What do you guys charge for aerial media?

[Jussaguy]

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.

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.

You are saying and but from everything I heard the PIC needs an Airman's Certificate to know how to read the sectionals.

Let me ask you a question. If you're right that you need a full on pilot's license, and you may be, why? You are not flying a plane or need to learn how to operate one from within the craft, nor are you putting lives at risk by flying it without a test on how to. You don't need a drivers license to ride a bicycle on bicycle lanes. Why would you need a pilots license if you're not even allowed to go farther than anyone else without one?

Without a pilots license you have to abide by all the same rules as the hobbyist fliers without an exemption so why would it be necessary to get a pilots license to make money?

Either way, instead of getting 50 different answers from people that aren't sure until you land on the answer that sounds right to you, why don't you pont up and ask a lawyer for guidance or just call the FAA directly?

 

[Jussaguy]

You do not need a lawyer. I did not pay anything for mine, and it took 5 months for me to get mine.

He has one and I'm pretty sure in the last 2 months alone it has shot up to more than 2 months. At least that's what I'm being told.

Unlike you, he's not comfortable with just having one. Having one alone, doesn't make you exempt.

If you think of it as a drivers license, you have to get "permission" to take the driving test in order to get the actual license and it reads on that permit paper "this is not an actual license". I know this because I recently got hit by a girl with a permit and no real license yet and because of it, she's in a crap load of trouble, I post the pic because I took all the pics after the accident.

I respect John for taking care of business because in the eventuality where he gets himself in some sort of trouble, if he's correct, the 333 is not worth the paper it's printed on.

However, I think he's looking for the answer in the wrong venue.

No, let me rephrase, he is obviously and definitely looking for the answer in the wrong venue as evidenced by the responses and his responses to the responses.

I will contact my lawyer, we have a full time one that got ours, I didn't pay someone that specialized in it, but he knows how to read it and keep in mind John, that it might have changed since we got ours. It's gonna change again but if you get it while in the correct parameters, you don't need to re-apply if they change the rules around.

And no, I'm surprised how three letters can change the entire meaning of a sentence. In fact 2 words can in your own example. You use "and" & "or", or changes if as much as and. One letter can complete change the meaning.

A million dollars.

20 million dollars.

I am worth 20 million dollars.

You are worth 20 million dollars.

Furthermore, a number can completely change the meaning of an idea and for sure lawyers, and many others use these words to their advantage but in legalese there is no room for error and the difference between and/or is massive and the documents for how to achieve a 333 are written in plain English, not legalese so you should trust yourself and not fish for the answer you want because you're rejecting those answers anyway. Anything that doesn't agree with what you are interpreting you are rejecting with vigor and I say that with appreciation of your conviction but what are you looking for here?

 

[Jussaguy]

I know of 2 that are making money with their phantoms and neither has a 333.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I know a guy that killed someone and got away with it.

I really don't, but that sentence can be true.

 

[maseman88]

Yeah, I know a guy that killed someone and got away with it.

I really don't, but that sentence can be true.

So you're questioning that they are getting paid or that I know them? I hate forums...

 

[Jussaguy]

So you're questioning that they are getting paid or that I know them? I hate forums...

I am not questioning anything.

I am saying just because someone is doing something, doesn't NECESSARILY mean that it's being done right.

To wit, the girl above was driving with what her AND her mother thought was a drivers permit until she hit me and then was charged for driving without a license or permit even though she thought she had one.

I'm in your boat. I have an exemption and I hope I'm using it legally. Doesn't mean I am. You're hatred of internet forums aside.

 

[Cale262]

So you're questioning that they are getting paid or that I know them? I hate forums...

I belong to a group that includes many guys who are and have been making a great living without the 333 and from what I've heard, very soon the rules are all going to change (which no doubt will make those who went through the 333 process angry) in regards to commercial drone use in the USA. It will soon be much easier and the 333 will be a thing of the past. Of course the guys who are operating commercially without the 333 do so at their own risk.

 

[Jussaguy]

I belong to a group that includes many guys who are and have been making a great living without the 333 and from what I've heard, very soon the rules are all going to change (which no doubt will make those who went through the 333 process angry) in regards to commercial drone use in the USA. It will soon be much easier and the 333 will be a thing of the past. Of course the guys who are operating commercially without the 333 do so at their own risk.

I have actually heard the complete opposite. I have heard that indeed you will not only need a 333 exemption but an actual pilot's license (as in one where you need at least a sport license).

As a matter of fact, it is completely possible that when we got our 333, an Airman's Certificate was the only necessity and now John might be right that his 333 is not binding until he has it (An actual piots license).

This is my current understanding, you need a 333 to LEGALLY make money, and if you don't have a pilot's license, you are not allowed to go out of the FAA mandated 400, LOS, etc and if you want to be able to request different altititudes and flying to say 1500 feet by request of the flight tower in your area in a sectional than you need that pilot license and not if you don't. I am not sure of this.

