FAA just called me

Timtro said:
I know this is entirely too logical to be serioulsy considered, but have a suggestion for the FAA, since we now know they are reading this forum:
Instead of wasting a lot of time, energy and government resources tracking down and attempting to fine a few thousand people, how about providing a method for obtaining a temporary (1 year) restricted license until the FAA can get around to doing what Congress told them to do? ...They could list specific requirements (GPS nav, etc.) and define specific operating limitations and then provide a temporary registration process. That database would then simplify the process of moving to a formal licensing system in an orderly manner. ... I have no problem jumping through reasonable hoops and passing tests. .....

I'm going to reply to my own post with this follow up:

http://theuavdigest.com/uav024-uav-licensing-and-permitting-proposal/

And this is where the US should have been by now: http://www.cybertechuav.com.au/-Services-.html
 
This is way way to funny :lol: ...... I take about as much notice of this crap, as I do that its illegal to smoke weed ..... if your brains cant keep you out of trouble .... STOP what your doing, as your doing it wrong ... bullsh*t laws are for people that are brainless, its for sheep control and money making .... nothing else

The irony would be sweet if this US Govt FAA bollocks is real .... on one side they tell you its perfectly ok that they blow away entire families of innocent women and children in Predator drone strikes, cause they got ONE bad bad bad guy who posted something on a website... but say you cant fly a drone at home cause it might land on someones foot or house while taking pictures. ??? ..... this **** is funnier than south park .... Glad I live at down by 45 south thats for sure.

And no I dont fly near airports or anywhere else I might make some tard grumpy and if even if I did !! , ..... you'd never know it was me ..... :twisted:
 
Hell, I see people with a $35 Slowstick and a point-n-shoot camera velcro'd under the wing calling it a UAV. That's one of the reasons why we got on their radar in the first place. It's not a UAV man it's a R/C airplane! Of course, we've come a long way since then obviously. The technology is cool indeed but some folks get caught up in the coolness and want to sound official so they plaster UAV all over their site along with photos of it.

Here's the important part...

The mistake people make is getting caught up in the whole UAV thing including how they market on their web sites. Most people don't hire UAV's they hire someone who can get the photo or video they need and care little about which tool the photographer uses. Here's the key! Are you a photographer / videographer or are you a UAV marketer cause it sounds and looks cooler?

I've always maintained, be a photographer first. A camera, quad, heli, pole, tripod, kite, ballon or whatever it is just a tool to get the shot. Market your skills as a photographer / videographer and worry about the tool you'll use after you get the job. You can still market Aerial Photography on your site.

As far as the FAA goes, screw them. The bureaucrat on the phone said it was illegal? Really? Ask him to show you the actual law that makes it illegal? They are nothing but a bunch of jack booted thugs.

Be smart, fly under the radar especially on your web site. Market your skills and abilities, not the tools you use. When you are a "photographer" there are lots of things you can charge for other than a flight with your quad... even if that's one of your tools. ;)
 
dklassen said:
As far as the FAA goes, screw them. The bureaucrat on the phone said it was illegal? Really? Ask him to show you the actual law that makes it illegal? They are nothing but a bunch of jack booted thugs.

Be smart, fly under the radar especially on your web site. Market your skills and abilities, not the tools you use. When you are a "photographer" there are lots of things you can charge for other than a flight with your quad... even if that's one of your tools. ;)

I found this on article from Aviation International News a few weeks ago and thought I would re-post for anyone who missed it the first time: http://ainonline.com/aviation-news/blog ... -something
 
CunningStuntFlyer said:
Since you're conflating the FAA with DoD political stereotypes, it must be time for someone to make a Kiwi sheep shagging reference.


LOL ..... ya thinking of the Aussies dude cmon .... can't you do better than that, .... you're getting as funny as the story. :D
 
dklassen said:
Hell, I see people with a $35 Slowstick and a point-n-shoot camera velcro'd under the wing calling it a UAV. That's one of the reasons why we got on their radar in the first place. It's not a UAV man it's a R/C airplane! ;)

I take your point and to that end perhaps my weight designation for E should have a lower limit, perhaps 2 lbs as unregulated under 100 ft?

