Commercial License for Real Estate?

[Sammynels]

I do real estate videos for people for nothing because I enjoy flying so much and get bored. I like opening the eyes of people to a different perspective.

 

[msinger]

I believe this is the regulation that basically every attorney expects them not to be able to successfully enforce against UAV operators.

True. Nobody took the FAA to court over it though. If you have extremely deep pockets (like the FAA), then I suppose you could challenge them on it. You could also roll your money up and smoke it too.

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.

True. 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.

It bugs me to see misinformation based on conventional wisdom floating around on all of the drone-related boards I've joined since buying my Phantom though.

You and me both. There are too many misinformed people.

If I did decide to start selling media from my Phantom flights, I wouldn't hesitate to do that safely and responsibly in Class G airspace until new regulations or a judge told me otherwise.

Flying commercially for profit is not legal if you do it "safely and responsibly in Class G airspace" without an exemption. Well, unless you have deep pockets and manage to prove the FAA wrong. And, if you haven't smoked all of your money

 

[YolevonALLin]

True. Nobody took the FAA to court over it though. If you have extremely deep pockets (like the FAA), then I suppose you could challenge them on it. You could also roll your money up and smoke it too.


True. 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.


You and me both. There are too many misinformed people.


Flying commercially for profit is not legal if you do it "safely and responsibly in Class G airspace" without an exemption. Well, unless you have deep pockets and manage to prove the FAA wrong. And, if you haven't smoked all of your money

30 second elevator story. Pilots license is required correct? How much/how much time does that take?

Thanks

 

[msinger]

Pilots license is required correct?

It's required in order to use an FAA exemption. See the FAA website for more information on the various certificates they offer. It'll cost you 3k+ to get a pilot certificate.

 

[duse500]

I have a couple pictures that people want,I dont want to give them up because Whats stopping them from selling the picture??

 

[msinger]

duse500, nothing would stop them. The FAA would probably find no problem with that either. Now, if you managed to accidentally have hundreds of your pictures sold each month, then it might look a little fishy.

 

[envisionabove]

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.

Just an observation

 

[Meta4]

Give the video away for free (if you're not charging it's legal right?) ... Now that you have a friend because you gave them some great aerial video free of charge, no strings attached, charge them a nominal fee for custom video editing, voice overs, sound tracks, and that expensive blank DVD you're gonna put it on for them.

This always comes up and it's always wrong.
If you ever had to explain yourself to the FAA, it wouldn't take them a microsecond to see through this silly fiddle.

 

[Dave Ward]

True. Nobody took the FAA to court over it though. If you have extremely deep pockets (like the FAA), then I suppose you could challenge them on it. You could also roll your money up and smoke it too.


True. 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.

Flying commercially for profit is not legal if you do it "safely and responsibly in Class G airspace" without an exemption. Well, unless you have deep pockets and manage to prove the FAA wrong. And, if you haven't smoked all of your money

I'm not sure why you think it would take a ton of money to defend yourself against the FAA. It wouldn't be free, but it wouldn't be a big deal for someone who can afford this hobby in the first place. Historically, their power over a pilot's licenses is what allowed them to enforce their penalties, which is leverage they don't have over most UAV operators. It's just a civil penalty and the burden of proof is on them.

Either way, what we're talking about is not illegal at this point. There's no precedent for that. It's going to be absolutely hilarious if the FAA ever did try to tell a judge that a kid with an iPad and toy RC helicopter is "serving as an airman" performing "air commerce". They certainly don't like it, but they don't have to like it. A judge would probably laugh them out of court for trying to harass a wedding or real estate photographer safely using a drone.

That's why if you do even narrow, location-specific searches for niche types of drone photography, there are tons of results all over the country. If the FAA had the law behind them and as much authority as some folks seem to think they have, almost all (excluding photographers who are also commercially licensed pilots) of those businesses would be shut down by now.

So far, we have a citation of one example of someone getting shut down back in 2012. In that case, the third paragraph in the article was about how he was back in business after Congress and the President agreed on a new law to stop the FAA from harassing people like him.

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.

 

[emilewski]

I would set up an informal business model where I take one or two photos of the property with a standard camera, charge for that, and throw in the aerial photos for free.

 

[jbadallas]

I'm pretty sure the Dallas Cowboys and a couple of other NFL teams just got nailed for using drones to film practices. Largely because it was for commercial purposes. Those videos weren't even public. If you live in a metropolitan area it's not worth the risk. I'm sure there are enough licensed people that probably wouldn't mind making sure the law is enforced if it cuts into their business.

 

[acherman]

When you go through the process of getting your pilot's license, is there training on how to fly a small UAS?

 

[REBELimgs]

When you go through the process of getting your pilot's license, is there training on how to fly a small UAS?

This obviously isn't an answer to your question but I can't be the only one who thinks having to get a pilots license to fly a phantom like quad is ridiculous. We already know how to fly them. Up next, kids have to get a class C (or better) license to use your RC car.

 

[Dave Ward]

I'm pretty sure the Dallas Cowboys and a couple of other NFL teams just got nailed for using drones to film practices. Largely because it was for commercial purposes. Those videos weren't even public. If you live in a metropolitan area it's not worth the risk. I'm sure there are enough licensed people that probably wouldn't mind making sure the law is enforced if it cuts into their business.

Interesting. I hadn't seen that one. Thanks for pointing it out.

Seems like more of the same though, with the FAA just insinuating a nebulous threat of fines:

While a fine for the Cowboys is possible it's not likely. The FAA typically chooses to educate violators instead of punishing them.

I.e. The FAA knows that fining the Cowboys a significant amount of money would end with them in court and potentially failing to defend their overbroad interpretation of old regulations. I would be shocked if those NFL teams aren't still using their drones, but maybe being a little quieter about it now.

 

[SteveMann]

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.