I tend to agree, but this is an interesting webpage that Jussaguy provided us. This webpage he found is a lawyer selling his 333 application services. It's certainly not FAA approved information, it's clearly marketing spin with a clear motivation.All these.....
- The FAA requires that you have at least two people participating in each drone flight, a pilot in command and a visual observer. This means you have to have two people on site anyway. You’re going to have to hire someone to participate in each flight no matter what. Just make that second person the pilot in command and make sure he has a pilots license or Airman certificate.
- Presumably, you want to obtain the a section 333 exemption from the FAA to fly your drone because you want to make money. This means your job as the business owner is to go out and get business, close sales and develop your business model. It would be highly inefficient for you to spend all your time flying the drone.
- It is typically easy to find a drone pilot to hire an independent contractor business who meets the FAA’s requirements for the pilot in command. Our droll law team can help you identify several local resources who will likely be able to refer multiple pilots to you to act as the pilot in command for an hourly rate between 10 and $20 per hour.
- Holding the section 333 granted by the FAA is where your real business value lies. Would you rather hold the section 333 exemption or be the pilot?
- Sure you still get to fly your drone as a recreational hobbyist whenever you want.
ARE ASININE. Ridiculous... i can't even begin to wrap my head around the bs.
This webpage is a great example of a lawyer encouraging potential customers to spend $3500 with him to apply for a 333 exemption on your behalf so you can make big money. It's true you don't need a pilot license to obtain a 333 exemption, but explaining the details is a bit shady IMO. He's touting that possessing a 333 "is where your real business value lies". The wording in this webpage is quite motivating, clever, confusing and it's not all true.
Example:
The lawyer's webpage says:
Just make that second person the pilot in command and make sure he has a pilots license or Airman certificate.
This is false. The "or" should be "and", as explained below. Also, this same sentence says you have to hire a PIC, the second person. Bullet 3 goes on to say it's easy to find PICs with the required pilot license, driver license and drone experience for $20/hr to pilot your craft. Really?
All 333 exemptions (like this one) state on page 4:
13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC must hold either an airline transport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. The PIC must also hold a current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license......
This says that in addition to the pilot license you ALSO need an Airman medical certificate, or drivers license. Since we all have a drivers license, who would want to pay for an airman's medical certificate which requires a medical exam if it's not needed? The point is, the PIC must have the pilot license and a driver license, or Airman medical cert.
In bullet one, I especially like the clever omission of the word "medical", between "Airman" and "Certificate", to call it what it is. I wonder about the lawyer's motivation for this. Accident? Intentional?
Most of the other wording in his webpage is correct, but the "OR" above should have been "AND". Again, accident or intentional?
Isn't it funny how a 3 letter word can change the whole meaning of an important issue, and be absolutely wrong. A 3 letter error. You gotta hand it to this lawyer, that's pretty clever.

I want to apologize to the OP for highjacking his thread. This thread morphed to a side related subject. Sorry about that.
Last edited: