I would have to look back through a LOT of history. It was an Interview with a spokesman for the FAA explaining that their employees were not authorized to skim YouTube looking for violations. I may Google it later, until then, feel free.
I hit the Max Height limit! 1654.2 FT!!!
- Thread starter Detroit
- Start date
- Status
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
He said that the Pirker case made drone flights subject to aircraft regulations. So if you want to operate outside of 91-57, you need a PPL and a 333.
Whether or not he needed to be "reigned in" we don't know. Until the FAA comes out and says something to the contrary, I would assume he was not reigned in. He "skeedaddled" because he was only here to investigate a specific case. And he took an enormous amount of abuse in the process.
Who's Pavlov ?
A guy with a dog that salivates every time he walks in the room. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov
Invariably whenever somebody posts a fun flying video online, the Internet "sheriffs" come out in droves to inform the original poster of just how many Federal Aviation Regulations he or she has broken.
Of course, the only thing that really matters is what the FAA has to say about your video. And a new national policy spells out what actions FAA safety inspectors can — and cannot — take if they see something in a video they don't like.
First, FAA inspectors are being reminded they have "no authority to direct or suggest" that a flying video you posted on the Internet be removed, according to the new policy. It's your First Amendment right to upload any video you want. Safety inspectors are also being reminded by top agency brass that a video alone is "ordinarily not sufficient evidence" to determine whether any FARs have been broken. A video purporting to show something legally questionable must also be "authenticated" by the FAA inspector before any enforcement action is taken.
The FAA crafted the policy after one of its safety inspectors sent a threatening letter to the owner of a remote-control quadracopter who filmed beachgoers from on high in Florida a few months back. There was nothing particularly dangerous about the flight or the filming, but because the UAV owner posted the video to YouTube, and because YouTube is a for-profit website that shows ads and gives uploaders a few pennies or dollars for their trouble, the flight had crossed the line into a "commercial operation," this inspector warned.
Flying asked the FAA for clarification on this point last month. We were told the agency was "looking into it" and never heard another word. The new policy letter, issued on April 8, appears to address this issue by telling safety inspectors in essence to stick to the script when sending out "informational letters" to UAV operators and pilots informing them they may be in violation of the FARs based on a video.
The takeaway is that the burden of proof on FAA inspectors to show you did something unsafe or illegal in an online video is now much higher. However, if you know you busted an FAR on a flight you filmed, you may want to think long and hard before uploading the video proof to YouTube.
http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/tip-week/faa-enforcement-and-youtube
Of course, the only thing that really matters is what the FAA has to say about your video. And a new national policy spells out what actions FAA safety inspectors can — and cannot — take if they see something in a video they don't like.
First, FAA inspectors are being reminded they have "no authority to direct or suggest" that a flying video you posted on the Internet be removed, according to the new policy. It's your First Amendment right to upload any video you want. Safety inspectors are also being reminded by top agency brass that a video alone is "ordinarily not sufficient evidence" to determine whether any FARs have been broken. A video purporting to show something legally questionable must also be "authenticated" by the FAA inspector before any enforcement action is taken.
The FAA crafted the policy after one of its safety inspectors sent a threatening letter to the owner of a remote-control quadracopter who filmed beachgoers from on high in Florida a few months back. There was nothing particularly dangerous about the flight or the filming, but because the UAV owner posted the video to YouTube, and because YouTube is a for-profit website that shows ads and gives uploaders a few pennies or dollars for their trouble, the flight had crossed the line into a "commercial operation," this inspector warned.
Flying asked the FAA for clarification on this point last month. We were told the agency was "looking into it" and never heard another word. The new policy letter, issued on April 8, appears to address this issue by telling safety inspectors in essence to stick to the script when sending out "informational letters" to UAV operators and pilots informing them they may be in violation of the FARs based on a video.
The takeaway is that the burden of proof on FAA inspectors to show you did something unsafe or illegal in an online video is now much higher. However, if you know you busted an FAR on a flight you filmed, you may want to think long and hard before uploading the video proof to YouTube.
http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/tip-week/faa-enforcement-and-youtube
OK. I've googled and see that they have said they can't demand people remove their videos. I don't see anything regarding them not being able to check Youtube for violations. It's public after all. Will keep looking.
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
That has to do with commercial operations and not flights over 400ft in which case it's not a matter of taking them down but rather a potential violation to be pursued. I am not aware of any "reigning in" for those types of cases. And you can't dismiss all inspectors simply because a few needed to be reigned in.
