The document, filed directly to the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB), calls FAA’s current Certification of Authorization (COA) program for limited commercial use a “detriment” and asks that “instead of expending its energy on artificially impeding the growth of the commercial UAS market, FAA should fast-track reasonable rules that will allow the industry to thrive.”
Attorneys Major B. Harding and Steven M. Hogan, Ausley & McMullen, P.A., filed the brief on behalf of Angel Eyes.
More from the Amicus Brief filed in FAA v. Pirker:
“Angel Eyes UAV offers the unique perspective of a business that is interested in smart, sensible regulation of this emerging industry. Angel Eyes UAV, like other commercial interests, wants the FAA to draft sensible regulations that put all operators on notice of what is and is not permissible.
In the absence of such guidance, law-abiding commercial firms that follow the FAA’s restrictive COA process are at a detriment while others proceeding without official authorization are gaining profit and market share. This is the antithesis of good government and notice-based rulemaking.
The Board’s decision in this case will have far-reaching consequences for the commercial UAS industry. If the Board rules in favor of the FAA, then it will have endorsed the FAA’s ad-hoc regulatory approach that has circumvented the rulemaking process. The interests of Angel Eyes UAV are closely aligned with Mr. Pirker’s in this matter. Just as there was no regulation that Mr. Pirker could have been expected to know that he had to follow, Angel Eyes UAV and other commercial operators have no functional guidance on how to operate in the NAS.
This is in stark contrast to hobbyists, who can apparently fly without any restrictions apart from ‘voluntary’ compliance with the FAA’s ‘policy statements.”