Licensing your phantom videos and digital images

[Multicoptertec]

I didn't say that, mine is the reply below. And as far as your statement "Shooting for commercial reasons has nothing to do with being a competent flier.", that is not true, as far as I am concerned. If I have hired a drone pilot, be it for real estate, an event, or whatever, why would I want anything other than a competent pilot??

 

[Sagebrush]

You cant toggle back and forth and play the hobbyist/license thing based upon intent.

I agree with most of what you are saying. However, once a pilot becomes a commercial pilot he can still flip flop between flying under commercial rules and a recreational flight. Two sets of rules. For example a Delta pilot gets off his scheduled 737 run, hops in his Cessna 185 and takes it around the pattern to stay type-current. The first is obviously commercial and the second is non-commercial. It's the same with the new Part 107. (But keep in mind, it's easy for the FAA to jerk you commercial ticket do to a rule violation.)

SB

 

[Tenly]

I agree with most of what you are saying. However, once a pilot becomes a commercial pilot he can still flip flop between flying under commercial rules and a recreational flight. Two sets of rules. For example a Delta pilot gets off his scheduled 737 run, hops in his Cessna 185 and takes it around the pattern to stay type-current. The first is obviously commercial and the second is non-commercial. It's the same with the new Part 107. (But keep in mind, it's easy for the FAA to jerk you commercial ticket do to a rule violation.)

SB

...which in itself is not fair. For someone engaged in a hobby, why is the penalty more severe for one person over another person because of their day job? The accountant that violates a rule by flying 500' up may get a small fine. But if someone with a pilots license, 333 or 107 commits the exact same infraction, they get a small fine AND lose their pilots license??? Why doesn't the accountant lose their accounting certification?

It's an unfair double-standard. When flying as a hobbyist, penalties should be the same regardless of your profession.

 

[Sagebrush]

Why doesn't the accountant lose their accounting certification?

Because accounting has nothing to do with flying in the national airspace. Get caught flying in your drone through a (forest fire) TFR, they are going to jerk your 107 license but not your fishing license.

I'm not following your logic.

SB

 

[Tenly]

Because accounting has nothing to do with flying in the national airspace. Get caught flying in your drone through a (forest fire) TFR, they are going to jerk your 107 license but not your fishing license.

I'm not following your logic.

SB

If you're flying recreationally - it shouldn't matter who you are or what your day job is. Penalties should be consistent for violations by hobbyists.

If you are flying commercially and someone breaks a rule - by all means - jerk their license!

 

[bbfpv]

If you're flying recreationally - it shouldn't matter who you are or what your day job is. Penalties should be consistent for violations by hobbyists.

If you are flying commercially and someone breaks a rule - by all means - jerk their license!

But that's like saying if you hop into your Cessna after drinking a 12-pack and get busted, you should still be able to keep your commercial pilot's license. By association, if you're the type of pilot that can't follow the rules when flying for fun, you're more likely to not follow them when flying for profit. The same holds true for pretty much anything that can be done for either fun or profit.

 

[Sagebrush]

The FAA can't jerk fishing or accounting licenses...

 

[Aerial Entertainment Studios]

I didn't say that, mine is the reply below. And as far as your statement "Shooting for commercial reasons has nothing to do with being a competent flier.", that is not true, as far as I am concerned. If I have hired a drone pilot, be it for real estate, an event, or whatever, why would I want anything other than a competent pilot??

We are saying exactly the same thing, just from a different angle. The point I am trying to get across is that regulations in their current state are almost forcing people to act 'illegally'. Again, this refers to Hong Kong, which I am pretty sure is the same in some countries.

An example:

In Hong Kong, the second you operate commercially, you need to go through a 21 day approval process to get authorisations to fly. Doesn't matter where you want to fly, you need the authorisations each time you want to conduct a flight for commercial reasons. In contrast, if you are a hobbyist, you can shoot in those exact same locations without authorisation. So when projects are time sensitive, the regulations are actually incapable of keeping up with customer needs. As a result, customers that are on a timeline will revert to get what they need, whichever way that means. They will resort to hiring unlicensed pilots (who might be very competent, no debate there), but that essentially kills the professional operators who are playing by the book. So what happens? The professional operators start doing jobs without getting proper authorisations, thus acting illegally. It's a question of survival so people will do what they need. See what I mean?

So my comment about regulations mixing the concepts of safety vs. commercial activity related to this situation. I don't know if this applies elsewhere, but it is a big issue in Hong Kong.

The solution would be to provide blanket approvals for companies that are licensed and get the authorisations. The problem is that you need to go through this 21 day process each time you need to do a job. Big problem in this part of the world.

Cheers

 

[WetDog]

Be very, very careful, gcoxusa.

The rules have changed even in the last few months. Letting anyone "use" your footage (as a gift, no charge, for free) immediately takes us out of the "hobbyist" category whether we realize it or not. As it stands now... as soon as "money is made"... directly or indirectly...the rules change. e.g. You "give" your footage to say a company that specializes in farming irrigation. That company then uses your footage to promote their business. Then technically revenue is or can be generated as a result of the aerial footage. So that footage must be or have been obtained from a drone pilot with a 333 exemption from the FAA. (Stinks I know but it is what it is.)

If a whistle is blown the "company" just has to ceses and desist using the footage. However the FAA can come after the pilot. Please understand I'm certainly not trying to be a Negative Nancy about this. I would just hate for anyone to get into hot water, or worse...fined, because they were simply unaware of the current FAA rulings.

Here's what "unauthorized flights" - meaning without a 333 exemption - could get you...
FAA seeks record $1.9 million fine from drone company SkyPan

Just to point something out - the FAA has yet to successfully fine anybody. The SkyPan case is still in the courts and this case is somewhat of an outlier. SkyPan was egregiously doing commercial work over heavily populated regions. The FAA was annoyed not only from the 'professional' aspect but the safety one as well.

You are correct that it's easy to wander into commercial territory but so far the risks have been pretty small. This may change with the introduction of the 107 rules, but it might not.

 

[Sagebrush]

Just to point something out - the FAA has yet to successfully fine anybody. The SkyPan case is still in the courts and this case is somewhat of an outlier.

I'd hate to guess Skypan's legal costs on this. (And no, even if they win this, they're still paying the legal fees.)

SB

 

[WetDog]

I'd hate to guess Skypan's legal costs on this. (And no, even if they win this, they're still paying the legal fees.)

SB

Well, that's the typical MO for big hairy government departments or gorilla commercial firms. Just bankrupt 'em with legal fees.

If the law is on your side, bang on the law.
If the facts are on your side, bang on the facts.
If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, bang on the table.