Feds concede drone filmmakers have First Amendment rights
Image Credit: Daniel Terdiman/VentureBeat
[Are you a growth marketer? Do you want to know what it takes to be one? Join us at GrowthBeat, on August 17-18 in San Francisco. Thought leaders from the biggest brands and most disruptive companies will share winning growth strategies on the most pressing challenges marketing leaders face today.]
The federal government has admitted that, while it can still regulate the commercial use of drones, people and businesses who make films or videos using drones have constitutional rights to publish them that cannot be violated.
The upshot, according to a new policy document issued last week by the Federal Aviation Administration, is that the agency’s inspectors no longer have the right to demand that drone filmmakers remove videos they post to YouTube or other online services.
“Inspectors have no authority to direct or suggest that electronic media posted on the Internet must be removed,” the FAA wrote.
In a tweet about the policy, drone expert Ryan Calo wrote, “The FAA concedes there’s a First Amendment.”
Ostensibly, the policy, titled “Aviation-Related Videos or Other Electronic Media on the Internet,” governs how the FAA can use videos taken using drones as evidence of illegal use of the flying devices against the filmmakers. “There are an escalating number of videos or other electronic media posted to the Internet which depict aviation-related activities,” the policy states. “Some of these posted videos may depict operations that are contrary to [federal rules], or safe operating practices.”
But the policy makes it clear to inspectors that in addition to prohibiting them from demanding that filmmakers remove videos, they must remember that the videos alone may not be enough to determine there’s been illegal activity that must be regulated. “Electronic media posted on the Internet is only one form of evidence which may be used to support an enforcement action and it must be authenticated,” the FAA wrote. “Electronic media posted on the Internet is ordinarily not sufficient evidence alone to determine that an operation is not in compliance with” FAA rules.
However, the agency added, drone videos “may serve as evidence of possible violations and may be retained for future enforcement action.”
To some, the new rules show that the FAA has overreached when it has tried to stop people, including journalists, from posting video taken with drones without getting clearance first.
http://venturebeat.com/2015/04/14/feds-concede-drone-filmmakers-have-first-amendment-rights/
Link to FAA "new" policy:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.292.pdf
And if you're still looking for a "law" that prohibits altitude above 400'ft, you simply won't find one. Like Steve, I don't do it and I don't approve of it. But there is no "law", only recommendations.
Image Credit: Daniel Terdiman/VentureBeat
[Are you a growth marketer? Do you want to know what it takes to be one? Join us at GrowthBeat, on August 17-18 in San Francisco. Thought leaders from the biggest brands and most disruptive companies will share winning growth strategies on the most pressing challenges marketing leaders face today.]
The federal government has admitted that, while it can still regulate the commercial use of drones, people and businesses who make films or videos using drones have constitutional rights to publish them that cannot be violated.
The upshot, according to a new policy document issued last week by the Federal Aviation Administration, is that the agency’s inspectors no longer have the right to demand that drone filmmakers remove videos they post to YouTube or other online services.
“Inspectors have no authority to direct or suggest that electronic media posted on the Internet must be removed,” the FAA wrote.
In a tweet about the policy, drone expert Ryan Calo wrote, “The FAA concedes there’s a First Amendment.”
Ostensibly, the policy, titled “Aviation-Related Videos or Other Electronic Media on the Internet,” governs how the FAA can use videos taken using drones as evidence of illegal use of the flying devices against the filmmakers. “There are an escalating number of videos or other electronic media posted to the Internet which depict aviation-related activities,” the policy states. “Some of these posted videos may depict operations that are contrary to [federal rules], or safe operating practices.”
But the policy makes it clear to inspectors that in addition to prohibiting them from demanding that filmmakers remove videos, they must remember that the videos alone may not be enough to determine there’s been illegal activity that must be regulated. “Electronic media posted on the Internet is only one form of evidence which may be used to support an enforcement action and it must be authenticated,” the FAA wrote. “Electronic media posted on the Internet is ordinarily not sufficient evidence alone to determine that an operation is not in compliance with” FAA rules.
However, the agency added, drone videos “may serve as evidence of possible violations and may be retained for future enforcement action.”
To some, the new rules show that the FAA has overreached when it has tried to stop people, including journalists, from posting video taken with drones without getting clearance first.
http://venturebeat.com/2015/04/14/feds-concede-drone-filmmakers-have-first-amendment-rights/
Link to FAA "new" policy:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.292.pdf
And if you're still looking for a "law" that prohibits altitude above 400'ft, you simply won't find one. Like Steve, I don't do it and I don't approve of it. But there is no "law", only recommendations.
Well, no, we live in a society where safety matters. If all you care about are actual laws from the FAA then I guess there is no talking sense to people like you.
