is this legit loophole for hobbyist offering aerials??

[68charger440]

You really have that much free time on your hands? Couldn't you have used it to provide some input to help as opposed to sitting on your perch preaching?

I can 100% assure you that any advice I give is backed by law, decades of experience, and most of all if followed will NOT require you to need an attorney or bail $$. I've been "Doing this" longer than some of our members have been sucking air and I've been in the FAA realm (as a paying participant) for almost all of my adult life.

So please enlighten me as to what you would suggest a hobbyist flying to make money should handle this moving forward. I'd hate to think I've been doing something wrong all these years now.

You can leave your indoctrination garbage at the door. That's not going to fly here and adds nothing to the OP's request what so ever.

My whole point is that people are spending so much time trying to interpret rules and laws when those laws and rules are eroding our constitutional rights and freedoms, so I am advocating spending as much time challenging them as is spent on interpreting them.
Your condescending comment " you have a lot to learn grasshopper" is why I asked you to look in the mirror. That is basically saying that the person about whos post you made the "has a lot to learn" comment is ignorant. In other words you seem to be saying that your view is unquestionably correct and that his view is borne of ignorance.
I'm sorry you feel educating people on our constitutional rights is garbage. Where my comments do add to the OP's request is to knock down the Straw man and bring the focus to the real problem which is overreaching laws and rules.
I am saying that collectively the drone community should seek to put the FAA back in its place and keep it out of commerce which is not it's perview. Making money selling photos has nothing to do with flight safety and therefore in my opinion is none of the FAA's business. Keep the sky's safe and effeciently organized, but stay out of our "business dealings"
Finally, you statement that "I can 100% assure you that any advice I give is backed by law" is quite the accomplishment since the various government entities can not even agree on that, and unless you are an attorney, your advice may not even be legal regardless of any questions about accuracy.

 

[BigAl07]

My whole point is that people are spending so much time trying to interpret rules and laws when those laws and rules are eroding our constitutional rights and freedoms, so I am advocating spending as much time challenging them as is spent on interpreting them.
Your condescending comment " you have a lot to learn grasshopper" is why I asked you to look in the mirror. That is basically saying that the person about whos post you made the "has a lot to learn" comment is ignorant. In other words you seem to be saying that your view is unquestionably correct and that his view is borne of ignorance.
I'm sorry you feel educating people on our constitutional rights is garbage. Where my comments do add to the OP's request is to knock down the Straw man and bring the focus to the real problem which is overreaching laws and rules.
I am saying that collectively the drone community should seek to put the FAA back in its place and keep it out of commerce which is not it's perview. Making money selling photos has nothing to do with flight safety and therefore in my opinion is none of the FAA's business. Keep the sky's safe and effeciently organized, but stay out of our "business dealings"
Finally, you statement that "I can 100% assure you that any advice I give is backed by law" is quite the accomplishment since the various government entities can not even agree on that, and unless you are an attorney, your advice may not even be legal regardless of any questions about accuracy.

LOL! That's all you'll get out of me.

Good day and safe flights!
Allen

 

[sar104]

My whole point is that people are spending so much time trying to interpret rules and laws when those laws and rules are eroding our constitutional rights and freedoms, so I am advocating spending as much time challenging them as is spent on interpreting them.
Your condescending comment " you have a lot to learn grasshopper" is why I asked you to look in the mirror. That is basically saying that the person about whos post you made the "has a lot to learn" comment is ignorant. In other words you seem to be saying that your view is unquestionably correct and that his view is borne of ignorance.
I'm sorry you feel educating people on our constitutional rights is garbage. Where my comments do add to the OP's request is to knock down the Straw man and bring the focus to the real problem which is overreaching laws and rules.
I am saying that collectively the drone community should seek to put the FAA back in its place and keep it out of commerce which is not it's perview. Making money selling photos has nothing to do with flight safety and therefore in my opinion is none of the FAA's business. Keep the sky's safe and effeciently organized, but stay out of our "business dealings"
Finally, you statement that "I can 100% assure you that any advice I give is backed by law" is quite the accomplishment since the various government entities can not even agree on that, and unless you are an attorney, your advice may not even be legal regardless of any questions about accuracy.

You have totally misunderstood the basis for these laws and regulations. The FAA is not regulating recreational flight - Congress prevented them from doing that in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Nor are they regulating commerce - they are applying the criteria that Congress implemented in law to determine if flights are recreational. The FAA is regulating non-recreational flight, which Congress required them to do in the same act, and is their primary mission.

 

[68charger440]

I have not misunderstood the basis for the laws and regulations, but at this point we have all made our points and it is best that we respectfully agree to disagree.
BigAl07 I applaud you for not blocking my comments even though we obviously disagree on so many points. Any further debate on this thread would likely digress further and that was never my intent. So my final word will be to sincerely agree with BigAl107's final words "Good day and safe flights!"

 

[Butch Clay]

Interesting thread. Lots of good info in here for a newbie, from good people.

I have a general question--or two--for anyone who might take the time to answer: (Thanks in advance!)

1) Do I understand correctly: If I have a the proper certification/license (107, etc.), I can then start offering aerial imagery for sale?

2) Should I assume that the market for drone imagery is already saturated and that starting a business might prove problematic because of the ready availability of drones and cheap start up costs? (As in what happened to the photography industry with the advent of easy digital capture and image editing.)

I am a former teacher who recently lost my job at a private therapeutic boarding school. ("Good bye to all that!")
My pretty limited experience with a Phantom III Standard over the past winter really gave me the fever, so I naturally want to consider doing it for a living.

I would gravitate towards providing imagery to farmers, foresters, other land holders, as well as real estate people and basically anyone needing aerial imagery.

Any perspective welcome. And thanks.

 

[Sagebrush]

...to put the FAA back in its place and keep it out of commerce which is not it's perview...

There's a reason that flying commercial in the U.S. (unlike Malaysia etc) is safe. And it's because it's a highly regulated industry–both in the air and in the maintenance hangar.

The FAA–by one name or the other–has regulated commercial aviation since the 1926 Air Commerce Act. So I don't understand why one would think it is beyond their purview.

When I board a 737, I'm **** glad I don't have to worry about what's going to fail or whether we're going to collide with another airliner. And hopefully not suck up a P4.

SB

 

[Bazza.]

If you aren't already a current Part 61 Pilot then you have to study on your own (you can purchase a course which I do suggest) and take the test at an FAA authorized testing center for $150. That's really it. The test has zero "hands on" training what so ever. It's almost comical when you think about it.

The test we do is really only a competence test, It doesn't matter if you cant make it sing (luckily for me) But it does check that you have the ability to fly non gps assisted (atti mode) and that you can recover the drone or know what to do should a fly away occur. I'm about to send off the CAA application now which will include "the form" an operators manual which includes risk assessments, operating procedures, a certificate of competence from said testing company and a few other operational details, all along with my hard earned cash.

They don't make it easy to be straight here.

 

[BigAl07]

1) Do I understand correctly: If I have a the proper certification/license (107, etc.), I can then start offering aerial imagery for sale?

That's pretty much spot on. Some states do require an additional "State" permit (North Carolina being one of them) but that's easy peasy.

2) Should I assume that the market for drone imagery is already saturated and that starting a business might prove problematic because of the ready availability of drones and cheap start up costs? (As in what happened to the photography industry with the advent of easy digital capture and image editing.)

That depends... your specific market/region may or may not be saturated. While it's likely you would have some competition regardless where you are it may be small or it may be huge. Only way to know is to research in your specific market and then try to make an educated decision. What I always suggest people do before making any big business decisions is take the time to prepare (or hire it out) a detailed and elaborate Business Plan. This process will teach you about your local market and could actually change your business model before the business is even started.

It's very possible the market is saturated but until you dig in locally and find out it's just a guess one way or the other.

Good luck and Safe Flights

 

[68charger440]

The FAA–by one name or the other–has regulated commercial aviation since the 1926 Air Commerce Act. So I don't understand why one would think it is beyond their purview.

SB

Please re-read my statement. I said commerce, not commercial flights. Two different things. The FAA regulates commercial flights, but has never regulated commerce as in "the interchange of goods or commodities"

 

[Butch Clay]

That's pretty much spot on. Some states do require an additional "State" permit (North Carolina being one of them) but that's easy peasy.



That depends... your specific market/region may or may not be saturated. While it's likely you would have some competition regardless where you are it may be small or it may be huge. Only way to know is to research in your specific market and then try to make an educated decision. What I always suggest people do before making any big business decisions is take the time to prepare (or hire it out) a detailed and elaborate Business Plan. This process will teach you about your local market and could actually change your business model before the business is even started.

It's very possible the market is saturated but until you dig in locally and find out it's just a guess one way or the other.

Good luck and Safe Flights

That's pretty much spot on. Some states do require an additional "State" permit (North Carolina being one of them) but that's easy peasy

That depends... your specific market/region may or may not be saturated. While it's likely you would have some competition regardless where you are it may be small or it may be huge. Only way to know is to research in your specific market and then try to make an educated decision. What I always suggest people do before making any big business decisions is take the time to prepare (or hire it out) a detailed and elaborate Business Plan. This process will teach you about your local market and could actually change your business model before the business is even started.

It's very possible the market is saturated but until you dig in locally and find out it's just a guess one way or the other.

Good luck and Safe Flights

***************************************************************************************************

Thank You very much for your very helpful, timely response, Sir.

If you're in WNC then you're probably not terribly far from me. I am in Northwest SC, fifteen miles or so south of Highlands.

I flew a Phantom III Standard for a few months and was amazed at the quality of photos and video I could capture with that entry model. I can only imagine how great it would be to fly and shoot with one commensurate with pro-level capabilities.

 

[Buk]

Interesting thread. Lots of good info in here for a newbie, from good people.

I have a general question--or two--for anyone who might take the time to answer: (Thanks in advance!)

1) Do I understand correctly: If I have a the proper certification/license (107, etc.), I can then start offering aerial imagery for sale?

2) Should I assume that the market for drone imagery is already saturated and that starting a business might prove problematic because of the ready availability of drones and cheap start up costs? (As in what happened to the photography industry with the advent of easy digital capture and image editing.)

I am a former teacher who recently lost my job at a private therapeutic boarding school. ("Good bye to all that!")
My pretty limited experience with a Phantom III Standard over the past winter really gave me the fever, so I naturally want to consider doing it for a living.

I would gravitate towards providing imagery to farmers, foresters, other land holders, as well as real estate people and basically anyone needing aerial imagery.

Any perspective welcome. And thanks.

Sure you can make a living doing aerial photography. /end sarcasm

You must be a photographer able to locate an interesting subject, have an understanding of the science and art of photography and editing skills to produce something desirable and interesting in the very competitive market place while having insurance and business licenses your location may require.

Possible yes, easy perhaps not.

 

[sar104]

I have not misunderstood the basis for the laws and regulations, but at this point we have all made our points and it is best that we respectfully agree to disagree.
BigAl07 I applaud you for not blocking my comments even though we obviously disagree on so many points. Any further debate on this thread would likely digress further and that was never my intent. So my final word will be to sincerely agree with BigAl107's final words "Good day and safe flights!"

Fair enough, but if you disagree then why not actually explain, specifically, what you disagree with and then we could discuss it. As it stands, all you have done is asserted an opinion with no effort to support it with any arguments.

 

[dangerd]

Not questioning 336 sar104 just saying I don't know. Clearly you are correct and there ARE situations where a hobbyist can sell footage. I have downloaded that memo and saved it in my files. Thanks!

 

[Sagebrush]

Please re-read my statement. I said commerce, not commercial flights. Two different things. The FAA regulates commercial flights, but has never regulated commerce as in "the interchange of goods or commodities"

You're right. How are they regulating the interchange of goods?

SB

 

[68charger440]

