Got a call from the FAA today
- Thread starter Stevenas
- Start date
Yes, and during the day you can see them and avoid them, at night you can't.
Of course if you know your surroundings and are aware of where obstacles are, you can fly safely. Unfortunately I don't trust that everyone who flies at nights knows their surroundings, and neither does the FAA. Ohhh crap, that makes me sound like I support them, when all I support is common sense on this topic. And common sense tells me that the probablitiy of hitting something at night is greatly increased.
There is no way to win when humans are involved. Even licensing won't stop stupid decisions, look at our fellow drivers freakin scary sometimes. I agree on the common sense front that is why I think flying at night is perfectly fine and adds some enhancements over daylight but you need to take into account the limitations.
What's illegal about these? "Experimental" is a valid category of aircraft. Do you know the rules and regulations regarding airspace? Your drone (and mine) are not experimental aircraft. They fall into the Unmanned Aircraft category and are subject to all the FAA regulations regarding such aircraft. I've said it before, too many people are getting drones and not becoming familiar with airspace rules. They are getting into trouble and causing a black eye for all of us who are trying to do the right thing.
A private pilot cannot fly for compensation. That requires a Commercial Pilot Certificate. Therefore, a private pilot cannot make money from photography taken from the airplane, but a commercial pilot can. If I am a private pilot, I can take someone for a ride and they can split operating expenses with me, but I can't accept payment (even in the form of a pig). Just because a video is shot doesn't make it commercial. If you make money off that video, then it becomes commercial photography and falls into a whole different set of rules and regulations. I have been a pilot since 1985, professionally since 1999. I hold an Airline Transport Pilot certificate, Certified Flight Instructor and Instrument Instructor Certificate. The FAR/AIM is the Bible for aviation and is available to the general public. Anyone can look up regulations, but few choose to take the time and initiative to learn.
Last edited:
I do.
Never said they were.
Correct. But that wasn't always the case. I stopped flying professionally about 11 years ago and fell out of following the day to day regulatory changes in the aviation community about 5 years ago. At one point, there was a letter of interpretation on file that ruled private pilots could use their certificate take aerial photos for commercial purposes since the flying part was merely incidental to their core business i.e. photography. Unfortunately, there is also a letter of interpretation on file from a different regional office which contradicts the first letter. And according to the rules for determine which letter wins in those situations, the letter ruling commercial photography flights illegal for private pilots won. I looked it up again and found that out after posting what you quoted. So yes, I was mistaken as the information I posted previously is no longer valid.
I didn't ask for your resume nor do I particularly care but thanks for offering it none the less. Why do so many pilots always assume people will be impressed with their resume? Anyway I can assure you I was extremely familiar with the finer points of the FARS when it was part of my job to know them inside out and I kept up with them pretty well for many years after. But then I stopped. And until recently I had absolutely no reason to want to keep up with every little change to things brought about by every little letter of interpretation so I didn't do it and therefore some of what I've posted is no longer accurate. IOW I was mistaken. Sue me.
I didn't mean to start a pissing contest by any means. My point was too many people are getting drones, treating them like toys, violating all kinds of rules and regulations and will end up causing more problems for those of us who are trying to do the right thing. Ignorance of the law doesn't mean they can get away with it.
Even though I replied using part of your post, my comments weren't necessarily directed towards you, but was hoping to be helpful to others who may have had questions regarding that. Please don't take it personal.
Just to clarify for my understanding, and not intending to become embroiled in this... Honesly ...
But ... I do appreciate the difference between commercial piloting and flying for recreation. However, these are merely flying cameras! Live human beings are not going aloft here.
If I were an acrobatic skier wearing a GoPro camera, and I took a high leap and a couple of flips, isn't that aerial photography?
So, in the case of these small light drones, if it's legal to fly the unit, why should the FAA care how the images are used? The danger/safety ratio lies in how they're being flown, not the intended use of the images. To repeat, they're merely CAMERAS with wings!
And certainly, tax-paying citizens should not be hassled for simple misunderstandings or minor instances of crossing the line.
Hopefully, this will all be reevaluated soon!
But ... I do appreciate the difference between commercial piloting and flying for recreation. However, these are merely flying cameras! Live human beings are not going aloft here.
If I were an acrobatic skier wearing a GoPro camera, and I took a high leap and a couple of flips, isn't that aerial photography?
