The FAA brought this issue up during its rule making meetings. That being that competitors operating outside the parameters of their 333 or just no 333 will eventually be reported by those that do. When you publish your data, when and where it was done is easy to define, (like before your 333 was granted). I am weeks away from my Section 333 being granted and I am positioned to go. My recommendation for those seeking a Section 333 is to do your own research and do not pay anyone for anything. Follow the rules and you will not expose yourself for legal action.May be if you have proof those competitors are operating illegally, you can send notice to FAA to investigate them? That may eliminate your competition in the future too
Commercial Flying Without a 333
- Thread starter Eric Ferraro
- Start date
Here's Why Commercial Drones Just Got Legalized
Here's one case the FAA lost. It eventually went to another judge, was reversed and the parties settled. There are other cases on going. There are quite a few problems with the FAA defining small UAS as aircraft in the language of current regulations, one of which is that it's illegal to fly an aircraft below 500'.
why invite the feds to investigate. doing this would just be a reason for your exemption to be delayed.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
You provided nothing supporting your claim that "A lot of people have challenged the legality of the FAA enforcing anything below 400 feet for small drones. Some lawsuits have successfully ruled in the favor, although not all. With litigation on going."
The Pirker case that you quoted had nothing to do with enforcement of rules below 400 ft. Pirker was charged with violating 14 CFR §91.13 'Careless and Reckless' flight. Pirker's defense was that his model aircraft was not an aircraft subject to FAA regulations. The appeal to the full NTSB ruled that model aircraft are considered aircraft for the purpose of enforcing safety regulations. It was sent back to the original ALJ to determine if the flight was in fact careless and reckless. Rather than continue the case Pirker agreed to a fine of $1,100 and no admission of guilt.
There have been NO court challenges to the FAA authority below any altitude that I am aware of - cite please.
And it's not illegal to fly below 500 ft or no one could take off or land. Again, cite the rule you are relying on for this statement.
Steve
Aircraft are not permitted to fly within 500 ft of any vessel, structure or vehicle in low populated areas and 1,000 ft in congested areas. In all other areas an aircraft can fly as low as he dares.
Are you suggesting this is an FAA reg? Seems pretty ridiculous. Everyone flies within 500ft of structures, all the time. You see videos everywhere following boats within 500', cars too. Can you show us where this is an FAA reg?
Last edited:
As many drones as there are today, especially after next week, I don't think most of us have much risk of getting "caught" by the FAA. I don't think they have much of a task force to enforce anything. I think they know that too.
I'm wondering, what keeps me from being a hobbyist and capturing all the video I want, and give it to a video editor guy down the street for free? After all, I'm just having fun flying, legally. I can give my footage to anyone I want, and I don't care what he does with it. Nothing keeps that editor from selling his editing services, selling the edited footage for whatever the market will bear? He didn't fly the drone, he didn't take the footage. He's technically in the clear, he simply charges his client for editing services. If he pays me cash later, there's no way to trace anything, right? If anyone asks the customer, he hasn't paid me a dime, he only paid the editor for editing services. Why did I take the video of that building? I was just having fun honing my videographer skill set, in preparation for the day I get my 333 and operator license.
This whole "pilot's license" situation the FAA has created seems incredibly ridiculous, so much so that people don't respect it, and rightfully so. Stupid illogical regs from the FAA make good people do shady things like I've stated above, to cover their butt.
There's a caveat in the 333, I believe it's #14 on the exemption, that says you can legally fly and do commercial work if you have a licensed pilot present to observe the flight of a unlicensed drone pilot. This seems like a pretty loose regulation, because if the FAA isn't there to witness me flying, how would they know I'm illegal? Especially weeks later? Until then I'm just flying for recreation, with permission from the building owner. If you want to read authentic 333 exemptions to see all of the stipulations, go here. The FAA posts all of the exemptions they grant there.
Being a licensed pilot doesn't automatically make you a good drone pilot. It helps to understand air regulations, but that's all. I think the FAA knows how ridiculous their arbitrary decision to require a pilot license is, and I highly doubt anyone at the FAA is policing this "pilot's license reg" in this time of flux, while the FAA is creating a new set of regs that make more sense. Any lawyer could rip the FAA up in court given the state of flux going on right now, and I'm guessing that's why you don't have a plethora of court drone cases, even though there are thousands doing commercial work without 333's, much less without pilot's licenses.
Recently at the IDE show in LA I spoke to several training companies and organizations that file the paperwork to get 333's. They say that next year new rules will forego the pilot's license requirement but require drone training, a written test, and flight testing to get an "operator license". This makes a lot more sense to me. They initially expect to see 5 to 10 locations across the country to take the course and pass a competency test to get an "operators license" to use the 333 exemption for commercial work. As for COA's...... a blanket COA will be the SOP, allowing commercial work anywhere in the US, at any time during daylight.
