Finally finished reading the entire FAR Part 107...

[Joe R]

I went through the summary of 107 and I have an issue with one of the 'can not' rules.

Under part 107 it says you can not fly within a covered structure.

Does that mean inside a building? Or under say a picnic shelter type structure?

I thought the FAA was only in charge of open air, not inside buildings. I DO a lot of commercial real estate and fly inside buildings sometimes, then fly out a large window or doorway to give the viewer perspective. This rule would squash that, except that I don't think FAA has the authority to prevent us from flying inside.

I've also been asked to use the drone in a warehouse to inventory items that are high up on shelves that would take hours to do using conventional fork lift or cherry picker methods.

Steve,

I assume you got the above from this excerpt? (Page 11 of part 107 rule) "Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons not directly participating in the operation, not under a covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary vehicle"
I can't find it anywhere else.
What it is saying is that you cannot fly over people that are not part of the operation. They should have worded it like this: "Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons not directly participating in the operation "IF" they are not under a covered structure, and "IF" they are not inside a covered stationary vehicle"

On page 136 it clearly states the following: "As an initial matter, the FAA does not regulate UAS operations conducted inside an enclosed structure". I've read many sections of the 107 and 333 including what is in my Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) and they cannot regulate what you do in a building with walls as long as it is "NOT" a public building. They have to assume that everyone in that building is participating in the operation which includes the people they are filming in addition to the supporting flight crew but this still falls under the MPTOM if it was approved with your 333.
If you are simply filming the inside of a large house or inside of a warehouse and you are not flying over people, they cannot regulate what you do. If you fly outside of that building through a door or window, you just have to insure that you do not fly over people. This is where a VO should come in, use the VO to insure people do not wander in and wind up under your UAV.
There are different meanings of Closed Set, Closed Set doesn't necessarily mean that it's inside of a structure with walls, in most cases, it simply means that it's closed to the public and often filmed outdoors.
There are concerns with operating under a shelter with open sides as the UAV could get away from the PIC and become exposed to exterior of the shelter. However, this is an area that they are not really busting the PIC's chops over.

I hope this helps, Steve!

As for YouTube, unless you are being compensated for your videos, most people are posting for personal reasons and not "Giving" YouTube videos so YouTube can make money.
Most people just want to share their videos and money doesn't enter their minds.
I do know that the FAA is attempting to go after the ones who post videos that prove that they are flying recklessly. They are looking for those who continually fly over people on the beach and in ciries, flying well over 400 ft. altitude, way beyond line of sight and near airports or manned aircraft are the ones they want to rake over the coals. These are the people that are endangering manned aircraft and "See and avoid" is impossible if you can't see your UAV.
Remember guys, the FAA's main concern is safety and they really don't have enough staff to chase the reckless flyers at this point.

They had to make it a rule that you can't use the "But....I didn't charge for the flying part or even the editing of the aerial part" excuse anymore because too many people were using that as a way to sell their ground videos.
At first, they didn't care until it got out of hand.
Before my waiver and before this whole deal got so much attention (about 4 years ago), a few customers said they didn't want me to do their video unless I could supply the aerial too so yes, I included the aerial for free but they did close that loophole and for good reason.
The main reason they opened up 107 as soon as they did is because they don't have the staff needed to sift through all of those 333 petitions, that's why they are 3 or more months behind.
They had to streamline this so they could get back to manned aircraft related certifications. Why do you think they started an online commercial registration process? They were swamped with UAVs and 2 months behind at the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch. It took me nearly 3 months to get my first N number through the Aircraft Registration Branch. They opened it up to an online process so they could go back to getting manned aircraft registered within a reasonable amount of time.

They didn't streamline it for us, they streamlined it for them so they can free up some people to help enforce the new regulations.

Dave,

I didn't say that my friend failed the online exam 10 times, I said that he missed 10 questions. When he attempted to correct the missed questions on the second round, he still got 3 wrong. Then they shut him down. He tried it again this morning and passed it in one round without my help. He had initially figured they would let him keep going so he didn't study or do any research.
He didn't expect they would shut him down and make him logout after the second round.

I'm well aware of the medical requirements of Sport Pilot and PPL. Most people go for a Sport License because of the medical or in some cases money is the determining factor.
For almost 2 years after a back surgery, I knew I couldn't pass my FAA medical so I didn't take it until I knew I could pass it.
Some have their PPL but can't pass the 3rd class medical anymore and have to downgrade to Sport flying because all they have is a driver's license for their medical.
It's far better than not being able to fly at all, that's for sure!
(BTW, if you think you can't pass your FAA medical, don't take the exam because once you fail, you're done. Not even a Sport Plane!)

