Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

Selective Following of FAA Rule

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Andrey320, Mar 10, 2015.

  1. Andrey320

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Calabasas CA
    My local small town puts out a "news" piece every so often with parts done with a drone.
    Here is their channel - https://www.youtube.com/user/Calabasas3
    Is this not a commercial use?

    Funny how the FAA rule is becoming almost a joke, followed by some but not by many others (glaringly).

    How about in your neck of the woods?
     
  2. p fandango

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2014
    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Coventry, UK
    Jason Mier who did the filming for your clip does have his own photography business, so we can assume he got paid for the jobs. I haven't been able to find out about him being FAA licensed
     
  3. dirkclod

    dirkclod Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2014
    Messages:
    10,633
    Likes Received:
    5,698
    Location:
    Amory Mississippi
    I saw a ADT commercial last night where a drone fly's in and deliver's a tablet to the guy while he his talking to the home owner and then just leaves . Sorta like it just made a guest appearance . Seeing more and more of this.
    I think it's a good thing except when shown like in that car commercial .
     
  4. Andrey320

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Calabasas CA
    Jason Mier seems to really like to use the super wide view on his GoPro which gets a bit annoying. Also seems like his gimbal may not be level?
    Here is my version of the downtown Calabasas aerial - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKU7EOqwbQM
     
  5. Meta4

    Meta4 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,729
    Likes Received:
    3,444
    Heres the list of all Section 333 exemptions that the FAA have granted (43 so far)
    https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/333_authorizations/
    The bad news is that the FAA still requires a pilots licence to use a Phantom commercially.
    http://www.inman.com/2015/03/09/faa-approves-more-real-estate-drone-flights-but-theres-a-catch/
    This is so stupid - anyone can take legally photos with a Phantom, but only holders of a Sect 333 and a pilots licence can sell them.
    When the rules are so stupid, you can expect plenty of operators to ignore them.
     
  6. Spiritskeeper

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2015
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    1
    Until the government can figure out a way to tax commercial video then there will always be the pilots license requirement. It wouldn't surprise me to see a new airman certificate created just for sUAV pilots.

    You are not allowed to do commerce in the US without giving the government their cut. If the government feels like they are not getting their cut they will find a way.

    Ronald Reagan said the governments philosophy on taxation was if it moves tax it, if it still moves regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it.
     
  7. Andrey320

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Calabasas CA
    Spiritskeeper, I'm all for paying my fair share. Give me a "legal okay" and I'll open a business, try to make money and will pay taxes.
     
  8. Meta4

    Meta4 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,729
    Likes Received:
    3,444
    It's not about not paying (or not paying) tax. It's about preventing people from doing business.
    It's an artificial restriction of trade.
    Deciding who can and who can't legally sell photography has nothing to do with aviation safety and the FAA is stepping way beyond their authority attempting to do this.

    The government has no problem taxing ground-based video makers.
    The FAA's proposed new rules don't have the ridiculous requirement for a pilots licence that is in the Sect 333 exemptions.
    It's completely irrelevant, it's pointless and it imposes a huge cost for no good reason.
     
  9. dhide371

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm still so confused. After days of research I'm still finding these "drone" companies offering aerial photography for a price. Are these guys just saying f**k it? I just found a guy close to me with this disclaimer on his website, " FAA COMPLIANT - The term drone in the media tends to give people a certain image or idea of what a drone is. Drones come in many forms and serve many purposes most of them friendly. The "drones" we operate are friendly drones safely flying under 400 ft. Our drones are short range with about 20-25 min flight time. Our usage is strictly used in a manner productive to respecting the privacy and rights of others. We do not photograph any persons property or person in a selective way with out authorization. We take broad aerial photos and video. Safety is the single most important aspect of every flight we conduct and respect and privacy for others."

    To me this screams, I don't have a pilot license and am just going for it. I TOO WANNA GO FOR IT.
     
  10. SteveMann

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    653
    Location:
    Westford, MA
    Technically, the news channel is in violation of the FAA rules, but...
    There has only been ONE sUAV operator charged with any FAA violations (Pirker), and the case was closed for a small fine and no admission of guilt.

    There are hundreds, possibly thousands of photographers who are using their Phantom or similar sUAV for commercial purposes. When the FAA implements the commercial sUAV rules and licensing procedure, almost all of them will get their commercial operator's "ticket". Except, probably, Spiritkeeper who obviously doesn't understand taxation or licensing.
     
  11. Meta4

    Meta4 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,729
    Likes Received:
    3,444
    Unless he's one of the few (only 43 so far) that has the Sect. 333 exemption and a pilot's licence, he's not compliant with FFA rules on commercial use. But he may well be compliant with standard FAA safety guidelines for (non-commercial) drone flying.
    He may or may not know what the legal situation is. But like thousands of others faced with ridiculous rules that make no sense and are not enforced, he's just going ahead with his business plan.
     
  12. dhide371

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    So if we go ahead "not knowing" you think it could eventually come back to bite us?
     
  13. Spiritskeeper

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2015
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    1
    Steve let's not get into aspersions on a forum. I have held a professional license and am currently in the process of obtaining another. I obviously do not understand taxation or licensing.
     
  14. SilentAV8R

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA - USA
    Have you seen the proposed sUAS rules for Part 107 under which commercial activity would be allowed?? Perhaps you should take a look.

    http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies ... nature.pdf
     
  15. Spiritskeeper

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2015
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    1
    So there is a new certificate for sUAS proposed in the new rules. I see my phantom would be considered a microUAS. What about my daughter's Syma X5C?

    I ask because I have not had a chance to read the full proposal. Thank you for the link I will be reading the full by this weekend.
     
  16. Andrey320

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Calabasas CA
    Good conversation all!
    (Steve, please keep the personal comments, well... personal. Thank you!)

    So is it "ethics" that keeps some of us back from not trying to make money?
     
  17. PhantomFanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,143
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    USA, GA
    Yep, I absolutely hate that car commercial!
     
  18. PhantomFanatic

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,143
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    USA, GA
    Steve, that was a very rude comment. I didn't expect such from you.
     
  19. SteveMann

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,977
    Likes Received:
    653
    Location:
    Westford, MA
    Sorry if you thought it rude, but Spiritkeeper said: "You are not allowed to do commerce in the US without giving the government their cut. If the government feels like they are not getting their cut they will find a way." which is factually completely wrong and has nothing to do with the current FAA rules. If Spiritkeeper would read the NPRM he would find that the Federal Treasury will lose money for each sUAV operator certificate. I.E the estimated costs per licensee will exceed the fees collected.
     
  20. tcope

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,513
    Likes Received:
    1,387
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Another interesting point is if Google earns revenue on ad ad when I post a drone video... are they not making money because of the drone usage? So it's probably illegal.