This document discusses the current regulatory landscape for unmanned aerial systems (UAS) in the United States following the Pirker case. It summarizes the Pirker case, which established that model aircraft are subject to FAA regulations. It then outlines current FAA policies for public, civil, and hobby UAS operations, which include requirements for certificates of authorization, exemptions, and adherence to safety guidelines. The document analyzes the gap between FAA policies and federal laws regarding UAS integration and regulation.

1. 1
In the Aftermath of Pirker: Questions of Policy
Versus Law on Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)
By: Sarah J. Nilsson, JD, PhD, MAS
Assistant Professor of Aviation Law and Regulations
College of Aviation
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
3700 Willow Creek Road
Prescott, Arizona 86301
sarah.nilsson@erau.edu
Abstract
The regulatory versus policy landscape for unmanned aerial system (UAS) users in the
United States (US), as of September 2015, is not an easy one to navigate. The entire
country is buzzing with the sight and sound of this new technology, not just in terms of
engine noise but more so in terms of the public outcry to the invasion of privacy. The
federal government is currently drafting laws that will safely integrate these systems
within the National Airspace System (NAS). Concurrently, at least 30 states, unable to
wait patiently in the sidelines for such legislation, have implemented their own statutes
to address these issues. Meanwhile, the judiciary has set precedent with the Pirker
case, leaving more questions unanswered than were answered in the proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials have issued guidelines and policies to
bridge the gap in the law, while trying to educate many private users who are not
aviators.
Keywords: Unmanned Aerial Systems, Pirker, Law, Policy, Federal Aviation
Administration, Model Aircraft, Regulatory Exemption, Certificate of Waiver or
Authorization, Experimental Certificates, Section 333 Exemptions

2. 2

3. 3
In the Aftermath of Pirker: Questions of Policy Versus Law on Unmanned Aerial
Systems (UAS)
Introduction
Unmanned aircraft are flying in the National Airspace System (NAS) under very
controlled conditions, anywhere from the surface up to above 50,000 feet (FAA, 2015a).
Currently unmanned aerial systems (UAS) operations in Class B airspace (over major
urban areas and high density air traffic airports) are unauthorized (FAA, 2015a). Yet, in
just one year pilot reports of UAS have increased from a total of 238 sightings in all
twelve months of 2014, to more than 650 as of August 9, 2015 (FAA, 2015a).
Meanwhile firefighters battling wildfire blazes in the western part of the country
have been forced to ground their operations on several occasions for safety reasons
when they spotted one or more unmanned aircraft in their immediate vicinity (FAA,
2015a).
In January of this year, CNN news reported that a smuggler’s UAS flying from
Mexico had crash-landed just south of the US border of San Ysidro, California in a failed
drug delivery (Valencia and Martinez, 2015). Apparently the smugglers’ greed was their
undoing as they loaded the UAS with more than six pounds of the synthetic drug crystal
meth, exceeding the load capacity of the six-propeller Spreading Wings S900 model
(Valencia and Martinez, 2015).
In addition to these issues, the public outcry over the invasion of privacy is loud
enough to be heard from space. And the lack of federal regulation has led to conflicting
policies and sometimes diametrically opposed laws from state to state. To illustrate this
point, one must first familiarize oneself with the precedent created by the Pirker case,
and next the policies, not yet laws, emanating from the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) which have led to the creation of state laws to fill the void left by, as yet unwritten,
federal ones.
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,

4. 4
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).

5. 5
Current UAS FAA Policy
After Judge Geraghty, in March 2014, ruled in favor of Pirker, stating that his
Ritewing Zephyr was a model aircraft, but before the full NTSB board overturned that
decision in November 2014, stating that his Ritewing Zephyr was indeed a UAS, the
FAA in June 2014 issued a press release that offered guidance to model aircraft
operators (FAA, 2014a). In this release the FAA attempted to issue an interpretation of
the 2012 Modernization and Reform Act and restated its authority to take enforcement
action against hazardous operations (FAA, 2014a). When the FAA Modernization and
Reform Act was signed into law in 2012, Section 333 of this Act granted authority to the
FAA to establish an interim policy that bridges the gap between the current state and
National Airspace System (NAS) operations as they will be once the small UAS rule is
finalized. Current FAA policy is based on whether the unmanned aircraft is used as a
public aircraft, civil aircraft, or as a model aircraft (FAA, 2014b).
Current UAS FAA Policy for public operations (governmental)
Where public use of UAS is concerned, the FAA developed guidance in a
memorandum titled “Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations in the US National
Airspace System – Interim Operational Approval Guidance” which was referred to
earlier in this paper as Policy Notice 05-01 (FAA, 2005). In this Policy Notice 05-01, the
FAA set out guidance for public use of UAS by defining a process for evaluating
applications for Certificate(s) of Waiver or Authorization (COAs) for UAS to operate in
the NAS. This was to address the FAA’s concern for safety, not only due to interference
with commercial and general aviation aircraft, but also with other airborne vehicles and
persons or property on the ground (FAA, 2005).
At this time COAs are available to public entities that want to fly a UAS in civil
airspace (FAA, 2015c). These entities include law enforcement, firefighting, border
patrol, disaster relief, search and rescue, military training, and many more. The COA
allows the operator to use a defined block of airspace and includes special provisions
unique to the proposed operation (FAA, 2015c). COAs are issued for a specific period,
typically up to two years. Most COAs require coordination with an appropriate air traffic
control facility and may require a transponder on the UAS to operate in certain types of
airspace. Because UAS technology cannot currently comply with “see and avoid” rules
that apply to all aircraft, a visual observer or an accompanying “chase plane” must
maintain visual contact with the UAS and serve as its “eyes” when operating outside
airspace restricted from other users. As of September 2015, the FAA claims the
average time to issue an authorization for non-emergency operations is less than 60
business days. The FAA has an expedited procedure in place to grant a one-time COA
for time-sensitive emergency missions, such as disaster relief and humanitarian efforts
(FAA, 2015c).
In order to ensure safety, the operator is required to establish the UAS’s
airworthiness either through FAA certification, DoD airworthiness statement, or by other
approved means. Applicants also have to demonstrate that a collision with another