I have my 2nd class medical but I still enjoy flying the RemosGX more than any other fixed wing aircraft and it is a LSA. It really is a sweet little aircraft that's made of carbon fiber. That little plane is very stable and the stick can be manipulated easily with just 2 fingers. the elevator trim is controlled by a rocker switch on the stick.
The only thing I don't like is that the brakes are on a handle in the middle like a parking break on some cars. The brakes are not on top of the rudder pedals like normal and it does take some getting used to. Also, the brake is on with the handle down, not up, then you have to take one hand to push the brake down and the other hand to lock it for parking.

I like being able to lock one brake for tighter turning but that's awful hard to do with the RemosGX since the brake is in the middle and is hard to use just one brake at a time.
Other than that, I love to fly that plane. I really like the $105 an hour wet with waiver rental price too

Thanks!!

Joe

 

[Dave Armbrust]

I'm not sure on what legal basis the FAA can prohibit you from giving your images away even if it can later generate income. It seems they are simply trying to plug a loophole with commercial drone operation but the plug does not appear to be legal and is unlikely to stand up to judicial scrutiny if someone with deep pockets were to challenge them. Of course, like a lot of these things, radar detectors in Virginia for example, the idea is that the average Joe will not have the time or money to fight it and rich guys are few enough to be statistically insignificant...


Brian

Brian,

I am not sure exactly what part of this you have a problem with but let me give a stab at trying to answer your concerns.

If you are operating under Part 107 you are correct in that you can now give your images away or even sell them. If by "plug" you mean Part 107, then the answer to this is simple. The FAA has the right and the responsibility to write regulations for all aircraft. If fact they have the sole responsibility to regulate aircraft. This is a good thing, clearly we need some sort of rules, and just as clearly we do not need every State, County, City, Sheriff, Community, etc. writing their own set of laws and regulations. If the "FAA authority" is what you have a problem with I will go into exactly how and where the FAA has been granted this authority.

If you have heard somewhere that the FAA has no right to regulate model aircraft you would be correct. This was done in Public Law 112-95 Section 336 which In General states the FAA may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft... What you also have to realize is that they also very narrowly defined model aircraft in PL 112-95 and I have included the exact wording below for your review. The big one that gets right to point is 336(a)(1) which states the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use. You have to realize what they are talking about is RC aircraft that is flown at a remote model aircraft field, which is why they included 336(a)(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization. Flying fields have their own safety guidelines and require that you are a member of the AMA.

I think you must admit that these two items 336(a)(1) and (2) exclude any use of a UAS to capture video that you now give away to youtube, unless you were to happen to capture this video while having a fun recreational flight at your local model aircraft club. There are a few more common sense restrictions in PL 112-95 (which I have included below) to protect airports and the NAS.

These laws are pretty straight forward and the FAA authority has never be successfully challenged in court and I do not believe that the rich guys' lawyer would have any success challenging this authority. If you need or would like more info or depth, let me know and I will be happy to try and answer your specific concerns.


SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—

(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community- based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program adminis- tered by a community-based organization;

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—

(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and

(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

 

[Dave Armbrust]

I appreciate your help. I have been trying to figure out how I register for the airworthyness test. I found a chart with locations of testing centers put out by the FAA. I called the number for my location, Columbus, Ohio...and the person who answered had no idea what I was talking about and gave me the impression that she could care less when I tried to ask follow up questions.

It looks to me as though the follow up steps for us to become "legal" to make a few bucks with this part 107 are really vague. I would like to know exactly who to call or what next steps would be. Currently, all I'm hearing is "wait until August." I would really like to be able to fly/shoot for clients by this September...ready and willing to take any test or become vetted by whomever...I'm not seeing any real clear procedures in place.

Thanks in advance for any and all guidance.

Figbar,

Not really sure why you think you need an airworthiness test, or even exactly what you mean by this.

There will be a written test available in the next couple of months. It could be tomorrow, it could be past the effective date of August 29, 2016. We just have to wait for this and so far no one is talking about a release date for this test. I can assure you once this test is available you will hear about it here on this forum.

There are a lot of little pieces that have to come together for all of this to work.

