National Transportation Safety Board contrary to the requirements of FAA Order 8900.1 mandating an appeal to AFS-800

In 1988, the FAA promulgated 14 C.F.R. §135.151(a) which provides: No person may operate a multiengine, turbine-powered airplane or rotorcraft having a passenger seating configuration of six or more and for which two pilots are required by certification or operating rules unless it is equipped with an approved cockpit voice recorder (CVR)

On April 8, 2015, the FAA issued FAA Notice N8900.292 relating to a National Policy concerning Aviation-Related Videos or Other Electronic Media on the Internet depicting UAS operations. The background discussed in the Notice is the fact that a number of UAS operations have appeared on the internet as videos which may be suggestive of using unmanned aircraft systems for commercial purposes without a waiver issued by the FAA.

We will examine the Initial Decision of Judge William R. Mullins in the case of Administrator v. Michael,2013 WL 6221805 (NTSB). In essence, Judge Mullins found that since the FAA had not provided the pilot with air traffic data before filing the complaint, he lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and the case was dismissed.

AirPooler sponsors a website that connects pilots and passengers to save money over commercial fares with pilots saving money on the operation of their aircraft. Before the founders of AirPooler set up this program, they would have been well-advised to have conducted some basic research. This is not the first time a scheme of this nature has been attempted.

Brendan Schulman, Esq., with the firm of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis and Frankel, LLP in New York, has embarked on a headlong assault on the FAA’s policy restricting the operation of model aircraft and/or unmanned aircraft systems pursuant to a 2007 FAA Policy Statement published in the Federal Register. Schulman maintains the Policy Statement did not con-form with Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act and was not part of the formal rule making process.

On March 6, 2014, Judge Geraghty of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued an Order finding that the FAA could not discipline the commercial operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle (“UAV”) on the theory that the UAV was not an aircraft as the term “aircraft” has historically been defined by the FAA. This issue of FlightWatch will examine the Order issued by Judge Geraghty, an Order from which the FAA appealed on March 7, 2014.