Well I finally got up enough courage this morning (after talking with my financial advisor) to order the Turbo Ace Cinewing 6 HL. With upcoming high end shoots now on the books the order was faster than I had anticipated. I ordered all the bells and whistles, figured if I was going that far might as well as go all the way! I made the order up with a Futaba 14SG with telementry voltage sensor, AV 200 gimbal for my Sony Nex-7, a 10" FTP monitor, DJI A2 + GPS and 360 pan features. Extra 10,000 mAh battery, extra set of 15" carbon fiber props and a multi battery quick charger and an aluminum case to travel with. It was a huge plunge for me...kinda like when I purchased my first high end digital camera ( Kodak DCS 660 with Thermal Printer) after the prices were cut in half in the year 2000. My knees were shaking when I wrote that check for 25 grand and change. But, I never regretted it afterwards and was actually thankful that I could deliver a high end large portrait from a digital camera, and not from a 6x7 film format. It was one of the best moves I made in my pro photographer career, and hopefully now that I am retired doing shoots for high end clients I can deliver what they expect and deserve. I will hit me tomorrow what I have done....I told my daughter that I do not know how long God will let me live on this earth.....but I will be happy and broke! Nothing left for her, just kidding...She said go for it, Dad!
[email protected] said:
That has set you back a tidy sum, but you will enjoy it - as a hobby!
Unfortunately of course, the FAA will not let you use it professionally in any manner. Sorry, don't mean to be a killjoy but I hope you were/are completely aware of that fact before you bit the bullet and ordered it!
So if the FAA doesn't permit using these commercially, it also means he cannot use this purchase as a company expense. Ouch.
I am totally aware of the FCC regulations. I fly assignments for free....no charge. It is stated on my rate schedule that is is illegal to hire a drone for business or personal use....I charge for downloading, editing and duplicating digital media for web sites and digital presentations. Hope you are not an FCC agent!
By Peter Corbett
The Republic | azcentral.com
Tue Jan 21, 2014 9:20 AM
Valley real-estate photographers are using drones to shoot aerial shots of residential properties despite a federal ban on the use of unmanned aircraft.
Using lightweight radio-controlled helicopters to shoot photos and videos that show homes in context to neighbors, golf courses and other nearby landmarks, the photographers are finding ways to work around federal rules.
“Technically, I can’t charge for any of the flying,” said Luke Pierzina of Aerial Raiders. “I charge for editing.”
Commercial use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, is expected to be an emerging line of business worth billions of dollars within a few years.
The Republic | azcentral.com
Tue Jan 21, 2014 9:20 AM
Valley real-estate photographers are using drones to shoot aerial shots of residential properties despite a federal ban on the use of unmanned aircraft.
Using lightweight radio-controlled helicopters to shoot photos and videos that show homes in context to neighbors, golf courses and other nearby landmarks, the photographers are finding ways to work around federal rules.
“Technically, I can’t charge for any of the flying,” said Luke Pierzina of Aerial Raiders. “I charge for editing.”
Commercial use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, is expected to be an emerging line of business worth billions of dollars within a few years.
"Do you have a commercial pilots licence?"
"No sir"
"But you charge people for flying"
"No sir, the flying is free, but I charge for opening and closing the door only"
"No sir"
"But you charge people for flying"
"No sir, the flying is free, but I charge for opening and closing the door only"
Ton4 said:
Who's going to pay the prosecutor to try a case that will ultimately fail? The federal government? It takes them 18 months to change a lightbulb. Who's the damaged/interested party here? I'm sure the FAA has better things to do than try cases like these. The only exception would be if something goes wrong at the shoot and someone is injured or property was damaged.
That law was made primarily to protect people from news agencies flying their drones over private property, live accident scenes, etc. I'm not aware of any cases where the FAA has prosecuted someone for (for example) shooting a film or real estate property. They've proposed fines, for example, but so far have failed at collecting any of them AFAIK because it is not yet known whether the law is even legally enforceable.
Besides, I've shot both stills and video with the Phantom and each time it has taken far longer to edit the video and crop, color correct, and enhance the photos than it did to actually fly, so charging for the photo or video editing is very legit as that's where most of your time will be spent! If you're charging for your photo or video editing, it is certainly legal. Of course, you could argue that any flight that resulted in income for the company can be considered "commercial use" but again, who's going to prosecute that case?
Mike
It is probably condoned in a way.
But don't think "the flying is free" trick will work when it comes down to it. No way.
But don't think "the flying is free" trick will work when it comes down to it. No way.
I am not trying to spoil the fun, and while it works it works, and I hope it keeps on working. But if it comes down to it and you look with your big innocent eyes at the judge, he will smile, raise his hammer and tell you "guilty".
I knew a guy once wanting to get around gambling laws, so he "invented" a slot machine, where a screen would show you the next outcome of a pull on the handle. So, he said, it's not gambling anymore, because you know what's coming up.
I knew a guy once wanting to get around gambling laws, so he "invented" a slot machine, where a screen would show you the next outcome of a pull on the handle. So, he said, it's not gambling anymore, because you know what's coming up.
Congratulations on your new equipment; you will enjoy it are at deal. Good luck, too with your workaround to circumvent the FAA. A word of advice though: don't advertise your intent to do so on your website or on other discussion groups if you want to keep under the radar.
Having worked for many years for the Canadian equivalent to the FAA (Transport Canada), I can tell you with certainty they CLOSELY monitor all activity on the internet for issues like these. They also WILL follow up on them, either with a Cease & Desist letter ( if you're really lucky) or advice of a hearing to determine the fine to be imposed.
If you're going to skirt the legislators, keep it quiet. I certainly don't envy the situation you find yourselves in in the U.S. and am very grateful that we are a bit more progressive in that sense north of the border. The FAA will, if they set their sights on you and decide to make an example of you, fine you into oblivion. Are the regs they have enforceable? A secondary question; if you have to spend $100,000 defending against a $10,000 fine, it doesn't matter if they are legal and enforceable, you're still out the $100K. I have seen the FAA fine AIRLINES into oblivion...they're good at it.
Having worked for many years for the Canadian equivalent to the FAA (Transport Canada), I can tell you with certainty they CLOSELY monitor all activity on the internet for issues like these. They also WILL follow up on them, either with a Cease & Desist letter ( if you're really lucky) or advice of a hearing to determine the fine to be imposed.
If you're going to skirt the legislators, keep it quiet. I certainly don't envy the situation you find yourselves in in the U.S. and am very grateful that we are a bit more progressive in that sense north of the border. The FAA will, if they set their sights on you and decide to make an example of you, fine you into oblivion. Are the regs they have enforceable? A secondary question; if you have to spend $100,000 defending against a $10,000 fine, it doesn't matter if they are legal and enforceable, you're still out the $100K. I have seen the FAA fine AIRLINES into oblivion...they're good at it.
mikeydaddio said:
The point here isn't how likely the FAA is or isn't going to pursue you, just that if they do get you in their sights, the "I don't directly charge for the flying" defense probably isn't going to slow them down one bit. If the footage you charge to edit comes from the aircraft, and you were the one piloting it at the time it was captured, I don't believe this will be a very strong leg to stand on.
It's similar to the "I don't charge for the sex I charge for the conversation" tactic call-girls use thinking it will save them if they ever end up in court...but you can guess how many determined prosecutors let that get in their way.
Read this; http://dronelawjournal.com/The Editor said:
The problem here, and everywhere is people are propagating Internet Myth....stop!!! The FAA has an Advisory Circular, 91.57-I think, that has to do with Model Aircraft. An Advisory Circular is NOT regulatory in nature!!!
There is nothing in the current federal code of regulations, that the FAA can use to "regulate" drones-the end.
In fact, the FAA is a bit overwhelmed right now, and it seems no 2 FSDO's(Flight Standards District Office), interpret things the same way. However, IF you read the above website I posted-you can clearly see the "form letter" the FAA sends out to those it feels is violating a law that doesn't exist.
My advise; do what you want, it's your drone. I'm not an Attorney, but I know plenty of them, and even have 1 that's a relative. That being said-do NOT operate strictly on my advise, or what I posted. Caveat Emptor....
IF you do get one of those "form letters" from the FAA....scan it and post it. Then, have it framed
I've been in Aviation as a Pilot more than half my life, and have had my dealings with the FAA. I've never lost. YMMV.
But please, please-stop the myth!!!!!
Yea, I was scratching my head on this one as well. I kept reading about a law and regulations etc......
As I understand it there are no regulations or laws prohibiting this for hobby or commercial use. Basically what the FAA has said is that they are in charge of Commercial Aviation and since it flys and is being used for a commercial purpose they can regulate it even though there is NO law giving them jurisdiction to regulate the use of unmanned aerial vehicles used for any purpose. Furthermore even a FAA spokesman said there are currently no regulations against it but since it is commercial and there are no regulations or guidelines to control it, it is "VERBOTEN" until the high council passes judgement and lets us know what rights we may exercise! Ok, I paraphrased a little but the basic idea is there.
