Phantom 3 for commercial use

Then why this rule? "Don't fly near people or stadiums" Pretty vague.

Why not specify outdoor operation, in the rule or definition of model aircraft?

The FAA has ruled these are aircraft and are fall within their domain, it doesn't say, "only if used outdoors".
Every Cabela's I've ever been in has a Piper Cub hanging from the ceiling. I really don't think anyone Cabela's is too concerned that someone from the FAA is going to walk through their door and cite them for numerous violations.

I mean the nowhere in the regs does it say they don't apply to aircraft that are suspended from cables inside of buildings.Why wouldn't the regs specify that? And why isn't he FAA cracking down on Cabela's for willfully putting aircraft in the air which clearly are not airworthy?

At some point you have to use a little bit of common sense. The FAA is charged with keeping the users of the national airspace system safe. The users of the national airspace system are not found flying inside of buildings.
 
At some point you have to use a little bit of common sense. The FAA is charged with keeping the users of the national airspace system safe. The users of the national airspace system are not found flying inside of buildings.

Common sense? Like the rule of not making money with your drone? Sort of hypocritical opinion. As far as charging Cabela's, maybe they haven't, but if the law is worded that way, they can. And that's the point. More gov't over reach.
 
Sigh. If you say so.
 
I've had a Phantom 2 for a while now and just sold it and ordered a Phantom 3 pro.

I've had this idea about using it for commercial use like estate agent photos etc. is there anyone else doing this and how do you go about it legally.

As I understand it you need CAA approval for any commercial use.

To get approval you need to do a flight course to say your a safe pilot etc and I'm guessing you need insurance.

If I'm right anyone know how much it costs and what's involved and where you can get trained, approved etc?

I'm in the Midlands.[/QUOTE


Yes you will need to take a course. The CAA have more approved training centres other than EuroUSC, and the BNUC qualification is just a trade mark name to EUROUSC so do not think that is what you need, the end certification is the RPC (Remote Pilot Certification) I done my course through RUSTA they are good and cheaper, and think more of the student than getting bums on seats plus I found them more helpful. You will need commercial insurance, I would recommend Coverdrone I found that they were the cheapest it will cost you about £500 per year for £2 mill cover and you need this in place before you do your practical flight test. When you have passed your flight test you will have to pay another £112 to the CAA for you PFAW (Permission For Aerial Work) which is what its all about
 
I can recommend the Resource Group, I have no connection to them but I know they just got 15 of us through the Ground School with only two near misses and no casualties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Man.Of.Kent
I got this from Transport Canada, as I was also wondering about commercial use;

"Thank you for your recent e-mail received in the Transport Canada Civil Aviation Communications Centre.


In regards to your inquiry, if you are planning on using your unmanned aircraft for non-recreational use (UAV), as in commercial use, you need to either apply for a Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) through your regional office or operate under an exemption.

An exemption contains a list of requirements that, if they are all met, allows you to operate without a SFOC. If one of the requirements is not met, you need a SFOC for your non-recreational UAV activity.


Safety First

www.tc.gc.ca/safetyfirst


The website above contains all the information needed to apply for a SFOC. There is no form or fee for this application. At first, you will have to apply for each UAV operation that requires a SFOC. Standing (general) SFOCs will only be issued once you show a history of safe operations. At that point, area restrictions and timings could be extended.


UAV pilots conducting commercial activities first need to obtain individual SFOCs. Each application is reviewed individually, which is why it can take about 20 working days to obtain a SFOC. The standing SFOC, as described above, can eventually offer more flexibility.


While the legal mechanism to authorize unmanned air vehicle (UAV) system flights in Canada is presently an SFOC, Transport Canada has been working with industry since 2010 to develop the future regulatory framework for UAVs. For more information on the proposed changes to the regulations, please consult our website (right menu, “Update on UAV regulations”).