6. 6
aircraft or other airspace user is extremely improbable as well as complying with
appropriate cloud and terrain clearances as required. This concept is tied to the roles of
pilot in command and observer and includes minimum qualifications and currency
requirements (FAA, 2014c).
The role of the observer is to observe the activity of the UAS and surrounding
airspace, either through line of sight on the ground or in the air by means of a chase
aircraft. Generally, this means that the pilot or the observer must be, typically, within
one mile laterally and 3,000 feet vertically of the UAS. Furthermore, direct
communication between the pilot in command and the observer must be maintained at
all times. Unmanned aircraft flight above 18,000 feet must be conducted in accordance
with Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), on an IFR flight plan, must obtain air traffic control
clearance, must be equipped with at least a Mode C transponder (preferably a Mode S),
operating lights and/or collision avoidance lights, and maintain communication between
the pilot in command and air traffic control (FAA, 2014c). It is worth noting that as of
2014 the FAA had issued in excess of 609 COAs (FAA, 2015c).
Current UAS FAA Policy for civil operations (non-governmental)
Any operation that does not meet the statutory criteria for public aircraft operation
per 49 USC § 40102(a)(41) and § 40125 is considered a civil aircraft operation. There
are currently two methods of gaining FAA authorization to fly civil (non-governmental)
UAS: (1) Section 333 Exemption and (2) Special Airworthiness Certificate (SAC) (FAA,
2015d).
A Section 333 Exemption is a grant of exemption in accordance with Section 333
of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 as well as a civil COA. This process
may be used to perform commercial operations in low-risk, controlled environments
(FAA, 2015d).
In order to qualify for a SAC, applicants must be able to describe how their
system is designed, constructed, and manufactured, including engineering processes,
software development and control, configuration management, and quality assurance
procedures used, along with how an where they intend to fly (FAA, 2015d). There are
two types of SAC categories: (a) SAC in the experimental category and (b) a UAS type
and airworthiness certificate in the Restricted Category (FAA, 2015d). SAC in the
experimental category may be used for civil aircraft to perform research and
development, crew training, and market surveys. However, carrying persons or property
for compensation or hire is prohibited in accordance with FAA Order 8130.34. A UAS
type and airworthiness certificate in the Restricted Category is issued under 14 CFR §
21.25(a)(2) and § 21.185 for a special purpose or a type certificate for production of the
UAS under 14 CFR § 21.25(a)(1) or § 21.17 (FAA, 2015d).
In March 2015, the FAA established an interim policy to speed up airspace
authorizations for certain UAS operators who obtain Section 333 exemptions. Under this
new policy, the FAA would grant a COA for flights at or below 200 feet to any UAS

7. 7
operator with a Section 333 exemption for aircraft that weigh less than 55 pounds,
operate during daytime Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions, operate within visual line-
of-sight (VLOS) of the pilots, and stay certain distances away from airports or heliports.
The “blanket” 200-foot COA allows flights anywhere in the country except restricted
airspace and other areas, such as major cities, where the FAA prohibits UAS
operations. Previously, an operator had to apply for and receive a COA for a particular
block of airspace, a process that could take 60 days (FAA, 2015e).
As of the beginning of September 2015, the FAA had granted 1,439 Section 333
Exemptions for the purposes of research and development, marketing surveys, or crew
training (FAA, 2015e).
Current UAS FAA Policy for hobby or recreational use
The FAA was clear in its press release that the notice, published in the Federal
Register in June 2014, was to provide clear guidance to model operators on the “do’s
and don’ts of flying safely” in accordance with the Act and to answer many of the
questions it has received regarding the scope and application of the rules (FAA, 2014a).
In the notice, the FAA restated the law’s definition of model aircraft including
requirements that they not interfere with manned aircraft, be flown within sight of the
operator and be operated only for hobby or recreational purposes. The FAA also
explained that model aircraft operators flying within five miles of an airport must notify
the airport operator and air traffic control tower (FAA, 2014a).
The FAA reaffirmed that these provisions only apply to hobby or recreation
operations and do NOT authorize the use of model aircraft for commercial operations.
To this end the FAA included on its website (www.faa.gov) an informational video
together with a do’s and don’ts fact sheet, intended for the public who may not be as
familiar with the NAS as aviators (FAA, 2015e). Governing policy as of September 2,
2015 is now that contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57A (FAA, 2015h). This comes
after the brief cancellation and subsequent reinstatement of AC 91-57 by the FAA,
sometime in October 2014 (Academy of Model Aeronautics, n.d.). AC 91-57A gives
guidance to persons who operate a model aircraft/UAS weighing less than 55 pounds.
Among the guidance, one can find sound advice on site selection and use of good
judgment. Hobbyists are advised not to fly in the vicinity of spectators until they are
confident that the model aircraft has been flight tested and proven airworthy. Model
aircraft should be flown below 400 feet above the surface to avoid other aircraft in flight
as well as within visual line of sight (FAA, 2015h). Of utmost significance in this revision
is the reference in two places within the three-page document of the potential for legal
enforcement action (FAA, 2015h).
In short, the FAA made it clear that the Agency would take enforcement action
against model aircraft operators who operate their aircraft in a manner that endangers
the safety of the NAS as it is their job to protect users of the airspace as well as people
and property on the ground (FAA, 2014a). Additionally, the FAA made it clear that