I have made my argument already. Maybe I am just not articulate enough to get it through to you. What it really comes down to is a philosophical belief in limited government vs the nanny state that we are moving to. The federal government should protect our borders from foreign invasion, settle disputes between states that cannot be settled on their own, promote American interests throughout the world, and I'm sure a good number of other things. But me selling a photo of a sunset that I took with my drone is not dangerous and it forcing me to get the 107 cert just because I sold it rather than gave it away doesn't change that one bit. It is either dangerous to fly without the 107 or it isn't.
I am not aware of a single person being killed by accident due to a consumer drone pilot error., and if there are some examples I can find thousands of other examples of people killed by other unregulated activities ranging from crossing the street to mountain climbing. It is simply the government mandating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and a power/ money grab. If I take shots of restricted areas, or break some other existing law or pose a clear and present danger then I have no problem with them coming after me. Otherwise, I am an adult and don't need a nanny to watch over my every action. Either require a test for drones pilots or don't, but don't base the requirement on whether or not I made a penny off of it.
Should we have to take a test before we are allowed to walk across the street or take a hike up a mountain? There are countless people killed crossing the streeet throughout the country. Far more dangerous than any damage that consumer drones are likely to cause when taking innocent pictures.
We have helmets for our kids on bikes and no doubt it save some lives, so let's pass a law forcing everyone to wear helmets when we are outdoors because more people trip on the curb and hit their head on the sidewalk and die than people who are injured by drones.
Me...I am willing to cross the street and take my chances and resent anyone telling me what to do. If that action will only physically hurt me and no one else then it is nobody's businessbut my own. If you want to live in a protective bubble then have at it, but don't force me to live in your bubble. I want to live my live with the excitement and possible dangers that may come with it.

 

[GadgetGuy]

2) Should I assume that the market for drone imagery is already saturated and that starting a business might prove problematic because of the ready availability of drones and cheap start up costs? (As in what happened to the photography industry with the advent of easy digital capture and image editing.)

My pretty limited experience with a Phantom III Standard over the past winter really gave me the fever, so I naturally want to consider doing it for a living.

I would gravitate towards providing imagery to farmers, foresters, other land holders, as well as real estate people and basically anyone needing aerial imagery.

Any perspective welcome. And thanks.

As an aspiring drone photographer, seeking to make a profit, you face the exact same challenges as any other photographer in the photography industry/profession. In order to make money, you need paying clients in sufficient quantity that will allow you to earn a profit. Some 95% of your time will be spent marketing and selling trying to find those paying clients to shoot for, with the other 5% of the time flying/shooting the jobs you find, and editing and delivering the final product. It's really all about your marketing and sales ability. In the end, if you are really good at marketing and sales, there are are far more lucrative businesses than drone photography where you could apply those talents. Keep it as a hobby, and try and sell some of your existing aerial images to prospective clients, and then, if you still think there is enough interest after doing so, based upon actual sales of your hobbyist shots, get your 107 and give it a go! Unless you already have a client base willing to pay enough to justify the effort, find your income elsewhere, and keep enjoying your hobby! Once you do anything for a living, it will no longer be as fun and enjoyable as it was when it was just your hobby, where you only have yourself to please.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I am a former teacher who recently lost my job at a private therapeutic boarding school.
My pretty limited experience with a Phantom III Standard over the past winter really gave me the fever, so I naturally want to consider doing it for a living.

I would gravitate towards providing imagery to farmers, foresters, other land holders, as well as real estate people and basically anyone needing aerial imagery.

Any perspective welcome. And thanks.

New idea: since teaching is your real profession, if you are looking for a way to get involved in the drone photography business, the real money is in teaching others how to run a successful drone photography business, or how to take and process outstanding aerial images with a drone. Millions of drone owners are all aspiring drone photographers, and willing to pay something for education that will teach them those skills. You still have to put butts into seats, or sell your Udemy or online course, so it still comes back to marketing and sales, but what better way to learn how to run a successful drone photo business than to teach it, and get paid by your students to do the research! Most formerly successful professional photographers have rebranded themselves into photo educators, sharing their formerly profitable skills to the masses for a fee in photo workshops and safaris and video courses! It's not your fault that your students may be bad at marketing, when they fail to make a living at it!

 

[sar104]