I trust that the foregoing has addressed your questions. Should you need other information on civil aviation matters, please feel free to contact us via email at [email protected]


Again, thank you for writing.


Kind regards,
 
I have a trick I use that works pretty well. You offer to take the video for free, but charge for your editing. You charge the same amount, but call it an editing labor fee. It's legal - at least in the USA.
No, it is not. Private Pilots have been trying this ruse as long as there have been personal airplanes and cameras, and the FAA sees right through it.

That said, the FAA has only issued one Proposed Order of Assessment for commercial use of a small UAS. But, when the FAA lost the Pirker case in March of 2014 there have been no other drone pilots charged with this heinous crime in the USA.

Reference: http://dronelawjournal.com/
 
Is a list available other than a few violations from the FAA (poster boys) for commercial violations?
That's a short list. One. And the FAA lost that case.

I know one broker using drone video for a 2.5 million dollar home. the owner said here son did it for her. Yeah right... So if that's the case then fine, but the Broker is using it in his listing. He makes money for the sale thus it's legal.
No, see my earlier post in this thread. The FAA considers any flight to be commercial in nature if anyone connected to the flight, even tangentially, profits or uses the flight in furtherance of a business. In this example, the broker used the video which in the eyes of the FAA makes the flight commercial. This was the stretch of logic the FAA field officers used to send letters to drone owners based solely on YouTube posts as YT potentially made money on the advertising attached to the video. Also, profit does not enter into the equation - just the opportunity or intent to profit.

But, for now, the NTSB has said that the FAA has no rules covering personal drones.

From: http://dronelawjournal.com/:
The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") held that drones (which he referred to as "model aircraft.") are not aircraft under the federal definitions, and therefore the FAA had no jurisdiction over Pirker's flight. Not surprisingly, the FAA appealed the decision immediately to the full NTSB Board.

In a twelve page opinion reversing the ALJ’s March 7, 2014 decisional order, the NTSB stated:
“This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of ‘aircraft’ for purposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We must look no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14 C.F.R. § 1.1: an ‘aircraft’ is any ‘device’ ‘used for flight in the air.’ This definition includes any aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and reckless operation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any ‘aircraft’ other than those subject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing to determine whether respondent operated the aircraft ‘in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another,’ contrary to § 91.13(a).”

In the end, Pirker settled the case that never should have been brought against him by the FAA, for $1,100.00, with no admission of wrongdoing on his part. The FAA got an NTSB decision that drones are "aircraft" as that term is defined under the federal statutory and regulatory definitions, and subject to a single FAR— 91.13 (recklessness). Unless and until definitions of aircraft change, or a new definition for drones is created, drones will remain aircraft.
 
You're right, try reading it. Show me in the rule where it defines where the aircraft is flown? It doesn't. It just states that you can't make money using your UAS. So the way it is written, they could fine you for flying it indoors if they wanted to, as written.

I searched https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf and here https://www.faa.gov/uas/model_aircraft/ and don't see where their rules begin and end.

49 U.S.C. § 176(a) grants any citizen of the United States "a public right of freedom of transit in air commerce through the navigable air space of the United States." Indoor flight is not "Navigable Airspace".
 
Indoor flight is not "Navigable Airspace".

The FAA rule is over the UAS itself, not the pilot. Therefore, it would be assumed that when they say "don't use in/around a stadium, it wouldn't matter if it was enclosed or not. Again, it is extremely vague and I would say, unenforceable in it's present form.

That said, it would appear from your information above that their entire page is incorrect and they're posting rules that they have no jurisdiction to post.
 
Here is a scenario. My parents have vacation properties. If I were to do some videos or pictures while on vacation there and give them to them and they put them up on their site would that be considered comercial?
 
The FAA rule is over the UAS itself, not the pilot. Therefore, it would be assumed that when they say "don't use in/around a stadium, it wouldn't matter if it was enclosed or not. Again, it is extremely vague and I would say, unenforceable in it's present form.

