FAA considers approving drones for filming movies

[derrickduff]

The mighty dollar almost always wins...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertain ... story.html

 

[The Editor]

The industry has been using them for ages hoisting Red Epics and D Mk 3's skyward for a long time now.

As far as the film industry is concerned $10,000 on a rig is disposable. They can also use several of them and have them all rolling simultaneously if necessary. As we all know, multicopters can fly places a full size helicopter simply can't reach.

The fact that the FAA was going to 'legalize' them for film use was a given.

Oh... lets not forget how the studios will jump on the argument "Oh, think how much greener it will be for the planet by not having gas guzzling copters flying around...blah, blah, blah"

And of course, finally and by no means least - the palms that will be greased in the process ! :roll:

Oh yes.... the film industry is worth billions and that generates a lot of taxes..... FAA approval will happen very quickly and even if it doesn't or it takes longer than anticipated production houses will just continue to use them anyway!

 

[gunslinger]

The industry has been using them for ages hoisting Red Epics and D Mk 3's skyward for a long time now.

As far as the film industry is concerned $10,000 on a rig is disposable. They can also use several of them and have them all rolling simultaneously if necessary. As we all know, multicopters can fly places a full size helicopter simply can't reach.

The fact that the FAA was going to 'legalize' them for film use was a given.

Oh... lets not forget how the studios will jump on the argument "Oh, think how much greener it will be for the planet by not having gas guzzling copters flying around...blah, blah, blah"

And of course, finally and by no means least - the palms that will be greased in the process ! :roll:

Oh yes.... the film industry is worth billions and that generates a lot of taxes..... FAA approval will happen very quickly and even if it doesn't or it takes longer than anticipated production houses will just continue to use them anyway!

Wait !!! "

We know you're using them anyway and will continue to do so no matter what our decision is... But we'll decide to let you do it..."

Is that the message??? Once again... our federal bureaucracy at its very finest... :roll:

-slinger

 

[AerialViewProd]

I know a lot of people on here say that it is legal to commercially fly a UAV as long as you stay below 400ft but that doesn't seem like what the FAA states on their website.
However, I have read that airspace up to 83ft is private property of the land owner that it is under.
With that being the case, is it legal to commercially fly a UAV on private property, with the land owner's permission, as long as you stay below 83ft?
I would have no need to fly any higher than that for what I would be shooting.

Thanks.

 

[Meta4]

Here's the real story on that 83 feet number ... It doesn't say that a property owner owns up to 83 feet.
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/prop ... -v-causby/

In other news the FAA is also continuing assessing the application of Wilbur and Orville to carry out tests of their flying machine at a location in coastal North Carolina but it is much too early to say whether it will be allowed.

 

[ianwood]

In other news the FAA is also continuing assessing the application of Wilbur and Orville to carry out tests of their flying machine at a location in coastal North Carolina but it is much too early to say whether it will be allowed.

Amen!

 

[gunslinger]

Here's the real story on that 83 feet number ... It doesn't say that a property owner owns up to 83 feet.
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/prop ... -v-causby/

In other news the FAA is also continuing assessing the application of Wilbur and Orville to carry out tests of their flying machine at a location in coastal North Carolina but it is much too early to say whether it will be allowed.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Perfect !!!

-slinger