So someone with a heli with a camera who is flying as a hobby catches some footage, with some important or interesting content... which goes viral and he is paid for its use... is he now a "pro" flying for commercial purposes??

I suspect they're in the same position as a non professional doing the same with their iphone by chance coming across a one off event. They're not putting themselves out for hire or employment as operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle.

I think if you accidentally or unintentionally shot something that went viral you would still be classed as a hobbyist. But going out and shooting a video that you intend to place on youtube and choosing to monetize that video would probably take you into the commercial category, after all there is no requirement to monetize the video to place it on youtube. So the only reason to monetize it is to make money, that makes it a commercial video, even if you do only make a few dollars. The CAA defines shooting something for a mate for a beer as OK, but a case of beer makes it a commercial venture.

In the UK flying a toy with a camera that can record results in restrictions as to where you can fly as you cannot be within 50m of any person, vehicle or structure that you do not control or have explicit permission to be near. The primary reason for this is obviously privacy.

If we are to define commercial ops, I think it would be one where a contract for services to be performed is executed before the material is acquired per the client's specs.

Getting video by happenstance that becomes worthy of compensation is not really commercial operation. It's just your 15 minutes of fame.

Somewhere between the wild, wild west and government licensing/regulation is industry certification. Creating a training/proficiency program and subsequent certification by a recognized organization could be helpful in say, being able to obtain liability insurance for commercial UAV AP, or perhaps being hired at all. Having an industry that's willing to police itself is what I feel would be most effective.

-gb-

The UK has a trade association for operators.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Association Welcome (http://www.uavs.org/)

However people want to couch this debate, you can already begin to see the result of the ban on commercial AP, while some might view the US as the center of all things film production, the rest of the World is leaving the US behind, far behind when it comes to AP.

That's not to say that there aren't good people doing good work in the U.S., it just means if they're charging money for it their criminals and that's no way to promote innovation. Also an interesting perspective related to this conversation is that much of the debate about regulations seems to be hobbyist vs professional, this is a video related forum so I would think the concern would be for the professional.

Anyway, here's a couple of innovative shots that show the potential of AP when the focus is lees on regulation and more on doing.

Notre Dame de la Garde (Marseille) - Résolution 4K on Vimeo


Red Bull Cliff Diving 2013 - Making of ... on Vimeo

I for one want to see this get figured out in the US so those of us that are poised to add this service to our offerings can do so legally.

If I had influence on the rules here are things I would like to see implemented:

No FPV ops allowed
Minimum training requirement
Minimum insurance requirement with levels that rise for larger and more dangerous aircraft
Registration of equipment including all major machine pieces being serialized for identification
A black box recorder on the craft

However people want to couch this debate, you can already begin to see the result of the ban on commercial AP, while some might view the US as the center of all things film production, the rest of the World is leaving the US behind, far behind when it comes to AP.
But don't you think it's relevant that in the rest of the world, commercial usage is subject to a set of legislation that both users and controlling bodies are broadly happy with?

Yet from reading these threads it seems that the US debate is polarised between attitudes of "ban the lot" on the one side and "no legislation at all" on the other?

One thing that I'm sensitive to is what will it take to comply and how much will it cost? As a pilot and a plane owner I have lived through the unintended consequences of over regulation which along with the economy has turned my plane into a paper weight.

For many who argue for regulation they seem to draw the line at commercial AP, as if MR pilots will have any say where that line is drawn. A lot of people have stated that flying AP commercially is somehow more dangerous than a hobbyist, have you seen the risks people are taking to produce Youtube videos to garner more views? I guess it depends on how you define compensation.

The issue regarding regulating MR's has little to do with the small guy who wants to shoot AP from a MR for movies, real estate, commercials etc., with the exception of a few FPV pilots most are flying LOS well under 400', it has more to do with managing the airspace and dedicated victor airways for large UAV's.