People need to stop saying "My friend makes money without a 333" because all I see when someone writes that is "I have a friend that is contributing to the problem for people that are legit". Of course you can fly under the radar (no pun intended) and make money without a 333 but if you're doing more than wedding and batmitzvahs (sp?) and are using it for things like agriculture, cinema, TV, mapping, etc, I would highly advise not listening to the guessing and conjecture by people that don't know and find out what you are supposed to do.


I get that people don't like "the government sticking their fingers in my life, blah blah blah" but when I'm flying, be it in a 747 or a Phantom 4, I would like to know that the people around me have an inkling of an idea of how to know where I am, where they are, and that they have some understanding of flying. Just because you are not in the cockpit, (you are but its on the ground), your Phantom 4 is looked at as any other aircraft in the sky. These rules aren't there to bother you, they are there for the same reasons there are speed limits, drivers licenses, traffic lights and stop signs.

The John Locke method is in your and mines best interest and doing things haphazardly is a detriment to everyone and the ones who stand to lose the most are the perpetrators of the law, not the followers of it.

 

[maseman88]

I have actually heard the complete opposite. I have heard that indeed you will not only need a 333 exemption but an actual pilot's license (as in one where you need at least a sport license).

As a matter of fact, it is completely possible that when we got our 333, an Airman's Certificate was the only necessity and now John might be right that his 333 is not binding until he has it (An actual piots license).

This is my current understanding, you need a 333 to LEGALLY make money, and if you don't have a pilot's license, you are not allowed to go out of the FAA mandated 400, LOS, etc and if you want to be able to request different altititudes and flying to say 1500 feet by request of the flight tower in your area in a sectional than you need that pilot license and not if you don't. I am not sure of this.

People need to stop saying "My friend makes money without a 333" because all I see when someone writes that is "I have a friend that is contributing to the problem for people that are legit". Of course you can fly under the radar (no pun intended) and make money without a 333 but if you're doing more than wedding and batmitzvahs (sp?) and are using it for things like agriculture, cinema, TV, mapping, etc, I would highly advise not listening to the guessing and conjecture by people that don't know and find out what you are supposed to do.


I get that people don't like "the government sticking their fingers in my life, blah blah blah" but when I'm flying, be it in a 747 or a Phantom 4, I would like to know that the people around me have an inkling of an idea of how to know where I am, where they are, and that they have some understanding of flying. Just because you are not in the cockpit, (you are but its on the ground), your Phantom 4 is looked at as any other aircraft in the sky. These rules aren't there to bother you, they are there for the same reasons there are speed limits, drivers licenses, traffic lights and stop signs.

The John Locke method is in your and mines best interest and doing things haphazardly is a detriment to everyone and the ones who stand to lose the most are the perpetrators of the law, not the followers of it.

The problem is difference opinion as to why someone should even have to be "legit" to use a flying GoPro for God sakes. It's goofy and honestly, it's not messing anything up for anyone other than 333 holders who can't go a day without complaining that people without 333s are out there enjoying themselves

 

[xgaul]

Ok seriously can we just stop? We get it Jussaguy your the real deal. Again I said I didn't care about 333, I'm not worried about all that.

The purpose of this thread was to gauge what people charge for small jobs.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Jussaguy]

Ok seriously can we just stop? We get it Jussaguy your the real deal. Again I said I didn't care about 333, I'm not worried about all that.

The purpose of this thread was to gauge what people charge for small jobs.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

I'm well aware that somewhere down the line this thread was hijacked into a different discussion and if you think I am posting this to show that I am "the real deal" whatever that means, you are wrong. I am posting what I think.

I, as evidenced by my last post, even questioned whether or not I am the real deal. You can get upset all you like but it doesn't change facts.

Also, "what do you charge" is a dumb question to begin with. Charge for what?

You're looking to "jump into this as a side gig, what do I charge per hour"? There are just so many answers to that question.

 

[Jussaguy]

The problem is difference opinion as to why someone should even have to be "legit" to use a flying GoPro for God sakes. It's goofy and honestly, it's not messing anything up for anyone other than 333 holders who can't go a day without complaining that people without 333s are out there enjoying themselves

Again, no.

I have no problem at all with people out there enjoying themselves. Frankly, I don't have a problem with people making money without a 333. When and if it all comes down, less competition.

You are allowed to fly without an exemption for your own enjoyment without a 333 under 400 feet, within LOS and all the other FAA guidelines. If you want to break that barrier, and make money doing it, you need a 333 exemption (at least at the moment). This is not me making any guesses, this is me saying what is fact.

For people that get all up in arms when someone with a screeching gimbal wants to bring back their bird to Apple, you guys certainly are all loosy goosy when it comes to breaking federal laws and regulations meant to protect the populas.

I'm out of this goofy conversation. I honestly could not care less about anyone making money with or without a 333. I was just trying to help John figure out what he is rightly trying to figure out.

 

[r62ewa]

Transport Canada is also revamping its regulations for UAV commercial use and at present we require an SFOC - Special Flight Operations Certificate if we do not want to try and squeeze into the narrow exemption conditions. The SFOC will be phased out and it seems things may get easier up this way to use the drone for commercial operations. I am in the SFOC process as we speak.

 

[Ghost Rider]

You need to have a straight up pilot's license to charge one cent while flying a drone in the U.S. Anyone telling you any different isn't telling you the truth.

