Anyone here considering earning supplemental income with the P3?

[Brad Pierce]

this is from the faa site regarding pilot lic's...
To my knowledge, a model aircraft is considered an "aircraft" and hence an operator must follow the regulations. Which would mean to be the PIC you would need at least a sports pilot lic. thots???

Is an FAA-issued pilot certificate required to operate a civil UAS under an experimental airworthiness certificate or a grant of exemption under Section 333?
If the aircraft is issued an airworthiness certificate, a pilot certificate is required. 5

Pilot certification requirements for petitions for exemption under Section 333 are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. While Section 333 grants the Secretary of Transportation flexibility with regard to airworthiness certification requirements, it does not grant the Secretary any flexibility with regard to airman certification standards as outlined in Sections 44703 and 44711 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 USC). An FAA airman certificate is required to operate an aircraft in the National Airspace System.

 

[Vandrel]

Last I checked the federal government, FAA specifically, has not defined what a drone is under 14 CFR Part 1.1 which would leave the definition of "done" or "UAS" or "UAV" or "Phantom 3" etc to be open for interpretation with regards to pilot license requirements. They have a definition for "Light-sport aircraft" but no mention or definition of something that is unmanned and at what weight requirements of an "aircraft" constitutes an "aircraft" which is governed by the FAA regulations and requires someone to have a license.

At what point does the FAA say they regulate a unmanned aircraft? When you attach a camera to it? When it's weight exceeds a certain limit?

The entire point of a license is to ensure that a operator of "something" is properly licensed to be operating that "something" but the "something" always has a definition of what it is and is not in order to be classified as "something" and set a requirement for people to be licensed for that "something". Take a CDL license for example, here in Florida you need a CDL if the vehicle you are driving has 3 or more axles and exceeds a certain gross weight limit, however if it is under the weight limit and it's for private use then you don't need a CDL. Pilot licenses work in a similar fashion with regards to the activity and type of aircraft. So the question I have yet to see answered is, at what point does a UAV require an operator to be a licensed pilot and what type of license is the operator required to have?

It seems to me that the FAA issued some knee-jerk reaction FAQ but has yet to properly define and outline what they can legally regulate. Let's also keep in mind that their definition in the FAQ is with regards to "civil UAS"

Civil aircraft means aircraft other than public aircraft.

Class:

(1) As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, means a classification of aircraft within a category having similar operating characteristics. Examples include: single engine; multiengine; land; water; gyroplane; helicopter; airship; and free balloon; and

(2) As used with respect to the certification of aircraft, means a broad grouping of aircraft having similar characteristics of propulsion, flight, or landing. Examples include: airplane; rotorcraft; glider; balloon; landplane; and seaplane.

Do they mean to say that "civil UAS" is really "civil aircraft"?

I've been trying to keep up with everything that's going on with regards to the FAA and drones but if there's any sort of data dump resource site with factual info I'd love to check it out. To me it seems rather excessive for the FAA to try and regulate tiny plastic RC aircraft with tiny cameras on them and require the operators to be licensed pilots. Good luck trying to issue regulations and define at which point a RC aircraft becomes something that is FAA regulated. I just don't see it happening on that level.

Edit: here's an interesting read
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol.../2120-AJ60_NPRM_2-15-2015_joint_signature.pdf

 

[witold]

It has all the ingredients of an exponential growth curve and mass appeal. i.e. - rapid gains in technology and ease of use + precipitously falling retail prices and ever lower barriers to entry. This (multi-rotors, drones, UAV's whatever term you prefer) is a burgeoning multi-billion dollar market and I think everyone here can see that.

Sounds like a race to the bottom to me.

People are already volunteering their drones to work for free on small-time no-name no-budget filmmaker projects (aka: youtube and vimeo "projects") and doing real estate photos and videos for peanuts.

It's like photography in general. There's an endless pool of kids who want to be photographers and that pool is much bigger than the pool of customers. When digital photography became too easy and too cheap and too accessible, it created a glut of photographers all trying to get the same jobs from the same people and this is why even National Geographic no longer has full time photographers. And this is why photographers as a profession live in poverty.