If you ever listen to multirotorpodcasts.com, Joe and Erick have been doing commercial aerial video shoots for years (aerialdroneworx.com). Erick was a pilot, but his license has expired. Joe isn't a pilot and he does commercial drone shoots all the time, doing commercials for BMW, shot a Soccer Movie, all kinds of stuff. Joe says he plans to get his pilot's license, but hasn't yet. They've been podcasting for a year now, talking all about this, and admitting they don't have a pilot's license. They don't seem to be worried at all, and they've never mentioned having a licensed pilot observing either.... but they do say "you're supposed to have a pilot's license" with a 333 to do commercial work, when they talk about starting your own business doing commercial drone shoots.
I sent my paperwork off to the FAA a few weeks ago for a 333. I don't have a pilot's license, and I don't plan to get one either. I'm waiting for the new regs. If you want to apply for the 333, the best deal going is through acesdeals.biz for $149, they do all the paperwork creation and send it to you to sign and mail off to the FAA, it's a pretty easy process.
I'm wondering, what keeps me from being a hobbyist and capturing all the video I want, and give it to a video editor guy down the street for free? After all, I'm just having fun flying, legally. I can give my footage to anyone I want, and I don't care what he does with it. Nothing keeps that editor from selling his editing services, selling the edited footage for whatever the market will bear? He didn't fly the drone, he didn't take the footage. He's technically in the clear, he simply charges his client for editing services. If he pays me cash later, there's no way to trace anything, right? If anyone asks the customer, he hasn't paid me a dime, he only paid the editor for editing services. Why did I take the video of that building? I was just having fun honing my videographer skill set, in preparation for the day I get my 333 and operator license.
This whole "pilot's license" situation the FAA has created seems incredibly ridiculous, so much so that people don't respect it, and rightfully so. Stupid illogical regs from the FAA make good people do shady things like I've stated above, to cover their butt.
There's a caveat in the 333, I believe it's #14 on the exemption, that says you can legally fly and do commercial work if you have a licensed pilot present to observe the flight of a unlicensed drone pilot. This seems like a pretty loose regulation, because if the FAA isn't there to witness me flying, how would they know I'm illegal? Especially weeks later? Until then I'm just flying for recreation, with permission from the building owner. If you want to read authentic 333 exemptions to see all of the stipulations, go here. The FAA posts all of the exemptions they grant there.
Being a licensed pilot doesn't automatically make you a good drone pilot. It helps to understand air regulations, but that's all. I think the FAA knows how ridiculous their arbitrary decision to require a pilot license is, and I highly doubt anyone at the FAA is policing this "pilot's license reg" in this time of flux, while the FAA is creating a new set of regs that make more sense. Any lawyer could rip the FAA up in court given the state of flux going on right now, and I'm guessing that's why you don't have a plethora of court drone cases, even though there are thousands doing commercial work without 333's, much less without pilot's licenses.
Recently at the IDE show in LA I spoke to several training companies and organizations that file the paperwork to get 333's. They say that next year new rules will forego the pilot's license requirement but require drone training, a written test, and flight testing to get an "operator license". This makes a lot more sense to me. They initially expect to see 5 to 10 locations across the country to take the course and pass a competency test to get an "operators license" to use the 333 exemption for commercial work. As for COA's...... a blanket COA will be the SOP, allowing commercial work anywhere in the US, at any time during daylight.
If you ever listen to multirotorpodcasts.com, Joe and Erick have been doing commercial aerial video shoots for years (aerialdroneworx.com). Erick was a pilot, but his license has expired. Joe isn't a pilot and he does commercial drone shoots all the time, doing commercials for BMW, shot a Soccer Movie, all kinds of stuff. Joe says he plans to get his pilot's license, but hasn't yet. They've been podcasting for a year now, talking all about this, and admitting they don't have a pilot's license. They don't seem to be worried at all, and they've never mentioned having a licensed pilot observing either.... but they do say "you're supposed to have a pilot's license" with a 333 to do commercial work, when they talk about starting your own business doing commercial drone shoots.
I sent my paperwork off to the FAA a few weeks ago for a 333. I don't have a pilot's license, and I don't plan to get one either. I'm waiting for the new regs. If you want to apply for the 333, the best deal going is through acesdeals.biz for $149, they do all the paperwork creation and send it to you to sign and mail off to the FAA, it's a pretty easy process.
Last edited:
What kind of low life would do that? Phone someone trying to weasel 333 info out of them and then report them. Pathetic. I bet that guy that does siding can fly rings around you.
