Remote aircraft pilot fights $10,000 FAA fine, could change drone rules | The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/9/4821094/remote-aircraft-pilot-fights-faa-fine-could-change-drone-rules)

As part of that item, it's said:
Yet hobbyists — who may well be using the same aircraft — aren't subject to the ban. Asks Pirker, "How come the flight is less dangerous if you’re not receiving any compensation for it?"
We've been here before. It's because if you're being paid, there may easily be more likelihood of the operator taking risks that they normally wouldn't if they were doing it for a hobby. It's the old "it'll probably be OK....." versus knowing that if it doesn't happen, no money. There are lots of activities that are in the same category, think of driving a car - insurance and other regulations for driving a taxi are far different than driving for your own purposes.

And secondly, if there may seem to be easy money to be made, watch the idiots flock in with more enthusiasm than common sense. Enthusiasts doing it for a hobby are likely to be more restrained, and do their flying in sensible places - if you're doing it for money, you fly where you're paid to get the video, to hell with safety.

Since it appears the FAA didn't "follow the rules" while making rules for other people to follow, I'll be rooting for him... when the rules only apply to "SOME animals", there is a serious problem!


Having just attended an airshow where the planes were kept so far out that I had to use a high zoom camera to even see much of anything... there comes a point where we become so risk averse we may as well ban getting out of bed... for there will be little left worth living for!

Just a few short years ago at the same show/venue, the crowd was blasted by the acrobatic jet team exhausts as they taxied out for takeoff, myself included... OK, maybe they WERE a bit lax at that time... but no one was hurt even though someone could have been. I think I got some dirt in my eye... oh well... I think my kids all laughed and got a big kick out of it... actually they still laugh about it!

We all accept some risks, the government would like to make life so "risk free", we won't be able to do a single thing without breaking a law - they are expelling kids with pop tarts and "bubble guns", and banning TAG for heavens sake!!! There needs to be an old fashioned thing called COMMON SENSE, not 10 bazillion more "rules and regulations"...

As part of that item, it's said:

We've been here before. It's because if you're being paid, there may easily be more likelihood of the operator taking risks that they normally wouldn't if they were doing it for a hobby. It's the old "it'll probably be OK....." versus knowing that if it doesn't happen, no money. There are lots of activities that are in the same category, think of driving a car - insurance and other regulations for driving a taxi are far different than driving for your own purposes.

And secondly, if there may seem to be easy money to be made, watch the idiots flock in with more enthusiasm than common sense. Enthusiasts doing it for a hobby are likely to be more restrained, and do their flying in sensible places - if you're doing it for money, you fly where you're paid to get the video, to hell with safety.

That's a really narrow view.

A commercial pilot's license is tougher to get than a PPL.The FAA seems rather behind the ball with this one, since the UK's CAA has regulations and qualifications for commercial use of drones. If someone is commercially using one of these they should be qualified to do so, that protects both the client and the public from unskilled or cowboy operators.

That's a really narrow view.
Why is it "narrow"?

All I'm saying is that if you're being offered money to do an activity, there's an incentive to take risks chances that you wouldn't if it was purely on a hobby basis. A feeling that if you don't, the person paying will ask somebody else next time.

It doesn't mean that all such activity should be banned, but does argue that commercial activity should be subject to different rules than non-commercial. (Control over working hours for lorry drivers and commercial pilots are obvious comparisons.) It also helps enforce a higher standard of training, and if it's uppermost in an operators mind that chancing it too much may lead to loss of licence, that may discourage risk taking.

And the danger is that if sensible rules aren't brought in and enforced, there'll be a knee jerk reaction and outright ban. I wouldn't want to see that.

As far as potential for damage, then if you read the comments at the bottom of the original link, then a lot of people are simply missing the point. There's much discussion along the lines of "so what if a small quadrocopter hit a car? The quadrocopter will come off much worse anyway, won't it?". Well, maybe initially, but if such hit your windscreen whilst doing 70mph on a busy motorway, don't you think it may at least shatter the windscreen? Isn't there a strong likelihood of at least causing the hit car to swerve, possibly in heavy traffic? The original damage may indeed not be much - the resulting accident may be very serious. I can't believe this has to be spelled out.

If you're taking money to do something, presumably you DO IT COMPETENTLY, licensed or not!?