As for more commercial applications, cost of insurance and real machinery and Flir cameras is not going down much.

I would much rather be in a business with high barriers to entry. Licenses, high initial investment, a lot of required knowledge, etc. It guarantees your position in the market. Once you're in, you're in and making good money instead of selling, selling, selling and hoping to score that next contract.

 

[Bluethundr]

It was looking very good..until I read page 4 number 13 of the FAA return to you. They gave your company the 333 exemption. They however state the PIC to have either a airline transport, commercial, private, recreational or sports pilots license.

 

[Vandrel]

this is from the faa site regarding pilot lic's...
To my knowledge, a model aircraft is considered an "aircraft" and hence an operator must follow the regulations. Which would mean to be the PIC you would need at least a sports pilot lic. thots???

Is an FAA-issued pilot certificate required to operate a civil UAS under an experimental airworthiness certificate or a grant of exemption under Section 333?
If the aircraft is issued an airworthiness certificate, a pilot certificate is required. 5

Pilot certification requirements for petitions for exemption under Section 333 are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. While Section 333 grants the Secretary of Transportation flexibility with regard to airworthiness certification requirements, it does not grant the Secretary any flexibility with regard to airman certification standards as outlined in Sections 44703 and 44711 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 USC). An FAA airman certificate is required to operate an aircraft in the National Airspace System.

The key to your quote from the FAA Section 333 FAQ is that it's only regarding aircraft that have been issued airworthiness certificates. In almost all instances a little drone that's less than 55 lbs does not have a airworthiness certificate and therefore is not applicable to this part of the FAQ or requirement.

Airworthiness: Pursuant to section 333(b)(2) of Public Law 112-95, the Secretary has determined that small UAS subject to this proposed rule would not require airworthiness certification because the safety concerns associated with small UAS operation would be mitigated by the other provisions of this proposed rule. Rather, this proposed rule would require the operator to ensure that the small UAS is in a condition for safe operation by conducting an inspection prior to each flight.

Source: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol.../2120-AJ60_NPRM_2-15-2015_joint_signature.pdf

What this means is that a DJI Phantom 3, for example, does not have a airworthiness certificate and therefore the "operator" isn't required to have a pilots license.

 

[SteveMann]

The FAA defines aircraft as anything designed to fly through the air, and it enters their jurisdiction as soon as it leaves the ground.
Your interpretation of the quote from Section 333 missed one important word: "OR". Either an experimental airworthiness certificate OR a grant of exemption under Section 333.

The NPRM that you referenced is the PROPOSED rules for commercial use and not expected to be finalized until late next year. The preamble explains why an airman's certificate is required:

Because a small UAS involves the operation of an “aircraft,” this triggers the FAA’s registration and certification statutory requirements. Specifically, subject to certain exceptions, a person may not operate a civil aircraft that is not registered. 49 U.S.C. 44101(a). In addition, a person may not operate a civil aircraft in air commerce without an airworthiness certificate. 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(1). Finally, a person may not serve in any capacity as an airman on a civil aircraft being operated in air commerce without an airman certificate. 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A).
​

All that the administrator can do is waive the Airworthiness Certificate requirement. The registration and an airman's certificate are still required. The Part 107 rules when finalized will create a new category of airman's certificate. Again, from the preamble of the NPRM:

Under the proposed rule, the person who manipulates the flight controls of a small UAS would be defined as an “operator.” A small UAS operator would be required to pass an aeronautical knowledge test and obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating from the FAA before operating a small UAS.​

 

[Vandrel]

The FAA defines aircraft as anything designed to fly through the air, and it enters their jurisdiction as soon as it leaves the ground.
Your interpretation of the quote from Section 333 missed one important word: "OR". Either an experimental airworthiness certificate OR a grant of exemption under Section 333.

I don't believe you're following my point. The question was asking "Do I need a license IF (Option A) (Option B)" ANSWER: "If the aircraft is issued an airworthiness certificate, a pilot certificate is required" which would indicate that a license is not needed in either case of (Option A) or (Option B) if no airworthiness certificate is present for a "civil UAS".

