Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Aerial RC Multi Rotor Shooting with an Epic

G

Glenn Dreher

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pasadena, CA
I'm curious if anyone has had their Epic on a multi rotor rig and if so did they or were they able to get insurance to cover the Red against damage? I'm putting together a project that we would like to shoot aerials for but our production insurance company won't touch an RC heli for damage coverage. I'm reluctant to put our Epic on a craft if we can't get insurance against damage.

If anyone has info regarding insurance companies that will cover us for this I would appreciate hearing from you.

Thanks.
 
Speculation begets misinformation. I know of six different companies that will cover this. The next speculation is that they probably won't pay off when a claim is filed. This also is misinformation as I have personally witnessed a rig malfunction and crash (not mine) and the insurance paid out $30K to replace it. It is also techically incorrect that flying is against FAA regs as no FARs currently exist for commercial UAS flying and these aren't expected until 2015 which many consider a doubtful timeframe due to regulatory footdragging.
 
Glenn Dreher said:
I'm curious if anyone has had their Epic on a multi rotor rig and if so did they or were they able to get insurance to cover the Red against damage? I'm putting together a project that we would like to shoot aerials for but our production insurance company won't touch an RC heli for damage coverage. I'm reluctant to put our Epic on a craft if we can't get insurance against damage.

If anyone has info regarding insurance companies that will cover us for this I would appreciate hearing from you.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Glenn, do you have a company in your area that flies these drones? I'm actually looking for one in the MD / VA region, closest I've found is in Wilmington NC.
 
Stephen Mick said:
Since it's currently illegal (against FAA regs) to use drone/UAV helis for commercial purposes, chances are no insurance company will cover you.
Click to expand...

Wendell Adkins said:
Speculation begets misinformation. I know of six different companies that will cover this. The next speculation is that they probably won't pay off when a claim is filed. This also is misinformation as I have personally witnessed a rig malfunction and crash (not mine) and the insurance paid out $30K to replace it. It is also techically incorrect that flying is against FAA regs as no FARs currently exist for commercial UAS flying and these aren't expected until 2015 which many consider a doubtful timeframe due to regulatory footdragging.
Click to expand...

Not 'Illegal' here in Canada either - Fill out the form, and you're good to go. Insurance is possible here as well.
 
Wendell Adkins said:
Speculation begets misinformation.( ______)It is also techically incorrect that flying is against FAA regs as no FARs currently exist for commercial UAS flying and these aren't expected until 2015 which many consider a doubtful timeframe due to regulatory footdragging.
Click to expand...

While you are correct that there is no FAR (regulation), there is a policy in place while the FAR is under development.
If you have any official government documents that support your statements, please post to avoid misinformation.

Their policy states:
Under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)'s current policy, no one can operate an unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System without specific authority.* Operators who wish to fly an unmanned aircraft for civil use must obtain an FAA experimental airworthiness certificate, which will not be issued to an unmanned aircraft used for compensation or hire. Although the FAA allows hobbyists to fly model airplanes for recreational purposes under specific guidelines, that authority does not extend to operators flying unmanned aircraft for business purposes. More information is available from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s*Notice on Unmanned Aircraft Operations*and the*FAA's policy.*
_________
Following are some references:
_________

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
Regulations & Policies
[4910-13]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
Docket No. FAA-2006-25714
Unmanned Aircraft Operations in the National Airspace System
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of policy; opportunity for feedback.
SUMMARY: This notice clarifies the FAA’s current policy concerning operations of unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System.

Policy Statement
The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority.
For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57.
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.

Source:
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf

____________________________________

In case there is speculation that info is outdated (though it is currently on the FAA website related to regulations & policies), this quote is from a FAA report released just a week ago:

Report on the Los Angeles Helicopter Noise Initiative
May 31, 2013

The FAA has not approved using unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), sometimes referred to as drones, for commercial purposes such as traffic reporting. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 directed the FAA to establish a program to safely integrate UAS into the National Airspace System. Efforts to safely integrate UAS are currently underway.
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/

Source:
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...a/la_helicopter_noise report_final_053113.pdf

Note: The specific reference to traffic reporting was in a section of the document that dealt with noise from news helicopters (think carmageddon).

