Here's the short version: If you are shooting video or photography using RC aircraft whether it's fixed-wing or heli and it's for commercial or promotional purposes it's illegal. Period. That is unless you have what's called a COA or have undergone a very lengthy and costly certification process.

In point of fact, two well known RC-aerial operators (names withheld) have been given "cease and desist" orders from the FAA and been threatened with a $10k per-day fine for non-compliance. Both of these operators are now shut-down and their websites pulled.

At issue are three very important points:

First, the FAR's or Federal Air Regulations that specifically apply to RC aircraft - or UAV's - for the purpose of commercial aerial photography has not been widely disseminated by the FAA or any other governing authority. It remains a mostly unknown but very volatile piece of information.

Second, the FAA contends that unless the entity wanting to use RC-aerials is under the auspices of a "C.O.A." - which is only issued for government or research facilities for the purposes of search and rescue, military ops, law enforcement or scientific research then that company must: A) Certify the aircraft just as if it were full-sized; B) Obtain formal operator training and also become certified as a UAV operator; C) Carry the appropriate insurances; D) Follow and maintain certain airspace rules and restrictions mandated by the FAA.

Three: The airframe and operator certification process the FAA is requiring does not formally exist anywhere currently. No forum, school or government agency has been created - nor the curriculum - to facilitate these certifications. It's a "chicken before the egg" scenario, for lack of a better term.

So, if you are using your RC heli or airplane to take video or shoot stills for your clients or even just to promote your own company you're doing so without FAA approval and you're subject to being shut down and potentially fined. End of story.

For those who are already shooting RC aerials for commercial purposes: Stop what you're doing and read over this information before you make one more flight. For those who are intending to get into this relatively new market: Don't. Until this gets sorted out by the FAA and whatever organization gets formed to manage this it's a non-starter as you'll be entering into an illegal operation from day one.

Enclosed are a few documents which have been given to me directly from the FAA. Read them carefully so you can understand the mandates the FAA has created.

Lastly, contact the FAA representative directly who is in-charge (so to speak) about this issue and hear about it from the horses mouth:

Randy Willis
Senior Analyst
Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office (AJR-36)
FAA Headquarters
800 Independence Ave, SW
Washington, DC 20591
Ph: 202-267-8565
Fax: 202-267-5809
randy.ctr.willis@faa.gov

NOTE: One of the PDF's I've attempted to upload about this issue will not load for some reason. Have Mr. Willis forward you a copy in email directly - that document is: AVIATION SAFETY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT PROGRAM OFFICE AIR-160

Please pass on this information to anyone you know who is now or wants to get into RC aerials for commercial work.

Is there a trade organization that can represent RC manufacturers and aerial shooters? Individual voices aren't as strong as a coalition.

Just as the FCC has unlicensed bands for low power communications, the FCC should set limits for unlicensed RCs. I would think that they could be banned within a given radius of an airport, and limited in size and altitude above land. There should be limits, but they should be reasonable.

I wasn't able to post in the thread where this was being discussed so I decided to start this thread. I suggest reviewing the documents cited by the original poster in the original thread.

One thing I didn't see mentioned in the original thread is the FAA apparently is examining the use of "model" aircraft for "commercial" purposes and is inviting comment. Here's an excerpt from one of the cited documents (UA Operations in the NAS.pdf Policy section ):

"Feedback regarding current FAA
policy for Unmanned Aircraft Systems
can be submitted at FAA: Home (http://www.faa.gov/)
uas."

I interpret the current policy as it currently is written to mean if I have a monetary gain as a direct or indirect result of flying my "model" aircraft my use falls under the "commercial" aspects of the policy and must first have appropriate certification. Given the nature of the certification process this to me is grossly unreasonable for most people and businesses.

I believe in order to preserve some freedom in this area we need to provide some of this feedback so that the FAA is aware of the severe limitations the policy imposes on the small businessman. In my opinion limiting "commercial" use in the manner described in the policy statement means that only the deep pockets ventures will be able to fund the certification process.

I accepted the FAA's invitation to provide feedback and encourage others to do so as well. Most of us are small businessmen or would like to be. Let us be heard and understood!

Steve

Merged and re-opened... thanks,

To be honest, this is one of those cases that will most likely not be resolved for several years with the final result settled by adjudication through class action lawsuit.

