Pirker submits Reply Brief in response to the FAA’s Appeal

Here is the introduction to the Reply Brief filed by Brendan Schulman:

“This proceeding represents a moment unprecedented in American aviation history: an attempt to penalize the operator of a model aircraft in the absence of any regulation, and despite decades of FAA statements confirming the lack of regulation. Although one would never know it from reading the Administrator’s Appeal, the impetus for this historic case is not that Mr. Pirker’s five-pound styrofoam model aircraft hurt anyone or damaged any property, but that he operated it for a commercial purpose, in violation of a non-binding FAA policy. Having been caught trying to enforce the unenforceable, the FAA resorts to an absurd post hoc interpretation of the definition of “aircraft.” This new interpretation poses intractable conflicts with countless regulations and, if adopted, would place the NTSB in the awkward position of being viewed as having failed to fulfill its investigatory obligations. Moreover, this new interpretation, clearly concocted for litigation, contradicts not only the plain language of the definition but also the considered conclusions of the FAA’s own researchers. All of these strained efforts are undertaken for a single purpose: to obscure the agency’s decade-long delay in issuing proposed unmanned aircraft regulations pursuant to the required notice and comment process required by 5 U.S.C. § 553. Neither Chevron nor any other legal doctrine saves the FAA from its failure to issue those regulations. The dismissal should be affirmed.”

Read the entire Reply Brief here: Pirker-AppealReply