Help understanding current status of my exemption

[CaptainBadge]

You were never filming Illegally in the first place since there is not a single law on the books regarding commercial use of drones. The current set of rules and regulations set forth by the FAA are not legally binding. They never went through congress and never became law. However, now that you have signed and accepted the terms of your 333 exemption, you ARE, in fact, legally bound to observe all those rules and regs I just mentioned, including being required to have a fixed wing pilot's license.

I'm not not bashing you for getting a 333. It will probably help your business, as most prospective clients think like you do, that some sort of legal certification (which does not exist), or an exemption is required.

I only write this because posting a comment that says you will be finally flying legally when you get your 333 is simply wrong and further misinforms the public. People who read such comments, and have not done the research, believe what they read, and end up believing that flying without a 333 is illegal, but it is not.

I'm not trying to offend. Just passing on information.

This notice provides guidance to inspectors on the process of contact and education generally to be provided to individuals who are the subject of an inquiry relating to the unauthorized operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) under Public Law (PL) 112-95, FAA Modernization and Reform Act
of 2012; Chapter 447 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.); 49 U.S.C. § 40102; and Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 1, § 1.1.

UAS Operations that are not Model Aircraft Operations

Operations of UASs that are not Model Aircraft operations as defined in section 336(c) of the law and conducted in accordance with section 336(a) of the law, may only be operated with specific authorization from the FAA. The FAA currently authorizes UAS operations that are not for hobby or recreational purposes through one of three avenues: (1) public aircraft operations; (2) civil aircraft certification; or (3) exemptions under 14 CFR part 11 that relies on section 333 (Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems) of the Act for relief from the airworthiness certificate requirement. In all three cases, Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA) are also required. In accordance with § 91.903 the FAA grants COAs to applicants waiving compliance with certain regulatory requirements listed in § 91.905. The applicants must be able to show that they are able to safely conduct operations in the national airspace system.

Unmanned aircraft, regardless of whether the operation is for recreational, hobby, business, or commercial purposes, are aircraft within both the definitions found in statute under title 49 of U.S. Code, section 40102(a)(6) [49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6)] and title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 1.1.[14 C.F.R. § 1.1].

Section 40102(a)(6) defines an aircraft as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate or fly in the air.” The FAA’s regulations (14 C.F.R. § 1.1.) similarly define an aircraft as “a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.” Because an unmanned aircraft is a contrivance/device that is invented, used, and designed to fly in the air, an unmanned aircraft is an aircraft based on the unambiguous language in the FAA’s statute and regulations.

In addition, Public Law 112-95, Section 331(6),(8), and (9) expressly defines the terms “small unmanned aircraft,” “unmanned aircraft,” and “unmanned aircraft system” as aircraft. Model aircraft are also defined as “aircraft” per Public Law 112-95, section 336(c).

https://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_policies/media/FAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf

Regarding the loophole of 'I fly for free and charge for editing'.

'Any operation not conducted strictly for hobby or recreation purposes could not be operated under the special rule for model aircraft. Clearly, commercial operations would not be hobby or recreation flights. Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of a business, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight. Flights conducted incidental to, and within the scope of, a business where no common carriage is involved, generally may operate under FAA’s general operating rules of part 91. Although they are not commercial operations conducted for compensation or hire, such operations do not qualify as a hobby or recreation flight because of the nexus between the operator’s business and the operation of the aircraft.

A commercial operator is a “person, who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property . . . .” See 14 CFR 1.1. The FAA would therefore not consider a commercial operation to be “flown strictly for hobby or recreation purposes” because it would be conducted for compensation or hire.

 

[ptaylor999]

This notice provides guidance to inspectors on the process of contact and education generally to be provided to individuals who are the subject of an inquiry relating to the unauthorized operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS) under Public Law (PL) 112-95, FAA Modernization and Reform Act
of 2012; Chapter 447 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.); 49 U.S.C. § 40102; and Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 1, § 1.1.

UAS Operations that are not Model Aircraft Operations

Operations of UASs that are not Model Aircraft operations as defined in section 336(c) of the law and conducted in accordance with section 336(a) of the law, may only be operated with specific authorization from the FAA. The FAA currently authorizes UAS operations that are not for hobby or recreational purposes through one of three avenues: (1) public aircraft operations; (2) civil aircraft certification; or (3) exemptions under 14 CFR part 11 that relies on section 333 (Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems) of the Act for relief from the airworthiness certificate requirement. In all three cases, Certificates of Waiver or Authorization (COA) are also required. In accordance with § 91.903 the FAA grants COAs to applicants waiving compliance with certain regulatory requirements listed in § 91.905. The applicants must be able to show that they are able to safely conduct operations in the national airspace system.

