Been Contacted by FAA

[Mikegwalk]

I have recently been contacted by the FAA, for work i have done with my company. Just wanted peoples thoughts on how to go about dealing with them. Should i be getting a lawyer. I have a disclaimer on website (only selling my labor for editing ). Just wanted to know peoples thoughts.

Thanks

 

[p fandango]

having looked at your site, either

the disclaimer isn't enough & your obviously using it for money making
i'm not sure if any laws were broke with flying at night (1am over the stadium)
flying over a crowd (the concert)
checking if you've got any insurance
or they might just be enquiringly if you've got any licencing for it

 

[Elwood58]

The disclaimer will likely not hold water. Pretty obvious from your site that the Aerial aspect of the photography is your big value add. Even your web address gives it away. A photography site that happens to use a Copter in gathering some of the images might stay under the Radar. A site with Aerial in the name, that boldly states getting shots from above, is going to get some attention.

Hopefully your business is licensed and insured.

 

[seminole360]

First I would cooperate with the FAA and play nice, but don't give any statements damning yourself. They'll probably (hopefully) just let you off with a warning. If you get a bad vibe I'd lawyer up... your intent was clearly to profit from flying your drone, so I'd say they have a pretty good argument against your company. Just my opinion.

Possibly a helpful article which talks about intent to profit.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcne ... d-farmers/

 

[Ohary]

Personally, I think the law is somewhat vague. I believe the intent of the law is to prevent delivery of commercial goods. Studios have been using drones to film for years. They make $hitloads of money on those films and I haven't heard of the FAA cracking down on the movie studios.

 

[Buk]

Just curious, how were you contacted? Phone call, email, certified mail?
We're you able to call the agency and verify this contact was from FAA?
What was the stated reason of the contact?

 

[Mikegwalk]

They contacted me by phone. I talked to FAA Agent and basically the jist of it is that no commercial use is allowed. To me it seems like if there are no set regulations then they should offer temp permits or waivers so you can still fly.. There are so many applications this could be used for, for the good. I guess ill just sit on the sidelines for now and hopefully they push legislation through asap :lol:

 

[SilentAV8R]

This might help you understand where they are coming from. This is how the FAA has instructed their field people to "enforce" sUAS operations for now.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/medi ... 00.268.pdf

 

[rrmccabe]

Did he leave a number for you to call him back? Positive its the FAA?

 

[Mikegwalk]

Yes they left a message and a number, Springfield FSDO ..

 

[rrmccabe]

Ok. Just thinking outloud

 

[Mako]

My biggest issue regarding the FAA is that I have yet to see any intelligent (of course it is the government so why expect anything more) rationale regarding how it's a hazard to use a quadcopter to achieve previously unreachable angles from a commercial standpoint. So, I can take a picture for myself or acquaintances and it's fine, yet if I sold that same picture it's illegal? How about the fact that as a tool to use in the commercial field, I may want to be more responsible with my equipment and care for the client, than the hobbyist who wants to see how high he can go before his Phantom plummets to the ground or how it holds up as it goes swimming in the hot springs. As others have mentioned, the US, is falling behind the rest of the world. I can guarantee, if the oil or big pharma companies were wanting to fly UAVs, there would have been laws on the books yesterday.

 

[Mikegwalk]

Interesting article..

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fa ... ourt-rules

 

[SilentAV8R]

Interesting article..

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fa ... ourt-rules

That headline is not entirely accurate. The court granted the FAA's motion to dismiss the case. The reason it was granted was that the FAA said that only the office of the General Counsel can issue a Cease & Desist order.

I linked the new FAA policy, which appears to be the one followed for this thread:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/medi ... 00.268.pdf

Basically they start by saying "we do not think that is legal". It can escalate from there.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Please be sure and post in the correct area. I have moved this from 'News' for you.

 

[Suwaneeguy]

I don't believe the FAA makes phone calls like that.
They would prefer sending a "Cease and desist" letter first with information on how you should contact them.
After all, anybody can claim they are with the FAA and make it sound legitimate.
In my opinion, C&D letters are totally useless.
I"d send it back with the words "F--k YOU!" in bold black letters on top of it.

In the USA, remote control aerial vehicles DO NOT need a license of any kind.
The pilot does not need a license. Period.
There are NO current laws restricting their use. Only guidelines. Which are not law.

I still do not understand why the FAA believes it is criminal act to attach a camera to a flying vehicle?
I can stand on top a 2,000 foot tall building, take all the photos I want.
I can stand on a 500 foot crane and take all the photos I want.
Why can't I do the same thing while I'm standing on the ground and the camera is flying around?

Show me the law that says I can't do that!

 

[BruceTS]

Until office of the General Counsel issue you a proper Cease and Desist order, anything the FAA tells you to do can be ignored.

 

[HarryT]

Until office of the General Counsel issue you a proper Cease and Desist order, anything the FAA tells you to do can be ignored.

What's the difference between "ceasing" and "desisting"? Are they different things?

 

[Mal_PV2_Ireland]

Just tell them you took the shots with a gopro and helium baloons connected to a fishing rod

 

[CarlJ]

My biggest issue regarding the FAA is that I have yet to see any intelligent (of course it is the government so why expect anything more) rationale regarding how it's a hazard to use a quadcopter to achieve previously unreachable angles from a commercial standpoint. So, I can take a picture for myself or acquaintances and it's fine, yet if I sold that same picture it's illegal? How about the fact that as a tool to use in the commercial field, I may want to be more responsible with my equipment and care for the client, than the hobbyist who wants to see how high he can go before his Phantom plummets to the ground or how it holds up as it goes swimming in the hot springs. As others have mentioned, the US, is falling behind the rest of the world. I can guarantee, if the oil or big pharma companies were wanting to fly UAVs, there would have been laws on the books yesterday.

Lota truth in what you said, and something that concerns me as well, but I don't find them (FAA) to be as feckless as you. Rather they appear to be acting with intent.