Sorry to rain on the parade, but that's not what the judge says at all. Read the Opinion at http://www.scribd.com/doc/211088332/Pirker-Decision . Andy.
Andy, It was interpreted for me as the order was dismissed and the fine too. An Advisory Circular (AC) is advisory only and not enforceable as a regulation unless it references a regulation. They tried to enforce a regulation for full size aircraft stating careless and reckless operation, then they say he was a UAS, but regulations for UAS don't exist yet. The FAA made a statement in the act that flying a UAS for commercial purposes is a violation. If it's a violation then which regulation did it violate? According to the judge the FAA failed to make the connection of this model/UAS to any regulation and therefore the case was dismissed. For UAS there are no rules yet. It is all discussion and not regulation. The guy did stupid stuff and a civil suit would not be out of the picture.
That's certainly true, Bill. Also true. But the Court points out a definitional error: The AC 91-57 applies only to the non-commercial use of model aircraft (without defining what a mode aircraft is). The Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) apply only to "aircraft" and specifically, but the FAA's definition, not to "model aircraft." Thus the commercial use of a model aircraft (which is what Mr. Pirkler was flying) falls neither under the AC 91-57 nor the FARs. So, what the seems to mean is that the commercial use of model aircraft is not regulated, nor is it governed by the Advisory Circular 91-57. That creates the interesting situation that commercial use of model aircraft (whatever they are defined to be) is not governed by anything. Exactly my point (and that of the Court). True -- the Court appears to have applied the law as it is written, not as the FAA wished it had written it. The Judge (and his clerk) did a great job of understanding the semantics of the FAA's position and the internal contradictions within. Andy