The FAA giving one of our P2V+ Pilots a bad time

[tcope]

First, I'd say I certainly have a question on the FAA having jurisdiction over drones.. especially if they are flown for non-commercial use. Bet even if they are... as long as they meet aviation guidelines I'd question if the FAA has power over their use. Following the FAA claims, they can govern paper airplane flights.... commercial or not.

Second, at first glance I'd say the FAA is being a bully with these letter. I think that much is true. They know as well as anyone else that they would not be able to enforce any of their claims.

But lastly... and after I got over my knee jerk reaction... I would need to say that I may understand where they are coming from. They had a complaint filed. We all know when this is done that a gov't body needs to take action. I can sue someone for giving me a dirty look. The court system still needs to follow the law. Same here... a complaint was filed so the FAA is required to react. I think they know it's a crap claim. Notice that they even state that it's usually the case of a competitor filing the complaint. They know businesses and people are simply doing this to intimidate their competition. But the FAA still needs to react. I'm guessing that they kicked out this blanket statement letter even though part of it did not apply. Because it's the letter they use in 99.99% of these complaints. However, I _still_ blame the FAA as they pronounced themselves the king of the drone castle so I feel they created their own "rock and a hard place". They have no business telling people when they are flying unsafe. That is a job for the policy, not the FAA.

 

[SilentAV8R]

Seems like the Tampa inspector stepped outside the lines on this one. Here is an update:

Update: The FAA says it's now looking further into how its safety inspectors send letters like this.

"The FAA’s goal is to promote voluntary compliance by educating individual UAS operators about how they can operate safely under current regulations and laws," the agency said. "The FAA’s guidance calls for inspectors to notify someone with a letter and then follow up. The guidance does not include language about advertising. The FAA will look into the matter."

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fa ... on-youtube

 

[dbooty]

Unfortunately the FAA is copying the regulations which have been in place here (Australia) for just over 10 years.

Out here if I have a cool picture or video shot from my P2V+ or F550 that I may have posted online (Facebook maybe) somehow ends up being used in a newspaper, a business web site for example, that Image or video is now deemed to be used for commercial purposes and I can get a fine from CASA even though I had zero control of that being used.

I work for the government and someone from our facilities management dept approached me about taking some external pictures of the building.
Under the current regulations i can't do it as it will be deemed to be used for commercial purposes. Even if I did it for free on my days off I can't.

In the paper I read that there had been some fines already issued so I spoke to someone from CASA just before Christmas to get clarification on this and also to find out where they stand with flying in your neighbourhood. Out here, legally you can't even go flying out of your front yard as you can't guarantee that you won't fly over peoples backyard and when you're taking off or landing you can't guarantee that there won't be someone walking or driving down the street within 30 metres of your machine.

Any you'll love this... it's illegal to fly after dark, over sporting fields which includes your local oval if a professional or amateur game or training is in progress, any gathering of people & you must fly line of sight. FPV is also illegal unless you hold a UAV operators certificate or equivalent.

Things are getting pretty crap out here & its only a matter of time before your FAA starts clamping down more and more :-/

 

[steveeds]

It really is a silly mess.

Couldn't have put it any better, and couldn't put it any better.

 

[SilentAV8R]

FWIW, the FAA appears to have backed off the letter written by the Tampa FSDO inspector. The MotherVice article was updated with the info on Thursday.

 

[Airbiscuits]

I share the feelings about the FAA trying to get ahead of the curve whatever ways they can. I work on regulatory compliance "with" the FDA and it's not much different with medical devices.
I've been flirting with the idea of commercial ventures and am wondering if anyone around here has attempted to file the Petition for Exemption under Section 333 with the FAA.
Looks like some oil companies are getting approvals but us peons probably not so much. I'm not going to apply and get my name in the books to wait 120 days for an expected response (in which the whole thing may be a wash anyway) unless anyone else has experienced any luck.
If anyone has filed this I'm curious to know your experience.

 

[Meta4]

Looks like some oil companies are getting approvals but us peons probably not so much. I'm not going to apply and get my name in the books to wait 120 days for an expected response (in which the whole thing may be a wash anyway) unless anyone else has experienced any luck.
If anyone has filed this I'm curious to know your experience.

Here's a list of all they have granted .... and they are all required to have a real pilots licence .. even to fly a 1.3kg toy like a Phantom.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/333_authorizations/

 

[msinger]

Meta4, a pilot certificate will always be required thanks to 49 USC§ 44711. That's why the FAA is creating a new SUAS certificate as part of their new rules.

 

[johan]

Meh, I can't say for sure what I'd do if the FAA sent me one of these letters. But my hunch is I might respond with something along the lines of I'd be more than happy to take down my videos shot with a non-N-numbered 5lb toy just as soon as the FAA sends similar letters to every private, recreational or student pilot who has ever posted a youtube video of themselves flying an N-numbered aircraft. If my youtube videos are in furtherance of a business and not incidental to the flight, then so are theirs.