8. 8
authorization is required if photographs or video captured during recreational use were
then sold to another individual (FAA, 2015d).
State laws
In the absence of any federal laws on the matter, as of September 2015, there
have been at least 30 States that have enacted laws directly relating to UAS, beginning
in 2013 and continuing through 2015, according to the National Conference of State
Legislators (NCSL) (2015a, b, c).
Alabama adopted, in 2013, House Resolution (HR) 381, to recognize the
benefits of a thriving UAS industry in their state (NCSL, 2015a).
Alaska adopted House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 6 that created a legislative
Task Force on UAS that was charged with creating written recommendations and
legislation that allows for UAS to be used in a way that protects privacy. In addition to
members of the legislature, the task force was to be comprised of representatives from
state agencies, aviation organizations, and academia. Alaska also enacted House Bill
(HB) 255 that requires law enforcement agencies to adopt procedures that ensure: (1)
the appropriate FAA flight authorization is obtained; (2) UAS operators are trained and
certified; (3) a record of all flights is kept and (4) there is an opportunity for community
involvement in the development of the agencies’ procedures. Under Alaska law, police
may use UAS pursuant to a search warrant, pursuant to a judicially recognized
exception to the warrant requirement, and in situations not involving a criminal
investigation. Additionally, images captured with UAS may be retained by police under
the law for training purposes or if it is required as part of an investigation or prosecution.
This law also authorizes the University of Alaska to develop a training program for
operating UAS. The state senate also adopted a resolution, HCR15, to extend the
operating time and expand the duties of the state UAS task force (NCSL, 2015b).
Arkansas HB1349 prohibits the use of UAS to commit voyeurism. HB1770
prohibits the use of UAS to collect information, or photographically or electronically
record information, about critical infrastructure without consent (NCSL, 2015c).
California adopted in 2013, Assembly Joint Resolution (AJR) 6 and Senate Concurrent
Resolution (SCR) 16, to recognize the benefits of a thriving UAS industry in their state
(NCSL, 2015a). Then in a dramatic turn of events, California adopted Senate Bill (SB)
142 preventing UAS from operating less than 350 feet above ground level with the
airspace overlaying another person’s real property (NCSL, 2015c).
Florida Senate Bill (SB) 92 defined a UAS and limited its use by law
enforcement. Under this legislation, law enforcement may use a UAS if they obtain a
warrant, there is a terrorist threat, or “swift action” is needed to prevent loss of life, or to
search for a missing person. Additionally, the law enables someone harmed by an
inappropriate use of UAS to pursue civil remedies and prevents evidence gathered in
violation of this code from being admitted in any Florida court (NCSL, 2015a). SB766

9. 9
prohibits the use of a UAS to capture an image of privately owned property or the
owner, tenant, or occupant of such property without consent if a reasonable expectation
of privacy exists (NCSL, 2015c).
Georgia adopted in 2013, HR80, HR81, and SR172 to recognize the benefits of
a thriving UAS industry in their state (NCSL, 2015a).
Hawaii SB661 created a chief operating officer position for the Hawaii UAS test
site. It also established a UAS test site advisory board to plan and oversee test site
development and appropriate funds to establish the test site (NCSL, 2015c).
Idaho adopted in 2013, SCR103 to recognize the benefits of a thriving UAS
industry in their state (NCSL, 2015a). Idaho also enacted SB1134 to define UAS and
require warrants for their use by law enforcement, as well as establish guidelines for
their use by private citizens and provide civil penalties for damages caused by improper
use (NCSL, 2015a).
Illinois enacted two laws in 2013, both of which define a UAS as any aerial
vehicle that does not carry a human operator. The first, HB1652, prohibits anyone from
using a UAS to interfere with hunters or fishermen. The second, SB1587, allows UAS to
be used by law enforcement with a warrant, to counter a terrorist attack, to prevent
harm to life, or to prevent the imminent escape of a suspect among other situations.
Furthermore, if a law enforcement agency uses a UAS, the agency must destroy all
information gathered by the UAS within 30 days, except that a supervisor at the law
enforcement agency may retain particular information if there is reasonable suspicion it
contains evidence of criminal activity. The law also requires the Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority (CJIA) to report on its website every law enforcement agency that
owns a UAS and the number they own. Each law enforcement agency is responsible for
giving this information to the CJIA in Illinois (NCSL, 2015a).
In 2014, Illinois enacted SB2937 creating regulations for how law enforcement
could obtain and use information gathered from a private party’s use of UAS. This law
requires police to follow warrant protocols to compel third parties to share information,
and if the information is voluntarily given to police, authorities are required to follow the
state’s law governing UAS data retention and disclosure. The law also loosens
regulations around law enforcement’s use of UAS during a disaster or public health
emergency (NCSL, 2015b).
In 2015, SB44 created a UAS Oversight Task Force, which is tasked with
considering commercial and private use of UAS, landowner and privacy rights and
general rules and regulations for the safe operation of UAS. The task force is to prepare
recommendations for the use of UAS in Illinois (NCSL, 2015c).
Indiana in 2013 adopted a resolution Senate Resolution (SR) 27 urging their
legislative council to study UAS issues. In 2014, in HB1009, Indiana created warrant
requirements and exceptions for the police use of UAS and real-time geo-location
tracking devices. The law also prohibits law enforcement from compelling individuals to
reveal passwords for electronic devices without a warrant. If law enforcement in Indiana