IOW, the exact OPPOSITE of your premise, at the point someone is being paid, the incentive to do the job competently, effectively, and SAFELY, so that there is no loss of equipment or footage rises exponentially...

The idea that because someone invests several thousand dollars (or any other currency) to put up a capable "rig" they become risk takers willing to destroy that rig to "get the shot" is a stretch...

Part of the problem is there seem to be "technical issues", and of course the opportunity for "operator error". Companies making these are working on reducing the possibility of both those risks, but you can't ELIMINATE all risk, that's just impossible.


The guy in NY who killed himself with a RC HELI (not a quad or multi-rotor) was EXPERIENCED, could no doubt have passed ANY licensing test with ease, but he was taking a crazy risk and died doing it, while not being paid anything for it.

The unique nature of aerial footage draws a lot of novices, and the lack of experience (as with ANY technical device or skill) DOES represent a danger - but stretching by saying because a novice cannot operate a "drone" safely (any more than a 10 year old who has never been trained to drive can operate a car safely), so "there oughta be a law" putting burdens on COMPETENT operators is a fallacious leap of logic. There needs to be COMMON SENSE involved.


Just out of curiosity, I pocked up some of the cheap little import gyro stabilized helis that fit in your hand... even though they are TOYS, they took a fair amount of time to develop enough skill to "pilot" safely, and I suppose they COULD injure someone - I've been hit a couple times, and it stings... once a little skill has been developed, they are generally safe. I've got a bigger one sitting here with a technical issue (meaning control is unreliable), and until it's been fixed 100%, it is SITTING, grounded... common sense... I also picked up an RC simulator for PC, and guess what... realistically, the first few flights ended up in crashes!!! Skill takes time to develop... common sense... well, you either got it or ya don't!

If you're taking money to do something, presumably you DO IT COMPETENTLY, licensed or not!?
You may, I may..... but can you really tell me that's true of everybody? Legislation over such as driver hours isn't done for fun, or to be deliberately difficult - it's because it's been found necessary.
IOW, the exact OPPOSITE of your premise, at the point someone is being paid, the incentive to do the job competently, effectively, and SAFELY, so that there is no loss of equipment or footage rises exponentially...
No, because of the "it'll never happen to me factor", and the fact that it's so difficult to quantify risk. If you were pretty sure an action would cause a serious accident, of course you wouldn't do it. But if you were being asked to deliver something, knew it could lead to not being hired again if you didn't deliver, and thought "oh, it'll probably work out OK....."
Part of the problem is there seem to be "technical issues", and of course the opportunity for "operator error". Companies making these are working on reducing the possibility of both those risks, but you can't ELIMINATE all risk, that's just impossible.
No, but you can minimise risks, certainly unnecessary ones. That's partly technical, partly by regulation - not flying too close to busy roads for example.
The guy in NY who killed himself with a RC HELI (not a quad or multi-rotor) was EXPERIENCED, could no doubt have passed ANY licensing test with ease, but he was taking a crazy risk and died doing it, while not being paid anything for it
Tragic for him and his family though that case may be, the risk was a personal one. He chose to take the risk, he was the only person likely to be harmed if things went wrong. As such it's no different from anyone who takes part in any other extreme sport, and no, I don't think that form of risk taking should be banned.

This is different. we're talking about people who seem to want to take risks for financial gain - but where the risks are with other peoples lives and safety, not their own. That's the difference.

Take one quote from that article:
The FAA says Pirker operated the styrofoam "drone" at extremely low altitudes. He flew it through a tunnel with moving cars below. He came too close to a UVA statue, railway tracks, and civilians.
Now if that's accurate, just think about it.... "He flew it through a tunnel with moving cars below."

Dave, you say "There needs to be COMMON SENSE involved." Yes, in principle I agree - but unfortunately, don't you think the above (assuming it's true) shows that in some cases that's severely lacking?

Requiring a qualification for commercial operators isn't a burden, it's putting in place a minimum standard that they should be demanding as professionals. It would ensure that they do know Aviation Law and the factors that affect the operation of drones. For serious hobbyists wishing to become operators it ticks the boxes on what they're expected to know.

David is correct. Commercial pilots are regularly put in a situation where they are coerced into pushing their personal limits by their employers. There is a lot of competition for pilot slots so if you don't play ball you may find yourself looking for a new gig. What do you think is going to happen when the pressure is to 'get the shot' in a breaking news situation?