As for the FAA, my suggestion provides the framework for a structure. Without any lines defined nobody knows who is crossing them. While we all agree with the FAA's concern over safety and the need to address "toys" playing in air traffic at 20,000 feet, we also need to get the FAA to come back to reality with regard to UAVs under 400ft, 100 ft or even 30 ft for photography: paid, news or art. Even an interim temporary structure solves the legal dilemma of attempting to enforce "un-rules". That is why I proposed the limited "registration", something like a high school driver "learner's" permit.

There will always be those who would take down all stop lights and stop signs but that's not a logical solution to anything.

We can deal with the locals and their paranoid privacy concerns as a separate issue. One thing at a time.
 
I've been flying AP for 14 years and I'll be honest, I've been on the sidelines for a few years now. Just getting back and coming up to speed with all the new technology. wow! Started when there were maybe 4 or 5 of us in the USA. No forums, no nothing back then.

Downlinks were the size of toasters and you had to have your film developed to see what you got. It's been working fine for a long time now. Less regulation, not more. It's not needed for R/C "hobby" class aircraft <period>. There's not a **** bit of different me flying my quad with a camera and me flying my quad with a camera and charging for a photo or video of someone's property. One of the main reason we have the FAA up our *** is because some insisted back then on being recognized as a UAV and wanting rules so they could be "official."

There's lots of guys that fly for compensation for manufactures at fun flys and other places. Does that mean they should be regulated? Are they now flying UAV's because they get compensated?

If you strap a camera on an R/C car and find a way to make a buck with it, do you now need a special certificate or drivers license? Does it turn your HPI monster truck into a UGV? Should the DMV get involved?

A quad or a slowstick you buy at a hobby store for a few hundred bucks and hang a camera on it is not a commercial UAV even if you charge for a photo that came from it.
 
I completely agree with you.

Sadly, nothing is ever that simple.

Canada is way ahead of the US for UAV rules, which is good, because they are defined (however poorly). However, the rules for commercial UAV's are not nearly granular enough. Transport Canada's job, like the FAA is to promote safety. If the only thing you do is produce vast amounts of red tape to "get legal" we will always have people who never bother. Always. How is that promoting safety.

There needs to be resignation by transport Canada that UAVs don't all weight 35lbs or less. Try 5 lbs or less. So why on earth would they require the same redundancy as a 35lb unit, or the same maintenance sched? Or the voluminous paperwork so you can make a buck.

Transport Canada is missing out on a great opportunity to bring far more people under its umbrella. I'm a commercial pilot, and I'm sorry, I struggle with this special club idea some legitimate UAV operators of AP rigs feel they are a part of. Like the previous poster, this is in part what has set up this "commercialized garbage" we see everyone so concerned about. Having spoken to some of the operators over the years in Canada, I can tell you, many know little about our airspace, airspace rules, or even basic knowledge of airport approaches. All within 5 NM of where they may operate.

So, really, they did paper work, painful amounts of it. Their qualification to operate in my airspace (as a pilot) is no greater then that of an average individual. Yet they are official.

I know far far more about the space transport Canada and even the FAA govern than most people in North America, yet if I was to put up a phantom, take some wedding photos (which I have no interest in) and make a buck, I'm some illegal bastard who's not really a part of the club.

FAA and transport canada need to work on graduated commercial operations for small operators.

If they need to take a 3 day course on air law and airspace structure, then bring it on. But don't keep people out with paperwork, paperwork never makes people safer, learning does.
 
Timtro said:
I'm going to reply to my own post with this follow up:

http://theuavdigest.com/uav024-uav-licensing-and-permitting-proposal/

Those class designations are, uhhm, pardon my French, total and utter crap!