10. 10
obtains information from an electronic service provider pursuant to a warrant, the
provider is immune from criminal or civil liability. Furthermore, the law provides that if
police seek a warrant to compel information from media entities and personnel, then
those individuals must be notified and given the opportunity to be heard by the court
concerning issuance of the warrant. Finally, this new law creates the crime of “Unlawful
Photography and Surveillance on Private Property” thereby making it a class A
misdemeanor. A person commits this crime if he or she knowingly and intentionally
electronically surveys the private property of another without permission. This law also
requests that the state’s legislative council study digital privacy during the 2014 interim
(NCSL, 2015b).
Iowa enacted House File (HF) 2289 that makes it illegal for a state agency to use
a UAS to enforce traffic laws. This new law requires a warrant, or other lawful means, to
use information obtained with UAS in a civil or criminal court proceeding. It also requires
the department of public safety to develop guidelines for the use of UAS and to
determine whether changes to the criminal code are necessary (NCSL, 2015b).
Louisiana enacted HB1029, creating the crime of unlawful use of a UAS. This
law defines the unlawful use of a UAS as the intentional use of a UAS to conduct
surveillance of a targeted facility without the owner’s prior written consent. The crime is
punishable by a fine of up to $500 and imprisonment for six months. A second offense
is punishable by a fine up to $1,000 and one-year imprisonment (NCSL, 2015b). SB183
regulates the use of UAS in agricultural commercial operations (NCSL, 2015c).
Maine Legislative Document (LD) 25 requires law enforcement agencies to
receive approval before acquiring UAS. This bill also specified that the use of UAS by
law enforcement should comply with all FAA requirements and guidelines. LD25
requires a warrant to use UAS for criminal investigations except in certain
circumstances and sets out standards for the operation of UAS by law enforcement
(NCSL, 2015c).
Maryland, through HB100 in 2013, appropriated $500,000 for the state’s
unmanned aerial system test site (NCSL, 2015a). In 2015, SB370 specified that only the
state could enact laws to prohibit, restrict, or regulate the testing or operation of
unmanned aircraft systems. This preempts county and municipal authority. The bill also
required a study on specified benefits (NCSL, 2015c).
Michigan adopted in 2013, HR280 and HR87, to recognize the benefits of a
thriving UAS industry in their state (NCSL, 2015a). In 2015, SB54 prohibits using UAS
to interfere with or harass an individual who is hunting. SB55 prohibits using UAS to
take game (NCSL, 2015c).
Mississippi SB2022 specifies that using a UAS to commit “peeping tom”
activities is a felony (NCSL, 2015c).

11. 11
Montana enacted SB196 that limits when information gained from the use of
UAS may be admitted as evidence in any prosecution or proceeding within the state.
The information can be used when it was obtained pursuant to a search warrant, or
through a judicially recognized exception to search warrants. This law defined UAS as
an aircraft that is operated without direct human intervention from on or within the
aircraft not including satellites (NCSL, 2015a).
Nevada adopted in 2013, SCR7, to recognize the benefits of a thriving UAS
industry in their state (NCSL, 2015a). Also, in Assembly Bill (AB) 507, Nevada
appropriated $4,000,000 to the interim Finance Committee for allocation to the
Governor’s Office of Economic Development for the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
program in the event Nevada is selected as an FAA test site (NCSL, 2015a). In 2015,
AB239 included UAS in the definition of aircraft and regulated the operators of UAS. It
also prohibited the weaponization of UAS and prohibited the use of UAS within a certain
distance of critical facilities and airports without permission. The bill specified certain
restrictions on the use of UAS by law enforcement and public agencies and required the
creation of a registry of all UAS operated by public agencies in the state (NCSL, 2015c).
New Hampshire SB222 prohibited the use of UAS for hunting, fishing, or
trapping (NCSL, 2015c).
North Carolina, in 2013 in SB402, placed a moratorium on UAS use by state
and local personnel unless the Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the Department of
Transportation approves the use. Any CIO granted exception has to be reported
immediately to the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Information Technology
and the Fiscal Research Division (NCSL, 2015a). In 2014, North Carolina enacted
SB744, a bill creating regulations for the public, private and commercial use of UAS.
This new law prohibits any entity from conducting UAS surveillance of a person or
private property and also prohibits taking a photo of a person without their consent for
the purpose of distributing it. The law creates a civil cause of action for those whose
privacy is violated. Furthermore, the law authorizes different types of infrared and
thermal imaging technology for certain commercial and private uses including the
evaluation of crops, mapping, scientific research and forest management. Under this
law, the state Division of Aviation is required to create a knowledge and skills test for
operating UAS. All agents of the state who operate UAS must pass this test. The law
enables law enforcement to use UAS pursuant to a warrant, to counter an act of
terrorism, to oversee public gatherings, or gather information in a public space (NCSL,
2015b).
North Carolina created several new crimes. The first crime, a class H felony, is
using UAS to interfere with manned aircraft. The second crime, a class E felony, is the
possession of a UAS with an attached weapon. The third crime, a class 1 misdemeanor,
is the unlawful fishing or hunting with UAS. The fourth crime, also a class 1
misdemeanor, is the harassment of hunters or fishermen with a UAS. The fifth crime,
again a class 1 misdemeanor, is the unlawful distribution of images obtained with a
UAS. The sixth crime, another class 1 misdemeanor, is operating a UAS commercially
without a license (NCSL, 2015b).