The NPRM that you referenced is the PROPOSED rules for commercial use and not expected to be finalized until late next year. The preamble explains why an airman's certificate is required:

Because a small UAS involves the operation of an “aircraft,” this triggers the FAA’s registration and certification statutory requirements. Specifically, subject to certain exceptions, a person may not operate a civil aircraft that is not registered. 49 U.S.C. 44101(a). In addition, a person may not operate a civil aircraft in air commerce without an airworthiness certificate. 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(1). Finally, a person may not serve in any capacity as an airman on a civil aircraft being operated in air commerce without an airman certificate. 49 U.S.C. 44711(a)(2)(A).
​

​

Correct, it is "proposed" and nothing is yet final (as far as I have read) which tells me that currently there is no requirements to have a license.... because the requirements do not yet exist. In fact, According to the FAA, which they also stated on page 28, a UAS is actually a model aircraft which they issued a policy definition to in AC 91-57 (for non-commercial use). Since nothing is final then commercial use would still be prohibited, except they are allowing exemptions of the commercial block to instead allow it until their "proposed" rules are final.

All that the administrator can do is waive the Airworthiness Certificate requirement. The registration and an airman's certificate are still required. The Part 107 rules when finalized will create a new category of airman's certificate. Again, from the preamble of the NPRM:

Under the proposed rule, the person who manipulates the flight controls of a small UAS would be defined as an “operator.” A small UAS operator would be required to pass an aeronautical knowledge test and obtain an unmanned aircraft operator certificate with a small UAS rating from the FAA before operating a small UAS.​

Per the FAA:

While these airman certification requirements are necessary for manned aircraft operations, they impose an unnecessary burden for many small UAS operations. This is because a person typically obtains a private or commercial pilot certificate by learning how to operate a manned aircraft. Much of that knowledge would not be applicable to small UAS operations because a small UAS is operated differently than a manned aircraft. In addition, the knowledge currently necessary to obtain a private or commercial pilot certificate would not equip the certificate holder with the tools necessary to safely operate a small UAS.

Page 21 (Current Statutory and Regulatory Structure Governing Small UAS) to Page 53 pretty much covers it all.

The important thing to keep in mind is that the only part where the FAA says a pilot license or airman certificate is required, that I see, is under a FAQ or note section, which is not law. The current USC, CFR, and Public Law do not actually cover "civil UAS" yet as the UAS is still, by law, defined as a model aircraft for non-commercial use where no license or certificate is required to operate or pilot. Any commercial application of "UAS" is not yet law, therefore the FAA cannot by law require anyone to have a license or certificate. Unless I'm missing something, FAQ and notes on a website are not law or binding regulations.

 

[Jimmykjimmy]

I watched an interesting Skype video a few weeks back from Peter Sachs, who is a lawyer specializing in drone law. He was on for about 40 minutes. I would google him and then go to his drone law site.
But after that he stated emphatically, siting the FMRA 2012 that Congress never intended for the FAA to stop you using a drone for commercial purposes. His recommendation was to use it commercially if you want but do it safely etc.
In regards to using the drone for aerial photography for real estate Sachs stated that the FAA sent letters to all of the large real estate firms in the U.S. threatening to subpoena them to see if they were using drones for aerial photography. This scared the hell out of the real estate companies, consequently they told their agents no drones. No legal basis for this by the FAA.
I just set up a LLC company in Arizona to solicit the use of my drone for aerial photography. No FAA exemption.
I can see that the FAA has accomplished their goal by scaring everyone with no legal authority. Even the cease and desist letters that were sent to some drone flyers were sent out by low level staff, not the general counsel office.
Check out Sachs site you'll get a better idea of what the FAA can and cannot do under the FMRA of 2012.

 

[Brad Pierce]

The big split is between "hobby" and 'commercial". for hobby, you are flying an aircraft, but the FAA is not to regulate hobby aircraft because it's self regulated via national and community groups. (AMA/model clubs). The FAA puts forth some guidelines for "hobby" use. Once you cross the commercial line, you are now flying an aircraft, regulated by the FAA (FAR's). In order to fly an UAS for com use you need exemptions from the current rules, (airworthiness etc...) In order to fly and aircraft you need an airman's cert. (pilots lic..) The trans secretary can exempt some things for you, but they cannot give you an exemption from having an airman's cert. (although someone found language that says the opposite. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44701 I'm not sure if this is the thread they posted to. pardon me if Ive re posted there info. My source in the FAA seems to think the final rules will not have a pilot cert. requirement. Prob. a new cert. for UAS comm. use.

 

[Jimmykjimmy]

You really need to check out Sachs site and research the FMRA of 2012.

 

[Jimmykjimmy]

Don't try and interpret the law yourself, Sachs has done a great job and he's not a whack job.

 

[Brad Pierce]

I watched an interesting Skype video a few weeks back from Peter Sachs, who is a lawyer specializing in drone law. He was on for about 40 minutes. I would google him and then go to his drone law site.
But after that he stated emphatically, siting the FMRA 2012 that Congress never intended for the FAA to stop you using a drone for commercial purposes. His recommendation was to use it commercially if you want but do it safely etc.
In regards to using the drone for aerial photography for real estate Sachs stated that the FAA sent letters to all of the large real estate firms in the U.S. threatening to subpoena them to see if they were using drones for aerial photography. This scared the hell out of the real estate companies, consequently they told their agents no drones. No legal basis for this by the FAA.
I just set up a LLC company in Arizona to solicit the use of my drone for aerial photography. No FAA exemption.
I can see that the FAA has accomplished their goal by scaring everyone with no legal authority. Even the cease and desist letters that were sent to some drone flyers were sent out by low level staff, not the general counsel office.
Check out Sachs site you'll get a better idea of what the FAA can and cannot do under the FMRA of 2012.

Thats great info. The problem with doing comm use, is if you have a pilots cert. With out one the FAA can only prosecute you for money. With a pilot cert. they can suspend or revoke your cert. as well. Then you will have a big hassle of reinstating it to continue doing business. It will cost a lot of money. If you fly comm and do it safely without incidents, you're all set. Unless you were to taunt the FAA with your flying, they prob will not bother you. But who is to say you "wont' have an incident? Can you be completely sure? So if you have a pilot cert. you risk future flying uas before you get an exemption. Having insurance, imho is good, but if you have an accident, the faa will surely get involved. Remember the FAA can get you for reckless/endangerment. thots?

 

[Vandrel]

You really need to check out Sachs site and research the FMRA of 2012.

This was exactly the approach I was taking. I took the time to read over most of the applicable CFR, USC, and recent updates with Public Law all revolving around what is and isn't currently law that can govern "UAS". In my current line of work I deal with NHTSA and US Customs and they often like trying to also enforce things which are not law but instead just some FAQ notes published online somewhere. If it's one thing I have learned it's that if it's not writing in a law it doesn't mean anything regardless of how someone tries to spin it. Parties can try and interpret the law all day but until a judge rules on it nothing can be done really and that's how I'm seeing this current situation with regards to Hobby vs Commercial and regulating "UAS".

According to the FAA's own statement from Feb in the NPRM,

Recognizing the problem of applying the operating rules of part 91 to small UAS operations and the cost imposed on small UAS operations by existing certification processes, the FAA fashioned a temporary solution. Specifically, the FAA issued an advisory circular (AC) 91-57 and a policy statement elaborating on AC 91-57, which provide guidance for the safe operation of "model aircraft." The policy statement defines a "model aircraft" as a UAS that is used for hobby or recreational purposes.15

the FAA is confirming that a "UAS" is a model aircraft not regulated by the FAA and that they do not currently have anything in law which is applicable to "UAS for commercial use".

To date, the FAA has used its discretion18 to not bring enforcement action against model-aircraft operations that comply with AC 91-57. However, the use of discretion to permit continuing violation of FAA statutes and regulations is not a viable long-term solution for incorporating UAS operations into the NAS. Additionally, because AC 91-57 and the associated policy statement are limited to model aircraft, they do not apply to non-recreational UAS operations. Thus, even with the use of enforcement discretion, because of the difficulty of obtaining the requisite certification for a small UAS and because operation of a small UAS would violate the see-and-avoid requirement of § 91.113(b), non-recreational civil small UAS operations are effectively prohibited at this time.

