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 :)

Commercial Drone Shooting

Why on earth would they use the word "policy"? (I am not a sea lawyer, but I play one on TV) :-)

Policy documents represent FAA's official interpretation or view of specific issues. Guidance documents are published to further clarify regulations and to assist in implementation of aviation regulations.*

Fact is, the Administrator can pull out pen and paper and write up a policy clarification where NO clear and specific regulations previously existed and publish said policy in the Federal Register. This is the exact case here. Because this is a new domestic use of aviation, it's use has preceded the regulations for it by several years. The FAA has rushed to publish policy to cover their rears, citing that anything that fly's must have their specific authorization, even if it hasn't been invented yet. You should be able to see the problem here. Sadly policy does not carry the weight of law, as the courts have made clear on many occasions. This, along with a Presidential mandate that any policy or rule must consider the impacts to small business,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_Flexibility_Act

could explain the fact that no fines have been levied in this matter. Having said that, be careless and kill someone and you will be prosecuted under some "general clause" like reckless endangerment.

Quite frankly, the more pressing issue looks to be a rapidly increasing number of states rushing through legislation to ban drone use for privacy issues. The current list considering such legislation is - CA, FL, ID, ME, MO, MT, NE, ND, OK, OR, TX, VA. It seems there is a very large number of people that think their day to day lives are so important and interesting that fleets of drones are waiting in line to spy on them!
 
could explain the fact that no fines have been levied in this matter. Having said that, be careless and kill someone and you will be prosecuted under some "general clause" like reckless endangerment.
Click to expand...
Shorting a power line or causing a car accident are also feasible incidents with potential costly outcomes.

For heli fylers...when you or your business applied for third party liability insurance you would have stated what your business is, insurance companies demand that you inform them if your business has changed.
To cover yourself contact your insurer and tell them what you are doing.
Report back here.
If producers are listening, it is possible that you will be held partly responsible for an accident, so ensure your production insurance covers this type of operation.
More to the point, only employ an outfit which show you their insurance policy. If it is not obvious in the policy you have to determine if aerial filming with remote control craft for commercial gain is covered.
For a long shoot don't rely on A. N. Others insurance anyway or have this clause inserted in their insurance;
"it is further certified that the insured has entered into an agreement with <YOUR COMPANY> in order to film using a remote controlled aircraft.
In connection herewith Insurers have agreed to include <YOUR COMPANY> as "additional insured" in respect to liability coverages.

To cover yourself against a claim made by the rent-a-chopper against you for the loss of their craft, you could add;
"and to waive all rights of subrogation against <YOUR COMPANY> in respect of the equipment damage or loss or loss of hire of insurers equipment."
Warning above wording may not be adequate in all countries....

Given the high number of "loss of control, cause unknown" accidents we are on a learning curve that we hope will not injure the public, so best to keep the public away in my view.
Channel Nine in Australia has used them recently inside a packed sports arena, no doubt they checked their insurance for that gig.

I once put the triggering of three film cameras in the hands of a remote control heli specialist. He had been in business for a decade. Three cameras were rigged in and around the base of a 20 story building that was to be imploded. Two cameras pulled out of the way before being damaged. Months of planning and testing. Despite him being dedicated to this task and nothing but this task, two of the cameras rolled when he powered up his transmitter. I know, I heard them go off as I was leaving the site, with no time to reload or reset I was screwed.
Lucky for him the remaining high speed camera delivered the best shot.


Mike Brennan
 
"Sea Lawyers" that's great.... I heard the new term is "Clovers". Don't be a Clover!!!!

yes safety is the primary concern..... too many people have been killed by RC craft that were being operated or maintained dangerously but many more by full sized helicopters operating in the HV curve. We own and operate full size camera helicopters and if the shot is low (below 400') and slow (below 40kts) we now recommend a RC crew or now will insist we use our new twin engine helicopter that we are bringing online in March.

Too many funerals of full size camera/movie ship crews...... unfortunately one this weekend :(
 
I guess it is all about insurance. If the drone operator can
guarantee that their business insurance covers all risks to all equipment and all people, then go ahead and use it. If they can't, don't use a drone.

Given how litigious USA is, one would hope that all these drone operators are fully covered......
 
Wendell Adkins said:
If you have been a professional RC pilot for over 30 years, flown for both Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics, getting insurance is not an issue.
Click to expand...

So then you have nothing to worry about, presuming that your insurance covers you for activities that the FAA do not sanction.
 
Many Aviation laws are notoriously `'grey`'. Take the helicopter that crashed in London. It was flying a heliroute under control of two ATCs and a heliport and there are special considerations given to flying in poor weather. Impossible to keep 500ft from buildings if passing another heli on this route but clearance given daily for such practice. On a pilots forum it took a week for pilots who fly the route regularly to actually find the relevant rules and notes and guess what, it is not black and white.
I once had cause to challenge the legality of a flight profile a UK heli company was regularly flying which the majority of UK helicopter community thought was unsafe.
The CAA sad they agreed with the sentiment but the particular law that was being stretched was poorly written and so was open to interpretation. Such laws (in other countries too) need to be "tested in court" to be clarified.

As far as I can tell, small UAVS fit into this category at the moment in many countries. Vague laws offer plenty of scope for aviation community to get on with the job and is in particular geographic area a group who polices itself to a large degree. But self policing is not an attribute associated with the media industry.