I am surprised at how easily and quickly the phrases illegal, against the law, against regulations and so forth are thrown around. Words have meaning and even the FAA is struggling to make this fit into their fairy tale!
As I understand it there are no regulations or laws prohibiting this for hobby or commercial use. Basically what the FAA has said is that they are in charge of Commercial Aviation and since it flys and is being used for a commercial purpose they can regulate it even though there is NO law giving them jurisdiction to regulate the use of unmanned aerial vehicles used for any purpose. Furthermore even a FAA spokesman said there are currently no regulations against it but since it is commercial and there are no regulations or guidelines to control it, it is "VERBOTEN" until the high council passes judgement and lets us know what rights we may exercise! Ok, I paraphrased a little but the basic idea is there.
I am surprised at how easily and quickly the phrases illegal, against the law, against regulations and so forth are thrown around. Words have meaning and even the FAA is struggling to make this fit into their fairy tale!
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Asserting that your flying services are free but the editing is charged is not likely "going to fly" with the FAA, a judge or anyone else. The intent is clear. And you can expect that if they "catch wind" of your activities, they will send you a C&D regardless of whether or not they have any legal right to do so. Which they don't.
The FAA is vastly over stepping its authority and the total lack of progress on effective legislation is pathetic. Calling a ban on all commercial operation is obtuse. They cannot think beyond aviation as they know it.
I kind of want a C&D from the FAA. I would frame it so in twenty years when drones are everywhere, I can point to it and say "Look how stupid these guys were."
The FAA is vastly over stepping its authority and the total lack of progress on effective legislation is pathetic. Calling a ban on all commercial operation is obtuse. They cannot think beyond aviation as they know it.
I kind of want a C&D from the FAA. I would frame it so in twenty years when drones are everywhere, I can point to it and say "Look how stupid these guys were."
Best phrase I've heard yet. and yes, it can cost money to be represented against the FAA. However, you still may have the right to counsel, and if you can't afford that counsel it must be provided free of charge. Just because the FAA is the Government, and you are just a poor Drone Pilot, and cannot afford the type of legal representation they have-isn't justified. If nothing else, the ACLU could step in....but, right now, there is only 1 "test" case, that was already quoted here. AND, when the FAA loses that Test Case, then it will become clearer just how far the FAA is stepping outside it's authority.ianwood said:
I can remember similar debates, about FAR Part 103(ultra light aircraft). That regulation took years past when it was supposed to be put into law. Before that, the FAA had no jurisdiction over ultra light aircraft.
The "key" word here is Aircraft. What makes something that flies in the air, an Aircraft? It much have an Airworthiness certificate(whether temporary, experimental or permanent). That little "nugget" was gleaned by me, and me alone-from reading the Federal Air Regulation from cover to cover.
I used to be a flight instructor, and taught the regulations. So, no airworthiness certificate, no aircraft-the end.
NOTE: the above is purely my observation and summation-nothing more, and nothing less. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions-based on Facts.
I'm tired of "Big Brother" telling me what I can, and cannot do.
I am first, an American Citizen and bound/protected by the United States Constitution. That 1 document means, I have the right to be left alone.
It also delineates how a Bill becomes a Law. And right now, I don't even see a Bill........so, how can they twist existing laws, to apply to drones? They can't!!(again-just my opinion, and I could be wrong).
It will be pretty hard to plea you have no money for an attorney when you are flying a 20000$ UAV.
Anyways my intent in this conversation was to ensure the poster gets all the bells and whistles are worked out in his "contract" to the "buyer" before hand. If he cannot charge for the footage in flight, only the editing, transfer, etc... What happens if someone brings their own card? What if someone brings a laptop with him and wants the transfer done at the end of the flight? Charge him how much now?
You see you can work your way around, but so can a customer. It would be sad if there is a loophole around what he is trying to accomplish.
Anyways my intent in this conversation was to ensure the poster gets all the bells and whistles are worked out in his "contract" to the "buyer" before hand. If he cannot charge for the footage in flight, only the editing, transfer, etc... What happens if someone brings their own card? What if someone brings a laptop with him and wants the transfer done at the end of the flight? Charge him how much now?
You see you can work your way around, but so can a customer. It would be sad if there is a loophole around what he is trying to accomplish.