_______________________________

Other reading:

http://www.skycamusa.com/legal.shtml

http://mi6films.com/2011/rc-helicop...rc-helicopter-flight-in-the-usa-airspace/687/

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/commercial-drones-a-dogfight-at-the-faa-02092012.html

http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/warning-from-the-lapd-do-not-use-uavs-for-commercial-use

http://photographyforrealestate.net...says-us-airspace-is-closed-to-all-commercial/
 
Brian,

You a very adept at cutting and pasting. I will assume that all that effort was for others benefit and not mine, as it is a rerun of comments you have made several times before to my posts. I will say that I am curious as to your motivation for this crusade however. Since the FAA's prime directive is safety, are you both hoping to save lives by spreading the word? If so, while an admirable cause, your time would be much better spent campaigning against texting while driving as more people have been killed performing that activity in one day than have ever been killed by commercial UAS cinematography.
 
I hire out my Epic quite regularly to some RC pilots here in Australia and I had no issues getting insurance, first with Allianz in Germany and now I'm with Aon here in Australia.
Getting insurance really isn't the issue, most bigger companies are happy to modify a policy for you, its just a matter of $$$. after about a year and half now supplying gear to RC productions....DO NOT EVER !!!!! operate without your gear being covered. I still have original R3D files from a recent Jackie Chan film on my harddrive where my camera toppled down a volcano for minutes on end while the crashed RC rig is getting smashed on its way downhill ^^
 
Wendell Adkins said:
Brian,

You a very adept at cutting and pasting. I will assume that all that effort was for others benefit and not mine, as it is a rerun of comments you have made several times before to my posts. I will say that I am curious as to your motivation for this crusade however. Since the FAA's prime directive is safety, are you both hoping to save lives by spreading the word? If so, while an admirable cause, your time would be much better spent campaigning against texting while driving as more people have been killed performing that activity in one day than have ever been killed by commercial UAS cinematography.
Click to expand...

My motivation is rather simple: just trying to ensure that our community has accurate information to base their decisions on.

I am a cinematographer - and as this is a site for those in the industry, I feel my input is appropriate.
If I taught drivers education, then perhaps a statement about texting while driving would fit.

You are correct, I have posted much of this before - never kept track of who else posted so the effort was definitely for the benefit of the community and not any specific individual.
Nor have I ever discussed or implied death from above via a UAS armed with a camera. As a matter of fact, if I were able to acquire some of my shots with a UAS instead of hanging out the door of a Jet Ranger the choice would be simple. That activity is far more "dangerous" (especially since much of my work in that arena is over the ocean). I look forward to the day we will be able to legally operate those units in US airspace.
In the meantime, much of this work has moved to other countries - that has an economic impact here so I hope the regs come about sooner rather than later.

But I am curious in return now; If you are aware of the FAA policy statements, why would you proclaim discussion about them as speculation and misinformation?
 
I think you are reading too much into my comment. What I said was -

"It is also technically incorrect that flying is against FAA regs as no FARs currently exist for commercial UAS flying and these aren't expected until 2015 which many consider a doubtful timeframe due to regulatory footdragging."

It is misinformation to say that commercial UAS regulations currently exist because the haven't been published yet. I wouldn't want people wasting time searching through the Code of Federal Regualtions looking for them because they aren't there.

So I am still curious, is the underlying purpose of your quest to provide the community with accurate info an effort to keep them from being fined or arrested for violating FAA policy? That is not quite as admirable as trying to keep people safe, but not bad.
 
Wendell Adkins said:
So I am still curious, is the underlying purpose of your quest to provide the community with accurate info an effort to keep them from being fined or arrested for violating FAA policy? That is not quite as admirable as trying to keep people safe, but not bad.
Click to expand...
I have made it a personal game to check the many R/C Quad/Octocopter threads that pop up on reduser. Without fail, no matter what the subtext, the naysaying sea lawyer trolls pop up and hijack the thread to redirect it to a discussion on the legality/illegality of flying said craft commercially. Could there be are a bunch of disgruntled chopper pilots/owners behind this?
 
So what is US airspace ?
I believe if you are on private property and fly below a certain height you are OK.
Extreme example: You are flying on someones 1000 acre ranch, at an altitude no higher than a tall ladder . Or cherry picker ?

Grey area, but that law seems like the one that was to put you in prison for cutting off a mattress tag.
 
I can illustrate the logic behind the policy with a story -

A circus owner wants to attract more customers by making his shows more interesting. After a very long search he finds a man who can juggle chainsaws. The skill required to do this is great and since people are used to only seeing balls and bowling pins juggled, they really want to see this. The circus owner hires the chainsaw juggler to perform. Show attendance soars and everyone is very happy. Then one day the circus police show up and say "you have to stop juggling chainsaws for money". The juggler asks "why." The circus police say "chainsaw juggling is new and the Organization of Federal Users of Circus Kinetics or OFUCK hasn't had time to devise rules to make it safe. You could throw a chainsaw up too high and hit the flying trapeze girl" The juggler says " People like it better when I keep the chainsaws close , it's more exciting so I never throw them that high. Besides, I have been doing this for ten years and never hurt anyone, I already know how to keep it safe." The circus police say "but WE don't know how to make it safe." The juggler says "do you want me to tell you how to make it safe?" "No" says the circus police, "you aren't qualified." "The juggler really loves what he does and asks "what if I juggle chainsaws for free?" The circus police say "well that's fine, we only care if you do it for money."
 
Good story !

But here is my take: I think they will soon ban UAV/multi rotor aircraft in a bigger way. All it's going to take is a few 'incidents' where people do something stupid. DJI has sold many, many Phantom quadcopters ( I have one also ) . Everybody who sees it wants one. So mistakes will be made, and in the new post 9-11 America Nanny state, it will be shut down.
I recently ordered a bunch of parts from China to build not only a big multirotor, but a 2 meter wingspan flying wing drone. With open source flight control software such as ardupilot, you have the ability to run what they call the 'mission planner' to program an entire GPS multi stage flight plan, via Google maps right on it's screen. Basically you can essentially make a home made cruise missile for less than $1000 USD.
I'm going to enjoy it while I can.
I live in Los Angeles, where police love to buzz around in helicopters. To them, the sky is theirs and we are the 'little people', suspects that are supposed to stay on the ground like ants.
 
Thanks Les. What you say may very well come to pass. But it will be a complete and utter failure. Why? The grease that allows the world to turn is commerce. Businesses pay taxes, buy and sell taxed goods and services and hire employees that pay taxes. Governments run on taxes. Aerial cinematography is a service that operators want to provide, aircraft and camera manufacturers want to build, filmmakers want to exploit and media viewers want to watch. The odd man out is the FAA at the moment. It is not that they don't want to join the party, it's that they are stuck in big government "analysis paralysis" which is very unfortunate in the current economy. If I were king, the top adminstrators would be trolling on Monster right now looking for new career paths. There is absolutely NO valid reason why RC helicams, under 55 lbs, flown below 400' by line of sight, a safe distance from airports should not be responsibly buzzing overhead with full endorsement of the FAA. Canada managed to do it without much ado with nothing more than submittal of a flight plan and proof of insurance. But no, not here. The standard excuses are: our airspace is far more complicated or there are privacy concerns. Very sad, as both are just convenient excuses to not do their job. A government can only go against the will of the public for a short time. Plus a ban on small commercial UAV's is about as enforceable as highway speed limits. Sure, you can nab one in 1000 violaters and call it having control if you like. Prohibition worked. (for a while that is) We are not even close to being ready to release large, beyond line of sight UAV's into the airways however.

And don't get me started on the hidden agenda - cut and paste crowd. The simple fact is this technology has progressed faster than regulations could keep up. As a result, the regulators are trying to cheat, and apply full size aircraft regs onto the new technology on the fly (no pun intended). This is not the manner in which the FAA was intended to operate, where stakeholders have the ability to comment on, and particpate in, the crafting of significant changes in regulations, and they know it.
 
If you are familiar with the NPR show "All Things Considered" - or are interested in this topic, you might want to listen to a portion of tonights show.
It is on this exact topic (RED is even briefly mentioned in passing in one interview). Clarifies some of the issues brought up in this and other threads on the same topic.

Here is a link to the broadcast: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcon...-For-Commercial-Drones-Expect-To-Come-By-2015

What I found particularly compelling was a statement at the end of the segment:
There might be a FAA decision by the end of the year for those of us that look forward to filming commercially in US airspace!

That is excellent news! This is the first time I have heard of our needs being addressed earlier than the often mentioned goal posts that are well over a year away.
 
Brian,

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but - once the regulations are released for public comment, you will see that most everyone will not be able to comply. The FAA has made it clear in their public documents that unmanned aircraft must meet all the same requirements as full sized aircraft. This means airworthiness certs, commercial pilots ratings, parts traceability, sense and avoid technology, and much, much more. Almost every platform currently available is based on hobby grade equipment and will no longer be allowed for commercial use. So what I am saying here is, if you don't have several hundred thousand dollars ready to invest, you will not be invited to play this game. If you think I am making this all up, I will be happy to demonstrate my cut and paste skills also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top