12. 12
North Carolina law also prohibits the launch or recovery of UAS from any state or
private property without consent. Additionally, the law extends the state’s current
regulatory framework, administered by the CIO, for state use of UAS from July to
December 31, 2015 (NCSL, 2015b).
North Dakota adopted in 2013, HCR3012, to recognize the benefits of a thriving
UAS industry in their state (NCSL, 2015a). Also in 2013 in SB2018, North Dakota
granted $1 million from the state general fund to pursue designation as an FAA UAS
test site. Furthermore, is selected, the law would grant an additional $4 million to
operate the site (NCSL, 2015a). In 2015, HB1328 provided limitations for the use of
UAS for surveillance (NCSL, 2015c).
Oregon HB2710 defined a UAS as an unmanned flying machine, not including
model aircraft. This new law allows a law enforcement agency to operate a UAS if it has
a warrant and for enumerated exceptions including for training purposes. Oregon law
also requires that a UAS operated by a public body be registered with the Oregon
Department of Aviation (DOA), which shall keep a registry of UAS operated by public
bodies. The law grants the DOA rulemaking authority to implement these provisions. It
also created new crimes and civil penalties for mounting weapons on UAS and
interfering with or gaining unauthorized access to public UAS. Under certain conditions,
an Oregon landowner can bring an action against someone flying a UAS lower than 400
feet over the property. Oregon law also requires that the DOA must report to legislative
committees on the status of federal regulations and whether UAS operated by private
parties should be registered in a manner similar to the requirement for other aircraft
(NCSL, 2015a). In 2015, HB2534 required the development of rules prohibiting the use
of UAS for angling, hunting, trapping, or interfering with a person who is lawfully angling,
trapping, or hunting. HB2354 changed the term “drone” to “unmanned aircraft system” in
the statute (NCSL, 2015c).
Ohio enacted HB292 that created the aerospace and aviation technology
committee. One of this committee’s duties is to research and develop aviation
technology including UAS (NCSL, 2015b).
Pennsylvania adopted in 2013, a resolution, HR172, urging the United States
Department of Defense to reconsider the rank of a new medal recognizing military
achievement in combat drone operations (NCSL, 2015a).
Tennessee SB796, enacted in 2013, enables law enforcement to use UAS in
compliance with a search warrant, to counter a high-risk terrorist attack, and if swift
action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life. However, evidence obtained in
violation of this law is not admissible in state criminal prosecutions. Furthermore, those
people wronged by such evidence can seek civil remedy (NCSL, 2015a).
In 2014, Tennessee enacted two new laws. The first law, SB1777, makes it a
class C misdemeanor for any private entity to use a UAS to conduct video surveillance
of a person who is hunting or fishing without their consent. The second law, SB1892,
makes it a class C misdemeanor for a person to use UAS to intentionally conduct