I'm just waiting until after June or so to see if the FAA changes the rules. If nothing happens by the end of the summer, I'll go the Section 333 route. I just don't want to spend any money on anything I don't need to. My website is built. My marketing materials are done for the most part. I'm working on a really clean demo reel. I'm just laying in the weeds until August or so then if nothing happens with the FAA, I'm going live and will apply for my 333.

I would venture to guess there are several people doing business with a 333 and no pilot's license and I would also suspect the FAA isn't harassing anyone with a 333 even if they don't have a pilot's license for the simple fact that once you do get your exemption, you're pretty much done with the FAA. I don't think they follow up with anything after that. I respect aviation and have my entire life. I know how to fly a real plane and was training as a pilot at a job I had a few years back (before I got into the aerial imaging thing). But I only got about 10 hours into it. I'm really disappointed at how ridiculous it is that a 13 year-old can do exactly what I would do when filming a house or business but because I want to make money doing it, I have to hold a private pilot's license.

I've never been a huge fan of the FAA. It's an agency that promotes the commercialization of aviation but also safety and that bit them in the *** in the 70s when they failed to ground the DC-10 because of the financial impact it would have had on the airlines and Douglas. It's pretty obvious nobody in that agency is making the commercialization of drones a priority because there's no money in it for them. These are the same people who tend to ignore the NTSB. They did it with the DC-10. They did it with ValueJet.

The FAA has a tombstone mentality and I don't respect that. And by the way, I don't think any of this **** is law. I'm fine with following rules even if I am the Ghost Rider and would have flown the tower back in the day if the pattern was full. But I have a right as a human to also make a living and use my creative mind so long as I don't cause physical harm to another human in the process. I will fly and film responsibly and I will follow the existing rules. I will get insurance. I have incorporated. And I will make money doing it. I don't mind paying a reasonable fee for a class that earns me a certificate and I think it is important for anyone wanting to get into this commercially to take some sort of class that teaches you what you need to know. That's reasonable. But the FAA is wrong on this one. I'm not getting my pilot's license to earn money doing this. I'm just not going to.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Yeah, I know a guy that killed someone and got away with it.

I really don't, but that sentence can be true.

I know someone who killed someone and got away with it. Pretty cool. I also know someone who died on Alaska Air flight 261. That's just a random thing though.

 

[Jussaguy]

I know someone who killed someone and got away with it. Pretty cool. I also know someone who died on Alaska Air flight 261. That's just a random thing though.

No your post is a random thing. What my point was that if someone is doing something has no baring on what is legal or not making my post have a point.

As to whether or not you need a "pilot's license", what kind since you know so much?

Certainly don't need an airliner license or even a recreation license. Maybe just a sport license?

Maybe just an Airman's Certificate with a Sport?

Either way, it is my understanding you only need a pilots license (and the different flavor of them) based on if you are going to break the barrier of the recreational use set forth by the FAA.

If you have a 333 and don't break the recreation rules, you can make money without a license.

Unlike everyone else that has an opinion, I'm not staying what I'm saying as fact, but I have a lawyer that next week will tell me definitively. In the meantime, if you're gonna post something with such authority, why don't you remove the ambiguity such as the word "pilot's license" which there are several of.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Dude, you need at least a private pilot's license to fly so says the FAA if you want to charge money. Period. I'm not making this up nor do I care what anyone else's opinion is. I read every word of the regulations. I don't need a lawyer to tell me what the FAA regulation is. As far as all that stuff about having someone on staff with a pilot's license being good enough for anyone in your business to fly, that's a different argument.

My random post had to do with the fact that I actually know someone who killed a man who had his parents tied up when he arrived home one day. And he was tried and acquitted.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Straight from the FAA website:

Do I need a pilot's license to petition for exemption under Section 333?

A. By law, the FAA cannot authorize an aircraft operation in the National Airspace without a certificated pilot in command of the aircraft (Title 49 of United States Code § 44711). Exemptions granted in accordance with Section 333 carry the following requirement regarding the pilot in command (PIC) of the aircraft:

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 issued by a state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.


Does this clear things up?

 

[EyesofCanadaGoose]

Thanks. I am up in Canada so not sure what insurance options are available. I checked with my auto insurance provider and they don't offer it and my home insurance provider are looking in to it.

This one Capri | Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - Commercial Business Insurance was mentioned during www.skyward.io webinar. Disclaimer: I have not used them.

 

[AndrewV]

Besides insurance you are required to have an SFOC from transport Canada, Not having one could get you a $25000 fine to start.

Unless, of course, you meet all conditions layed out in excemption from section 602.41 and 603.66 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Has to be a Phantom of something similar weighing under 2kg.

 

[AndrewV]

Thanks for that information. I am already in contact with Transport Canada and I'm beginning the SFOC process. I am also looking at attending ground school training to add experience and credibility. Does anyone know of an Insurance provider in Canada that covers UAVs for commercial purposes?

I was able to goto one of my local insurance brokers and have them set me up. Really anyone can do it as long as you have transport Canada's minimum of $100000 liability.