Commercial use of helis for filming banned by FAA???

[Michael Panfeld]

Did I read this correctly? The FAA has now banned the hexacopter/octocopter and similar RC helis, etc from commercial operation? First, this is huge. It will mean that many businesses will be closed. Second, if it's true, how would that apply to filmmaking if the owner/operator is making a film for himself (rather than being hired out)? Is hobbyist use banned?


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

 

[Zac C]

Holy cow, that reads like thats true.

 

[Dane Henry]

sketchy!!! If this is true, I got some bumming buddies!

-Dane

 

[Mike P.]

It'd be difficult to enforce if it's on private property. Even more difficult if there are no airports around and/or if you aren't flying above 100m or something.

Do they have a reason, or do they just hate how people can get these things for <$1000 and take all the aerial photography they want? (i'm only half joking.)

 

[Michael Panfeld]

It'd be difficult to enforce if it's on private property. Even more difficult if there are no airports around and/or if you aren't flying above 100m or something.

Do they have a reason, or do they just hate how people can get these things for a <$1000 and take all the aerial photography they want? (i'm only half joking.)

In the article, one comment notes that may indeed be a partial reason: to protect the jobs of crane/jib operators and of Big Boy-sized heli pilots. But that comment refers to the LA regs. I would think that the Federal gov't would want to prevent their use by criminals or terrorists. Just today the Senate passed a bill that extends the penalties for smuggling via aircraft to ultralights crossing our southern border. I can't imagine a heli with a 10lb payload would be too far behind that. Smaller payload, but much cheaper than an ultralight and no risk of a pilot getting captured since nobody is actually crossing the border. I am sure that there are protocols to pass off the RC signal from a person on one side of the border to a person on the other.

They may also want to prevent a heli crashing into another craft or to person or property on the ground. Perhaps folks at the FAA have been watching the youtube/Vimeo foortage of recent crashes that have been popularized on Reduser and other forums.

 

[Sid Idris]

It'd be difficult to enforce if it's on private property. Even more difficult if there are no airports around and/or if you aren't flying above 100m or something.

Do they have a reason, or do they just hate how people can get these things for a <$1000 and take all the aerial photography they want? (i'm only half joking.)

The bad news...

Can I fly a UAS under a COA or experimental certificate for commercial purposes?

No. Currently, there are no means to obtain an authorization for commercial UAS operations in the NAS. However, manufacturers may apply for an experimental certificate for the purposes of R&D, market survey and crew training.

The possible good news...

What about commercial operations? What are the obstacles to standards, certification, and operating procedures?

All operations conducted in civil airspace must meet minimum levels of safety. Public UA operators have the ability to self-certify their equipment and personnel, but civil operators are certified by the FAA. We believe civil operators will benefit from the collaboration between the FAA and the public operators. Presently, the FAA is drafting a rule to address small UAS.

from the FAA FAQ section
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/#Qn1

 

[StevenMore]

That's our Goverment in action, shut dowm more businesses and JOBS! Lost wages, taxes, business. I'm fine with sensable regulation, but to give no option is wrong. What is the difference between "Hobby" and "Commercial" use. If hobby is allowed then commercial should absolutly be allowed.

 

[Sid Idris]

In the article, one comment notes that may indeed be a partial reason: to protect the jobs of crane/jib operators and of Big Boy-sized heli pilots. But that comment refers to the LA regs. I would think that the Federal gov't would want to prevent their use by criminals or terrorists. Just today the Senate passed a bill that extends the penalties for smuggling via aircraft to ultralights crossing our southern border. I can't imagine a heli with a 10lb payload would be too far behind that. Smaller payload, but much cheaper than an ultralight and no risk of a pilot getting captured since nobody is actually crossing the border. I am sure that there are protocols to pass off the RC signal from a person on one side of the border to a person on the other.

They may also want to prevent a heli crashing into another craft or to person or property on the ground. Perhaps folks at the FAA have been watching the youtube/Vimeo foortage of recent crashes that have been popularized on Reduser and other forums.

It's doubtful that criminal activity is the issue since there are no regulations preventing use of RC controlled aircraft for "personal/recreational" use. Under the current rules I can run any UAS as long as I don't get paid to do it.

 

[Kwan Khan]

Another Federal Agency out of control.

 

[Michael Panfeld]

It's doubtful that criminal activity is the issue since there are no regulations preventing use of RC controlled aircraft for "personal/recreational" use. Under the current rules I can run any UAS as long as I don't get paid to do it.

So Sid: what happens if you crash an EPIC while not getting paid? Is there a possibility that an insurance investigation will not pay out because 1) either the policy does not cover recreational use (as you were clearly doing, wink) or 2) because it determines to look through the transaction structure and see that it was a commercial operation, one that was in violation of FAA policy?