The EMPLOYER will be held liable in a large lawsuit... there is a financial dis-incentive already in place for malicious, reckless or grossly negligent behavior.

And you've added an important variable - an employer who demands an employee take an unreasonable risk - very different from an independent operator who will have to foot the bill for a crash or damage/injury. Two VERY different scenarios, IMO.

Different perspectives I suppose, but if an operator knows what he and his equipment are capable of doing safely (like stunt men do every day, sometimes they get killed anyway... like anyone who gets into a car does everyday, people still have "accidents"), more rules and regulations are not "the" answer...


I'm sure the FAA complaint filed against the guy seeking a $10K fine is as accurate and diligent as the FAA rules put into place without proper procedure... yeah, sure... the side of the story when the government wants to tell it is ALWAYS slanted in favor of the agenda - AKA keeping their "budget" money flowing.... I'll still root for the guy getting the shaft while the agency doing it is bending the rules...


There will no doubt be "public" debates, and eventually SOME form of regulation, but in a society where there is a rule or regulation for EVERYTHING, the only result is a populace of CRIMINALS, and that is not a desirable outcome. Perhaps if STUPIDITY was ALWAYS painful, the situation would be a bit easier! Far more effective than piles of bureaucratic papers!

What the operator thinks what they and their equipment can do may differ from reality. Stunt people train, practise and build up a reputation with other stunt performers, they're extremely aware of risks and the correct procedures to perform them safely.

Having a license just proves that you''re meeting a minimum standard of skills.

Looking at the footage in that link - he does seem to fly very 'angrily'. No smooth banks and turns, Grand Theft Auto style changes of direction. Personally, somebody who flys like that isn't really thinking. A good friend of mine runs a photography business specialising in aircraft mounted cameras. He's spent time working with the CAA to get mounts and aircraft attachments tested and approved, yet he sees people almost continually attaching GoPros to aircraft in all sorts of homebrew ways. Elastic cords, cable ties, clamps to any useful mounting point - even things like pitot heads and vertical stabiliser lighting. A few fall off, lots spin around with the vibration, and nobody seems to accept that the CAA ban this kind of jury rigged attachments. There's also the pilots license rules about getting paid for aerial work when you have a PPL, rather than a CPL. He doesn't complain, but it sure annoys him privately what these people do. With two feet on the ground they take even crazier risks it seems. It needs a few high value prosecutions to calm things down I think.

It is completely wrong to equate the actions of this individual (assuming the reports are true) with stuntmen.

Yes, stuntmen take risks for the work they do - but as with dangerous sports it's THEIR OWN lives and well being they are putting at risk.

In this case, it's OTHER PEOPLE that have to bear the risk of the operators actions, for no benefit to themselves.

It's the difference between driving on a race track and the public road.

You may never remove third party risk altogether, but therein lies good legislation - striking an acceptable balance between risk and benefit/reward. At the moment, it's all benefit/reward to the operators, all risk to third parties. That has to change, and maybe making an example of this individual is a good start.

The charge in this case was the generic reckless and dangerous FAR they use when nothing else fits. So an argument could be made that existing legislation covers third party risk. However, it would appear to pose additional legal risk to a commercial operator depending on the whims of the local FSDO.

Regulation works both ways. It may mean there are many things you'd like to do but can't, but it also tells you what you can do. So provided you stay within the regulations there should be no fear of random enforcement of non existing rules.

Drone are full of issues, not just safety but also privacy concerns. There is a video doing the rounds of an "official" video crews multicopter falling into the large crowd at a religious event, fortunately only minor injuries, but clearly common sense is not being used. You can't fly one of these risk free over large crowds. Most people won't walk under a ladder if they have a choice so why expect them to be happy about having an inherently unstable aircraft above their heads. Regulation is needed otherwise things will get out of control and unsuspecting people will get hurt or killed.

I fly a hexacopter and fully intend to complete the BNUC-S course and certification process so I can use it commercially in Europe. If you want to fly it through a tunnel over cars then you do it on a closed set where the drivers of the cars know the risks, doing it anywhere else is madness and if this is true then the operator deserves to be penalised. Is it any wonder there are so many people that think drones are fair game for shotguns?

The EMPLOYER will be held liable in a large lawsuit...

I'm afraid that is not entirely true.... The employer may be held partially responsible... but FAA regulations will always first look at the Pilot In Command.

Here is a direct portion of the FAA regulation -- Notice the part that states "is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." That goes a long way towards letting the employer, the manufacturer and Tower/Ground control operators off the hook when something goes wrong and causes an accident.


14 CFR 91.3 - Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command
§ 91.3
Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

No doubt the pilot is where the decision to fly or not should rest - but several posters have suggested that en employer will pressure the employee to fly when it is not safe to do so, so the pilot flies against their better judgment. In that case liability would also land on the employer, for recklessly ignoring expert input,

There are a lot of "classes" of "drones", and one article I recently read suggested the need to sort out what sort of drone you're dealing with, probably by range, and lifting capability. And where and how it is being used. Again, applying some common sense seems like a good start, instead I guess we are at the "wild west" stage.

Employers can put pressure on pilots of all types, even airlines. Exclusive: Safety warning as budget airlines such as Ryanair cut fuel levels for flights - News & Advice - Travel - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/exclusive-safety-warning-as-budget-airlines-such-as-ryanair-cut-fuel-levels-for-flights-8749046.html)

It's up to the pilot to ensure that they're operating safely and within their skill levels when working on a production. As has been mentioned, the pilot has final authority and if there's an accident it'll be pilot error, rather than the employer made them do it.

With regard to lawsuits:

In the US, a lawyer for the party who was damaged will invariably name everybody connected with the incident except their client in the lawsuit. That would be:
the operator,
the party who hired the operator,
and probably the manufacturer of the plane and the control unit.
Maybe even the property owner where the drone operator was standing, at least I wouldn't be surprised.

If someone was watching who might have had knowledge or ability in the drone operation and could have known there could be a problem and maybe stopped or corrected it, like a drone operator trainer, say, they could also be named.

At least in US legal altercations this seems to be a fairly typical lawyer approach because it tends to be a "winner take all" situation in the court. In Europe, or at least in places like Germany and Austria, the costs to the guilty parties are apportioned out so maybe that probably helps to cut down on going after "deep pockets".

Yes there are two aspects to this - regulatory actions by the FAA to fine the folks responsible for the unsafe operations, and liability when an injury or property damage occurs. But the two are somewhat related in that a violation of a regulation may lead to a denial of insurance coverage which likely has an illegal activities exclusion. Read the fine print on that policy.

No one is being fined. An operator was sent a letter by the FAA but the operator has hired a lawyer and will be at the Admin hearing. The arguments on the side of the operator are listed here

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/FAA-v-Pirker.pdf



When you read the rebuttle you will be amazed that the FAA is even trying to do this. If it were in a court of law the Judge would throw the entire case out based on legal ground

The FAA has chosen not to regulate model aircraft and its written into their original charter. Dont see how you can overlook that.

Here is a better informed website to follow the case

The FAA’s complaint against Trappy | sUAS News (http://www.suasnews.com/2013/10/25471/the-faas-complaint-against-trappy/)

That's a nicely written defense. Spendy too.

No doubt the pilot is where the decision to fly or not should rest - but several posters have suggested that en employer will pressure the employee to fly when it is not safe to do so, so the pilot flies against their better judgment. In that case liability would also land on the employer, for recklessly ignoring expert input,
I think my concern would be less about overt pressure, more about the pilot tending to push boundaries for fear of somebody else being employed the next time if they didn't. Marginal weather, for example? If you were a hobbyist, you just play safe, "I'm not going to risk my expensive machine in this." But if you don't get paid? You may think the risk of damage to your machine (and cost) is worth the certain loss of money and prospects if you don't give it a go.

Either way, it still means that there is a big difference between doing many activities on a hobby basis or commercial.

Incidentally, I think it needs to be made clear that Ryanair were NOT trying to force their pilots to do anything at all against the rules in the earlier mentioned story - and the newspaper had to print a clarification to that effect. There was no question of pilots being asked to take off with less than the calculated minimum fuel load for the flight (including the official safety margin), all that was being said was not to take off with any more than 300kg above that.

When you read the rebuttle you will be amazed that the FAA is even trying to do this. If it were in a court of law the Judge would throw the entire case out based on legal ground

The FAA has chosen not to regulate model aircraft and its written into their original charter. Dont see how you can overlook that.