13. 13
surveillance of an individual or their property. It also makes it a crime to possess those
images, again a class C misdemeanor. Finally, it makes it a crime to distribute or
otherwise use these same images, a class B misdemeanor (NCSL, 2015b). In all
fairness, Tennessee law also identifies 18 lawful uses of UAS, including the commercial
use of UAS under FAA regulation, professional or scholarly research and for use in oil
pipeline and well safety (NCSL, 2015b).
In 2015, HB153 prohibited using a UAS to capture an image over certain open-
air events and fireworks displays. It also prohibited the use of UAS over the grounds of
a correctional facility (NCSL, 2015c).
Texas adopted in 2013, two resolutions, HR3035 and SR1084 addressing
legislative procedure needed to enact their new UAS law (NCSL, 2015a). Texas then
enacted a law, HB912, that enumerates 19 lawful uses for UAS including their use in
airspace designated as an FAA test site, their use in connection with a valid search
warrant, and their use in oil pipeline safety and rig protection. Texas law created two
new crimes that are classified as class C misdemeanors. The first crime is the illegal
use of a UAS to capture images, and the second crime is the offense of possessing or
distributing the image. It should be noted that an image in this context could be a sound
wave, thermal, ultraviolet, visible light or other electromagnetic waves, odor, or other
conditions existing on property or an individual located on the property. Finally, Texas
law requires the Department of Public Safety to adopt rules for use of UAS by law
enforcement and mandates that law enforcement agencies in communities of over
150,000 people make annual reports on their use. Texas HCR217 altered reporting
requirements from the original HB912 (NCSL, 2015a).
Texas HB3628 permits the creation of rules governing the use of UAS in the
Capitol Complex and provides that a violation of those rules is a Class B misdemeanor.
HB2167 permits individuals in certain professions to capture images used in those
professions using UAS as long as no individual is identifiable in the image. HB1481
made it a Class B misdemeanor to operate UAS over a critical infrastructure facility if
the UAS was not more than 400 feet off the ground (NCSL, 2015c).
Utah SB167 regulates the use of UAS by state government entities. A warrant is
now required for a law enforcement agency to “obtain, receive or use data” derived from
the use of UAS (NCSL, 2015b, para. 9). The law also established standards for when it
is acceptable for an individual or other non-governmental entity to submit data to law
enforcement. This new law provides standards for law enforcement agencies’ collection,
use, storage, deletion and maintenance of data. If a law enforcement agency uses UAS,
the measure requires that agency submit an annual report on their use to the
Department of Public Safety and also to publish the report on the individual agency’s
website. The new law noted that it is not intended to “prohibit or impede the public and
private research, development or manufacture of unmanned aerial vehicles” (NCSL,
2015b, para. 9).
In 2015, Utah HB296 allows a law enforcement agency to use an unmanned
aircraft system to collect data at a testing site and to locate a lost or missing person in
an area in which a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. It also institutes
testing requirements for a law enforcement agency’s use of a UAS (NCSL, 2015c).

14. 14
Virginia laws, HB2012 and SB1331, prohibit UAS use by any state agencies
“having jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement or regulatory violations” or units of
local law enforcement until July 1, 2015 (NCSL, 2015a, para. 15). Numerous exceptions
exist, however, enabling officials to deploy UAS for Amber Alerts, Blue Alerts, and use
by the National Guard, by higher education institutions and search and rescue
operations. These enacted bills also require the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice
Services and other state agencies to research and develop model protocols for UAS
use by law enforcement in the state and report their findings to the General Assembly
and governor (NCSL, 2015a).
Virginia HB2125 and SB1301 require that a law enforcement agency obtain a
warrant before using a UAS for any purpose, except in limited circumstances. Virginia’s
governor also issued an executive order establishing a commission on UAS (NCSL,
2015c).
West Virginia HB2515 prohibits hunting with UAS (NCSL, 2015c).
Wisconsin SB196 requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using
UAS in a place where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The law
also created two new crimes. The first crime, a class H felony, is possession of a
weaponized UAS. The second crime, a class A misdemeanor, is the crime of use of a
UAS for a person who, with intent, observes another individual in a place where they
have a reasonable expectation of privacy (NCSL, 2015b).
While on the topic of invasion of privacy it is important to mention an exception to
the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. Typically the Fourth Amendment
protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Several
exceptions do exist however, and one in particular, the open fields doctrine, should be
discussed in this context (US Const. Amend. IV).
The Court in Hester v. United States, held that the Fourth Amendment did not
protect “open fields” and as such police searches in such areas as pastures, wooded
areas, open water, and vacant lots need not comply with the requirements of warrants
and probable cause (Hester v. US, 1924). Furthermore, the Court in Oliver v. United
States (1984) ruled that the open fields exception applies to fields that are fenced and
posted. This means that an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities
conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home,
which is termed curtilage. Nor may an individual demand privacy for activities conducted
within outbuildings and visible by trespassers peering into the buildings from just
outside. Finally, it has been held that even within the curtilage and notwithstanding a
ten-foot high fence around the property, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy
from naked-eye inspection from fixed-wing aircraft flying in navigable airspace (US v.
Dunn, 1987).

15. 15
Test Sites
As of 2013, the FAA had selected six UAS test sites to allow the agency
development of research findings and operational experiences to help ensure the safe
integration of UAS into the NAS together with a system featuring NextGen technologies
and procedures. The six test sites are: University of Alaska; State of Nevada; New
York’s Griffiss International Airport; North Dakota Department of Commerce; Texas
A&M University; and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech)
(FAA, 2013).
University of Alaska: The University of Alaska proposal contained a diverse set
of test site range locations in seven climatic zones as well as geographic diversity with
test site range locations in Hawaii and Oregon. The research plan included the
development of a set of standards for UAS categories, state monitoring, and navigation.
Alaska also plans to work on safety standards for UAS operations (FAA. 2013).
State of Nevada: Nevada’s project objectives concentrated on UAS standards
and operations as well as operator standards and certification requirements. Their
research will also include a concentrated look at how air traffic control procedures will
evolve with the introduction of UAS into the civil environment and how these aircraft will
be integrated with NextGen. Nevada’s selection contributes to geographic and climatic
diversity (FAA, 2013).
New York’s Griffiss International Airport: Griffiss International plans to work
on developing test and evaluation as well as verification and validation processes under
FAA safety oversight. They also plan to focus their research on sense and avoid
capabilities for UAS and their sites will aid in researching the complexities of integrating
UAS into the congested, northeast airspace (FAA, 2013).
North Dakota Department of Commerce: North Dakota plans to develop UAS
airworthiness essential data and validate high reliability link technology. They will also
conduct human factors research. North Dakota’s application was the only one to offer a
test range in the temperate (continental) climate zone and included a variety of different
airspace that will benefit multiple users (FAA, 2013).
Texas A&M University: Located in Corpus Christi, Texas A&M plans to develop
system safety requirements for UAS vehicles and operations with a goal of protocols
and procedures for airworthiness testing. The selection of Texas A&M contributes to
geographic and climatic diversity (FAA, 2013).
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech): Virginia
Tech plans to conduct UAS failure mode testing and identify and evaluate operational
and technical risk areas. This proposal includes test site range locations in both Virginia
and New Jersey (FAA, 2013).

16. 16
Data and other information related to the operation of UAS that is generated by
the six test site operators will help the FAA answer key research questions such as
solutions for “sense and avoid,” command and control, ground control station standards,
and human factors, airworthiness, lost link procedures, and the interface with the air
traffic control system. This data will help the FAA to develop regulations and operational
procedures for future commercial and civil use of the NAS (FAA, 2013).
Centers of Excellence (COE)
The goal of an FAA Center of Excellence (COE) for UAS is to focus on research,
education, and training in areas critical to safe and successful integration of UAS into
the nation’s airspace. There are several of these COEs selected from among the
nation’s leading UAS and aviation universities that have a proven commitment to UAS
research and development and the necessary resources to provide the matching
contribution to the government’s investment. They are Drexel University; Embry Riddle
Aeronautical University; Kansas State University; Kansas University; Mississippi State
University; Montana State University; New Mexico State University; North Carolina
State University; Oregon State University; University of Alabama, Huntsville; University
of Alaska, Fairbanks; University of North Dakota; and Wichita State University (FAA,
2015f).
The COE research areas are expected to evolve over time, but initially will
include: detect and avoid technology; low-altitude operations safety; control and
communications; spectrum management; human factors; compatibility with air traffic
control operations; and training and certification of UAS pilots and other crewmembers,
in addition to other areas. Congress appropriated $5 million for the five-year agreement
with the COE, which will be matched one-for-one by the team members (FAA, 2015f).
The FAA NPRM
On February 15, 2015, the FAA published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) proposing regulations for the commercial use of UAS weighing less than 55
pounds. The 60-day window for public comment closed on April 24, 2015. At this point
in time numerous committees at the FAA are reviewing the 4,567 comments received,
after which the FAA should publish the final rule. This final rule becomes law 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register (FAA, 2015g).
Major provisions of the proposed 14 CFR Part 107 for small UAS fall into four
main categories: (1) Operational Limitations; (2) Operator Certification and
Responsibilities; (3) Aircraft Requirements; and (4) Model Aircraft (FAA, 2015g).
Operational Limitations
Unmanned aircraft must weigh less than 55 pounds. Visual line-of-sight (VLOS)
is permitted only, meaning that the unmanned aircraft must remain within VLOS of the
operator or visual observer. At all times, the small UAS must remain close enough to

17. 17
the operator for the operator to be capable of seeing the aircraft with vision unaided by
any device other than corrective lenses. Small UAS may not operate over any persons
not directly involved in the operation. Daylight-only operations, meaning from official
sunrise to official sunset, local time, are permitted. UAS must yield right-of-way to other
aircraft, manned or unmanned. UAS may use a visual observer (VO) but it is not
required. First-person view camera cannot satisfy the “see-and-avoid” requirement but
can be used as long as the requirement is satisfied in other ways. The maximum
airspeed allowed is 100mph (87 knots). The maximum altitude allowed is 500 feet
above ground level (AGL). The minimum weather visibility is three miles from the control
station. No operations are allowed in Class A airspace, which is from 18,000 feet to
60,000 feet. Operations in Class B, C, D, and E airspace are allowed with the required
air traffic control (ATC) permission. Operations in Class G airspace are allowed without
ATC permission. No person may act as an operator or VO for more than one unmanned
aircraft operation at one time. Careless or reckless operations are prohibited. The
operator must perform a preflight inspection. A person may not operate a small UAS if
he or she knows or has reason to know of any physical or mental condition that would
interfere with the safe operation of a small UAS. Finally, the rule proposes a micro UAS
option that would allow operations in Class G airspace, over people not involved in the
operation, provided the operator certifies he or she has the requisite aeronautical
knowledge to perform the operation (FAA, 2015g).
Operator Certification and Responsibilities
Pilots of a small UAS would be considered “operators.” Operators would be
required to: (1) pass an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved
knowledge testing center; (2) be vetted by the Transportation Safety Administration
(TSA); (3) obtain a UAS operator certificate with a small UAS rating (which, like current
pilot airman certificates, will not expire); (4) pass a recurrent aeronautical knowledge
test every 24 calendar months; (5) be at least 17 years old; (6) make available to the
FAA, upon request, the small UAS for inspection or testing, and any associated
documents/records required to be kept under the proposed rule; (7) report an accident
to the FAA within 10 days of any operation that results in injury or property damage; and
(8) conduct a preflight inspection, to include specific aircraft and control station system
checks, to ensure the small UAS is safe for operation (FAA, 2015g).
Aircraft Requirements
FAA airworthiness certification is not required. However, the operator must
maintain a small UAS in a condition for safe operation and prior to flight must inspect
the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation. Aircraft registration is
required and it is essentially the same requirements that apply to all other aircraft.
Aircraft markings are required and they are essentially the same requirements that
apply to all other aircraft. If the aircraft is too small to display markings in standard size,
then the aircraft simply needs to display markings in the largest practicable manner
(FAA, 2015g).

