Threatening Email about FAA regulation

[LuvMyTJ]

It's not a law yet... Ignore the Prick

Please do not spread misinformation. The info you provided is incorrect.
You may not use your UAV for money (anything non-hobby) without a 333 exemption from the FAA and a minimum of a sports pilots license.

As far as the OP goes your willing disregard for the rules is why the hobby is in such jeopardy.
And please refrain from cursing on the forum.

 

[snerd]

If you check the authors of the many drone restrictive new state laws, you will see that allmost all have (R) after their names. ...You know, the "deregulate", "business friendly" and "jobs" people. The same is true with with the general (Fox viewer) public and law enforcement, all of which would tell you they are for "less restrictive government", yet it is those very exact same people who are demanding that something needs to "be done" about "all these (bad) drones".

Be very, very careful who you support.

On the other side of the coin, it is people like FlyTrex with their contests (badges) to see who can fly the highest (over 400 ft) and furthest (beyond line of sight) that only add to the problem. FlyTrex is an excellent "black box" device but their marketing goes (too) far beyond that use. It can be useful proving you were not where somebody said you were, for example.

There are many people, as you know, here on this forum who advocate for a kind of "wild west" mentality that doesn't help matters either.

Rules are the price of civilization but an authoritarian mentality is the fuel of a police state. The trick is in finding and maintaining the balance.

So, it's the Republicans and Fox viewers who are responsible for drone laws?!

 

[phantomized]

Buddy, just charge for editing and fly your drone for free. As long as your intention is not to profit from FLYING the drone or the footage you get from flying the drone, you are fine. For example, if someone who doesn't have a 333 exemption flies his drone and gets paid for it, then he passes his footage to you to do the editing, you can't get in trouble for him flying commercially, your job is to edit.

 

[480sparky]

Buddy, just charge for editing and fly your drone for free. As long as your intention is not to profit from FLYING the drone or the footage you get from flying the drone, you are fine. For example, if someone who doesn't have a 333 exemption flies his drone and gets paid for it, then he passes his footage to you to do the editing, you can't get in trouble for him flying commercially, your job is to edit.

Here's $20 worth of crack cocaine. But I'm not going to charge you for it. I'll charge you $20 for the baggie it's in.... the cocaine is free.

You think that will work in court?

 

[phantomized]

Here's $20 worth of crack cocaine. But I'm not going to charge you for it. I'll charge you $20 for the baggie it's in.... the cocaine is free.

You think that will work in court?

What are you talking about? Possession of crack is illegal, with or without the baggie. Also the baggie is super cheap, editing a video is not, one can argue the editing is more expensive than the footage itself. Either way if you were to get away with trafficking the rock charge you'd still be charged for possession. Really bad analogy my friend.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Buddy, just charge for editing and fly your drone for free. As long as your intention is not to profit from FLYING the drone or the footage you get from flying the drone, you are fine. For example, if someone who doesn't have a 333 exemption flies his drone and gets paid for it, then he passes his footage to you to do the editing, you can't get in trouble for him flying commercially, your job is to edit.

If this was a regular practice by someone don't you think the FAA would see right through that thin veil? That would not fly, pun intended.

 

[480sparky]

What are you talking about? Possession of crack is illegal, with or without the baggie. Also the baggie is super cheap, editing a video is not, one can argue the editing is more expensive than the footage itself. Either way if you were to get away with trafficking the rock charge you'd still be charged for possession. Really bad analogy my friend.

Since I'm not selling the crack, just the baggie, I can't get charged with selling a controlled substance. I'm giving it away. Do you see the connection now?

 

[phantomized]

If this was a regular practice by someone don't you think the FAA would see right through that thin veil? That would not fly, pun intended.

If they can see right through it then they should criminalize the possession of such footage. It's not illegal to posses the footage, only to shoot it. Technically speaking, someone else can fly and gather the footage, possibly with or without the 333 exemption, and then you can edit it.

Since I'm not selling the crack, just the baggie, I can't get charged with selling a controlled substance. I'm giving it away. Do you see the connection now?

I don't see a connection, you may be able to get away with a good lawyer for selling the substance, but the possession you can't argue.

 

[480sparky]

If they can see right through it then they should criminalize the possession of such footage. It's not illegal to posses the footage, only to shoot it. Technically speaking, someone else can fly and gather the footage, possibly with or without the 333 exemption, and then you can edit it.



I don't see a connection, you may be able to get away with a good lawyer for selling the substance, but the possession you can't argue.

You're clouding the issue with possession. In effect, you're creating your own roadblock. I said NOTHING about possession. Nothing. Fuggedabowdit. Forget possession.

NOW do you see it?

 

[hog guts]

If a guy made money on the weekends by giving away paint but getting paid tax free to paint houses I'd say he would owe the state sales tax because everyone knows what he is doing by making his price lower by not paying taxes. Also be in trouble for tax evasion most likely. Even though his ad could say "free paint for your house; you only pay me to deliver it or apply it.

We hear what you are saying but there are countless examples of people getting in trouble by trying to skirt laws like this. It's risky at best and certainly not worth challenging for the reward in my opinion. If you truly wanted to do it for fun you could accept tips in cash and take it under the table. But you would be better off finding a local inspection or real estate company and doing it for them for x amount each. Hell, for a hundred bucks I bet a company that does it would hire you for the mere fact they make money from you cause they charge more for their service and time. I'd be your problem to report it. If I was the competition is hire you and do rice the work. The other guys a dodo not an entrepreneur lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NEair]

Considering the fines the FAA can dole out I wouldn't risk it. Besides when you do things right you don't have to look over your shoulder.

 

[Meta4]

Anyone that thinks they can fool the FAA with the fly for free/pay for editing story, is stupider than they think the FAA is.

 

[turbulence]

333 Exemption is only a small part to fly your drone for business. There are other requirements too. Somebody flying the drone needs to be a licensed pilot. Sorry but the FAA already knows about charging for editing.

Section 333 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

 

[phantomized]

333 Exemption is only a small part to fly your drone for business. There are other requirements too. Somebody flying the drone needs to be a licensed pilot. Sorry but the FAA already knows about charging for editing.

Section 333 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Yes, if someone is making $100,000 annually I can see that only charging for editing would be suspicious and outright stupid since you can afford to pay for your exemption and any other requirements. But for someone who wants to make $100 here and there, I would say, get someone else to fly, and you edit and charge for editing. That's it.

 

[phantomized]

Anyone that thinks they can fool the FAA with the fly for free/pay for editing story, is stupider than they think the FAA is.

I'm not saying the FAA is stupid. All I'm saying is, if you made $500 in one year, nobody gives a $h!^ except for others who have paid their "dues".

 

[SteveMann]

to be clear, YES IT IS THE LAW.
Ignorance of the law like this is no defense.

OK. Quote the FAA rule that makes commercial flight by a hobby operator illegal.

 

[SteveMann]

Buddy, just charge for editing and fly your drone for free. As long as your intention is not to profit from FLYING the drone or the footage you get from flying the drone, you are fine. For example, if someone who doesn't have a 333 exemption flies his drone and gets paid for it, then he passes his footage to you to do the editing, you can't get in trouble for him flying commercially, your job is to edit.

The FAA has been on to this ruse ever since George Eastman made Brownie Cameras and Clyde Cessna made airplanes.

 

[Meta4]

The FAA have made their feelings on the matter pretty clear here.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
They have a rather broad definition of commercial use and aren't persuaded by excuses.

 

[SteveMann]

Interesting that no one has really answered the OP's question.

The FAA will not issue a violation letter based on hearsay. They have to have provable evidence of a violation and a crybaby whining that you are flying illegally won't do.

The local FSDO may send you an educational letter. The educational letter has absolutely no legal standing and will not compel you to respond to the charges. It will be carefully crafted to scare the **** out of you, but it is not a legal order. That can only come from the enforcement division.
If you get such a violation letter, it will list the rules you have busted, the date, time and location of the violation, and a suggested civil forfeiture to settle the matter. That letter should be taken to an aviation attorney.

At this time there is no FAA rule that would make your flight illegal. (I am still waiting for someone to tell me what rule would be broken). The SkyPan case is an attempt to establish that precedent using aircraft certification as the basis for enforcement. It is going to be an interesting case to watch.

 

[SteveMann]

The FAA have made their feelings on the matter pretty clear here.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf
They have a rather broad definition of commercial use and aren't persuaded by excuses.

The Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft has been put in abeyance by a court in the DC circuit. [link].
The lawsuit that stopped the FAA from enforcing Section 336 of the FMRA contends that the FAA overstepped it's authority in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.