I have never seen a thread with so many incorrect replies. Meta4 is the only one reply that is completely correct.
I was planning on recording aerial views for realtors to use on their listings when selling houses. Is it illegal for me to charge for my service? If so, how can I get a commercial drone license?
There is FAA no rule preventing you from charging for your service unless you have a Private Pilot's certificate, then you're screwed. There is a rule limiting what a Private Pilot may do: 14 CFR 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations-Pilot in command.
And, There is no Commercial Drone License.
Are there any laws on the books yet or cases of the FAA winning in court when they tried to enforce commercial use fines based on their broad interpretation of current regulations?
You are mostly correct.
The FAA sends educational letters to commercial drone operators, but to my knowledge no one has
ever received a letter of violation for commercial drone operations. (If there is one out there I would love to see the letter).
When the FAA Enforcement and Compliance division sends a civil penalty letter to a person charged with a violation, the civil penalty letter will contain a statement of the charges, the applicable law, rule, regulation, or order. No one has been able to tell me what law, rule, regulation or order would be indicated on the letter for commercial flight. Maybe that's why none have been sent.
This is the conundrum the FAA finds itself in. The FAA (not the FAA lawyers)
say that it's illegal to fly your drone for hire, but what rule would be indicated on the Civil Penalty Letter?
Fly for free. And charge for post processing.
The FAA views any furtherance of anyone related to the flight as the definition of commercial flight. Pilots have been using this ruse ever since George Eastman made the Brownie camera, and the FAA sees right through it.
Several years ago,
this law was passed, largely with UAVs in mind:
At some point this year (I don't have a link handy), I remember also seeing a statement that they aren't even bothering with that gigantic backlog of 333 exemptions until after the new regulations are solidified.
That was the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 which created the section 333 avenue. It also codified in law, but not into FAA rules, the definition of Hobby Aircraft. Section 333 Exemptions are currently being processed at the rate of about 20 a day. In fact on 7/28/2015 there were 36 Section 333 exemptions granted. [link]
There is actually a law --
49 USC§ 44711.
This section applies to certified aircraft and airman's certificates. But carried to its' literal absurdity, flying a paper airplane without an airman's certificate is a violation of 49 USC§44711.
With the new FAA rules in place, most people will no longer need an exemption. They'll just need to follow the new rules. No release date was mentioned, so we could easily be waiting a few years for them to be released.
There is no projected date for the final Part 107 rules, but this NPRM is moving at bureaucratic light speed. Most FAA NPRM's take 3 to 5 years to finalize, but the Part 107 rules are expected to be finalized in late 2016.
Just a thought and it mite not fly
in California you can contract for work...let's say paint a house without a license. You have to inform the person you are unlicensed, a one page sheet is available on the licensing boards website. And you cannot work for more than 500.00 per job labor and materials. Fulfilling those two requirements leaves you legal.
State law and FAA rules are completely unrelated. an FAA-issued airman's certificate (license) is not the same as a state-issued business license. Also, the California law only applies to the services that the state issues licenses for. Carpenters, Painters, Electricians, Hair Stylists...
Do you have any other examples or hard facts to back up all this speculation? I'm honestly curious. I see a lot of innuendo and conventional wisdom pop up in threads like this, but very little concrete info other than the recommendations the FAA would love for people to believe are enforceable rules.
Dave is mostly correct.
Despite what you might have seen, heard or read to the contrary; despite the FAA’s claim that it has authority over Remote Controlled Model Aircraft; despite the FAA having sent several cease and desist letters to people who were operating Remote Controlled Model Aircraft for commercial purposes, there exists not a single federal statute, not a single federal regulation and no case law that in any way regulates the operation of Remote Controlled Model Aircraft.
None.
Federal statutes, regulations and case law concerning personal remote controlled aircraft do not exist.
Nothing is illegal solely because a government agency claims that it’s illegal. The FAA cannot just make up regulations as it goes along, to enforce activities that it simply wishes to enforce. There must exist an actual statute or regulation for the FAA to enforce. The FARs are the only federal regulations that exist pertaining to aviation, and are the only regulations that are legally enforceable. You’ll not find any that concern Remote Controlled Model Aircraft. You will see regulations that apply to other craft, such as balloons, rockets and even kites. So the FAA clearly contemplated flight-capable craft other than airplanes and helicopters when it adopted the current regulations. If the FAA had intended to regulate Remote Controlled Model Aircraft as well, it would have done so. It didn’t.