I think most people would agree that the media has overstated the risks associated with AP from small MR's so it puts good law abiding MR pilots in conflict with the general public. But when does the public safety trump my civil liberties? Why is this even an issue, there aren't that many RC's being flown that would necessitate

Have you ever been to an Islands restaurant? They show some great videos of extreme skiing, surfing, and mountain biking, all of these activities can be dangerous to the film crews, participants and spectators, where's the outcry to regulate that? There are far more people participating in those activities than are flying MR's.

I do think its relevant that many countries are finding the right balance of regulation while still respecting the right of the users. The FAA had that chance and didn't do it, now its putting it to an NPRM. We'll have to wait and see if they can find the same balance.

They show some great videos of extreme skiing, surfing, and mountain biking, all of these activities can be dangerous to the film crews, participants and spectators, where's the outcry to regulate that? There are far more people participating in those activities than are flying MR's.
This has been said so many times now that I've lost track.

Your example above is another example of people taking risks with their OWN lives and welfare - not those of third parties. If anyone chooses to take part in such activities, it's their business. They are the ones who get hurt if their actions go wrong.

Chuck makes a couple of good points. The failure to implement whatever rules they intend is holding back the technological progress that might be made here, to the advantage of countries which have been more proactive. Also, FAA has generally been well behind the ball when it comes to approval of new and useful technology in aircraft. There is a very arduous engineering approval process that takes a long time to work through the system and is very expensive - one reason you don't see so many external camera mount systems. FAA did a better job with the new sport pilot class of aircraft which rely more on standards developed by industry groups. That segment has been doing very well. They also did away with the old medical standards for that class and you don't have people dying of heart attacks and crashing into buildings.

Here's the defense attorney speaking about the case.
The 1st FAA Prosecution of a Civilian Drone UAV - YouTube

What he said!

Basically the FAA is behind where it should be (considering other countries have sorted it out) and there seems to be a divide in the US on this technology, with issues about privacy etc. being brought up state to state. In the end, a court will decide this particular test case.

This has been said so many times now that I've lost track.

Your example above is another example of people taking risks with their OWN lives and welfare - not those of third parties. If anyone chooses to take part in such activities, it's their business. They are the ones who get hurt if their actions go wrong.

Not always. If they require rescuing then somebody may have to risk their life to make that happen.

Gordon

Have you read the link to the situation in the UK that Brian posted? It's similar in many ways to what Jim talks about - 3 classes of aircraft (here sub-7kg, 7-20kg, and over 20kg) and a distinction between hobbyist and commercial use. Fly a sub-7kg unit for non-commercial use and there's not a lot of restriction.
That's not quite right. Flying a sub-7kg model aircraft there are precious few regulations & it's just the same as it has always been with the onus on the operator to fly safely (& keep under 400' & away from airports) BUT as soon as you put a camera on board then you are flying a Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft (SUSA) & a whole load of extra restrictions were introduced just 3-4 years ago e.g. not flying within 50m of any person or "within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft;". Check out the Air Navigation Order 2009 paragraph 166 for model aircraft & paragraph 167 for SUSA http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP393.pdf These restrictions theoretically make it impossible to fly a Parrot AR.Drone in your back yard although legal inside your house.

Commercial aerial work with a SUSA has extra regulations including compulsory training & licensing. Steps to obtain your BNUC-S and CAA permission for aerial work to fly a UAS commercially in UK airspace (http://www.dronetraining.co.uk/bnuc-s-and-caa-permission-for-aerial-work-to-fly-a-uas-commercially-in-uk-airspace/)

Drone On: the Future of UAV Over the US - YouTube

Here is the actual document of the FAA's response.
FAA Response to Raphae... - Brought to you by View Docs Online (http://www.viewdocsonline.com/document/b67e9o)

It could be an expensive law case if it goes beyond the first hearing.

Reading that response, they could go after a kid flying a rubber band powered balsa wood airplane in a park because it might put someone's eye out.

Give 'em time... can't have any "unregulated" risk out there...

deleted by me.