Here is a better informed website to follow the case

The FAA’s complaint against Trappy | sUAS News (http://www.suasnews.com/2013/10/25471/the-faas-complaint-against-trappy/)
Really, this can't end well, whatever the legal outcome. (Which I don't intend to comment or speculate about.)

Even if Trappy wins the case, I can't help feeling that the end result will eventually be far more draconian legislation as attitudes become more and more polarised, and debate becomes more bitter. Whatever the law eventually decides about the individual case, then looking at the link above and the video that was shot, I can only feel that Trappy has put on record material that may well get used to argue for much tougher restrictions and legislation. I can only speculate that the more responsible commercial operators are far from pleased to see his footage.

Incidentally, I think it needs to be made clear that Ryanair were NOT trying to force their pilots to do anything at all against the rules in the earlier mentioned story - and the newspaper had to print a clarification to that effect. There was no question of pilots being asked to take off with less than the calculated minimum fuel load for the flight (including the official safety margin), all that was being said was not to take off with any more than 300kg above that.

Indeed, although there has been a number of cases of Ryanair flights having to be given priority landings at their alternative airports because they were low on fuel. An airline doesn't want to carry unnecessary extra fuel, because it costs fuel burn just to carry it, it's a matter the correct balance.

the difference between a professional and an amateur is the money, only.
both must use common sens and know the rules.
But the pro is paid for that.
So if the fligth requires to close a street , needs 5 assistants, a huge drone to lift a FS 700, the insurance for camera and eventual damages... the price invoiced to customer must reflect that.
After all it ithe reaspon customer go to professional, because they know the job, have the equipement, knows the rules and have insurances.

Obviously , the customer come to the pro, saying , my nephew has a little drone with a gopro and ca do that for 100 bucks, why should i pay you 3000 ?
then let the customer gamble on his chance, and yes there are 90% chances he got the pictures for almost nothing. But you wouldn't loose a customer, you just avoid an occasion to be in a big mess for 100$.

The EMPLOYER will be held liable in a large lawsuit... there is a financial dis-incentive already in place for malicious, reckless or grossly negligent behavior.

...

Except that a contractor working on a gig for his client is NOT an employee of the client. The contractor needs to have his own liability insurance as the legal liability for an accident caused by his negligence will be visited on him, not his client.

Here's Trappy on youtube, commenting about the what they do and about the fine. I think he incriminates himself by saying "Whenever we travel around we like to film places that we go to from up above, and give a more challenging angle to it so we try to fly as close to buildings as possible, fly down mountains really fast, and yeah have fun that way"

In essence, he's trying to push boundaries and limits, which I think is an invitation for disaster.

Drones vs. Government: Who Owns America's Skies? - YouTube

I just read the entire Motion to Dismiss and it certainly appears that the FAA has not adopted any legally binding regulations to this day, let alone two years ago when the incident in question took place.

Perhaps most ironic (and I should have remembered this as a licensed private pilot) is that by its own definition, Part 91 operations do not require a commericial pilot certificate to engage in aerial photography or survey for hire.

This is not to say that there won't be future inclusion of model aircraft into the FARs, but as it currently stands, the FAA has NO LEGAL grounds to assess any penalty in this named incident. Their 2007 'policy' has not gone through the required Notice of Proposed Rule Making. That is just one of the many legal arguments where their complaint falls flat. There is not now, nor has there ever been any FARs that apply to model aircraft, commerically operated or otherwise.

Any reckless or careless operation complaints or enforcement of penalties in this incident should have beend handled by local law enforcement, not by a federal agency.

-gb-

Thanks Greg.

While the piloting in question may (or may not) represent a "risk", it's apparent that no harm damage or injury occurred - that is merely SPECULATIVE. Something COULD have happened...

What is not speculative is that a government agency is overstepping its rules of operation to persecute a private citizen. It's no wonder people aren't interested in "laws" when the folks designated to "enforce" them are acting OUTSIDE the law themselves...

"Drones" as with ANY "new" technology create a potentially unforeseen situation that might not be directly covered by existing law (witness some of the "copyright" discussions we've had here on DVi). Until law develops you have a battle between "common sense" and "there oughta be a law", often on a case by case basis (creating "precedent").

"Law" can be messy stuff, remember they got Capone for "tax evasion", not being a mobster... be careful the laws you wish for, they may well be turned against you!

Until law develops you have a battle between "common sense" and "there oughta be a law", often on a case by case basis (creating "precedent").
Would it not be more accurate to say it's currently a three way battle between "there oughta be a law", and "let's get away with what we can" on the extremes, with "common sense" in the middle?

I've already said I'm not going to comment on the legalities of this specific case, but in terms of the general debate, then if I was an RC hobbyist I would not be pleased to hear him say "we try to fly as close to buildings as possible, fly down mountains really fast, and yeah have fun that way". That is not the sound of common sense, is likely to push others to push boundaries even harder, and whatever US law does or does not say at the moment, is only likely to make future legislation even more restrictive. It's also likely to make rushed (and flawed) legislation more likely.

By and large it seems the serious RC hobbyists have got by very well in the past with common sense self regulation. It seems unfortunate that they may well be the ones with most to lose from irresponsible behaviour by a small minority.

Fully agree with Warren. "In essence, he's trying to push boundaries and limits, which I think is an invitation for disaster."

Even if he's not currently not under FAA regulation, he may find himself up for reckless endangerment under state or other local laws.

Reckless Endangerment Law & Legal Definition (http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reckless-endangerment/)

Even if he's not currently not under FAA regulation, he may find himself up for reckless endangerment under state or other local laws.

There are lots of laws that protect the public, they don't need to add additional laws specifically for RC's.

George Washington said it best: "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition that he may abuse it."

There are lots of laws that protect the public, they don't need to add additional laws specifically for RC's.

Anyone flying an aircraft capable of intruding in GA airspace and putting other aircraft at risk need to prove that they know the laws regarding use of that airspace. Furthermore, aircraft used in a commercial context should be held to a higher standard of safety and reliability than those used strictly for hobby purposes and flown in remote locations.

You would have to PROVE that someone was truly endangered, not just speculate that something bad COULD have happened.

Paranoia is not a good reason for either myriad laws or wrongful prosecution/persecutions. Nor is political expediency. There is a balance that must be maintained between freedom (even freedom to be STUPID), and a stable society/civilization.

That said... no doubt people, perhaps even this drone pilot will continue to do stupid things, it's what people do - if you criminalize stupidity, we're ALL criminals...

I suspect it's the level of stupidity that's important and if by acting in a stupid manner there's a risk to other people. With freedom comes responsibility.

That said... no doubt people, perhaps even this drone pilot will continue to do stupid things, it's what people do - if you criminalize stupidity, we're ALL criminals...
Same point as Brian, I suppose. It's where you draw the line.

When does stupidity become criminal?

I'd say when it threatens the welfare of a third party and is a considered act, not a simple mistake or forgetfulness, may be a starting point. It's nothing new though, is it? There's already plenty of (stupid) things that a person can be prosecuted for, and in general it's when they cause a risk to other people (or their property). If anyone wants to do stupid things when all the risk is to themselves, that's a different matter, that's called freedom.

Anyone flying an aircraft capable of intruding in GA airspace and putting other aircraft at risk need to prove that they know the laws regarding use of that airspace. Furthermore, aircraft used in a commercial context should be held to a higher standard of safety and reliability than those used strictly for hobby purposes and flown in remote locations.

I don't understand why everyone differentiates between hobbyists and professionals. As a pilot its my responsibility to mitigate as much risk as possible whether I'm being paid or not and whether a MR is used for commercial purposes doesn't make it any more or less safe. So why wouldn't a hobbyist have know the same laws regarding the use of airspace as someone shooting AP commercially? So are you prepared to spend about $25K to get a license to fly an RC? That's were this is headed.

"When the people fear the Government there is tyranny. When the Government fears the people there is liberty."

Possibly the problem is that as a PPL you have to know the regulations, but hobbyist buying one of these new generation models doesn't even need to consider learning them before taking it out of the box and flying it. This is a different mind set to the hobbyist who, in the past, usually built their own model aircraft and therefore had invested a lot of time into it and often a number of crashes learning to fly model aircraft.

If you want to see what Trappy did, here's the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4&feature=player_embedded#at=92

As I understand it, the university paid him to get these aerials. I can't see how material like this could contribute to someone's impression of the campus, but that's a creative question that's outside the scope of this discussion.

Watch this and judge whether it was reckless or not.

I don't understand why everyone differentiates between hobbyists and professionals. As a pilot its my responsibility to mitigate as much risk as possible whether I'm being paid or not and whether a MR is used for commercial purposes doesn't make it any more or less safe. So why wouldn't a hobbyist have know the same laws regarding the use of airspace as someone shooting AP commercially? So are you prepared to spend about $25K to get a license to fly an RC? That's were this is headed.

"When the people fear the Government there is tyranny. When the Government fears the people there is liberty."

In a professional context they are more likely to be flown in a manner that puts others at risk, news stories, regularly scheduled flights over populated areas, etc. Re amateurs knowing the same laws, I think you're right. I think there will end up being 3 classes of aircraft and all but the lowest performance/risk will require some type of licensing. Re $25k to get a certificate, a private pilot airplane isn't close to that (probably closer to $10k), but a commercial rating requires 250 hours of flight time. A knowledge test consisting of a written portion (prove you know the FARs) and a practical demonstrating proficiency in the type you intend to fly should be sufficient.

As a point of information, you can find the UKs CAA regulations for commercial unmanned aircraft here. Unmanned Aircraft and Aircraft Systems | Aircraft | Operations and Safety (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?CATID=1995) There are different weight categorises.

This is separate to flying models recreationally.

I don't understand why everyone differentiates between hobbyists and professionals. As a pilot its my responsibility to mitigate as much risk as possible whether I'm being paid or not and whether a MR is used for commercial purposes doesn't make it any more or less safe. So why wouldn't a hobbyist have know the same laws regarding the use of airspace as someone shooting AP commercially? So are you prepared to spend about $25K to get a license to fly an RC? That's were this is headed.

"When the people fear the Government there is tyranny. When the Government fears the people there is liberty."

When you step onto a commercial plan would you want your pilots to be professionals or hobbyists?

When you drive next to a huge truck hauling radioactive waste on the highway do you want that driver to be a professional or a hobbyist?

There are places to be a hobbyist and places where it isn't appropriate. Operating for hire a potentially dangerous machine loaded with very expensive gear near soft targets is one of the places in my opinion where I don't want to see hobbyists.

No matter how expensive the camera a MR might carry is, its no large truck with radio active material nor is it an airliner with people in it.

Everything is dangerous, so what! Here in California politicians are trying to ban football, basketball and baseball at public schools because they think its too dangerous. I don't need some government employee deciding what sports my kids can and can't play. The unintended consequence of this is only kids that go to private schools can play sports and earn scholarships. I'm sure that's what these idiots intended. Sure this is an extreme example but with what's happening in government today its not that unlikely of one.

The idea that if the Government regulates RC controlled AP its going to somehow make it safer, that the regulations will be reasonable and not cost prohibitive, and that hobbyist will be exempt is ridiculous.

It doesn't matter what you think about the current healthcare debate, or more accurately lack of debate and the reasons for that, here's an example happening in real time of how inept the government really is. Again, its unfair to compare the roll out of healthcare to regulating RC's but I can't imagine a scenario where they will be any more successful.

This isn't about politics, its common sense. The person that buys a Phantom online and flies it in there backyard probably isn't going to be aware of any regulations anyway, if your getting into AP you might be aware of the regulations but chances are if its for the occasional gig those regulations will be ignored, and for those that are doing this as a real profession they will in all likelihood have been flying with and around other proficient RC pilots where they will learn far more than they would by taking a test. So what role do the regulations actually have in all of this?

You can't legislate stupidity, if you need someone to define what safe flying is then you should not be flying anything anywhere at anytime.

A drone carrying an Epic can injure an person or cause an accident if it hits the windscreen of a moving vehicle and it's more likely to be in such a position than a hobbyist flying their helicopter in a field or in their backyard. A skilled hobbyist who wants to operate commercially shouldn't have any problems passing a test.

This is nothing to do with politicians getting on bandwagons about sport safety, it's just about a client hiring someone they know is qualified to do a job.

I don't understand why everyone differentiates between hobbyists and professionals. As a pilot its my responsibility to mitigate as much risk as possible whether I'm being paid or not .......
The answer has been given by various people earlier in this thread, but it's basically that if a hobbyist, it doesn't really matter where you fly - you're most likely to find a field well away from people, vehicles, power lines, roads, buildings etc. If it's commercial work, you fly where the client pays you to. And that's likely to be because there is something to film there, and hence probably people or property that may get damaged if things go wrong!
Everything is dangerous, so what! Here in California politicians are trying to ban football, basketball and baseball at public schools because they think its too dangerous. I don't need some government employee deciding what sports my kids can and can't play........
I have a lot of sympathy for you here - but it's not the same thing. I go back to what I said earlier about the differences between personal risk and third party risk.

Injuries due to sport are likely to affect only the participants. If somebody wants to indulge in anything where they may get injured, then that should be up to them or their parents.

If somebody wants to do an activity where *I* get injured if something goes wrong, that's a different matter.

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.

The words "common sense" keep getting used in this discussion. I'm sure the people posting here DO have common sense, but just don't assume everybody else can be trusted to be the same. Unfortunate, but that's why legislation is necessary in many areas of life.

In civil aviation there are certain minimum standards for basic piloting skills and competence to ensure safe operation.

There are certain manufacturing and maintenance standards for production aircraft, and another set of standards for amateur-built aircraft. There are also operational limits for both, depending on how they're used.

Similar standards could be applied for UAV's that are used on a commercial basis.

Why? Because they're going to be operated near people and property. Hobbyists, on the other hand, could be assumed to operate in situations that will not put people or property at risk. They'll operate out of flying fields and in areas that are sparsely populated. Of course there will be those who are going to be reckless, but there's no legislating that out of existence. And they can be cited, prosecuted or sued as needed by existing laws.

Instead, it would be more constructive to create a level of credibility among those who want to maintain a level of professional respect for this growing field.

UAV operators should be able to demonstrate operational competencies to ensure they are in full control and able to deal with a variety of situations, and maneuver with precision. They should also have full knowledge of emergency procedures and risk management. Preflight checklists are part of that. Flight planning is another part. Lots of details, and it all matters.

So when does a model become a real aircraft? A military UAV would not be considered a "model" by most people. There are many military UAV's that are less than 5kg (not all UAV's carry weapons), these are definitely not models either costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. At the same time they are often not all that different to many hobby UAV's.

I think you blur the line between a model aircraft and a real aircraft when you start to add autonomous control or computerised systems that help fly the aircraft. The vast majority of multi-rotors can only fly thanks to micro processor stabilisation. Then you start adding cameras and other devices that can intrude on privacy or place the pilot virtually in the aircraft. When does toy/model end and unmanned aircraft begin? It's not just about weight although obviously a heavy craft can do a lot more damage than a light one.
It's a tough one and I'm glad I don't have to define what is a toy/model and what is an unmanned aircraft.
So if it's extremely hard to determine what's a model and what's not, then all that's left to regulate is how you fly unmanned aircraft. It's much easier to define hobby, not for profit applications and commercial for profit applications, so this is where the line has been drawn in the sand in Europe.

As a professional cameraman I have public liability insurance. Many, many of my clients or the venues I work in will not allow me to work unless I have sufficient insurance. In most cases the biggest risk is simply someone tripping over a tripod or a piece of faulty electrical equipment giving someone a shock (and all of my mains powered gear has to be safety tested annually). If I want to place a light on a lighting truss above the public or anywhere where people may be working I have to use a safety line to ensure that if the lights primary fixing fails it cannot fall on someone. Yet we now have people that think it's perfectly OK to fly a device with similar weight to a small video light above and close to people and property uninsured and a multirotor is far more likely to fall on them than a properly attached light.

Flying for a hobby you take your craft out into an open field and do what you wish away from people and property. Working commercially in most cases your going to be close to people and property, this does require regulation, even if all that is, is a proof of competency test.

So when does a model become a real aircraft? A military UAV would not be considered a "model" by most people. There are many military UAV's that are less than 5kg (not all UAV's carry weapons), these are definitely not models either costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. At the same time they are often not all that different to many hobby UAV's.



Here in the States I think that is why the line of demarcation has been compensation. Hobbyists and professionals in many cases own the same gear so using gear as the break is indeed blurry. It is compensation that makes for a easy measure to create the break. Under the assumption of compensation it is considered reasonable to assume that a professional is doing the job for profit where the hobbyist may not be.