Unnecessary,preemptive regulation is quickly turning this country into the second most powerful nation on the planet.

When was the last time you picked up a newspaper and read, "Person(s) killed by RC helicopter crash"?
I think the FAA's time would be better spent trying to stop little children from being killed in air ambulance crashes as 2008 was one of the worst on record.

Our company is pondering getting into this business. We have found a turnkey setup from a US based company to get us started. I posed this question to the owner. Here was his response. Just wanted to toss it out there.



This gets posted about every week by companies wanting to keep people out of the market. Been done for over two years now.

To keep it simple we are not flying UAV's. We are flying RPV's line of site aircraft no higher than 400ft.

We are able to fly then have our video shot used in a court of law. Regulations are coming in late 2013 stated by the commission to over see the ARC/FAA/UAV division. Basically we were told by Davis's office they are working on a self regulate program to be put in place then to have everyone flying commercially register.

There is no law anywhere stopping anyone from flying. If what he posted were true every rep for every RC company that's paid a dime to fly anything from a 6" foam plane to a 40% aircraft would be breaking a law due to the fact they are compensated for flying RC aircraft.

Due to numerous inconsistencies in the FAA's handling of this matter, key members of the RC aerial photography community have decided to not leave our future in the hands of competing special interests.

The decision has been made to move forward with a class action lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the matter of line-of-site RC aerial photography for compensation or hire.

This class will pursue certification and contends that current FAA policies are unjustifiable and inhibits AP operators ability to pursue legal commerce.

Those who wish to participate in this effort can PM me for additional details. Those engaged in this process will have opportunities to provide input and guidance and will receive regular progress updates. If certified, the class plans to seek both regulatory relief and, if possible, compensation for lost/reduced earnings.

No additional information or details regarding this matter will be provided publicly going forward.


Wendell

Those who wish to participate in this effort can PM me for additional details. We don't use a Private Messaging system on DV Info Net -- you'll have to provide an email
address; the best format for this venue is to break it up, for example: chris at dvinfo dot net

We don't use a Private Messaging system on DV Info Net -- you'll have to provide an email
address; the best format for this venue is to break it up, for example: chris at dvinfo dot net

FWIW Chris, I interpret PM as private email as well as the messaging system we don't have in place. I always suggest putting a valid email in the profile and letting people click on the name to send an email to the poster.

I guess I just broadly categorize private messaging as anything not available to the general public for viewing.

-gb-

To be included in the list, please provide a return email to freedom 4 AP at g mail dot com.

Thanks,
Wendell

I am very pleased with the number of commercial AP operators that have asked to become members of the class action. Many of the most prominent key players are now engaged.

Next we will be going to the Federal Judge to ask for class "certification" (the determination of a common claim and proper representation). This is a case when more is better so I respectfully request that anyone who has performed AP for hire (or would have if not for fear of FAA reprisal) to join the class. No fee is involved. All we ask at this point is a verifiable name and address be sent to:

freedom 4 ap at gmail dot com

Many thanks,

Wendell

Email sent Wendell!

Did anything ever come of this?

The final ruling hasn't been made yet. The only RC Aerial Photo/video allowed is for hobbyists and not for hire.

The FAA has another 18 or so months before the deadline imposed upon them to publish the rules.

So most people find a friend with an aerial cam with RF link to ground, being used for fun - but then they record the output on their equipment, and simply ask their friend for permission to use their amateur footage in a programme, afterwards? No crime committed - and the permission coming after the event can't change an amateur event into a pro one? Sounds an easy get-out?

Wouldn't work in the UK of course, here R/C people have had restrictions on model weight for years, and all radio air to ground kit is also regulated and always has been. Here real aircraft have to keep at least 500ft above people and 'things' - but it's often relaxed, unofficially.

In fact regulations on aerial photography here in the UK were only tightened up a couple of years ago. If you are not doing AP then nothing much has changed since I flew model aeroplanes as a kid & legally you may fly a model plane of up to 7kg pretty much anywhere you like as long as you do it safely & avoid restricted zones & don't fly too high. However with the new regulations brought in to the UK in January 2010 additional restrictions have been brought in regarding any model aircraft equipped for data collection e.g. with a camera on-board which may not fly
a)over or within 150 metres of any congested area;
(b)over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;
(c)within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft

This applies when you are doing it for fun not profit. It's all a bit ludicrous as an AR.Drone can be bought from the Apple Store & you can fly it round your living room but as soon as it flies out the window & into the garden it becomes subject to the Air Traffic Order & theoretically renders the pilot subject to a fine of up to £2500 if flown within 50m of the house next door.

