Is a list available other than a few violations from the FAA (poster boys) for commercial violations?
That's a short list. One. And the FAA lost that case.
I know one broker using drone video for a 2.5 million dollar home. the owner said here son did it for her. Yeah right... So if that's the case then fine, but the Broker is using it in his listing. He makes money for the sale thus it's legal.
No, see my earlier post in this thread. The FAA considers any flight to be commercial in nature if anyone connected to the flight, even tangentially, profits or uses the flight in furtherance of a business. In this example, the broker used the video which in the eyes of the FAA makes the flight commercial. This was the stretch of logic the FAA field officers used to send letters to drone owners based solely on YouTube posts as YT potentially made money on the advertising attached to the video. Also, profit does not enter into the equation - just the opportunity or intent to profit.
But, for now, the NTSB has said that the FAA has no rules covering personal drones.
From:
http://dronelawjournal.com/:
The Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") held that drones (which he referred to as "model aircraft.") are not aircraft under the federal definitions, and therefore the FAA had no jurisdiction over Pirker's flight. Not surprisingly, the FAA appealed the decision immediately to the full NTSB Board.
In a twelve page opinion reversing the ALJ’s March 7, 2014 decisional order, the NTSB stated:
“This case calls upon us to ascertain a clear, reasonable definition of ‘aircraft’ for purposes of the prohibition on careless and reckless operation in 14 C.F.R. § 91.13(a). We must look no further than the clear, unambiguous plain language of 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(6) and 14 C.F.R. § 1.1: an ‘aircraft’ is any ‘device’ ‘used for flight in the air.’ This definition includes any aircraft, manned or unmanned, large or small. The prohibition on careless and reckless operation in § 91.13(a) applies with respect to the operation of any ‘aircraft’ other than those subject to parts 101 and 103. We therefore remand to the law judge for a full factual hearing to determine whether respondent operated the aircraft ‘in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another,’ contrary to § 91.13(a).”
In the end, Pirker settled the case that never should have been brought against him by the FAA, for $1,100.00, with no admission of wrongdoing on his part. The FAA got an NTSB decision that drones are "aircraft" as that term is defined under the federal statutory and regulatory definitions, and
subject to a single FAR— 91.13 (recklessness). Unless and until definitions of aircraft change, or a new definition for drones is created, drones will remain aircraft.