Unmanned aircraft, regardless of whether the operation is for recreational, hobby, business, or commercial purposes, are aircraft within both the definitions found in statute under title 49 of U.S. Code, section 40102(a)(6) [49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6)] and title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 1.1.[14 C.F.R. § 1.1].

Section 40102(a)(6) defines an aircraft as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate or fly in the air.” The FAA’s regulations (14 C.F.R. § 1.1.) similarly define an aircraft as “a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.” Because an unmanned aircraft is a contrivance/device that is invented, used, and designed to fly in the air, an unmanned aircraft is an aircraft based on the unambiguous language in the FAA’s statute and regulations.

In addition, Public Law 112-95, Section 331(6),(8), and (9) expressly defines the terms “small unmanned aircraft,” “unmanned aircraft,” and “unmanned aircraft system” as aircraft. Model aircraft are also defined as “aircraft” per Public Law 112-95, section 336(c).

https://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_policies/media/FAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf

Regarding the loophole of 'I fly for free and charge for editing'.

'Any operation not conducted strictly for hobby or recreation purposes could not be operated under the special rule for model aircraft. Clearly, commercial operations would not be hobby or recreation flights. Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of a business, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight. Flights conducted incidental to, and within the scope of, a business where no common carriage is involved, generally may operate under FAA’s general operating rules of part 91. Although they are not commercial operations conducted for compensation or hire, such operations do not qualify as a hobby or recreation flight because of the nexus between the operator’s business and the operation of the aircraft.

A commercial operator is a “person, who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property . . . .” See 14 CFR 1.1. The FAA would therefore not consider a commercial operation to be “flown strictly for hobby or recreation purposes” because it would be conducted for compensation or hire.

Dear Captain Badge - Everything you've regurgitated here is from the FAA, mostly from the Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Problem is, none of this is legally binding. Simply put, the FAA has no power to make laws. They can only create rules and guidelines. And none of what you pasted into your post above ever made it to congress to become law. Therefore, it is not legally binding.

Keep in mind, though, that the FAA is fully aware of this, especially after losing several court cases, and they busy working on a new set of, actually quite sensible, rules and regs that they will indeed present to congress next year (we hope). I've read through this new body of regulations and they make a lot of sense and are exactly what this industry needs. You see, I'm completely in favor of regulating this industry, with LAWS that make sense for this industry, given the nature of what we do. I'm simply tired of all the misinformation flying around (pun intended) that claims we are flying illegally if we don't have an exemption. That simply is not the case.

Here are just a few legal articles, and other reputable sources, that you may want to have a look at:

◘ https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/LW-NTSB-decision-FAA-UAVs
◘ http://dronelawjournal.com/
◘ http://www.provideocoalition.com/drone-law-update-faa

And here is our Facebook group, dedicated to such issues. Please join. We welcome new members:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/uavLegalNews/?fref=nf

Fly safe!

 

[CaptainBadge]

Dear Captain Badge - Everything you've regurgitated here is from the FAA, mostly from the Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Problem is, none of this is legally binding. Simply put, the FAA has no power to make laws. They can only create rules and guidelines. And none of what you pasted into your post above ever made it to congress to become law. Therefore, it is not legally binding.

Keep in mind, though, that the FAA is fully aware of this, especially after losing several court cases, and they busy working on a new set of, actually quite sensible, rules and regs that they will indeed present to congress next year (we hope). I've read through this new body of regulations and they make a lot of sense and are exactly what this industry needs. You see, I'm completely in favor of regulating this industry, with LAWS that make sense for this industry, given the nature of what we do. I'm simply tired of all the misinformation flying around (pun intended) that claims we are flying illegally if we don't have an exemption. That simply is not the case.

Here are just a few legal articles, and other reputable sources, that you may want to have a look at:

◘ https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/LW-NTSB-decision-FAA-UAVs
◘ http://dronelawjournal.com/
◘ http://www.provideocoalition.com/drone-law-update-faa

And here is our Facebook group, dedicated to such issues. Please join. We welcome new members:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/uavLegalNews/?fref=nf

Fly safe!