If you are doing any 'Aerial Work' which includes any form AP for payment or as part of a commercial project then you need to get a licence from the Civil Aviation Authority submit flight plans etc.

I wonder if the people that go out and buy this £279 RC Parrot AR Drone 2 (the new version) know about those regs?

Video quality is not stella from the better front viewing cam, appaulingly bad from the bottom (landing) cam - but at the price, bear in mind the claim that the thing is really easy to fly/keep stable and stream video from - they'll sell like hot cakes!

Link to the official website here. Lots of demo videos on how it works/flys etc.

http://ardrone2.parrot.com/

Basic summary of the specs here:

Camera: 720p 30fps HD
Lens: 92-degree diagonal wide angle
Processor: 1 GHz 32-bit ARM Cortex A8
Weight: 380 grams with outdoor hull; 420 grams with Styrofoam indoor hull
Motors: 4 brushless 14.5-watt, 28,500 RPM inrunner motors
Battery: 3 elements 1,000 mA/hour LiPo rechargeable
Price: £279

Direct link to a UK demo video on Gizmodo below. Looks like this guy is risking a big fine!:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/08/parrot-ar-drone-2-0-lightning-review-a-private-spy-drone-for-filming-your-neighbours/

Andy, I already own an AR.Drone 2 & have posted some shots that I took with it on a paying gig over on this thread http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/new-micro-pov-camera-systems/509232-parrot-ar-drone-2-0-a.html. The rolling shutter jello is so bad that the "HD" video is unusable but stills are not so bad for showing on the web. It's also possible to attach a better quality camera (GoPro or similar) but it struggles a bit with the extra weight.

I really cannot see the CAA taking anyone to court for flying a toy even if it's paid aerial work. If it's a £2000 quadrotor that can lift a DSLR I wouldn't be so sure as just on safety grounds they may want to make an example.

I was unaware of that thread and your clips and comments in it - looks interesting - I'll have a good read of it now.

I was unaware of that thread and your clips and comments in it - looks interesting - I'll have a good read of it now.

I know, and that's what I like about this forum -- I constantly get lost (often for hours) reading old & interesting threads. The ratio of useful info on this forum is staggering. Mr. Hurd certainly got something unique going here.

-- peer

Andy, I already own an AR.Drone 2 & have posted some shots that I took with it on a paying gig .........
I really cannot see the CAA taking anyone to court for flying a toy even if it's paid aerial work. If it's a £2000 quadrotor that can lift a DSLR I wouldn't be so sure as just on safety grounds they may want to make an example.

You have an accident with it and you can bet your business that the CAA will take you to court and any liability insurance you may have will most likely be void as it won't cover illegal activities. Especially as you have already stated publicly that you have used an RC aircraft for paying work and you know it to be illegal.

Just because it may be a toy it does not make it any different in the eyes of the law. Just as riding a "toy" mini-moto motorbike on the road is just as illegal as any other un acceptable vehicle.

It might not weigh much but it could still take out an eye if it fell on someone from any height.

I do think that the law sucks. It will make people use the drones under the radar and uninsured. It would be better if the law did allow for restricted use of approved devices provided the user carried adequate insurance. At least that way the accidents that will almost certainly occur will at least be backed by insurance.

You have an accident with it and you can bet your business that the CAA will take you to court and any liability insurance you may have will most likely be void as it won't cover illegal activities. Especially as you have already stated publicly that you have used an RC aircraft for paying work and you know it to be illegal.I don't know if you followed the link that I posted but the video we created for the client was of a villa in the South of France. The law there is different & in any case flying in France is of no concern to the CAA.

It might not weigh much but it could still take out an eye if it fell on someone from any height.Have you ever seen an AR.Drone? It is really tiny, mostly expanded polystyrene & very light. It is not going to take anyone's eye out. There is a real difference between this toy & the electric powered multi-rotor machines used by enthusiasts that are capable of lifting a DSLR let alone those petrol engined model helicopters that are as safe as of a flying rotary lawnmower.