1) The written test questions pool has to be written and made available to the testing centers.
2) The new 8710-13 application form needs to be written and made available.
3) IACRA has to be updated to allow the applicant to enter an 8710-13 application electronically and sign it.
4) Process of emailing temporary certificates is a new one that does not currently exist but is mentioned in the announcement.

We probably will find that these pieces become available on different dates, but all of them have to occur before we can be certified as a remote pilot. We already have the simple version of this that is used for currently certified pilots, other than students, (ALC-451) but we still do not have a 8710-13 or IACRA to finish the processing of these licenses.

While I am not sure you have to wait till August to take the step necessary to become a remote pilot, I do know you do have to wait until August 29, 2016 to exercise the privileges of.

While you do need to wait a bit longer, the good new is the wait will be much shorter than the wait for a 333 exemption.

 

[Joe R]

A note about the 8710-13 application: After confirming my thoughts with my local FSDO (GSO) about the application , they said that the application has been formatted and is ready to publish but they have to wait until the public comment period has expired (in August) before they can make it live online.
Also, the application is a printable version that you download, fill out, sign and physically take to a CFI, Person designated by FSDO, or take it to an ACR, DPE or whoever else they may come up with during the public comment period.

If you are a current part 61 certified pilot and you have completed the online ALC-451, that's all you need except for filling out the application and visit with whoever you choose to issue the temporary remote pilot certificate. In reality, if you have completed ALC-451, you're already approved, the rest is just filling out an application, showing proof of ID and proof of your BFR and have it signed by an FAA official that has been authorized to sign it and issue the temporary certificate or verify your ID and BFR, then submit it (as is the case with a CFI).
As stated before, by August, CFIs will likely be able to submit the verification of your ID and your BFR electronically, then you will receive an email with a printable Temporary Remote Pilot Certificate. The permanent Remote Pilot Certificate will be an added endorsement on your current airman certificate (if you hold a part 61 pilot certificate). Non certified pilots will be issued a stand alone remote pilot certificate.

One thing I'd like to bring to everyone's attention is a specific part of the 107 final rule.
It's not truly the "Final Rule".
Here's an excerpt from page 94 of the final rule: "As discussed earlier in this preamble (section III.A), instead of a single omnibus rulemaking that applies to all small UAS operations, the FAA has decided to proceed incrementally and issue a rule governing small UAS operations that pose the least amount of risk. Subpart B of part 107 will specify the operating constraints of these operations. The FAA emphasizes that it intends to conduct future rulemaking(s) to incorporate into the NAS small UAS operations that pose a greater level of risk than the operations that will be permitted by this rule".
The word "Preamble" means that it is merely a preliminary rule. The above statement means that they are approving operations that are known to be "Low Risk" for NAS and the public.
There will be a lot more rules for "Higher Risk" operations, so, this 624 page rule will likely be more like 900 pages long when they are through with it (900 pages is just a wild guess).

Certain "High or Higher Risk" operations such as flying over people will still require an waiver and you will still need to file a petition for that waiver just like you did for your 333.
You will still need to provide a reasonable "Safe" alternative for high risk operations, in other words, you will need to prove that you can fly over people safely "And" have specific safety contingency plans in place before they will issue a waiver for that particular operation.
They same goes for things like "Night Operations" and Operations "Beyond Visual Line of Sight", these are both waivable. The beyond visual line of sight waiver will be limited to sparsely populated or unpopulated areas with low to no manned aircraft operations, otherwise, you will have to position visual observers along the route you intend to fly so that at any given time there will be at least one person that has "Eyes" on the UAV to satisfy the "See and Avoid" rule. They will be allowed to use a handheld radio or other reasonable means of communication to the PIC. This includes operations where you may be inspecting power lines in remote areas (for example), VOs will need to be placed at predetermined intervals along the power lines.

Keep in mind that 107 currently allows for civil twilight flights as long as you have a lighting system that can be seen for 3 statute miles. The lights can be temporarily dimmed so the person manipulating the controls or the PIC can look at the UAV while close to them (to keep from blinding the operator while preparing to land for example).
Civil Twilight is 30 minutes before official sunrise and 30 minutes after official sunset. This means that you must be able to see the horizon for purposes of "Orientation" and "See and Avoid".

