Interesting topic, Your thoughts?

[g_gomm]

Hello everyone. I'm new here, and incredibly confused. The place where I work just purchased a phantom 2 for our video production department (i.e. me, lol) as a sort of "surprise" new piece of gear. Originally I thought this was the coolest thing ever and I was looking forward to using it for our video production work - until I read something about commercial work being illegal.

I've spent the last couple days playing with the phantom (no, I haven't done any work with it) and also have been trying to find more info on how I'm allowed to use this. I've called a couple shops here in the US, and I've read plenty of articles and forums, and of course I've looked at stuff from the FAA such as: http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/mod ... operators/.

One of the shops I called told me that until 2015, I'm fine and can use it however I want, and the other said they're not giving any legal advise (smarter of the two answers I think). But it seems to me that the FAA is insistent on not just regulating, but banning all use of UAVs for commercial purposes until they can construct the infrastructure necessary to regulate and tax their use.

I think the reason why I'm so confused is not simply the line the FAA has laid down, but do they still have the authority to fine people for using them that way since the Raphael Pirker appeal? Doesn't that set precedent until 1) the NTSB makes a ruling on the FAA's appeal; or 2) the new laws are enacted that are supposed to come about in 2015? What do people think about Peter Sachs' website: http://dronelawjournal.com ? He seems to make sense, but a $10k fine is steep if he's wrong, not to mention any legal fees to fight it - even if you would win like Pirker.

The other thing that confuses me are some of the larger UAVs that can carry cameras like the RED and require two operators. I don't believe anyone is spending that kind of money and risking damage to such expensive equipment strictly as a hobby. What about these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=438kzZy ... jw&index=8 ? Seems to me people are doing it and not having any problems.

Anyhow, sorry for the long post, but I'm trying to get my head to stop spinning with all this - it's illegal, the FAA will fine you, no the FAA doesn't have the authority, people are doing it anyhow, but do you really want to take the chance - WOW! help? lol...

 

[OI Photography]

<understandable confusion>

Welcome to the fun world of regulating rapidly-emerging technologies

I think you would do well to follow Mr Sach's position and advice. It all boils down to the fact there are no current laws regulating commercial drone use, as stated by the Federal Judge, but that hasn't stopped the FAA's posturing and scare tactics while they work to get them issued.

Nobody can say if they will ever try to take an individual owner or company to court again until that's formally ironed out, but I feel pretty confident any one who gets targeted like that by the agency will first need to receive an official Cease & Desist notification (not the "we want you to think this is real" versions some received).

Like many other current commercial operators (incl. large production houses like you mentioned), I haven't had any issue or word from the FAA, by following these simple rules:

The rules you do need to worry about when flying commercially in the US:

1. Fly SAFE and SMART
2. Carry actual commercial UAV liability insurance w/minimum $1M limit.
3. Fly SAFE and SMART
4. Make a conscious effort to stay off the FAA's radar (see what I did there?)
5. Fly SAFE and SMART

 

[g_gomm]

Thanks for the advise. I guess i'll, oh... I don't know, fly safe and smart? lol. But it is super addictive. some of the most fun i've had getting footage, even if it's only been for fun and practice so far.

 

[skyeye_rogelio]

So here's my 2 cents and take it for what you may. As a licensed pilot who deals with FAA policy all the time I can tell you that it is strictly selective enforcement. In a nutshell, the FAA sets policy and not law. More than likely the state or jurisdiction you live in has more "say" in what you can safely with a model aircraft than the FAA at this point. It boils down to a classification issue more than anything. Classifying model aircraft as "aircraft" presents a big problem for them and make no mistake, phantoms technically are model aircraft. If they classify them as aircraft, then if you crash your beautiful bird, then you should call the NTSB for an investigation right? So I ask, do you really think that every time we hit a tree with our phantoms that they are going to come out and perform an all out investigation on the incident in question?? The answer is no, and that presents a contradiction in FAA policy. It will be interesting how this all shakes out but the best thing to do now is stay off the radar (no pun intended). At this point they are playing on the fact that we are ignorant of current law which none of us here should be, but pushing our luck like the numb nuts who end up in the news is ruining it for most of us here. The less we are in the news, the better off we could come out of this. I, for instance, have no problem accepting money for aerial work I choose to do but I do it in a SAFE manner consistent with....here it comes...common **** sense.

 

[ProfessorStein]

So here's my 2 cents and take it for what you may...

All perfectly stated!

 

[g_gomm]

Yeah that makes sense. My favorite type of shooting with this is quickly becoming stuff that's naturally discrete anyhow - slow and low tracking shots, flying through something to reveal something else, etc... It's just like shooting on the ground - the less attention I can draw while shooting, the better. But seriously, this is addictive!