Oregon to make RC aerial video and photos illegal with Senate Bill 71 - YouTube

I think this is long overdue and know people won't like that comment. Three times I have been in the R44 that I have shot aerials out of for 8 years, and we have had close calls with RC. I do not what to stop that part of my business and am tired of untrained operators just hacking it up.

Train operators, certify them, MUST be insured properly, and restrict where they can fly.

Paul...

"I have shot aerials out of for 8 years, and we have had close calls with RC. I do not what to stop that part of my business and am tired of untrained operators just hacking it up."


and just think 8 years ago someone was calling YOU the " Hack without any experience".... Wow..

Ray....

An R44 is a helicopter. People in a helicopter.
Just a little perspective.

Here's another take on the legality:

Photography For Real Estate US Airspace Is Closed To Unmanned Drones Doing Real Estate Photography (http://photographyforrealestate.net/2013/01/29/us-airspace-is-closed-to-unmanned-drones-doing-real-estate-photography/)

If they go the way its looking right now any operators will be required to have at least a private pilot license to fly RC for hire.

Hopefully that will weed out some folks that are not well suited for the work.

Ray Bell you are out of line in my opinion with that comment. When I started shooting out of full size helicopters I did not hack it up I was not flying the machine, I am the camera operator with a pilot that at that time had 4000 hrs. I was shooting for Discovery and they kept hiring me back for years as all my clients do.

When I say hacking up I am talking about filming from a full size helicopter R44 flying a job at 400 feet. We have contacted all the towers in the area, all the police, homeland security, coast guard, state police and then we fly the set route. While up a RC helicopter cuts us off and we just avoid crashing into it, and if you don't think that RC pilot is a hack you have a problem.

Please check your facts before you call me a hack!

Let's all straighten up and fly right. Thanks in advance,

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
The Andrews Sisters "Straighten Up and fly Right" - YouTube

Ray....

An R44 is a helicopter. People in a helicopter.
Just a little perspective.


yes.... and I have seen helicopter hacks too... ( Gulf of Mexico )

I'm just saying everyone has to start somewhere, right?

And yes, I'd be a little peo'd if my helicopter was hit with a RC vehicle...

Paul I wasn't slamming you... I'm just saying you didn't have the same experience 8 years ago that you have now....

Good one Bob thanks for that.

Unless I'm missing something these new regulations don't apply to all RC aircraft, just those with cameras.

Well, we've jumped in:

Phantom Quadcopter w/GoPro HERO and HERO2 Mount - Filmtools (http://www.filmtools.com/phantom-quadcopter-w-gopro-mount.html)

This unit is really cool.....when I was little, I had a RC boat that I launched in Marina Del Rey and it took off across the water beautifully.....never to be seen again! The Phantom has the GPS built in so when you fly it say 1 block away, turn off the remote control, the unit stops & hovers in place, waiting for a signal......after a few seconds, it decides to "go home"...at the same height until it is right over the spot where it took off...still waiting for a signal.....then decides that it's going to land, lowers, and at about 5 feet, it slows and then lands! We've been testing these for the last few weeks and, other than putting some "dampening material" around the GoPro, are continually blown away at what this copter does, the range, and the really great shots you can get with it.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

What is the range of this rc copter ?

distance from controller to rc ?

wow this is a total mess of a situation.

What is the range of this rc copter ?

distance from controller to rc ?

300 meters from the remote......

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

It seems a little like rubbing salt into a wound, but at the Broadcast Video Expo in London this week, helicopter type devices are all over the place - a number of exhibitors showing off their products. Seems odd it's been banned in the US but here, becoming very popular!

It seems a little like rubbing salt into a wound, but at the Broadcast Video Expo in London this week, helicopter type devices are all over the place - a number of exhibitors showing off their products. Seems odd it's been banned in the US but here, becoming very popular!