If you are a certified pilot under part 61 but do not have a current flight review, you can still take the online ALC-451 exam but you will have to get your flight review done before you present the application for your temporary remote pilot certificate.
If you are interested in having your flight review done, you can ask a current certified pilot take you up to gain proficiency before you meet with a CFI. You are allowed to share the cost of the airplane rental, you can even pay for the entire rental of the airplane, you just can't pay the pilot that is the acting PIC for his or her time unless they hold at least a commercial rating.
The reason I mention this is because my friend who hasn't had a flight review in 10 years wants me to take him up to gain proficiency so it won't cost so much (it'll just be the cost of the airplane rental). This way, when he goes for his official flight review, he won't have to spend so much time with a CFI. I think CFIs charge an average of about $50 an hour plus the cost of the rental. I can even test him on regs and sectional charts, I just can't sign off because I'm not a CFI.
If you're not interested in a flight review, you will have to plan on doing the Knowledge Test at a Testing Center when it becomes available.

I would imagine that a waiting list for the knowledge test will build pretty quick as I'm sure there will be a lot of remote pilots wanting to get their temporary remote pilot certificate as soon as possible. So, unless you are one of the first callers to a testing center, you may have a few weeks worth of wait to take the test.
This is another reason my friend has elected to take his flight review instead of taking the knowledge test. This way he'll be able to get his CFI to sign off and submit his application for him.
He will likely be able to get his temporary remote pilot certificate within a couple of weeks after they make the online 8710-13 application live.

Just for clarification:
They will not allow online signing for the 8710-13 application "IF" you do not need to take the Knowledge Test because they are being very strict about verifying your ID (and BFR if applicable). If you take the Knowledge Test, they will verify your ID at the time of testing and an online signature will be allowed.

I hope this helps!

Joe

 

[RaptorMan]

Brian,

I am not sure exactly what part of this you have a problem with but let me give a stab at trying to answer your concerns.

If you are operating under Part 107 you are correct in that you can now give your images away or even sell them. If by "plug" you mean Part 107, then the answer to this is simple. The FAA has the right and the responsibility to write regulations for all aircraft. If fact they have the sole responsibility to regulate aircraft. This is a good thing, clearly we need some sort of rules, and just as clearly we do not need every State, County, City, Sheriff, Community, etc. writing their own set of laws and regulations. If the "FAA authority" is what you have a problem with I will go into exactly how and where the FAA has been granted this authority.

If you have heard somewhere that the FAA has no right to regulate model aircraft you would be correct. This was done in Public Law 112-95 Section 336 which In General states the FAA may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft... What you also have to realize is that they also very narrowly defined model aircraft in PL 112-95 and I have included the exact wording below for your review. The big one that gets right to point is 336(a)(1) which states the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use. You have to realize what they are talking about is RC aircraft that is flown at a remote model aircraft field, which is why they included 336(a)(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization. Flying fields have their own safety guidelines and require that you are a member of the AMA.

I think you must admit that these two items 336(a)(1) and (2) exclude any use of a UAS to capture video that you now give away to youtube, unless you were to happen to capture this video while having a fun recreational flight at your local model aircraft club. There are a few more common sense restrictions in PL 112-95 (which I have included below) to protect airports and the NAS.

These laws are pretty straight forward and the FAA authority has never be successfully challenged in court and I do not believe that the rich guys' lawyer would have any success challenging this authority. If you need or would like more info or depth, let me know and I will be happy to try and answer your specific concerns.


SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—

(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community- based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program adminis- tered by a community-based organization;

(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and (5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating procedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).

(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—

(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and

(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

No, my problem is the prohibition against images being GIVEN away. If I take some images or video from my drone and my images/video is stolen and then sold am I liable because I flew the drone?

If I capture video of the police shooting someone does the FCC have the right to deny me to sell that video because the video will be broadcast on TV and the FCC governs that? If I capture that video with a drone and give it to my local news and they use it and sell advertising am I liable and should the video be suppressed?

Again, the prohibition may in fact exist but it is not justifiable and would fail a test as above.


Brian

 

[licensed pilot]

Been flying since 1969 and I don't care for many FAA rules but it is what it is. No point in pissing into the wind. Just find a legal way to do what u want to do.

 

[RaptorMan]

Been flying since 1969 and I don't care for many FAA rules but it is what it is. No point in pissing into the wind. Just find a legal way to do what u want to do.

Look, I'm not losing any sleep over this but there is a principal here and the FAA is in violation so I'm going to say something about it. If I happen to catch a police officer shooting an unarmed black kid with my drone the officers lawyers could have the video suppressed sighting the FAA rule. And, over time something like this is bound to happen so it isn't mere talk.

Can the FAA go after me for providing such a video to my local TV news outlet?


Brian

 

[licensed pilot]

Look, I'm not losing any sleep over this but there is a principal here and the FAA is in violation so I'm going to say something about it. If I happen to catch a police officer shooting an unarmed black kid with my drone the officers lawyers could have the video suppressed sighting the FAA rule. And, over time something like this is bound to happen so it isn't mere talk.

Can the FAA go after me for providing such a video to my local TV news outlet?


Brian

That's a legal question. A lawyer can give u a better answer .As a 32 YR retired cop I'll give u my 2 cents; any law school student can introduce such a tape if it exists in any criminal trial. The FAA doesn't deal with crimes. Only with civil violations. The "video" was not obtained illegally thus admissible.
This is a place to get opinions. Mostly from lay people.

 

[RaptorMan]

That's a legal question. A lawyer can give u a better answer .As a 32 YR retired cop I'll give u my 2 cents; any law school student can introduce such a tape if it exists in any criminal trial. The FAA doesn't deal with crimes. Only with civil violations. The "video" was not obtained illegally thus admissible.
This is a place to get opinions. Mostly from lay people.

Again, the principle is the thing and if it's illegal for me to GIVE an image or video to someone that makes money from it than that same thing could be applied to a case as I outlined above. The fact that the FAA doesn't get involved in homicides not involving AC doesn't change the fact that in this case an AC captured that event and a news organisation that uses that video, and makes money from advertising, would be a violation of there rules and they can go after someone for it. Not that they would, in fact you can bet the chance of the FAA going after the drone pilot for providing the video to be near zero. None of that matters as the principle is the same whether I give that police shooting video to KSL or give another drone video to someone else that profits from it.

If KSL shows my video and makes money from it either through advertising or by offering it to other news organizations for a fee (standard practice), then because I flew the drone that took the video the FAA could go after me. Selective prosecution is selective justice -- but par for the course...

If I fly my drone several times today and break no laws doing so then the video I recorded is just fine. But, if, AFTER THE FACT, I give that video to someone that makes money from it the flight that was legal is now illegal. Absolutely nothing changed about the flight, about the time the AC was in the air, everything that happens later took place on the ground and outside of the purview of the FAA. Again, these types of rules are like the radar detector laws in Virginia and elsewhere that are actually in violation of federal law but the cost to litigate is too much for most people so they just pay the fine for using one.


Brian

 

[licensed pilot]

Again, the principle is the thing and if it's illegal for me to GIVE an image or video to someone that makes money from it than that same thing could be applied to a case as I outlined above. The fact that the FAA doesn't get involved in homicides not involving AC doesn't change the fact that in this case an AC captured that event and a news organisation that uses that video, and makes money from advertising, would be a violation of there rules and they can go after someone for it. Not that they would, in fact you can bet the chance of the FAA going after the drone pilot for providing the video to be near zero. None of that matters as the principle is the same whether I give that police shooting video to KSL or give another drone video to someone else that profits from it.

If KSL shows my video and makes money from it either through advertising or by offering it to other news organizations for a fee (standard practice), then because I flew the drone that took the video the FAA could go after me. Selective prosecution is selective justice -- but par for the course...

If I fly my drone several times today and break no laws doing so then the video I recorded is just fine. But, if, AFTER THE FACT, I give that video to someone that makes money from it the flight that was legal is now illegal. Absolutely nothing changed about the flight, about the time the AC was in the air, everything that happens later took place on the ground and outside of the purview of the FAA. Again, these types of rules are like the radar detector laws in Virginia and elsewhere that are actually in violation of federal law but the cost to litigate is too much for most people so they just pay the fine for using one.


Brian

My mistake. I thought the shooting scenario was more about your concern for justice, than making a profit. My fault. Not sure what the issue here is, in less than 2 months you can take the part 107 exam and be legal to sell that hypothetical video...If you have a beef about govmn't rules then I am not qualified and I am out.

I'm pissed off at the length of time it takes the FAA to grant a COA for operations inside 5 NM of controlled airports; lost 2 jobs already over their delays. Have written my congressional delegation but don't expect any relief any time soon.

 

[slim.slamma]

[QUOTE="RaptorMan, post: 111372,

Can the FAA go after me for providing such a video to my local TV news outlet?


Brian[/QUOTE]
Nope
Did something change for hobbyist?