So, in the case of these small light drones, if it's legal to fly the unit, why should the FAA care how the images are used? The danger/safety ratio lies in how they're being flown, not the intended use of the images. To repeat, they're merely CAMERAS with wings!
And certainly, tax-paying citizens should not be hassled for simple misunderstandings or minor instances of crossing the line.
Hopefully, this will all be reevaluated soon!
Probably not because the FAA has defined an aircraft as something designed to fly.
This is, unfortunately, bureaucracy unmodulated by common sense.
The rules requiring a commercial license for a commercial flight were written long before most of you were born. Written by the CAA after WW-I. The general idea was that the general public knows nothing about flight and they put their trust in the pilot. The commercial pilot's license required a higher-level of training and testing than private pilots in order to provide a little more margin of safety for the unsuspecting passengers. The logic for requiring a commercial license just grew from there to where today so that an ad on a YouTube video could make the flight a commercial flight. The simple, logical original rule had been totally lost in the decades of reinterpretation by lawyers from both sides. I also suspect some job protection is in that process as well.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but, there are no laws on the books concerning flying drones. Only guidelines.
Ignorance is an excuse until there are guidelines packed with every drone. The consumer must be educated. Why don't you try to do the right thing by educating new drone pilots? You, as everyone else was not born with the guidance and knowledge.
When I get back to work tomorrow, I'll pull out the regulations and see what I can post here. Our "camera with wings" are actually (as far as the FAA is concerned) Unmanned Aircraft Systems. They fly under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) and the operators are bound to certain regulations. I can't list them all, but here are a couple. You can't fly your drone, or any other aircraft over the local high school football stadium during a game because you would be flying over a crowd of people at less than the minimum altitude of 1,000 feet. Just now, on national news, I saw one of the Blue Angels fly along a crowded beach so low that he blew pop-up tents away. That pilot will be in some deep crap! You can't fly within 1,000 feet of a cloud, and can't penetrate a cloud. You can't fly into controlled airspace without the proper clearance from Air Traffic Control. I'll dig the book out when I can and give you more specifics.
And why can't you pull it off of the internet right now? Actual laws that are on the books. Post links.
I'm calling ******** on the video. I was there. The portion of the video showing the tents blowing up was not Pensacola Beach. That portion of beach is lined with massive hotels and there are none in the video.
During the rehearsal Friday, and the show Saturday, the high speed pass was in the other direction, heading towards the pier. I saw both, it was awesome. Clever editing.
The video I found said it was from this weekend. Trust me, it was not. Were they low, yeah. Hauling ***, yeah. This did not happen. Carry on.
Sure this isn't a buddy pulling an elaborate trick on you?
Thats the only thing I thought of esp when he said they not only called him but also called him at his work. The FAA might be full of brain dead morons but they are not so stupid that they are going to risk the liability of not only calling some one and harnessing them but also they are not going to call some one at work and illegally harass someone or open them selves up to accusing any one of committing any crime with no proof or charges of any crime taking place. and a video posted on utube is not proof of much other then proof YOU posted a video that could of been shot by anyone nore easy to prove how high you were or even if you were indeed directly over head of people on the ground.
Its definitely some one playing a prank and thinking there funny..
just to play it safe you should do what I always do any time any one claims they are the goverment or police trying to get in touch with me. which is to say ok hold on a second and hang up in there ear.
- Joined
- May 4, 2015
- Messages
- 243
- Reaction score
- 86
This guy has WAY to much time on his hands. I would not worry to much if at all. Very hard to prove any law breaking accusation. He just wants to come off as having some kinda power trip.
If you do not have a working knowledge of the all of the posts in a thread, please think twice before chastising others. It has already been pointed out that the info I posted is now false (though it was not false before 2010) and I have already acknowledged my mistake. You would know that if you had bothered to read the entire thread before hitting the post button. As for my knowledge of the CFR's? Well lets just say I've got old W2's in a file somewhere which would suggest that my knowledge of the CFR's is pretty good. Especially when it comes to part 91 commercial ops.
Last edited:
If he was able to obtain your email address and work number from your YouTube account he obviously got a warrant for your information. That's a mighty grey area given no crime has been committed. You should reply and ask how he obtained your contact info.
Lots of people use their real name and give an e-mail address on YouTube. There didn't necessarily have to be a warrant issued.
Similar threads
- Sticky