I find it interesting that professional pilots have no problem adhering to the guidelines set forth by the FAA and yet when UAS came around, now amateur enthusiasts suddenly have an issue with the FAA getting in the way of their making a living with a new technology. The problem is it's easy and like everything in life, if it's a quick buck people will always do what they can to profit off it until it's gone. I agree that this is a knee jerk reaction by the FAA whom is tasked by congress to maintain air safety for EVERYONE, not just newcomers to professional aviation. The FAA has done an EXCEPTIONAL job of maintaining safety to date. Just because they stand in the way of peoples newfound ambitions does not make what they are doing and tasked to do wrong. By all means though, turn the skies into the wild west. I have another career to fall back on when 'drones' face a complete ban. It's the guys flying over wildfires and over airports that will bring us down. The only safety net is at present that the FAA holds commercial operators to a higher standard than hobbyists and as such we are afforded protections when a hobbyist flies over a wildfire or airport. Blur that line and there will be no protections for anyone.

 

[ptaylor999]

I find it interesting that professional pilots have no problem adhering to the guidelines set forth by the FAA and yet when UAS came around, now amateur enthusiasts suddenly have an issue with the FAA getting in the way of their making a living with a new technology. The problem is it's easy and like everything in life, if it's a quick buck people will always do what they can to profit off it until it's gone. I agree that this is a knee jerk reaction by the FAA whom is tasked by congress to maintain air safety for EVERYONE, not just newcomers to professional aviation. The FAA has done an EXCEPTIONAL job of maintaining safety to date. Just because they stand in the way of peoples newfound ambitions does not make what they are doing and tasked to do wrong. By all means though, turn the skies into the wild west. I have another career to fall back on when 'drones' face a complete ban. It's the guys flying over wildfires and over airports that will bring us down. The only safety net is at present that the FAA holds commercial operators to a higher standard than hobbyists and as such we are afforded protections when a hobbyist flies over a wildfire or airport. Blur that line and there will be no protections for anyone.

I couldn't agree more, which is why I and many others who are serious about our professions, and trained to fly these aircraft, eagerly await the FAA's new set of rules and regulations becoming law. All we want is some regulation that makes sense. Professional pilot's adhere to rules that make sense for them and what they do, and all we want is a set of rules that make sense for us and what we do as UAV Pilot's. Requiring us to have a fixed wing pilot's license, to use one example, doesn't quite cut it. Aned yes, it is the wild west out there right now, and the longer that continues, with no sensible regulation, the more chance there is of amateur idiots ruining it for everyone. Personally, I think the FAA is doing all they can to keep the skies, and the ground, safe for everyone, but they simply don't have anything in place to deal with this rapidly growing new technology. Hopefully we'll have something in place by this time next year, but I can't afford to wait for it to happen, and as long as I'm not breaking the law and I'm flying safely, I see no reason to quit. And I also see no reason for my prospective clients to decide against hiring me simply because of false information put forth by the press and by misinformed enthusiasts.

 

[rtrhead]

I couldn't agree more, which is why I and many others who are serious about our professions, and trained to fly these aircraft, eagerly await the FAA's new set of rules and regulations becoming law. All we want is some regulation that makes sense. Professional pilot's adhere to rules that make sense for them and what they do, and all we want is a set of rules that make sense for us and what we do as UAV Pilot's. Requiring us to have a fixed wing pilot's license, to use one example, doesn't quite cut it. Aned yes, it is the wild west out there right now, and the longer that continues, with no sensible regulation, the more chance there is of amateur idiots ruining it for everyone. Personally, I think the FAA is doing all they can to keep the skies, and the ground, safe for everyone, but they simply don't have anything in place to deal with this rapidly growing new technology. Hopefully we'll have something in place by this time next year, but I can't afford to wait for it to happen, and as long as I'm not breaking the law and I'm flying safely, I see no reason to quit. And I also see no reason for my prospective clients to decide against hiring me simply because of false information put forth by the press and by misinformed enthusiasts.

No question the FAA is behind the curve on this one. But like most cases, when you are confronted with a caotic situation (especially when lives are involved) best to side with caution. Do you have a pilots license?

 

[Quadpilot]

Perhaps it's time to return to the subject of this post, which is about determining the status of a submitted section 333 exemption request, not debating the legality of whether flying without such is "legal" for commercial activity. There are numerous threads that discuss this elsewhere.

 

[The Editor]

Perhaps it's time to return to the subject of this post, which is about determining the status of a submitted section 333 exemption request, not debating the legality of whether flying without such is "legal" for commercial activity. There are numerous threads that discuss this elsewhere.

Agreed - back on topic please guys.

 

[CaptainBadge]

Wait?? That was not the topic?

 

[NateDoesFilm]

Cole, you submitted the file on 8-24-15 yesterday, and got posted today? Hmmm, I submitted mine on 8-8-15. Mine still not posted. All I have is a tracking #. Hope I didn't get lost in the shuffle.

I submitted mine a few weeks ago too rtr and still nothing.

 

[Sndguy1]

I submitted mine on 7/15/15 and still only the basic "we have it but it hasn't been posted yet" reply. Here's hoping they get to me sooner than later!

 

[Joekean Tang]

I will be summiting it this coming week, haven't done it as i have yet to incorporate the company. i don't know if i should summited it with the name of the company and my name and incorporate the company later just so that i don't lose more time ?! Do you guys know if this will that affect me in any way or form? I am currently working on my sport pilot license to be able to be the PIC. One thing is to be exempt and be able to legally offer your service but if you truly want to fully operate everything by yourself you have to at least have a recreational pilot license. Anyone else working on your pilot license? I feel that been exempt and not having a pilot license pretty much takes you back to operating Illegally as you are require to have the pilot license, I rather not take a chance and do things right. Just my two cents...

 

[rtrhead]

I will be summiting it this coming week, haven't done it as i have yet to incorporate the company. i don't know if i should summited it with the name of the company and my name and incorporate the company later just so that i don't lose more time ?! Do you guys know if this will that affect me in any way or form? I am currently working on my sport pilot license to be able to be the PIC. One thing is to be exempt and be able to legally offer your service but if you truly want to fully operate everything by yourself you have to at least have a recreational pilot license. Anyone else working on your pilot license? I feel that been exempt and not having a pilot license pretty much takes you back to operating Illegally as you are require to have the pilot license, I rather not take a chance and do things right. Just my two cents...

Joekean, I'm not a lawyer so take it for what its worth but, I am assuming the Inc. will give you some liability protection, with insurance of course.
As far as getting you pilots license, it will be a lot more valuable than just for your 333, good luck!

 

[Transpire]

Hey guys,
I read through the N number registration link that Utah Drone Imaging provided and one of the items sounds a little weird, so I thought I would ask a question.
Specifically....

"The first time a new aircraft is registered, the manufacturer must complete and submit Aeronautical Center Form 8050-88, Affidavit of Ownership for Experimental Aircraft Including Amateur-Built Aircraft and Other Non-Type Certificated Aircraft (AC Form 8050-88), selecting the third box for build type."

Can anyone share how that is supposed to happen? Is there an existing DJI standard Form 8050-88 that will apply to all Inspire owners?

Advice? Comments?

Thanks!
Ken

 

[Sndguy1]

A quick update... my 333 exemption finally posted 8 weeks after submission. A bit longer than expected but it's on the FAA site now so here's hoping the rest goes well!

 

[CaptainBadge]

Hey guys,
I read through the N number registration link that Utah Drone Imaging provided and one of the items sounds a little weird, so I thought I would ask a question.
Specifically....

"The first time a new aircraft is registered, the manufacturer must complete and submit Aeronautical Center Form 8050-88, Affidavit of Ownership for Experimental Aircraft Including Amateur-Built Aircraft and Other Non-Type Certificated Aircraft (AC Form 8050-88), selecting the third box for build type."

Can anyone share how that is supposed to happen? Is there an existing DJI standard Form 8050-88 that will apply to all Inspire owners?

Advice? Comments?

Thanks!
Ken

As per my contact at the FAA Aircraft Registration Department. Fill out like this.

 

[SanCap]

A quick update... my 333 exemption finally posted 8 weeks after submission. A bit longer than expected but it's on the FAA site now so here's hoping the rest goes well!

That is good to hear, did you find it by using the "comment tracking number" ?

 

[Sndguy1]

That is good to hear, did you find it by using the "comment tracking number" ?

Yes... At the four week point I pretty much started checking every other day. Everytime, I'd get the automated response that my materials had been received and that I was in the queue.

 

[SanCap]

Thanks, I am still not posted but sent mine in a week after you. maybe soon.