All lives matter

 

[kcobello]

[QUOTE="RaptorMan, post: 111372,

Can the FAA go after me for providing such a video to my local TV news outlet?


Brian

Nope
Did something change for hobbyist?






All lives matter[/QUOTE]


I don't know. If your saying as a hobbyist you can give away a video for someone to use for Tv I think its still your fault for knowing what it was used for. Or else all hobbyist will be flying commercial jobs and giving them away and not fined because there a hobbyist. Sorry not after all I am going through to become commercial. Its the old just don't let me see it or know about it and I wont give a dang. Like the cops tells the pot smoking kid...

 

[slim.slamma]

. Or else all hobbyist will be flying commercial jobs and giving them away and not fined because there a hobbyist

I get it but ****...
Your right tho, I would definitely understand if I was flying commercially.
I'll stick to my lemonade stand for lunch money

 

[Dave Armbrust]

No, nothing has changed for hobby and recreational use. It is still the case that you can not give away your video for someone else to make a profit.

In the hypothetical video the problem is giving it to the news media for them to make a profit. In this case if you were truly concerned about something illegal captured on your drone video then give it to the District Attorneys office for them to prosecute. No one profits, no problem. Now, my guess is you do not trust them either. Whatever, just find a legal way and you are fine. Your only recourse is not to give it to the news media for them to put their spin on it and make a profit.

Welcome to the laws of the sky, the laws of the hood no longer apply here. You left that domain when you left the ground. This is not an area the Congress was trying to protect when they passed P.L. 112-95, you are well outside of those parameters when you start giving videos away to the new media. Try to get your head around this and you will be fine.

 

[RaptorMan]

No, nothing has changed for hobby and recreational use. It is still the case that you can not give away your video for someone else to make a profit.

In the hypothetical video the problem is giving it to the news media for them to make a profit. In this case if you were truly concerned about something illegal captured on your drone video then give it to the District Attorneys office for them to prosecute. No one profits, no problem. Now, my guess is you do not trust them either. Whatever, just find a legal way and you are fine. Your only recourse is not to give it to the news media for them to put their spin on it and make a profit.

Welcome to the laws of the sky, the laws of the hood no longer apply here. You left that domain when you left the ground. This is not an area the Congress was trying to protect when they passed P.L. 112-95, you are well outside of those parameters when you start giving videos away to the new media. Try to get your head around this and you will be fine.

Except that the action that causes the problem DOESN"T happen in the air. I can take video/pics from the air all day everyday and so long as I keep it within 400 AGL and otherwise act responsibly the video is just fine. BUT, if, later, and fully on the ground, I give the video to someone that profits from it then there's a problem. The problem isn't what I did in the air it's what I did on the ground!!!!!


Brian

 

[licensed pilot]

Except that the action that causes the problem DOESN"T happen in the air. I can take video/pics from the air all day everyday and so long as I keep it within 400 AGL and otherwise act responsibly the video is just fine. BUT, if, later, and fully on the ground, I give the video to someone that profits from it then there's a problem. The problem isn't what I did in the air it's what I did on the ground!!!!!


Brian

 

[RaptorMan]

View attachment 9069

Clever, but doesn't address the question -- does what I did AFTER THE FACT and on the ground provide the FAA with a justification to pursue me? What right does the FAA have to re-brand legal activity as illegal when the only thing that changed took place on the ground...


Brian

 

[licensed pilot]

Clever, but doesn't address the question -- does what I did AFTER THE FACT and on the ground provide the FAA with a justification to pursue me? What right does the FAA have to re-brand legal activity as illegal when the only thing that changed took place on the ground...


Brian

You still haven't figure it out?? Call a lawyer...

 

[RaptorMan]

You still haven't figure it out?? Call a lawyer...

No, you haven't figured it out -- I'm not attempting to sell any images or video and merely discussing the logic of the rule. But, let me try another tack...

If I'm a passenger in a helicopter or airplane and take pictures or video that I later sell that's OK is it not?

If I fly the drone but my partner operates the camera and it's my partner that sells the images that should be OK for the same reason -- right?


Brian

 

[licensed pilot]

No, you haven't figured it out -- I'm not attempting to sell any images or video and merely discussing the logic of the rule. But, let me try another tack...

If I'm a passenger in a helicopter or airplane and take pictures or video that I later sell that's OK is it not?

If I fly the drone but my partner operates the camera and it's my partner that sells the images that should be OK for the same reason -- right?


Brian

Let me guess, you were in the debate society in school, right?