Would one have to get a second policy for personal property for non-commercial uses?

 

[Dominik Muench]

That's our Goverment in action, shut dowm more businesses and JOBS! Lost wages, taxes, business. I'm fine with sensable regulation, but to give no option is wrong. What is the difference between "Hobby" and "Commercial" use. If hobby is allowed then commercial should absolutly be allowed.

couldn't agree more, were setting up a business like this here in Australia, probably just a matter of time before our government starts spinning out too :/ bastards.

 

[Michael Panfeld]

couldn't agree more, were setting up a business like this here in Australia, probably just a matter of time before our government starts spinning out too :/ bastards.

My quick reading tonight refers to an Australian ban in place already. Articles have also referenced NZ and Tasmanian bans. Kinda looks like a fast-paced topic. I wish there was some clear info.

 

[Sid Idris]

So Sid: what happens if you crash an EPIC while not getting paid? Is there a possibility that an insurance investigation will not pay out because 1) either the policy does not cover recreational use (as you were clearly doing, wink) or 2) because it determines to look through the transaction structure and see that it was a commercial operation, one that was in violation of FAA policy?

Would one have to get a second policy for personal property for non-commercial uses?

In theory one may be able to game the system but I think in such cases an upfront declaration to the insurance company be made in writing that the intended flight and resulting footage is purely recreational. It might help...but I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Elvis B.M.]

What kind of shenanigans is the FAA up to???

 

[Vance Colvig]

First, let me say that I am not a big FAA fanboy. I have been flying for 45 years, commercially licensed to fly single and twin airplanes, gliders and helicopters, instrument rated and a flight instructor. Over 11,000 hours PIC time, and I fly a helicopter for a public agency for a living. I do not fly for movies, and I do not have a dog in this fight.

Like it or not, the FAA has been given the mandate by Congress to protect the safety of the public in the air and on the surface when it comes to airspace and civil aviation matters. This is nothing new. UAV's are now becoming evermore prolific, both in the military and civily. Fedreal Airspace begins at the surface if there is any intention of flight. That is the law. The U.S. military requires their UAV pilots to have actual flight training and to be qualified military pilots before they may be the PIC of a UAV because the UAV's operate in Federal and foreign airspace with all of the other civilian and military traffic. Military UAV's are transponder equipped and have all of the approved day and night exterior lighting required of any other aircraft so that they can be seen by radar and other pilots. It appears that the FAA is adopting the military model of pilot qualification for UAV's and will probably do so for UAV equipment requirements for UAV certification. Remember, the FAA is mandated to protect the public, and would be negligent if they ignored this new and growing aspect of flight. They have to do something to integrate UAV's into the National Aerospace System.

Comon misunderstandings:

You can do what you want to on private property. Once it leaves the ground (un-teathered), or even if there is an intention for it to leave the ground, it is no longer on private property and is in the National Aerospace System, the same airspace used by commercial, private, military and public aircraft.

If it can be used for recreational purposes, it should be used for commercial purposes. Think about all of the homebuilt aircraft in the U.S. They were constructed by amateurs and licensed for recreational purposes, and can be flown by pilots with private licenses. These aircraft are licensed "Experimental Amateur Built" and may not be used for compensation or hire under any circumstances. This limitation allows hobbyists to build and fly their dream, yet protects the general unsuspecting and uninformed public from hiring an experimental aircraft to carry persons or property for compensation or hire. Actually, the US is probably less restrictive than any other country on the planet with regard to Experimental Amateur Built licensing and limitations. I have seen what I consider raving pieces of junk consisting poor workmanship and hardware store nuts and bolts licensed "Experimental Amatuer Built", and also aircraft that would put a new Cessna or Piper to shame because of superlative workmanship. Standard Catagory and Transport Catagory must meet far more stringent engineering, construction, flight testing practices before being certified to be used for air commerece. Arn't you glad they do every time you get on a commercial airliner with commercially rated pilots?

Crane operators and helicopter pilots in L.A. are prompting the FAA to regulate UAV's. I know this may come as a big blow to some in the entertainment industry, but the FAA couldn't care less. They are not in the business of promoting commerece, they are in the business of protecting the general public on the surface and in the air. They only put up with the entertainment industry because they have to when it comes to aviation.

The FAA just wants to have more power and get bigger so they can get more funding" Recent testimony by the FAA before the House Transportation Committee with the NTSB stated that the FAA had no interest in regulating public aircraft (government owned and operated because they are already stretched too thin and know more budget cuts are coming. By adding commercial space travel and now UAV's, more just got piled on their plate.

I have not been on youtube to see the UAV helicopter crashes, but just imagine something like that happening with a machine weighing 30 pounds at the Macy's Parade or at the Super Bowl, flying/falling into a crowd of people. It would only be a matter of time, and we all know it. Murphy's Law, dontcha know?

Now, for you guys who want to strap your Epic or Scarlet to a UAV and take it for a flight, good luck, better your camera than mine. The FAA won't be lurking behind bushes just to bust unlicensed UAV operators or licensed UAV operators operating contrary to the proposed Federal Aviation Regulations, but if your footage goes public and they notice a violation or if someone registers a complaint, they will be required by law to conduct an investigation and take appropriate action if necessary. They are mandated by Congress to do this, and this is nothing new. It started in the 1920's (under the name CAA), and I doubt if it going away anytime soon.

I don't much like the FAA either, that is until I get on a U.S. air carrier to fly across country and think about how our safety record compares to many others around the world. Being an independent sort, I just hate to admit that, based on results, the FAA just might doing be the job they are being asked to do.

 

[Michael Panfeld]

Vance: Thanks for adding to the discussion. I think that there is a lot of mis-information floating around and your post has helped to clarify it a bit. Even now though, there is conflicting information, put out by the FAA. For example, in post #6, Sid cites an FAA fAQ sheet which states that there will be no COAs for UAVs. However, my friend has a new UAV and he does have a COA. He files flight plans for both recreational use and commercial use (was recently hired by a vinyard to film irrigation patterns)

I think this is a fast-moving issue and, with the new regulations that were supposed to have been put in place in January, now delayed until the Spring (thanks to a furlough caused by budget issues), its pretty unclear what can and cannot be done, legally and more importantly for those on REDUSER who do this commercially, with appropriate insurance coverage.

Any UAV operators have COAs for commercial use?

 

[George Butterfield]

Do they have a reason, or do they just hate how people can get these things for <$1000 and take all the aerial photography they want? (i'm only half joking.)

Probably a security issue, they don't want people dropping things from them, with GPS and INS and small computers the possibilities are endless ...

 

[Vance Colvig]

Michael,

By your report, it seems that the FAA recognizes UAV's in the civil sector for commercial purposes. More than likely they have Restricted Airworthyness Certificates, which are issued for a specific purpose and with certain limitations, such as when and where they can fly. These are issued for "crop dusters" (no dust is used anymore) or ex-military aircraft used for agriculture spraying and external loads such as setting towers, air conditioners, etc. The limitations are usually geographical in nature, which specify where the aircraft can and cannot fly. As a rule of thumb, Restricted Catagory Aircraft may not fly over densly populated areas (cities, town, villages) or open assemblies of people. I suspect that there is also an altitude restriction for the UAV. The FAA Regulations have a little catch all. It is called "careless and reckless operation", and that is always subject to interpretation. Another one is "if the engine were to fail, it would not pose injury to persons or property on the surface". By definition, if anyone gets a cut on the finger or flying dirt in the eye, that falls into "careless and wreckless". If your much loved camera and UAV fall from the sky and makes a divit in someone's lawn with no injury, you still damaged someone's property and can be found in violation of the Federal Air Regulations. There are case files to support the FAA on those two examples. I am not making this stuff up.

To further complicate this issue, no civil aircraft may operate within 30 nautical miles of Class B Airspace without an operating radar transponder with altitude reporting unless prior permission is granted by the FAA. Class B airspace is designated for that airspace as depicted on the charts, and is issued for airports with high density commercial traffic such as Los Angeles Airport, San Francisco Airport, Dallas Int., JFK, Atlanta, etc. The FAA does not like to grant these exemptions to piloted aircraft, even on a one time basis. Don't know what their take is on UAV's, but my guess is that they would be a bit hesitant. A certified transponder, antenna, altitude encoder, and the battery to power them probably weigh more than a Scarlet, and in the rotary wing world, weight is the enemy (unless it is the required fuel to do the job and/or get to your destination, plus a little more).

Being a fly guy, I enjoy seeing nice aerials wheather shot from a Lear Jet, helicopter, or UAV. It is just not as simple as strapping a camera on an aircraft to make pictures. There are a lot of hurdles to jump to do it safely and legally. Wish it wern't so, but it is. As they say, "not quite as simple as it seems".

 

[Dominik Muench]

Michael: Surely this only refers to unlicensed/ unapproved flights. In Australia we have a government organization called CASA through which i have to do a risk assessment and licensing course to handle drones, once that's done I am allowed to fly commercially....at least that's my understanding based on the CASA seminar I attended last December.

 

[Russ Fill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vOor1xmVDs&feature=player_embedded
Take a look at this video and you might see why the feds might not like having any one have an eagle eye at any event... Or have it drop on any of the officers trying to do their job or drop another thing on them...
Just think if you could shoot aerials around Washington DC with one....AAAAhhh thats not mine officer...