That said, it would appear from your information above that their entire page is incorrect and they're posting rules that they have no jurisdiction to post.

Someone has to put the aircraft over the stadium, so the pilot/operator would be busted for violating the TFR. [Cite]
The FAA looks like the Keystone Cops when it comes to the jurisdiction of personal drones, but at this time, there are no rules except FAR 91.13 (Careless and Reckless) regarding personal drone flight.
 
Here is a scenario. My parents have vacation properties. If I were to do some videos or pictures while on vacation there and give them to them and they put them up on their site would that be considered comercial?
By the FAA interpretation, yes. But recall that the FAA has only charged one, just one drone pilot for commercial use, and those charges were quickly dismissed by the Administrative Law Judge for the NTSB for lack of jurisdiction. the FAA has not tried again since that case.
 
I've had a Phantom 2 for a while now and just sold it and ordered a Phantom 3 pro.

I've had this idea about using it for commercial use like estate agent photos etc. is there anyone else doing this and how do you go about it legally.

As I understand it you need CAA approval for any commercial use.

To get approval you need to do a flight course to say your a safe pilot etc and I'm guessing you need insurance.

If I'm right anyone know how much it costs and what's involved and where you can get trained, approved etc?

I'm in the Midlands.
do you have insurance if not join the bmfa that's a start you can take extra cover and the photos and video is covered for none profit give them a phone call and get all the details. Safe flying.
 
I would like to know the very same


Yes you will need to take a course. The CAA have more approved training centres other than EuroUSC, and the BNUC qualification is just a trade mark name to EUROUSC so do not think that is what you need, the end certification is the RPC (Remote Pilot Certification) I done my course through RUSTA they are good and cheaper, and think more of the student than getting bums on seats plus I found them more helpful. You will need commercial insurance, I would recommend Coverdrone I found that they were the cheapest it will cost you about £500 per year for £2 mill cover and you need this in place before you do your practical flight test. When you have passed your flight test you will have to pay another £112 to the CAA for you PFAW (Permission For Aerial Work) which is what its all about
 
If you do any form of commercial work including estate agents you will need you CAA PFAW and if you take BMFA insurance which is very cheap only £35,for the year compared to the £500 commercial insurance but if the BMFA realise that you carried commercial work they won't pay up


do you have insurance if not join the bmfa that's a start you can take extra cover and the photos and video is covered for none profit give them a phone call and get all the details. Safe flying.
l
 
You guys must have to charge a fortune for aerial work with those costs involved. I understand the need for insurance but it doesn't make sense to me that somebody can perform the same flight for free and it's fine but if you want to make money then you need to do a course.
How much is the average course cost? £1500?


Jim
 
In relation to the original question, for any commercial work (and as already pointed out, that means anything for 'valuable consideration') you need a permission from the CAA.

To get one of these, you will need to:-

1. Attend a course operated by an accredited training organisation - there are currently four in the UK (I used Resource Group which cost £1500) - this course is a week and you are required to complete on line training before the course and then an exam at the end.

2. Carry out a flight assessment - which includes completing all relevant risk assessments.

3. Compile an Operations Manual - which is in two parts - the first is all about how you will run your commercial operation and the second part relate to Flight Reference Cards which detail all the tech specs of your UAV along with pre flight checks and emergency procedures.

4. Obtain commercial insurance - for a PV2+ this is about £480!

5. Finally, once this has all been completed, you need to apply to the CAA and pay them £112.00

It's a long and complicated! My application for PFAW (permission for aerial work) has been with the CAA for almost 2 months.

Interestingly, the police in the UK have recently agreed to prosecute people on behalf of the CAA that breach the ANO (air navigation order) with specific reference to articles 166 & 167.

Hope this helps!
 
Had subscription turned off only just spotted the replies!!!

Forgive me if I've missed it but has anyone any idea how much the insurance would cost in the UK?

I take it training about £2000 give or take. Then insurance.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,352
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic