Interesting article from the USA's Federal Aviation Administration:

"There are a lot of misconceptions and misinformation about unmanned aircraft system (UAS) regulations. Here are some common myths and the corresponding facts."

Read it in full at Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft (http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240)

The bulletin makes it crystal clear...no commercial flying of cameras is allowed in the U.S. I wonder what happens to those who already made money shooting illegally? Can the FAA do something? Just the other day, I saw aerial footage at Sunvalley Mall in California, they flew outside and INSIDE the mall, with customers below them! The footage was a promo for the mall in its courtyard, edited to music. I'm quite sure the shooter did not have insurance for that kind of feat had something happened.

Well, one thing is for sure, You can fly INSIDE the mall all you want and charge as much as you feel like for it with NO fear of the FAA. ;)

I find the part humerous where they insist that, despite rumors to the contrary, they are perfectly capable of enforcing their rules! And the defensive part where they say that they're not that far behind the rest of the world, really. It reminds me of The Big Lebowski: "there are a lot of ins and outs, moving parts, what have yous."

By the sheer volume of unmanned areal footage that can be found online and VP houses advertising their aerial services, it's pretty clear that they lack the resources to really crack down unless, like they mentioned, a pubic complaint is filed.

But yeah, they do put that debate to rest regardless: it's against the rules.

Regardless of whether I agree with the FAA position, it IS their position and since they're the ones with authority to regulate such things I think it would be better not to permit posts on this forum from persons or companies knowingly violating these (unfortunate) rules. I'm concerned that the forum might get in trouble for seeming to encourage such activities, or conversely provide a means by which the FAA could take action against such posters.

I don't think it's wise to have the appearance of condoning or encouraging this kind of rule breaking, no matter how much we think the rules need to be changed.

reminds me of how people always tell me, when i express concerns about shooting the outside of a building or business, "oh its totally legal as long as youre on a public street". yeah, well then YOU deal with the cops or business owners when thry come asking questions cause im tired of it, legal or not (and apparently it may well not be cause im told many times the building/business/property owner also owns the parking lot and street in front of them so its NOT public after all!). anyway what i was getting at in that long ramble was that i like to be in the clear when i shoot things, know everyone has permission to do whatever theyre doing. just makes life so much easier.

Jim,

I hear what you're saying and it could come across as condoning the rule breakers by posting content created by them. However, posting here on these boards is a form of free speech and therefore it is protected under the First Amendment.

The site itself could not be shut down for an individual posting about an illegal activity. The site would have some protection because they don't approve each post being made. While there are moderators, the moderators don't ok every post going up like an editor of a newspaper would for their site. So an individual might be banned or have legal action taken against them, but the site would be less likely to see legal repercussions.

Having said all of that, if you are the individual making the post and showing off your illegal content here then your post and the content your link to could be used against you in a court of law. Talking about others activities is ok, posting your own incriminating evidence, not smart.

Drone Law Journal | Legal News & Info About Drones, UAVs and Remote-Controlled Model Aircraft by Peter Sachs, Esq. (http://dronelawjournal.com/)

'The Drone Lawyer' Explains What's Legal: Video - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/meet-brendan-schulman-the-drone-lawyer-wobFGT1NSMCEPQmh35wzlQ.html)

But yeah, they do put that debate to rest regardless: it's against the rules.

Gosh, sometimes I almost forget that even the federal government makes assertions and goes to court! In light of Wendell's post, I guess I should retract my statement.

It might be more accurate to say that the debate lives on, but the FAA can still make your life miserable if they decide to take you to court between now and when they finish their regulations.

The FCC said that the 700Mhz band is illegal in the U.S, but there is no specific law that says you can't use your wireless microphone on that frequency band. So why doesn't everyone go ahead and use it and take the FCC to court because they believe they have the right to use that band because there is no specific law that says you can't? Likewise, the FAA has guidelines about aircraft certification, and pilot requirements, but they are not law. Do you see my point?

The Federal Government has guidelines in order to maintain order in the system. The FCC regulates what goes on the airwaves, and the FAA is trying to maintain order with all aircraft. Right now, every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants their hands on a drone and get into aerial photography as a business. I also would love to, but if the FAA says don't do it now, why not listen? Ultimately, it's all about public safety and maintaining order. There are so many people breaking the rules of common sense by flying cameras over people that it's just a matter of time before someone gets hurt or killed, at which point the FAA may say no flying cameras will be allowed, PERIOD. Those who break the rules now are ultimately hurting everyone's chances of becoming a certified video drone operator in the future.

I see what you mean, Warren, and you have a good point. But the same logic could be (and often is, unfortunately) applied to everything. See growing and producing food as a small farmer under the new farm bill (FSIS and the USDA).

I'm not saying that UAV rules are the same, in fact I think a lot less is at stake here than with our food rights, but the point is that some rules are made to be broken. Sometimes it takes people breaking the rules in order for them to be redrafted properly.

It may come down to a test case because lawyers claiming its legal doesn't make it so, they're presenting an argument that needs to be tested in a court. Possibly, if you have an insurance claim at the moment concerning drones, I suspect the insurers could easily refuse to pay because the FAA says commercial use is illegal.

With regards to the FAA and lawyers, I am reminded of an exchange that took place in the mid-1980s.
A representative of a large university threatened to sue the FAA over an issue.
To which the FAA Regional Chief Council responded, "Then we shall see you in court. And just remember, we have more lawyers than you do."

The bit that caught my eye was :
Myth #6: The FAA is lagging behind other countries in approving commercial drones.

Fact – This comparison is flawed. The United States has the busiest, most complex airspace in the world, including .........

Developing all the rules and standards we need is a very complex task, and we want to make sure we get it right the first time.
Surely European airspace must rival that of the US, if only due to population densities?

I can't agree with a free for all use policy, but a simple "no commercial drone use" policy seems unduly restrictive.

Wouldn't a sensible solution be interim legislation and licensing - certain minimum standard of authorised training, specific third party insurance, etc - whilst the longer term regulations get developed? And the interim usage could give valuable experience as to what should go into the longer term legislation?

"Getting it right the first time" is a great theory in principle, but surely the legislation is likely to have to evolve as the technologies evolve anyway?

Wouldn't a sensible solution be interim legislation and licensing - certain minimum standard of authorised training, specific third party insurance, etc - whilst the longer term regulations get developed? And the interim usage could give valuable experience as to what should go into the longer term legislation?


That's how it's done here in NZ. The criteria is strict, but we can gain a license to operate a UAV commercially by completing some fixed-wing flight training, passing a couple of PPL exams and drawing up safety documents and risk assessments.

So while it's not easy to get licensed, at least the CAA is open to the idea of controlled legal use of drones.

Here's an interesting animation of what air traffic looks like in the U.S. At its slowest time, there are less than 900 flights in the air. During peak hours, there are over 5000!
A Day in the Life of Air Traffic Over the United States - YouTube

Update...the animation above was from 2005 data and is obsolete. In 2012, 87,000 flights criss crossed the U.S. in a typical day! I wonder what the data says for 2014?
http://www.rightthisminute.com/video/tracking-87000-flights-day

Drone Law Journal | Legal News & Info About Drones, UAVs and Remote-Controlled Model Aircraft by Peter Sachs, Esq. (http://dronelawjournal.com/)

'The Drone Lawyer' Explains What's Legal: Video - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/meet-brendan-schulman-the-drone-lawyer-wobFGT1NSMCEPQmh35wzlQ.html)

The FAA has officially made it clear as day...do not fly RC commercially in the U.S. for now, because the regulations have not yet been set. The two attorneys you linked says go ahead and fly, based on their opinions. Their opinions have never been tested in court. Who would you believe? On another note, take a look at the steep penalties for not complying with FAA rules and regulations (not laws) in real aircraft cases. Keep on flying only if you can afford the penalties.

Press Release – FAA Proposes $90,000 Civil Penalty Against Red Eagle Aviation (http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=15854)
Press Release – FAA Proposes $204,050 Civil Penalty Against Sierra Academy of Aeronautics (http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=15755)
Press Release – FAA Proposes $78,000 Civil Penalty Against Amazon Fulfillment Services (http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=15754)

I just want to be sure nobody misunderstands that FAA regulations (and many thousands of other things like FCC spectrum allocations, OSHA standards, etc, etc) ARE in fact contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) and as such are federal LAW and not just "guidelines."

Law typically lags technology. What's at issue here is what's NOT explicitly stated in the CFRs and/or what's ambiguous.

If you get caught breaking a clearly established law, you'll face legal consequences. For example, if the FAA finds that you were flying your Cessna knowing you had a disqualifying medical condition, expect to lose your license and perhaps be fined. If you do something of uncertain legality that leads to a dispute between you and a government agency, you may or may not ultimately prevail but either way will have an expensive legal fight on your hands as you help establish case law.

True the FCC regulates the airwaves, and the FAA the airspace. But its the Justice Department that will ultimately decided.
This is not the first time a goverment agency with authority has overstepped its might. The Forest Service tries it a lot.
The Justice department will remind all who writes law.

Edit to add: this is the same advisory they are trying to cling to. Its not LAW

I'd like to ask a question from a different angle, thereby illustrating perhaps the conundrum of the FAA's current stance.

I am a documentary filmmaker. Sometimes I do commercial work for pay, sometimes my own short "passion projects." I already understand that, legally founded or not, the FAA forbids my flying an RC quad for my commercial clients. That's OK, I'm not that good at it anyway.

HOWEVER, I am currently permitted to fly it in non-populated areas for my own, non-commercial projects which I post free to Vimeo for all to see. That's no problem until I am contacted, say, 6 months from now, by an agency that wants to license and distribute my formerly non-commercial piece. By accepting payment from this agency, do I render my formerly legal non-commercial flight a retroactively illegal commercial one?

The only way to know FAA's stance on this is to write FAA Counsel and ask.

I'd add, I don't see how a legal act can retroactively become illegal. Let's say you are minding your own business testing your toy hexacopter and filming Bambi sipping from a mountain brook, all for your personal enjoyment. Now you go home and discover in your footage Bigfoot walking in the woods behind Bambi. You do what any sane person would do and call the Star and National Enquirer and start a bidding war. You sell your footage for a million bucks and retire to Jamaica. Later, FAA sends you a letter demanding a $10k fine for your commercial activity. That hardly seems rational.

By accepting payment from this agency, do I render my formerly legal non-commercial flight a retroactively illegal commercial one?
I suspect a lawyer would give you an answer along the lines of "it would have to be tested in court". :-)

Seriously though, there's a lot of precedent here, along the lines of taking still photographs and what constitutes amateur and professional use. If you happened to catch a unique moment on an iphone camera, and subsequently sold it, I don't think anyone would consider that as what is normally defined by "professional photography" - though the taxman may still be interested! :-)

But go along to a pre-arranged spot, to specifically film a given subject for a third party, and I don't give much for your chances of arguing it's other than "professional". :-)

OK, there's going to be a grey area in the middle, and that's what lawyers and courts are for....... But do you want to take your chances there?

If you happened to catch a unique moment on an iphone camera, and subsequently sold it, I don't think anyone would consider that as what is normally defined by "professional photography" - though the taxman may still be interested! :-)

But go along to a pre-arranged spot, to specifically film a given subject for a third party, and I don't give much for your chances of arguing it's other than "professional". :-)


But that's just it. I AM a professional videographer by trade. What does the MSRP of the device that I happen to be using to capture my images have to do with it? Suddenly, because I am incorporated and I file a schedule C every year, any camera that I touch has the potential to yield "professional" images, and because I have knowledge of this fact, I become commercially culpable for any image I may produce under any circumstances.

When there is no "third party" involved at the time of the flight, but only afterwards, as in my example, does it really come down to proving my personal intent to create footage that might be of value at the time of the flight? What material difference does that make on the flight itself?

Unless the FAA comes up with a framework other than commercial/non-commercial, lawyers are going to have a field day with this one.

Basically, as long as my aerial footage stays is so cr@ppy that no one in his right mind would ever pay to license it, I'm all set.

EDIT: what about DVinfo's own UWOL challenge? I'm sure that some will be submitting non-commercial R/C aerial footage for consideration. But if any of us wins the contest and receives a taxable reward for our efforts, we will be culpable, right? The runners-up don't have to worry, though.

The CAA has this definition

"Throughout this paper, the question of whether a flight is public transport or aerial work is
discussed in terms of whether "payment" has been given or promised in respect of the flight.
In the Order itself instead of "payment" the term which is used is "valuable consideration".
This term has a very wide meaning, including the provision of goods and services"

I would take it that if no "payment" has been given or promised at the time of the flight it's not commerical I suspect that would cover the one off world shattering video which doesn't have such a payment attached at the time of the flight. Although perhaps not for your film or video that you are making on a speculative basis because there is a promise of possible payment. Although, I suppose a lawyer may have a different take on that.

I'm sure the FAA has their own definition.of aerial work .

Given that wording, looks like a loophole you could fly a Predator through...

You shoot for "fun", with no money or six packs or anything "promised or given"...

You still "own" the footage, if it turns out to be "valuable", license it later... a paparazzi's dream, if you ask me... until they add the phrase "in anticipation of" to the mix, it's a possible "out" to the question... but then who knows if a particular shot will turn out to be "valuable" or not?! The odds improve if you're a "professional" shooter, and that would be a big problem if it ended up in a legal challenge or dispute...

This is the problem with rules and regulations, if they are "airtight", you probably can't do ANYTHING, and if they aren't, there's so much room to "reinterpret" ad hoc...

You might get away with it once, but getting payments on a regular basis would mean that it would be reasonable for them to assume that you're doing it on a commerical basis.

Looks like FAA's position has been shot down http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/PirkerDecision.pdf

Wow.. Based on that the FAA will need to update their page to say "Never mind". :/

I have close friends that work for the FAA. I empathize with the monumental task they have been given here. That being said, I have seen really poor decisions made by the boards and CEO's of multi-billion dollar corporations and fundamentally our government agencies are no less immune to some equally poor decision making. At the end of the day they are just people doing the best they know how. They did not expect the exponential growth of small UAV's that has taken place in recent years and are completely unprepared and so have resorted to drastic measures (overstepping legal authority) and damage control.

The simple fact is, commercial RC aerial filming is alive and well. Every time I sit down to watch some TV, within a few minutes I see a shot from a RC rig. These shots were all accomplished without death, destruction, full size near misses, invasion of privacy or any other causes for concern. This is happening as we speak and the sky is not falling.

A total of 34,000 people were killed in the US in 2012 in vehicle accidents and as a country we accept this as part of the cost of increased national mobility and commerce. It boggles my mind that people on this forum and others want this entire industry shut down based solely on the possibility that someone "might be" injured or killed by this commercial activity. Over 90% of the work for small UAV's is below 400 ft. and of little or no risk to full size aviation.

The simple fact is there are a lot of people who don't have the skills, entrepreneurial spirit or foresight to jump into the deep end of the RC aerial cinematography business and so are more than happy to throw stones that those who do.

BUSTED..

Commercial Drones Are Completely Legal, a Federal Judge Ruled | Motherboard (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/commercial-drones-are-completely-legal-a-federal-judge-ruled)

It boggles my mind that people on this forum and others want this entire industry shut down based solely on the possibility that someone "might be" injured or killed by this commercial activity.
Can you give a single example of anybody on this forum saying that? The closest I've heard is a view that commercial use should be subject to some form of regulation - but that's a million miles from "wanting the entire industry shut down".

Unfortunately, at least in the US, the battle lines seem to be either (from the FAA) "no commercial use for the foreseeable future", and from the other side "we want to do whatever we like without regulation".

BUSTED..

Commercial Drones Are Completely Legal, a Federal Judge Ruled | Motherboard (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/commercial-drones-are-completely-legal-a-federal-judge-ruled)

Is it? The ruling specifically talks about "model aircraft" which a different article mentions as fixed foam wings. Does this apply to the quad copters and such that people have been using? Or do those get classified as something else, like 'Drones.'?

Is it? The ruling specifically talks about "model aircraft" which a different article mentions as fixed foam wings. Does this apply to the quad copters and such that people have been using? Or do those get classified as something else, like 'Drones.'?

I read the court decision, and a big part of the ruling was that the FAA could not, without re-wording their regulations, discriminate against craft that they had historically exempted. This historical precedent established by the FAA includes rotor-propelled craft like model helicopters, even though the case example was a fixed-wing.

You may have hit upon a point of distinction that the FAA will draw up in their new regulations (i.e., multi-rotor), but as of yet, the regulations do not exist, this decision determines.

Furthermore, if the FAA does draw this multi-rotor distinction, it's going to have a limited effect on the industry other than angering people, I predict, since traditional model helicopters are also perfectly capable of carrying a camera/gimbal payload, they're just harder to fly. And therefore, ironically, probably even more unsafe in the hands of untrained individuals than multi-rotors are! The main thing that seems to be classifying these things as "drones," a stupid word in my opinion and I wish we could stop using it, is the advanced programming that they contain that actually makes them safer and more stable to operate than an old-fashioned model aircraft.

This whole thing is certainly popcorn-worthy.

Can you give a single example of anybody on this forum saying that? The closest I've heard is a view that commercial use should be subject to some form of regulation - but that's a million miles from "wanting the entire industry shut down".

Unfortunately, at least in the US, the battle lines seem to be either (from the FAA) "no commercial use for the foreseeable future", and from the other side "we want to do whatever we like without regulation".

Actually the way the FAA was trying to enforce "nonexistent" regulations DID shut down the entire industry. If by industry your mean commercial AP.

As you said in your comment to Wendell, "we want to do whatever we like without regulation" is a million miles away from what anyone has said about this issue on this site as well.

This was never about regulation versus non regulation, it is about the fact that we, US citizens, have the right to create whatever small business we like and if the Government finds it necessary to regulate that activity there is a process they must follow to create the laws that govern it. The FAA did not follow the law, there was no law for them to enforce and they did not follow the NPRM process.

This is a great day for anyone serious about building an AP business, however this issue is far from over.

Off topic, but...
Does anyone shooting RC for business have liability insurance as of now? For example, if I wanted to shoot a wedding at a hotel in Honolulu with just a camera and tripod, I'm currently required to give them a certificate of insurance that includes a 2 million dollar coverage with the hotel listed as an additional insured. This is only for stepping on their property with a camera on a tripod.

If I told them I had a quad rotor with a DSLR that I want to fly over their property, I wonder what their response would be?

Whatever the commerical drone operators equivalent of the Experimental Aircraft Association should be getting in touch with the FAA to ensure whatever regulations that are put in place are well drafted and balance the commerical needs of operators and safety requirements for the public.

In the meantime, it could come down to the insurers putting demands on operators before they'll give public liability cover for commerical operations.


.

Warren,

We have $5 million in liability and full equipment coverage. This is possible because of our very comprehensive standard operating procedures and a perfect safety record over the last 10 years. Our safety manual has been audited and approved by the legal/safety departments of some of the world's largest corporations. We perform a risk assessment prior to every flight. If you have as much time and money invested in this endeavor as we do, you won't survive financially any other way.

Off topic, but...
Does anyone shooting RC for business have liability insurance as of now? For example, if I wanted to shoot a wedding at a hotel in Honolulu with just a camera and tripod, I'm currently required to give them a certificate of insurance that includes a 2 million dollar coverage with the hotel listed as an additional insured. This is only for stepping on their property with a camera on a tripod.

If I told them I had a quad rotor with a DSLR that I want to fly over their property, I wonder what their response would be?

Resorts and hotels have been some of the most flagrant abusers of the non law. There is insurance available for commercial AP with RC's. Sorry I don't have the names of any companies but I know its available.

Warren
I have 2 mil coverage for accidents while filming in the air. It doesnt cover my equipment ( I didnt want to pay that much) . Its called Aerilpak by Hill and Usher. I spent 1440 for one years coverage. It will be based on your projected income.
Of course my income on this is a wild guess. I just have all my ducks in a row so to speak.
Now, if I needed to make a claim would it cover me? I dont know. But I do know these guys have been underwriting these policies sense 2007

http://aerialpak.com/

sorry, delete