Try spending more time cultivating your own business rather that deceptively working about what others do and you might actually make use of your 333.
Thats utter bullcrud. When someone operates licensed or not commercially they are more careful than recreational users. They have a client watching perhaps and are representing their company. To claim that just because you send an invoice that commercial use is less safe that recreational use is juvenile and just trying to justify your position.
You guys think that you can buy yourselves work. Its some of you 333 people that are the ones taking shortcuts. Many 333 users are new to video production and can barely fly and have no clue about framing, grading etc but are no more than opportunists. For many of us we are simply putting a camera in the air and following all the safely rules.
Not having a 333 doesn't mean we are a single bit less safe. Having a pilots license adds nothing to safety. Nothing. Want to test that?
Lets go find a pilot whose never flown a UAV before and see how safe they fly???
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2015
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 13
- Age
- 81
Hi Eric...Dan Grandmaison Duluth, MN I have been in contact with a personal friend in the FAA. I have registered for my exemption 333 (FAA likes to call it a COA which is a "Certificate of Authorization"). You will be fine waiting for the paperwork to arrive. Go fly and grow your business. I would just mention in your conversation to your potential customers that you have been in contact with the FAA and are ready to do any production from the air that your client may want. Good luck...have fun. I paid for my P3P in five weeks.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2015
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 40
- Age
- 63
IF you already have an established photography/video business... don't even think about risking flying and using your quad for com purposes. They wait and collect data... your competitors may eventually turn you in (that's how they find you) you risk everything unless you are cash fat and can handle the "potential" fines... just do it right, you'll sleep better.
§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34294, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-311, 75 FR 5223, Feb. 1, 2010]
This is What # 14 says and no where does it suggest that the drone pilot can be an unlicensed pilot being observed by a licensed pilot.
- The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with
14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.
The FAA plans to add an UAS airman certification. Unlike the other airman certificates which require a real flying practical exam as well as written and oral exams, this will only require an online line exam to ensure UAS pilots have a complete understanding of what you call "air regulations". You say that like it's nonsense. You are obviously not a FAA Pilot and have no sense of the potential dangers involved. If it fly's and can enter the NAS, it's an AIRCRAFT as far as the FAA is concerned and therefore subject to regulation. Many UAS's are capable of entering the NAS, into controlled airspace. Many You Tube video's show UAS's exceeding the regs, flying carelessly through controlled airspace. When something happens, and it's only a matter of time, if the FAA had done nothing everyone would be blaming them. They are rightfully getting out in front of this the best way they can to ensure safety for all. In order for UAS pilots to share and enter or better yet stay away from controlled airspace, they would need to understand what it is. It's not just about "air regs", but about safety. I really do not think the FAA really cares about the guy using a UAS for his/her roofing company. They are concerned that the UAS is capable of flying into controlled airspace, not 400 ft but 1500 ft plus. Flying a UAS in controlled airspace FPV for miles is like a helicopter pilot flying at 400 ft while looking through a paper towel roll tube. Can not see anything from the rear, left or right. It's just a matter of time. That's why registration. That's why requiring an airman certificate of any kind, from Recreational Pilot all the way up to airline, they all understand the NAS. The FAA UAS Airman Certificate is coming soon and to me it makes sense for any UAS operator operating a UAS capable of entering the NAS. I will be adding it to my certificate. My 333 is pending. It cost me $0. Also I do not know where you are getting the #14... Your scheme in the beginning seems really tedious just to skirt the LAW. I don't thing you are gong to be very busy selling footage to editor's so they can put their butts on the line too. JUST SAYING !
Exactly this.
Nobody respects a ridiculous regulation by an authority that knows it can't enforce it in practice.
Who are you referring to and what point are you trying to make? You are the only that used the word nonsense in the last 3 pages.
As a pilot, for the time being you get to enjoy an artificial monopoly on commercial drone operation. I don't necessarily fault you for liking it. A blacksmith that specialized in horseshoes in 1890 would likewise enjoy the ban on cars because they are "unsafe". If this is truly about safety why doesn't a hobbyist need to be a pilot to fly a model aircraft?
That's got nothing to do with it. I was referring to the attitude not the word. How do you think certificated pilots who also fly UAS's feel about all this? I can say not the way some have revealed on this forum. They understand that if you fly your UAS and a mishap occurs with a loaded helicopter's tail rotor , YOUR life is not on the line. Theirs is.
Oh and because model aircraft do not have the range and are not typically flown FPV but in VLOS. They are unable to enter controlled airspace. That's why. Any more questions, I love to educate.
Similar threads
Recent Posts
-
-
-
-
-
FS: iPad Mini 4 tablet kit $150 (MAKE AN OFFER! I'M MOTIVATED TO SELL!)
- Latest: davewilliams