Section "C. Integrating Small UAS Operations into the NAS" Page 29 of the NPRM says quite clearly that they currently do not have any true control over the "UAS" outside of the model aircraft regulations until they are able to issue the final rule on the current "UAS" proposal.

In my opinion, going to the FAA asking for a Section 333 exemption is acknowledging that the FAA has a legal right to regulate and govern what is currently not law. Just my 2 cents.


Looking up Peter Sachs, http://dronelawjournal.com/ brings an interesting block comment he made in his recent post "Current U.S. Drone Law" regarding this very topic,

Federal drone law.

In November 2014, the NTSB held (in the Pirker case addressed below), that drones are "aircraft," as the word is defined under federal statutes and regulations, and therefore, FAR 91.13 (the regulatory prohibition of careless or reckless aircraft operations) applies to drones. Although the FAA asserts that all FARs apply to drones, in the NTSB's decision, the Board did not expressly hold that any other FAR applies to drones. The relevant portion of FAR 91.13 reads:

"No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another."

At this writing, there exist no currently enforceable federal statutes or regulations that apply to the general public other than [1] FAR 91.13, (in accordance with the NTSB's November 2014 ruling) and [2] all FARs that prohibit or restrict all aircraft from flying within certain airspace.

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the "FMRA"), is a collection of orders from Congress to the FAA. Sections 331 through 336 dictate what the FAA may and may not do, and shall or shall not do with respect to drone regulation. But the FMRA applies to the FAA only. The FMRA contains certain drone-specific language that will apply to the general public at some point in the future, but it does not currently apply to the general public.

That's very important to note. All of what the FAA, and a handful of former FAA attorneys who parrot what the FAA touts as "the law," is based upon the FMRA, which doesn't even apply to the general public at this writing.

and it keeps going.

Good info to read on his website. It's exactly where I was heading when I was reading the laws myself.

 

[SteveMann]

Vandrel, when I quote Sachs or Schulmann, the PC police on this forum come down on me.

Simply put - you are probably correct. I was giving you the FAA's rationale for requiring a pilot certificate.

While many people have received an educational letter from FAA non-lawyers, to the best of my knowledge no one has received a legal order from the FAA Enforcement Division for using a personal drone for commercial purposes. When the FAA sends a violation latter to a pilot, by law they have to include the rule or order that was violated. When people say that you are breaking FAA rules by flying your drone commercially without a pilot certificate, I ask: "What rule"? While some will point to 49 U.S. Code § 44704 - Type certificates, production certificates, airworthiness certificates which is where the FAA says they are statutorily required to make a rule requiring a pilot certificate to fly anything for commercial purposes. But the FAA does not enforce 49USC, the US Attorney does. 49USC is the Congress telling the FAA the law, then the FAA makes rules to comply with the law in 49USC. This is why the Part 107 rulemaking NPRM is moving through the commission at bureaucratic light speed. Two years from NPRM to Final Rule would be the record timeframe for the FAA.

I recently spent an hour on the telephone with an attorney at the AOPA who specializes in FAA enforcement. When I asked "If the FAA sent a letter of violation to a drone operator flying commercially without any airman certificate, what rule would be stated on the enforcement letter"? After a very pregnant pause while he thought about the question, he replied that he couldn't think of any FAA rule that would be violated by an unlicensed operator.

As someone pointed out, if you do have an FAA-issued airman's Private Pilot certificate, flying your drone for commercial use could get you into a violation of 14 CFR 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations-Pilot in command.

On the other hand, getting a Section 333 exemption does a few positive things. First, aviation insurance companies like the 333 exemption and it factors in their premium determination. Second, some potential customers, most notably members of the National Association of Realtors have been told that they could be liable to the FAA rules if they hire an unlicensed drone operator. (They can't. For two reasons - first as stated above, there is no rule, and second because the FAA always pursues enforcement against the pilot or operator. Rarely, probably never the paying customer). Third, and my favorite, is that it throws a monkey-wrench into the local amateur legislator's plans to regulate flight.