I have made my argument already. Maybe I am just not articulate enough to get it through to you. What it really comes down to is a philosophical belief in limited government vs the nanny state that we are moving to. The federal government should protect our borders from foreign invasion, settle disputes between states that cannot be settled on their own, promote American interests throughout the world, and I'm sure a good number of other things. But me selling a photo of a sunset that I took with my drone is not dangerous and it forcing me to get the 107 cert just because I sold it rather than gave it away doesn't change that one bit. It is either dangerous to fly without the 107 or it isn't.
I am not aware of a single person being killed by accident due to a consumer drone pilot error., and if there are some examples I can find thousands of other examples of people killed by other unregulated activities ranging from crossing the street to mountain climbing. It is simply the government mandating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and a power/ money grab. If I take shots of restricted areas, or break some other existing law or pose a clear and present danger then I have no problem with them coming after me. Otherwise, I am an adult and don't need a nanny to watch over my every action. Either require a test for drones pilots or don't, but don't base the requirement on whether or not I made a penny off of it.
Should we have to take a test before we are allowed to walk across the street or take a hike up a mountain? There are countless people killed crossing the streeet throughout the country. Far more dangerous than any damage that consumer drones are likely to cause when taking innocent pictures.
We have helmets for our kids on bikes and no doubt it save some lives, so let's pass a law forcing everyone to wear helmets when we are outdoors because more people trip on the curb and hit their head on the sidewalk and die than people who are injured by drones.
Me...I am willing to cross the street and take my chances and resent anyone telling me what to do. If that action will only physically hurt me and no one else then it is nobody's businessbut my own. If you want to live in a protective bubble then have at it, but don't force me to live in your bubble. I want to live my live with the excitement and possible dangers that may come with it.

Yes - that's great, but you are not arguing the point that you originally made, and you are not arguing about the facts of the law. The FAA is not regulating commerce. Congress required them to regulate sUAS operations with the exception of recreational flights. That's what they are doing. In the same way that to fly a manned aircraft in the NAS you need a license and registration, the same applies to sUAS operations - except for recreational flight which was a special category carved out by Congress, presumably because they were convinced that it did not impact the safety of the NAS.

Nothing about commerce in there. Section 336 doesn't mention, Part 101 doesn't mention it, and Part 107 doesn't mention it. And, once you have a Part 107 RPIC license, the FAA regulations do not restrict what you do with it.

Can you point to anything in 14 CFR Part 107 that restricts commerce in any way? Rhetorical question of course - there isn't anything. Part 107 is entirely about safety. You can conduct as much commerce as you like under Part 107 - no restrictions. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[68charger440]

Yes - that's great, but you are not arguing the point that you originally made, and you are not arguing about the facts of the law. The FAA is not regulating commerce. Congress required them to regulate sUAS operations with the exception of recreational flights. That's what they are doing. In the same way that to fly a manned aircraft in the NAS you need a license and registration, the same applies to sUAS operations - except for recreational flight which was a special category carved out by Congress, presumably because they were convinced that it did not impact the safety of the NAS.

Nothing about commerce in there. Section 336 doesn't mention, Part 101 doesn't mention it, and Part 107 doesn't mention it. And, once you have a Part 107 RPIC license, the FAA regulations do not restrict what you do with it.

Can you point to anything in 14 CFR Part 107 that restricts commerce in any way? Rhetorical question of course - there isn't anything. Part 107 is entirely about safety. You can conduct as much commerce as you like under Part 107 - no restrictions. Why is this so hard to understand?

I am still arguing the same point as my first post in this thread which is that the laws and or regulations are ambiguous and overreaching.

This is my first post in this thread..."Because the FAA rules are often ambiguous, and local jurisdictions often make laws which conflict with state laws, and the state laws in turn conflict with Federal laws. The FAA is no exception as evidenced by the overreaching drone registration rule which was overturned.
If you want to be a lemming and follow the rest off the cliff, that may good for you, but the questioning and exploration of the fine details of the law is necessary to the refinement of the laws so that good laws are clear and concise, and bad laws are challenged and then either overturned or modified.
Too many people accept the govt reasoning of "Because I said so" without question as if the politicians always have our best interests in mind and never make bad laws when in fact the laws are more often filled with corrupt special interest considerations (read thinly veiled bribes) and need to be challenged or at least questioned.
I would like to see more people question poorly conceived laws or rules instead of blindly following the lemming law!"

I believe you are confused as to what my original post was.
Please show me where I say anything about commerce in the original post in bold and italicised above. My comments regarding commerce were in response to later posts. You can see from the original post that my point was then and still is now about conflicting, overreaching and confusing govt laws, rules etc.
To support that assertion you need to look no further than this site to see the large number of threads and posts concerning the confusion and conflicts in jurisdiction in regards to drone laws, rules etc.

 

[N017RW]

Confusion amongst or by laypeople is not an indication of the state of the art.

Time has shown that short of attempted airspace controls the lower level laws, ordinances, etc., regarding SUA operations from terrestrial locations are clear and enforceable as they are tied to real property rights.