18. 18
Model Aircraft
The proposed rule would not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all of the criteria
specified in Section 336 of Public Law 112-95. The proposed rule would codify the
FAA’s enforcement authority in part 101 by prohibiting model aircraft operators from
endangering the safety of the NAS (FAA, 2015g).
Conclusion
In light of the more than 50 companies, universities, and government
organizations that are developing and producing some 155 unmanned aircraft designs
(FAA, 2014c), it is readily apparent that the FAA has a critical, if not daunting, task
ahead of them as they formulate the laws that will govern UAS. UAS must be integrated
into a NAS that is evolving from ground-based navigation aids to a GPS-based system
in NextGen.
In the meantime, it will be interesting to watch the legal landscape in these 30
states that have enacted UAS laws as precedents are made and appeals to higher
courts in the nation inevitably ensue. Federal law charges the FAA with ensuring the
safe and efficient use of US airspace. This authority generally preempts any state or
local government from enacting a statute or regulation concerning matters, such as
airspace regulation, that are reserved exclusively to the US Government. However,
state and local governments do retain authority to limit the aeronautical activities of their
own departments and institutions.

19. 19
References
Academy of Model Aeronautics. (n.d.). AC 91-57 Cancelled in Error. Retrieved from
http://www.suasnews.com/2014/10/31829/ac-91-57-cancelled-in-error/
Administrator v. Raphael Pirker. (2014a). National Transportation Safety Board Office of
Administrative Law Judges, Docket CP-217. March 6, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/Documents/Pirker-CP-217.pdf
Administrator v. Raphael Pirker. (2014b). National Transportation Safety Board Office of
Administrative Law Judges, Docket CP-217. Order No. EA-5730. November 18,
2014. Retrieved from
http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.mapps.org/resource/resmgr/Docs/NTSB_Order_E
A_5730.pdf
Aviation International News. (2015). Pirker, FAA Settle Penalty for Alleged Unsafe
Drone Operation. Retrieved from http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-
news/aerospace/2015-01-22/pirker-faa-settle-penalty-alleged-unsafe-drone-
operation
Valencia, N. & Martinez, M. (2015, January 23). Drone carrying drugs crashes south of
U.S. border. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (1981). Advisory Circular 91-57. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/91-57.pdf
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2005). Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations
in the U.S. National Airspace System – Interim Operational Approval Guidance
05-01. Retrieved from http://www.uavm.com/images/AFS-400_05-
01_faa_uas_policy.pdf
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2007). Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the
National Airspace System 07-01. Retrieved from
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-02-13/html/E7-2402.htm
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2008). Interim Operational Approval Guidance
08-01. Retrieved from
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/syste
mops/aaim/organizations/uas/coa/faq/media/uas_guidance08-01.pdf
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2013). Fact Sheet – FAA UAS Test Site
Program. Retrieved from
https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=15575

20. 20
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2014a). Press Release – FAA Offers Guidance
to Model Aircraft Operators. Retrieved from
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=16474
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2014b). Section 333. Retrieved from
http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2014c). Docket No. FAA-2006-25714. Retrieved
from
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/medi
a/ARAC.Meeting.Minutes.12.06.12.pdf
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2014d). Press Release – U.S. Transportation
Secretary Foxx Announces FAA Exemptions for Commercial UAS Movie and TV
Production.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2014e). Press Release – FAA Grants Five More
Commercial UAS Exemptions. Retrieved from
http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=17934
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015a). Pilot Reports of Close Calls with
Drones Soar in 2015. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/news/updates
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015b). 14 C.F.R. § 91.13. Retrieved from
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div8&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4.7
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015c). Unmanned Aerial Systems Fact Sheet.
Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheet
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015d). Civil Operations (Non-Governmental).
Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/civil_operations
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015e). Unmanned Aerial Systems. Retrieved
from https://www.faa.gov/uas/
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015f). Center of Excellence. Retrieved
from https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/coe/
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015g). Overview of Small UAS Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/uas/nprm/
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2015h). Advisory Circular 91-57A. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57A.pdf

21. 21
Hester v. United States. (1924). 265 U.S. 57. Retrieved from
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/265/57/
National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). (2015a). 2013 Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS) Legislation. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-
and-criminal-justice/unmanned-aerial-vehicles.aspx
National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). (2015b). 2014 Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS) Legislation. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-
and-criminal-justice/2014-state-unmanned-aircraft-systems-uas-legislation.aspx
National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). (2015c). 2015 Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS) Legislation. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-
and-criminal-justice/2014-state-unmanned-aircraft-systems-uas-legislation.aspx
Oliver v. United States. (1984). 466 U.S. 170. Retrieved from
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_15
United States Constitution, Amendment IV. Retrieved from
http://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/bill-of-rights/
United States v. Dunn. (1987). 480 U.S. 294. Retrieved from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=480&invol=294