 

[Jimmykjimmy]

We'll now I'm hearing some thoughtful responses. I was talking to some friends the other day about drone issues blah..blah. This was after NBC featured a weekend segment on a black ops US military group was practicing shooting drones out of the sky with Huey helicopters. ( wonder what that costs?)
One of the group remarked that 10,000 people die by guns annually, 35,000 die in car accidents, but a phantom drone has only landed on the White House lawn. The media makes it sound like we're under attack.
And the FAA only contributes to this debacle by attempting to "legally" challenge and scare people. Maybe they should focus on air traffic controller fatigue, or getting the new air traffic control system up and running throughout the country.

 

[SteveMann]

Even though there have been no documented serious accidents as defined by the FAA/NTSB to anyone not connected to the flight, it can happen, so please use some common sense. There are no rules, but despite the lack of clear laws on where or how we fly, there can still be some pretty serious consequences to the choices we make.

 

[mjw]

Hey gang! First off, I've been lurking here for a few days and I'm glad I found such a great resource with folks who are willing and able to help others in the community. I've lurked in a few forums where the vibe was just straight up rude and condescending.

Secondly, I run a couple e-commerce sites and have founded a few businesses so I'm always on the lookout for the next opportunity. Seems to me, (admittedly I'm a n00b here) that this technology will certainly be pretty mainstream within the next couple years or so. It has all the ingredients of an exponential growth curve and mass appeal. i.e. - rapid gains in technology and ease of use + precipitously falling retail prices and ever lower barriers to entry. This (multi-rotors, drones, UAV's whatever term you prefer) is a burgeoning multi-billion dollar market and I think everyone here can see that.

What I'm curious about is if anyone here shares my belief that there is money to be made until these products and people that are qualified to use them responsibly, reach mass market. Specifically, I'm thinking about realtors who are looking for photos & videos to make their listings stand out from the crowd. Or the wife who wants a big 16x20 print of their home (think higher end homes here) for their husband to put in his man-cave, home office, bar area, etc. Or the business owner who wants a bird's eye view of his/her entire operation to hang in the office.

I'm thinking that I can whip up a site in a couple weeks that can handle all of the payment processing, scheduling of appointments, then toss a few promoted posts on FB and have a nice little $1k-$2k /month side business running. Of course all of this is after the new FAA regs are finalized

Opinions? Thoughts? Feedback? Is anyone else considering or already doing this? I'd love to hear what the community here thinks of this nascent market opportunity. Thanks!

btw - already bought www.thedronebros.com and www.thepixelpilots.com just in case

I have a home inspection business - I use the Phantom3 Advanced to inspection roofs that can't be walked on due to height or type of roofing - so far so good

 

[SteveMann]

We'll now I'm hearing some thoughtful responses. I was talking to some friends the other day about drone issues blah..blah. This was after NBC featured a weekend segment on a black ops US military group was practicing shooting drones out of the sky with Huey helicopters. ( wonder what that costs?)
One of the group remarked that 10,000 people die by guns annually, 35,000 die in car accidents, but a phantom drone has only landed on the White House lawn. The media makes it sound like we're under attack.
And the FAA only contributes to this debacle by attempting to "legally" challenge and scare people. Maybe they should focus on air traffic controller fatigue, or getting the new air traffic control system up and running throughout the country.

Don't you watch Faux News? These things can carry a nuclear weapon from Iran to the US mainland.

Actually, the FAA is covering their ***. If there were a serious accident involving a small personal drone with loss of life and the FAA had not been trying to do their statutorily required duties, the cost to the US treasury would be amplified.

 

[Jimmykjimmy]

I have a home inspection business - I use the Phantom3 Advanced to inspection roofs that can't be walked on due to height or type of roofing - so far so good

Good for you! Why get on a ladder and bust your butt when the P3 can do the work.

 

[Deleted member 29014]

Any way to get the exemption with out a pilots license? Seems ridiculous that one needs to spend thousands on ground and flight school to fly an rc quad copter and sell a few pictures!

The FAA will not waive the pilot's license requirement. If anyone received an exemption to this requirements please post it here.