Limited to private property only up to 100ft with an observer after you've had your airframe certified which means no mods and logging your misery the whole time. I'll tell you what, why don't I just take my Phantom and run it over with a steam roller instead! It'd be more fun!
 
First off please stop using the word DRONE. It is not an unmanned craft spying or with a payload.

You can't make money flying these things in the air, but if you still want to do it, then stop advertizing it here. Several threads go on and on how they will try to get around not charging for the actual flight. Don't forget every letter you type is logged and recorded wherever you do it. IP address as well.

The laws and penalties will only get worse if we are not responsible and fly these things everywhere in plublic. Just saw a video of an idiot flying is quad on a beach so close to people he didn't even know that they had to duck!!

Right on Facebook for everyone to see how dangerous these can be. Great.
 
chad556 said:
Yep, you read that correctly... I just received a phone call from an FAA official out of Scottdsdale, AZ informing me that a cease and desist letter would be arriving via certified mail to my address within the next few days. The inspector said he had been looking at forums like this and researching the people posting. He said that many of us have websites that advertise aerial photography services using a UAV and that all of us would be getting the same letter. He was not nice about this either. He said that I would be fined if caught using my phantom for any commercial services. He went on to say that even if I fly below 200 feet and maintain line of site, it is still illegal, and that they are cracking down on this. Not sure what to think at this point. He also said that they are getting more and more complaints from people about this, and that in many cases the complainant is actually a competitor of the violator, meaning other aerial services are ratting you out in hopes that it shuts you down.

I verified that the person I was speaking to was indeed an official with the FAA.

Just a heads up.

BS....
 
While I do this purely for hobby so I have no concern here, it is an interesting subject. Admittedly I've only read a few pages here, so forgive me if these are repeats but I have two thoughts here:

(1) People who do make a living at photography should be standing up to this and if/when they get one of these letters, they (or their attorney) should be responding with a letter asking which "law" was broken and if they plan to cite the wreckless or unsafe manner rule, the FAA had better be prepared to prove the UAV was being operated in a wreckless or unsafe manner. If a few of these are taken to court and the FAA cannot prove wreckless or unsafe operation, the defendant may be entitled to compensation when the FAA loses. And we all know: it's about money!

(2) Given the only law that they can cite at the moment (operating in a wreckless or unsafe manner), what about if you take it to some distance off and then engage failsafe, and you only use the footage captured during the failsafe return? Technically you are not operating anything at that point!

Just a couple random thoughts. Not being argumentative.

Mike
 
Timtro said:
Timtro said:
I know this is entirely too logical to be serioulsy considered, but have a suggestion for the FAA, since we now know they are reading this forum:
Instead of wasting a lot of time, energy and government resources tracking down and attempting to fine a few thousand people, how about providing a method for obtaining a temporary (1 year) restricted license until the FAA can get around to doing what Congress told them to do? ...They could list specific requirements (GPS nav, etc.) and define specific operating limitations and then provide a temporary registration process. That database would then simplify the process of moving to a formal licensing system in an orderly manner. ... I have no problem jumping through reasonable hoops and passing tests. .....

I'm going to reply to my own post with this follow up:

http://theuavdigest.com/uav024-uav-licensing-and-permitting-proposal/

LOL....these proposals are comical. In each category it suggests an observer AND that you have to fly over PRIVATE property only. What a bunch of dopes.

And this is where the US should have been by now: http://www.cybertechuav.com.au/-Services-.html
 
chad556 said:
Not sure what to think at this point. He also said that they are getting more and more complaints from people about this, and that in many cases the complainant is actually a competitor of the violator, meaning other aerial services are ratting you out in hopes that it shuts you down.

I verified that the person I was speaking to was indeed an official with the FAA.

Just a heads up.

Tell him to take his C&D letter and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine, a Federal Judge has just ruled the FAA has no jurisdiction over model airplane operations be they commercial or not.

