What's the difference in making money with, and flying for fun?

[butcharuski]

I'm sure the laws are going to change soon (hopefully), but does anyone know what the big deal is about making money with your UAV footage? Having a real pilots license and 333 means what exactly? That you are allowed to receive a check? Yet another UAV user who doesn't have a pilots license or 333 can LEGALLY get the same exact footage just for fun? Am I missing something?

Is a user with a pilots license exempt from some of the rules or something?

I just can't wrap my head around it.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[DrJoe]

Hmmm. You put that in a very interesting way. Yes, the check is the difference, along with a crapload of paperwork, time, and greater restrictions on commercial operations. If your are asking why the US government decided to do that, you might as well bang your head against the wall, but at least its not an outright ban.

 

[jpd]

Lol man are open up a can of worms with someone who has their license to tell you about all the FAA and for give me for being ignorant all the other aeronautical regulatory authorities out there see fit to require us to have it just so we can fly around some **** building and snap a few pictures or God forbid film a wedding not near anything ( and yes I'm salty about having to get a pilots license something I will never use, nor is needed to operate a drone on a commercial level) just to make a few bucks to feed my family it's ridiculous


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[msinger]

I'm sure the laws are going to change soon (hopefully), but does anyone know what the big deal is about making money with your UAV footage? Having a real pilots license and 333 means what exactly?

Per US law, you must have a pilot license in order to fly an aircraft commercially. US law considers a Phantom an aircraft, so a Phantom pilot must follow those laws. Unfortunately, all available pilot licenses were designed for flying manned aircraft. This will be a non-issue at some point in the future when the FAA creates the new operator pilot license -- which will be easily obtainable and will not require flying a manned aircraft.

 

[dbeavers]

Yep just send them $10 and your good to go. They are like IRS. Just want their piece of you!

 

[GoodnNuff]

Yep just send them $10 and your good to go. They are like IRS. Just want their piece of you!

Actually I'd be quite happy with a $10 fee annually to be able to fly my RC aircraft.
I pay $35 a year to access Washington State Parks.
I pay $27 a year for a freshwater fishing license, another $28 for a saltwater license, and if I want to gather seaweed or collect shellfish, that is another $16 a year.
A deer license is $43, and elk license is $49, or I can get a combo license for $83.
If I want to try to hunt moose in my state, it is $330.
I won't bore you with the prices for all the various game hunting licenses in this state.

Have you checked memberships at Golf Clubs? Green Fees?
What about an annual ski pass? I gave up both golf and skiing because they were too expensive to enjoy.

So yeah, $10 for this hobby seems very reasonable.

 

[butcharuski]

Per US law, you must have a pilot license in order to fly an aircraft commercially. US law considers a Phantom an aircraft, so a Phantom pilot must follow those laws. Unfortunately, all available pilot licenses were designed for flying manned aircraft. This will be a non-issue at some point in the future when the FAA creates the new operator pilot license -- which will be easily obtainable and will not require flying a manned aircraft.

Ok, that does make more sense now... Thanks for the clarification.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Sagebrush]

It all stems from the fact that our aviation laws predate drones. And for obvious reason, commercial aviation is highly regulated. In "our situation," the laws don't allow for uncertified aircraft to be flown commercially–that's really what the 333 exemption is about.

It's kinda like driving a taxi. In the U.S, one doesn't just slap a magnetic sign on the door like they may in Mexico. (But the last time I checked, there was no one riding around in my P3A.)

I see it loosening up as far as the ease of getting licensed for commercially operating sooner or later, but I also see the day where violations that the FAA thinks are a threat to safe air operations are stomped on.

The FAA is always going to be protective of the airspace. Like or it or not.

Sagebrush

 

[butcharuski]

I see it loosening up as far as the ease of getting licensed for commercially operating sooner or later, but I also see the day where violations that the FAA thinks are a threat to safe air operations are stomped on.

The FAA is always going to be protective of the airspace. Like or it or not.

Sagebrush

I agree. I have no problem with regulations, I wouldn't even mind there being a decent fee for the license to fly it commercially... For safety of course, and also to keep the professional television market from getting saturated with drone production. Kinda like when DSLRs came about... All the sudden everyone was a "professional photographer" lol



Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Air Ontario]

It's about money and protecting turf. 10000 buck for a pilots license, then additional mulah to get an upgraded ticket to a commercial pilot license.

They frown on you spending 1000 bucks and taking their photog clients. lol

Plus the FAA always play the safety card(rightfully so sometimes)

Up here in Canada they have already popped 12 last time I looked for UAV commercial ops without the SFOC/333 exemption

 

[mmtphoto]

Sorry I guess I have a problem with 'authority'...the government needs to get on the stick and establish rules and the subsequent stupid fees so that professional photographers can utilize another technology that we could use. I liked the comment about how digital DLSR ownership suddenly made owners 'professional photographers'...I have been a pro photographer for 30 years and the changes have been dramatic in the trade especially since digital has gotten so common. I am sick of how, no matter what, the government has to get its grubby fingerprints into any aspect of the private sector and I get very annoyed when I read here ( and other sites) some genius who feels the need to create some drone controversy by flying too high, too close to people too far to be seen, too close too private property-it created an excuse for noisy bureaucrats and spineless politicians to drag their feet or otherwise mess up a way for me to make a few dollars. I didn't buy a drone that could fly so far that I couldn't see it, it's a phantom ,3 Standard. I'd like to do a little real estate work or get some cool wedding shots outside so the brat who got his Canyon D5 for Christmas who now thinks hes Reginald Denny has less to offer besides stupid low prices and crap photography. I'm done.

 

[Sagebrush]

Sorry I guess I have a problem with 'authority'...the government needs to get on the stick and establish rules and the subsequent stupid fees

I'm not quite that critical. On Saturday, a Russian airliner crashed and killed 62 people. When was the last time that happened in the U.S?

S

 

[mmtphoto]

Chances are real good if yo do not fly above 400 feet, or within 5 miles of an airport or keep your drone on plain sight, and do not endanger people or personal property, you won't cause a plane crash that kills 62 people.
What's your point?


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Squirrel!]

Chances are real good if yo do not fly above 400 feet, or within 5 miles of an airport or keep your drone on plain sight, and do not endanger people or personal property, you won't cause a plane crash that kills 62 people.
What's your point?


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

And chances are even better that idiots out there will go higher than 400 feet, and go within 5 miles of an airport or fly while not being able to see the drone, and do endanger people & personal property and can cause a plane crash that kills 62 people.

 

[Sagebrush]

What's your point?

That there's a reason that commercial aviation in the U.S. is much safer than in other countries and frankly, it's the regulations and compliance that makes is so.

Sagebrush

 

[Boomer]

The FAA is, when all is said and done, a risk management organization. Keeping the National Airspace System (NAS) safe for people Is the (appropriate) priority. All of the rules were written around manned flight. Right now, due to training records, certificated pilots are the only people who know how to operate in the NAS. Unmanned systems are new. The rules will change to accommodate the technology. Like any organizational change, though, it takes time. When a government agency is involved it takes a lot of time. Remember, too, that this technology comes with baggage. Privacy concerns are paramount but, as has been demonstrated on YouTube, UAS's can be used for nefarious purposes. Managing all of that risk is a tough, complicated problem. My 2 cents.

 

[mmtphoto]

And chances are even better that idiots out there will go higher than 400 feet, and go within 5 miles of an airport or fly while not being able to see the drone, and do endanger people & personal property and can cause a plane crash that kills 62 people.

Those are probably the same people who drive on the wrong side of the road, who drive recklessly, who ignore stop signs when making a right turn or who don't even look when coming out of a parking lot into traffic. And there are penalties for the people who do such dangerous things while operating machinery, some are a slap on the wrist and are seriously proportional to the severity of the infraction.

How tough would it be to actually legislate that same concept into laws that must be followed and expect registration, test for proficiency and license and not try to control how the drone is utilized by the individual (hobby vs. business)? It has already been done with automobiles, and there are millions operating in two dimensions everyday across America and the world.

We did not say everyone could drive one as long as it was solely for pleasure-so the existing system is stupid, and the geniuses who operate these to see 'how high' or 'how far' they can go solely for the purpose of the thrill and bragging rights are the cause of the misguided 'rules' (not laws?) and they are hindering the ability of responsible people to really used a very important ability these possess-photography and video.

 

[mmtphoto]

That there's a reason that commercial aviation in the U.S. is much safer than in other countries and frankly, it's the regulations and compliance that makes is so.

Sagebrush

And I agree, but my point is if I follow rules/regulations/laws and am responsible. why can't I make a buck in my lifelong profession responsibly flying my 2.5 lb flying camera? I will not, ever cause a manned air vehicle to crash, because I would only responsibly fly. I care very much about my business and reputation, and think my history should account for some sort of consideration as to my ability to make a buck IN MY PROFESSION. , Drones are like cars, they are capable of doing good and bad things, and you couldn't even equate a drone to a gun-they have a specific purpose, to disable or kill, yet they seem to be responsible for millions of irresponsible actions over history-what does my flying responsibly have to do with making a dollar?

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Commercial UAV use is still in it's infancy, all this will come in time. I am expecting specialized insurance will soon be mandatory for all UAV uses. Personally I would like to see a UAV license for all users, hobby & commercial. The same way you don't let kids drive automobiles or use guns they also should not be allowed to use certain UAV's. Obviously toys that didn't exceed a 30 meter radius would be ok, just like toy cars & guns are ok. Hopefully a test and licensing would help weed out the adults who are careless in their operation. Like any new thing, it is still teething and will eventually balance itself out in time.