Phantom for commercial use ok or not?

Meta4 · Nov 1, 2014

I'm not in a position to comment on what Amazon may or may not do at Austin.
But on the charging for editing the FAA has been pretty clear what their opinion is.
They are concerned with commercial flight and they would consider the type of flight you describe as part of a commercial activity regardless of any fiddle in what is/is not charged for. Here's a piece explaining this ...
http://www.inman.com/2014/06/25/faa-say ... hobbyists/

I think that given the number of people doing this, if you fly safely and sensibly and don't do anything to bring yourself to the FAA's attention (stay below the radar), there's very little chance you would get caught out. That's what most of the operators you talked about are doing. Should you give it a try? Only you can make that decision.

jtfarabee · Nov 4, 2014

Commercial usage is up in the air (pun intended) right now. Many people are getting away with doing it, the FAA wants it to stop, but the reality is that the FAA does not have the ability to regulate aircraft based solely upon their use. They can't regulate commercial drone use illegal without regulating ALL drone use. And to do that, they would have to have a very clear definition that separates "drone" from other remote aircraft. Basically, they have to remake all the rules about what is allowed to fly as hobby, and what requires some sort of license. In the mean time, the federal courts have ruled that remote quads are not considered aircraft under FAA jurisdiction. That may change. Regarding news outlets, I have been shooting an event for the past couple of weeks, and several national media outlets asked for my footage, only to be told by their legal departments that they aren't allowed to run it, even though I was not paid. That may be an issue of liability more than licensing, but either way their lawyers aren't making the producers very happy. Some of the smaller outlets didn't have a problem running my stuff, though.

RussA · Nov 4, 2014

"... the federal courts have ruled that remote quads are not considered aircraft under FAA jurisdiction."
This statement appears often on this forum, but is not accurate. One administrative law judge (ALJ) has so ruled (the Pirker case), and so far as I know that's the only one. I'll stand corrected if someone sends me another link. ALJ opinions have almost no precedent value, either to district or circuit courts, which generally tend to defer to the administrative agencies tasked by Congress with the regulation duty. The last I Heard the FAA intended to appeal that ruling, but the law there is complex. The appeal goes to an official in the Dept. of Transportation, if I remember right. I sent in a FOIA request for briefs and other filings on this matter but have received no reply or even an acknowledgment, after five months. I could sue them to force a reply, but at this time it doesn't seem worth the effort. There may not even be such an appeal underway. The FAA is likely to comply with the ALJ ruling until such time as they complete the rule-making process under the 2012 law Congress passed giving them the authority to regulate "drones" rather than fight over interpretation of old law that is about to become obsolete. The fact is, though, that anyone dependent on the FAA (e.g. pilots, frequent flyers, commercial agencies like freight carriers, etc.) are well-advised not to piss them off. Pardon the language. For the ordinary hobby flyer who is not a licensed pilot, etc., but occasionally picks up some money flying his Phantom, or uses it in a separate unrelated business (e.g. farmer, or like me, writing novels) is probably safe in ignoring the FAA.