Here's information and guidance from the the CAA. Unmanned Aircraft and Aircraft Systems | Aircraft | Operations and Safety (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?CATID=1995)

You should note the 20kg weight. Basic Principles | Aircraft | Operations and Safety (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pageid=11185)

Plus pilot qualifications Pilot Qualifications | Aircraft | Operations and Safety (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pageid=11190)

LAPD cracks down on drone aircraft use by real estate agents - latimes.com (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/lapd-cracks-down-on-drone-aircraft-use-by-real-estate-agents.html)

Pretty sad if you spent thousands on a flying rig, only to find that you can't use it. The only winner would be the person who sold it to you, he'll be laughing all the way to the bank!

Regarding the article subject matter: Exactly what part of the helicopter is susceptible to damage, let alone serious damage by collision with an RC copter?

Regarding the article subject matter: Exactly what part of the helicopter is susceptible to damage, let alone serious damage by collision with an RC copter?

We had one of the guys at the local flying field loose control of his craft and it dove into an industrial building next to the field. Went through a rubber membrane roof, through the steel decking, and took a divot out of the concrete floor inside the building. Luckily it was a weekend and the building was closed.

These things weigh as much as a brick. Charge them with some momentum and they can do a lot of damage. Even if a UAV didn't do enough damage to cause a crash of the manned aircraft, have you ever looked into repair of anything that flies? It is very expensive to repair any damage to an aircraft. It is best to avoid the situation completely.

Regarding the article subject matter: Exactly what part of the helicopter is susceptible to damage, let alone serious damage by collision with an RC copter?
Main rotor, tail rotor, antennae, engine, windscreen, pilot behind windscreen, any part of the airframe, for starters.

Even many small helicopters can cruise at more than 100 knots and the tips of their rotors are going several times faster and won't tolerate much imbalance. I don't know how fast these remote mini-copters move..I'll guess 20+ knots?

Would a 120+ mph impact to your car windshield concern you? (It should). Do you suppose a rotor blade moving at, say, 400mph, might suffer catastrophic damage if it met up with an object like one of these minis? (It would).

Not to take sides, but however the skies are shared, it must be in a way that highly assures aerial vehicles of any type don't have unintended meetings in the sky. And the Big Sky theory of air traffic control is less and less reliable as the skies get fuller and fuller.

It seems a little like rubbing salt into a wound, but at the Broadcast Video Expo in London this week, helicopter type devices are all over the place - a number of exhibitors showing off their products. Seems odd it's been banned in the US but here, becoming very popular!The difference is that in the UK the CAA have procedures in place for regulating drones doing aerial photography. However for even the smallest craft if the work is commercial then the operator needs to be properly licensed & pass an exam for a Basic National UAS Certificate for Small Unmanned Aircraft (BNUC-S). The CAA is quite tight on its definition of payment for aerial work & in one of their documents says that it's non-commercial & OK to do it for a pint of beer but that a whole case would count as aerial work.

So far the CAA has issued less than a couple of hundred licences to do aerial work with Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft (the majority of those to people at the BBC) so I suspect that most of the people buying DJI Phantoms & similar will be operating illegally.

I haven't been following this discussion completely, so maybe some things are obvious to others that were not obvious to me until I read a news article today.

The FAA does not allow use of RC aircraft by ANY commercial enterprise/business/govt agency (even police, eg.) whether it has a camera or not. So they didn't just start picking on aerial photography out of the blue.

Probably just a matter of time before they start to seriously enforce this.
FAA investigating report of drone spotted near NYC (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/drone-nyc-pilot-jfk/1964311/)

This could have ended badly.
FAA investigating report of drone spotted near Kennedy Airport - Hawaii News - Honolulu Star-Advertiser (http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/195298241.html?id=195298241)

That article raises a few questions for me - apparently only ONE pilot reported this, raising questions of whether this was "real", "imagined", or perhaps part of an "awareness campaign"?

One pilot claims to have seen "something", and accurately describes a small multirotor hobby helicopter... no indication that it was shootign video or had ANY video equipment on board, so does this mean ONLY video equipped helis are dangerous, since those seem to be the focus of the regulatory restrictions...?

The second question is who the heck would be STUPID enough to fly in a commercial approach/takeoff corridor????

It's not about the technology, it's about the IQ and safety conciousness of the "operators". And to think that there are moves to have multiple government agencies "flying" these sorts of UAV's for various purposes on top of it!?

Great technology, lots of implementation issues!

RC aircraft are limited to 400 ft altitude in any case. I think this one was seen at 1500 ft.