Mike Brennan
 
Mike,

Good points. Regarding self policing, there is a small number of us who try to do this in the UAV operators community (not nearly enough however). When someone posts work that put public safety at risk, we call them out on it. As a senior operator, I feel a responsibility to do so. It troubles me that many of the other experienced operators mentioned here don't do likewise. Should the public be harmed by a UAV, the negative spin in the media will mean game over for this type of work for them as well.

http://m.rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t727642p1/

I wanted to add that it is in everyone's best interest that those who hire a UAV to film also exercise good judgement. It's really not very difficult or complicated. If you do not have complete control of the footprint under the flight zone, you have no business flying over it. This means no flying over the general public or active roadways. A good example is flying off a building rooftop without an exclusion zone for pedestrians/traffic below. If you look hard enough you will probably find someone who will do such things if asked. Don't ask and everyone will be better off.

Multirotor platforms are quickly becoming more prevalent for filming. There is the mistaken belief by some that they are safer flying around talent and crowds. The flight control technology has not fully matured at this stage and malfunctions are commonplace. Too many are pressing on even with this knowledge. Check insurance, experience and references is my advice.
 
When someone posts work that put public safety at risk, we call them out on it. As a senior operator, I feel a responsibility to do so. It troubles me that many of the other experienced operators mentioned here don't do likewise. Should the public be harmed by a UAV, the negative spin in the media will mean game over for this type of work for them as well.
Click to expand...

Good work Wendell!

In respect to insurance a cameraman John Driftmier was killed a few days ago in Africa, shooting aerials for Discovery's "Dangerous Flights" program.
He was in a "Foxbat" ultralight category aircraft that was piloted by a conservationist. The ultralight wasn't the subject of the programm he was just using it to shoot aerials.

Sh*t happens and when it does it is too late to check if you are insured....

Mike Brennan
 
Now that everyone know the legal aspects of drones, David, where are looking to shoot? Maybe that can help with locating the best in your area.

Remember not everyone flies in populated areas or on sets full of people! These UAV's are expensive and it is not only Safety that motivates the pilots to be careful.
 
Michael Brennan said:
Sh*t happens and when it does it is too late to check if you are insured....

Mike Brennan
Click to expand...

Yup. Fully aware of that. Did a bbc shoot a few years ago, helicopter I was filming from crashed, I was out of work for a couple of weeks.... turned out the BBC had changed the small print and freelancers were no longer automatically insured for "special" filming, like helicopter filming.

At least mine wasn't anything as bad as one that happened a few months later, again BBC. The cameraman, who I suspect you know Mike, hasn't really worked again in the 9 years since, due to serious injuries. Had to sue the helicopter company in the US on his own. No real BBC support or compensation. He had at one time been a staff member.
 
Yes Steve,

Yup. Fully aware of that. Did a bbc shoot a few years ago, helicopter I was filming from crashed, I was out of work for a couple of weeks.... turned out the BBC had changed the small print and freelancers were no longer automatically insured for "special" filming, like helicopter filming.
Click to expand...

Were you in the one that incredibly ended up right side up without skids?


The cameraman, who I suspect you know Mike, hasn't really worked again in the 9 years since, due to serious injuries. Had to sue the helicopter company in the US on his own. No real BBC support or compensation. He had at one time been a staff member.
Click to expand...

In that case the pilot suggested that the cameraman interfered with controls, a good reason not to shoot from the front seat if you can avoid it.
However since then a USA civil court found a production company partly responsible for an accident.


In Oz cost of accident insurance for filming from a heli is $7500 per annum for a measly $500k cover. In the USA I'm told you can get cover from one of the pilots association for far less. Most of the time mortage or life insurance excludes aerial filming...at the time when we are at a high risk.

By virtue of the type of flights that UAVs do, offers insurance companies plenty of wiggle room to get out of jail free. I do hope they replace some of the hand held shoots that get mentioned here.

A few years ago I flew for 400 hours doing aerial surveys of power poles for a power line company with a cineflex, surveys that were previously done with an open door at treetop level. Predictably after years of "accident free" they eventually hit a wire, perhaps distracted by a press photographer on board at the time!
They investigated non-military UAVS but they didn't quite fit the bill due to lack of range that would mean the operator repositioning too freqently to be economic.
Over time it would be cheaper for each pole to have its own camera!



Mike Brennan
 
Mike,

We provide aerials for several local electric utilities. Perhaps the best power line solution involves no flying at all. The Electric Power Research Institute is testing a system the crawls the transmission conductors to collect video. The utility has to install short "bypass loops" around the insulators beforehand. The robot is powered from the conductors thru a step down transformer so it can traverse hundreds of miles at a time.
 
erhaps the best power line solution involves no flying at all. The Electric Power Research Institute is testing a system the crawls the transmission conductors to collect video. The utility has to install short "bypass loops" around the insulators beforehand. The robot is powered from the conductors thru a step down transformer so it can traverse hundreds of miles at a time.
Click to expand...

Cool! The trick is to somehow get a view of the top of woodend cross arms to check for wood rot or splits.

100,000 poles take over 1000 flight hours so you can do the maths:)



Mike Brennan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top