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload ... cision.pdf

Wayne
 
Re: FAA Has No Jurisdiction

If the FAA tried to close you down or fine you for reckless flying, the burden of proof lays with the accuser. The FAA will have to have been on site, watch you fly and video you flying your quad in a reckless manner in order for their case to have merit and stand up in court. Any first year lawyer should be able to defend against that. A simple accusation has no merit. Proof does.

I for one am not concerned about the FAA. For one, they are understaffed and do not have time to follow thousands of radio controlled Phantom owners on their journeys. If you are intentionally reckless then post your footage online, well, I guess then the doctor dropped you on your head one to many times. When a commercial helicopter crashes and kills innocent people and the crew, you don't see the FAA claiming they were flying in an unsafe manner.

Simply put, as long as you fly responsibly and always think safety, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.

There are plenty of lawyers around the world that will be glad to defend your rights if indeed the FAA tries to step on you.

imo

QJ
 
Old thread, but it does provide back up to what I have been saying. The FAA has the Internet and they know what YouTube is. The Trappy case may have set them back for now (we'll see what the full NTSB court says as opposed to the single judge) but get ready once they do have rules in place.

Just like the police do not have the resources to chase down every speeder, they do still catch people, and when they do it is costly to that person. The FAA does not need that many people to watch YouTube since they know that all too many people are more than willing to put up video evidence of their stupidity for all to see.


Fun times coming :?
 
Don't forget that the FAA's main beef is flying for compensation, not hobby or park flyers. Flying a quad is no different than flying a helicopter, fixed wing, gliders, etc. Where we've gone astray is with the terminology. Drones, UAV, UAS, blah, blah, blah. We're still flying model aircraft anyone can buy from your local hobby store. Sure, the technology is more advanced these days with FPV, GPS and all that but they are still hobby aircraft, not much different than 40 years ago.

Personally I don't give a crap what the FAA does. I'll keep flying just like I always have.
 
dklassen said:
Don't forget that the FAA's main beef is flying for compensation, not hobby or park flyers. Flying a quad is no different than flying a helicopter, fixed wing, gliders, etc. Where we've gone astray is with the terminology. Drones, UAV, UAS, blah, blah, blah. We're still flying model aircraft anyone can buy from your local hobby store. Sure, the technology is more advanced these days with FPV, GPS and all that but they are still hobby aircraft, not much different than 40 years ago.

Personally I don't give a crap what the FAA does. I'll keep flying just like I always have.
No-that's not their main beef. And, WE, members on this website, aren't their main problem.
Think about it; there are roughly 7000 of us here-and for the most part, we're here because we are conscientious, safe pilots. We are here to educate and be educated.
However-DJI probably sold close to a Million Phantoms!!! So, the problem is with the other 993,000 people, that are NOT on any website.
They're the ones that take the Phantom out of the box, charge the battery, go out side, fire it up, and start to fly. When they crash-sometimes they come here.....but it's usually the same story. When asked; "What color were the flashing lights on the back?"...the answer is usually; "what flashing lights?"...."what warm up?"...what's a "compass dance?"

WE, are not the problem......but, WE can be a solution. The FAA isn't our enemy. But, they are looking out for everyone's "best interest". What you saw-was a "knee jerk" reaction by them. They tend to do that, a lot. Typical Government Agency(OH, we were supposed to knock on the door first? not kick it down??).

And, the original poster, I believe was a total Troll. I can pick up the phone and call that FAA FSDO office anytime I want. All he had to do was give me a name of who contacted him, and I could have confirmed or denied it, with 1 phone call. He hasn't been seen since.

WE, need to set the example. I know it's easy to come on here and bash the FAA-I'm very guilty of doing that-often. But, I've dealt with them throughout my entire career.

Take a look at DJI's latest firmware release for the new Phantom 2Z(the one with the 3 axis gimbal), and look at the flight restrictions. Nobody asked them to do that....it's called "Corporate Responsibility".
Again-WE aren't the problem. There are 1000 times more people not on THIS site, and some of them, are a problem.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic