FAA just called me

[dkatz42]

Re: FAA Has No Jurisdiction

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.

Actually they often do, particularly as most crashes are caused by the pilot. The NTSB web site makes for some interesting reading. The aviation accidents database has every investigation going back decades, and a majority of the time it's the pilot. Professionals don't screw up nearly as often, but they do so on a regular basis.

If the pilot dies, the FAA doesn't have anyone to cite, but the tort lawyers will exact the punishment on the pilot's estate.

 

[69420rnr]

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.

Your're so full of ****. And how did you verify you talked to an FAA official?

Quit making up lies about the FAA. As of today, right now in America, the FAA can not tell you when, where, or how to fly your multi-rotor. There are NO laws in America at this time. You can do whatever the hell you please with it. Nobody can stop you. Please quit making up lies. Idiot.

 

[havasuphoto]

Little late to the party?? Read the date on the post, and the previous 13 pages.....that user hasn't been back since, and it was clearly just a troll attempt.
Moving on........

 

[GMANNZ]

Little late to the party?? Read the date on the post, and the previous 13 pages.....that user hasn't been back since, and it was clearly just a troll attempt.
Moving on........

+1

 

[Darwood8u]

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.

Your're so full of ****. And how did you verify you talked to an FAA official?

Quit making up lies about the FAA. As of today, right now in America, the FAA can not tell you when, where, or how to fly your multi-rotor. There are NO laws in America at this time. You can do whatever the hell you please with it. Nobody can stop you. Please quit making up lies. Idiot.

FYI 69420, before you take your foot out of your mouth read about my phone call on April 7th, 2014 with the FAA in Tarrant County. Just because they can't hold you liable for anything that has to do with you and your drone below 400', doesn't mean that a greedy, money-hungry, government agency won't try to bully us out of more money with threats they cannot uphold.

I spoke with an FAA official (I called them), and they informed me that you cannot use a drone for commercial purposes. You have to apply for a C.O.L.A to even fly it in a public place i.e. parks, etc.. At the end of this year they are lowering restrictions on any UAS that is under 55 lbs to make it easier to get the C.O.L.A. I mentioned that there were no regulations, or laws, in effect and he completely agreed with me. They cited many of AMAs policies that must be followed. They cannot do anything to anyone legally without LAWS! If you were doing research for a University you can film in public anytime you want. They don't have any jurisdiction on you unless you are within 3 miles of an airport, or restricted airspace. Airlines cannot fly lower than 500' during the day and 1000' feet at night over residential neighborhoods. Depends if it is in the flight path of the landing strip of the airport. That's when the 3 miles from an airport kicks in. I am right by an Air Force base and have not had any issues flying in the field behind my house. FAA is a bully until they add quadcopters under their definition of 'aircraft'. Very grey area and they like to try to be the big dog.

 

[havasuphoto]

Stop!!!
Read here;http://dronelawjournal.com/
Been a commercial helicopter pilot for over 20 years, and a pilot for close to 34 years......I love when a story starts with; "I call the FAA......."
Please just stop, right there.
I understand that you had a conversation with someone from the FAA. I get what he told you. But, we've already beat this horse completely to death.
Move on.......there are several other thread that deal with this "issue".......

 

[Timtro]

Why does the FAA make it impossible to find anyone to discuss this issue? All I see is an old circular that says you cannot, then a sentence that says they don't regulate hobby aircraft but if it is used for commercial purposes, you can't use. No avenue as to how to make it legal.

I have had personal phone calls and email contacts with several people in the FAA. They can't "discuss" anything individually for very logical reasons but they do listen. They are also caught between a rock and several hard places, in that there are pressures from UAV advocacy groups like RCAPA, AMA and UAVSI on one side and ATSM on the other and from somewhat clueless legislators at the same time. I sense that military manufacturers may be lurking in the midst also.

The FAA will, at some point however, be required to put their proposals out for public comment, which is when all of us need to clearly state our case for reasonable guidelines and requirements. It drags out the process but it also keeps it out in the open as it should be.

I can just about promise that one of the requirements will be having logs to verify flight time experience and maintenance, so be prepared. It is very likely that proof of insurance will also be a condition, no different for driving a car and for some of the same reasons.

 

[Buk]

...

I can just about promise that one of the requirements will be having logs to verify flight time experience and maintenance, so be prepared. It is very likely that proof of insurance will also be a condition, no different for driving a car and for some of the same reasons.

While I see your points, I don't maintain drive time experience or maintenance logs for my driver's license or automobile. I don't envision doing so for a hobby grade multi-rotor. Heavier, more powerful, commercial grade multi-rotors operated "professionally" I could envision the requirements you suggest. The licensure process will have such a backlog, full implementation will take years after being established. Yes, I see DJI as being proactive in safety, marketing and sales striving to be ahead of the curve.

 

[SilentAV8R]

I can just about promise that one of the requirements will be having logs to verify flight time experience and maintenance,

Which may explain this:

http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/medi ... 00.258.pdf

Fortunately I am already a licensed pilot, so this is a snap for me.

 

[depwraith]

OMG, people are so dumb. Guess you need a drivers license to drive a r/c on the street or a boating license for that r/c sailboat?

 

[WeaponsHot]

I wish everyone would stop stroking their pitot tubes.
"The basic pitot tube consists of a tube pointing directly into the fluid flow."

 

[WeaponsHot]

Dudes and Dudettes, Please read this.
Commercial Drones Are Completely Legal, a Federal Judge Ruled
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/commer ... udge-ruled

For the moment, commercial drones are, unequivocally, legal in American skies after a federal judge has ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration has not made any legally binding rules against it.

The judge dismissed the FAA’s case against Raphael Pirker, the first (and only) person the agency has tried to fine for flying a drone commercially. The agency has repeatedly claimed that flying a drone for commercial purposes is illegal and has said that there’s “no gray area” in the law. The latter now appears to be true, but it hasn’t gone the way the FAA would have hoped. Patrick Geraghty, a judge with the National Transportation Safety Board, ruled that there are no laws against flying a drone commercially.

There is more go to the site and read please.

 

[OI Photography]

OMG, people are so dumb. Guess you need a drivers license to drive a r/c on the street or a boating license for that r/c sailboat?

We don't share the street or the water with full-sized aircraft, and R/C boats and cars rarely fall on things unexpectedly when they fail.

 

[SilentAV8R]

Dudes and Dudettes, Please read this.
Commercial Drones Are Completely Legal, a Federal Judge Ruled
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/commer ... udge-ruled

For the moment, commercial drones are, unequivocally, legal in American skies after a federal judge has ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration has not made any legally binding rules against it.

The judge dismissed the FAA’s case against Raphael Pirker, the first (and only) person the agency has tried to fine for flying a drone commercially. The agency has repeatedly claimed that flying a drone for commercial purposes is illegal and has said that there’s “no gray area” in the law. The latter now appears to be true, but it hasn’t gone the way the FAA would have hoped. Patrick Geraghty, a judge with the National Transportation Safety Board, ruled that there are no laws against flying a drone commercially.

There is more go to the site and read please.

You might want to consider this:

"The FAA is appealing the decision of an NTSB Administrative Law Judge to the full National Transportation Safety Board, which has the effect of staying the decision until the Board rules. The agency is concerned that this decision could impact the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground."

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/ ... &cid=TW209

 

[BruceTS]

it might stay the decision, but doesn't change the facts, so feel free fly as you wish. The FAA is all bark and no bite.....

Of course fly in a safe manner..........

 

[SilentAV8R]

it might stay the decision, but doesn't change the facts, so feel free fly as you wish. The FAA is all bark and no bite.....

Of course fly in a safe manner..........

What seems to be getting lost in all this is that what they fined Trappy for was unsafe flying, NOT for operating a commercial drone. They mention that as part of the their findings, but the fine was for unsafe operation.

I disagree with "feel free, fly as you wish" THis seems to indicate that people can do whatever they want to, however they want to. Trust me, the FAA is going to continue to send letters and harass people, which may cost you a tidy sum of money to defend against, even if you are in the right.

 

[jdenkevitz]

I am astounded at how irresponsible people are in telling others that its fine to ignore the FAA and fly as they wish. Its not fine, the FAA has the full responsibility/power to control the airspace of the U.S. Its their mandate, as set by congress. At this time, the pirker case is meaningless as it has been stayed. It wont be resolved for quite some time. All these websites that posted its legal now, are dead to rights wrong. Period. They don't understand how our judicial system works. As soon as the appeal was filed, it was stayed. The FAA is going to exhaust all of its avenues of appeal, and in all likelihood push an emergency rule if Pirker is upheld. The current state of the law is NOT that commercial flight is legal.

If you think i am incorrect, please cite me a case where it was found individuals are free to ignore administrative law or adminstrative rules established by a congressionally mandated entity explicitly charged with the necessary authority and scope to set such rules.

 

[WeaponsHot]

I am astounded at how irresponsible people are in telling others that its fine to ignore the FAA and fly as they wish. Its not fine, the FAA has the full responsibility/power to control the airspace of the U.S. Its their mandate, as set by congress. At this time, the pirker case is meaningless as it has been stayed. It wont be resolved for quite some time. All these websites that posted its legal now, are dead to rights wrong. Period. They don't understand how our judicial system works. As soon as the appeal was filed, it was stayed. The FAA is going to exhaust all of its avenues of appeal, and in all likelihood push an emergency rule if Pirker is upheld. The current state of the law is NOT that commercial flight is legal.

If you think i am incorrect, please cite me a case where it was found individuals are free to ignore administrative law or adminstrative rules established by a congressionally mandated entity explicitly charged with the necessary authority and scope to set such rules.

Obamacare, is one enough or do you need more?

 

[WeaponsHot]

I am astounded at how irresponsible people are in telling others that its fine to ignore the FAA and fly as they wish. Its not fine, the FAA has the full responsibility/power to control the airspace of the U.S. Its their mandate, as set by congress. At this time, the pirker case is meaningless as it has been stayed. It wont be resolved for quite some time. All these websites that posted its legal now, are dead to rights wrong. Period. They don't understand how our judicial system works. As soon as the appeal was filed, it was stayed. The FAA is going to exhaust all of its avenues of appeal, and in all likelihood push an emergency rule if Pirker is upheld. The current state of the law is NOT that commercial flight is legal.

If you think i am incorrect, please cite me a case where it was found individuals are free to ignore administrative law or adminstrative rules established by a congressionally mandated entity explicitly charged with the necessary authority and scope to set such rules.

How is the FAA going to win on appeal, to enforce a law that doesn't exist, whose intention was for full scale pilots, not the average hobbyist taking and selling pictures?

 

[Shootinnewz]

I just looked at your video footage no wonder the FAA call you! Its guys like you that need to think before you fly over emergency situations IE: like the kid drowning really? Don't *** it up for the rest of us!!!

I am contracted with the local news and fire department. The fire dept called us to shoot... its not like we just showed up. Puting a 3 pound uav in the air is far more cheaper and safe then hovering a 3 million dollar 22000 pound aerostar up. The faa rules have nothing to with safety and everything to do with money.

"I am contracted with the local news and fire department." ... Say whaaa?

Fire department requesting your footage is one thing, but a local TV station contracting you, I call BS!
I work for a TV news station and I know for a fact that a TV station isn't going to contract with anyone using a UAV over a news story. They wont even buy the footage from you, its to much of a liability and a direct violation of FAA guidelines, and knowing such would potentially hinder future opportunities to use such tools in the future. So, either you're full of it, or you officially have found the dumbest news director and GM in the U.S.A.!

I personally have requested permission to fly over fire and or crime scenes during non work hours on my personal time and never have been denied, mainly because they cant stop me anyway. But what I have found in doing so two things. 1, it makes them aware which is something that puts them at ease. 2, again, it makes them aware! Why, because you dont know if they are life flighting someone or if there is an exposed body etc...(unless youre some sick punk that wants that stuff). Thats all they want and or care about. Heck, most of them wanna try and fly it. Another thing, I don't post the videos online, why, because that commercial use. Not sure why people don't get that... The use of UAV's is and will happen, but at the rate I see wannabee photographers and rebels that love to push the boundaries every day, the people that will be using UAVs commercially will be small, such as TV stations with larger insurances companies then most and special use permits issued such as farmers etc... The 2014 NAB convention to me is proof. No way they would be investing so much into an industry that doesn't exist if there isn't something around the corner for them to make money...

Just my 2 cents...