I think people have every right to be able to point out such flights as being careless. The guidelines the FAA and major hobbyist bodies have put in place aren't there to simply ruin peoples fun.
People like me? Your comprehension is not very good tonight. I stated I don't do it and don't approve of it. You are just getting miffed that you cannot produce a "law" prohibiting it. As much as I don't get along with Steve Mann, I'm beginning to see his point about you all's "fantasy" laws and regulations lol!
Well, have at it. Worry about everyone else. Snitch 'em out! Me, I'm too busy out flying and having fun!
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Let's not conflate two totally different issues. Flying above 400ft is not a 1st amendment right, nor are FAA reps asking for vids of such to be taken down.
Look. Your boss (I guess he's your boss, he's the Admin and you're a moderator), has also posted that there are no such rules in place. Perhaps you all need to get on the same page? I'm not meaning to argue, as I'm on YOUR side when it comes to safe flying. You're letting it get to you personally. Not good for a mod.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
He ain't ma boss for one. And he ain't the FAA for two. And I'm entitled to have an opinion, even as a mod, fo' three.
I've got some really great "Beating a dead horse" stuff I could post here.
Would that be cool at this point or not?
Would that be cool at this point or not?
Well, it sure beats a dead, boring forum!I've got some really great "Beating a dead horse" stuff I could post here.
Would that be cool at this point or not?
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
I've got some really great "Beating a dead horse" stuff I could post here.
Would that be cool at this point or not?
Do you have anything that shows the skeleton of a horse that was beaten repeatedly for many many months to no avail? It's why I loathe this thread so very much. Must stay away!
I'm not getting miffed. Are you? People keep on bringing out the law books to hide behind when we need to be talking about safety.
And they are laws in many countries outside the US. 400 feet being the generally accepted limi, for obvious reasons. Call it fantasy if you will, but it's likely to be the same there too.
Nobody is talking about snitching. And bro, at the moment you're not flying, just like everybody else commenting, so your fun is presently look-at-me 'fantasy' too.
As my original assigned task was to show where FAA employees were being reigned in, my above posts and the below article show where that was done in the new policy issued in April.
".............Previously, officials in various jurisdictions and across a range of use cases had been telling people that commercial use of drones was prohibited by FAA regulations, therefore, the use of drone videos was similarly prohibited by the FAA. On its face, the guidance amounted to intimidation tactics (undertaken mostly by FAA safety inspectors) and it was a clear violation of the First Amendment. Drone videos are not contraband, and s.the FAA has no authority to police what is posted to the internet, they only have the authority to enforce aviation regulation
The new policy guidance from the FAA, is directed primarily at Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) Aviation Safety Instructors (ASIs), regional Flight Standards divisions (RFSD), and International Field Offices (IFO)/International Field Units (IFU). The secondary audience includes Flight Standards (AFS) branches and divisions in the regions and in headquarters (HQ). The letter specifically states (emphasis added):
Inspectors have no authority to direct or suggest that electronic media posted on the Internet must be removed. Note: Electronic media posted on a video Web site does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use.
Importantly, the FAA is telling their inspectors that they can’t modify a form letter that is included in the Appendix to the policy guidance, thus minimizing the possibility of intentional or inadvertent threats being communicated by FAA officials.................."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregory...nt-be-ordering-people-to-delete-drone-videos/
".............Previously, officials in various jurisdictions and across a range of use cases had been telling people that commercial use of drones was prohibited by FAA regulations, therefore, the use of drone videos was similarly prohibited by the FAA. On its face, the guidance amounted to intimidation tactics (undertaken mostly by FAA safety inspectors) and it was a clear violation of the First Amendment. Drone videos are not contraband, and s.the FAA has no authority to police what is posted to the internet, they only have the authority to enforce aviation regulation
The new policy guidance from the FAA, is directed primarily at Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) Aviation Safety Instructors (ASIs), regional Flight Standards divisions (RFSD), and International Field Offices (IFO)/International Field Units (IFU). The secondary audience includes Flight Standards (AFS) branches and divisions in the regions and in headquarters (HQ). The letter specifically states (emphasis added):
Inspectors have no authority to direct or suggest that electronic media posted on the Internet must be removed. Note: Electronic media posted on a video Web site does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use.
Importantly, the FAA is telling their inspectors that they can’t modify a form letter that is included in the Appendix to the policy guidance, thus minimizing the possibility of intentional or inadvertent threats being communicated by FAA officials.................."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregory...nt-be-ordering-people-to-delete-drone-videos/
- Status
Similar threads
