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 :)

I heard back from FAA this morning on aerial filming . . .

E

Ernest Mack

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This may be old news but at least the FAA is responding to requests for information. I contacted them less than 30 days ago. I think patience is the keyword here. I have no doubt a workable ruling will come about. In the meantime I hope we can all work within the current laws and not give reason for excessive restrictions upon FAA ruling.

Cheers,

Ernie

Mr. Mack,

Thank you for your interest in aviation safety. In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95; 126 Stat. 11), Congress directed the FAA to issue a final rule on small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) that will allow for civil operations in the National Airspace System. In response to the congressional mandate, the FAA has drafted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will allow small UAS to conduct commercial operations. The document is expected to be released as a final rule in 2015. When the final rule is released, civil small UAS will have a means to conduct commercial operations for compensation and/or for hire.

The NPRM is projected to be available for public comment starting in May 2014. The window for public comment will last 90 days. Comments will be reviewed and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate. I encourage you to provide feedback on the proposed rule.

The FAA does issue experimental airworthiness certificates to UAS for the purposes of R&D, crew training, and market survey. However, commercial aerial photography does not fall within the scope of the three experimental purposes.

Tom Rampulla
Evaluation and Special Projects Branch, AIR-240
Production and Airworthiness Division
Washington DC
202-385-6684
thomas.rampulla@faa.gov

 
I think I do not want drones holding Epics to fly over me in the city unless they are manned by trained, licensed operators, nor do I want the untrained to fly them near heritage buildings, church stained glass etc. There is real danger when you fly one of these things. I can understand the FAA's concerns.

I think, also, that even after 2015 if you were thinking of getting drone shots without months of paperwork in such places as Times Square.... Not going to happen.
 
Ok your speaking about creating a license for drone flying. But I think this is the kind of stuff that kills our industry. I think none will fly an Epic without training. No renting house will allow this. It's a pitty people are willing to give up freedom without having to get asked for.

fiming the Eifel tower in Paris = banned
filming freely with a tripod on the street = banned
filming freely in the street with a crew larger than 4 people = banned
filming people in streets = banned
filming in subway = banned

Remember we live in a free world!

Let's stop all those damn banns!

Pat
 
Thanks for a little sanity. UAVs have a place in modern filmmaking.
 
In a former life, i worked at ATC (Air Traffic control) ... Drones are dangerous.
I am all for freedom and freedom of expression ....

Unfortunately, for every x people being safety aware ... there are plenty of folks in for the kick and guided by hope nothing bad would happen.

Every machine that flies, needs someone to be identified with it, it absolutely needs a license.

if you ever see a plane falling out of the sky, as i did, you know what i am talking about.

Drones over people should be an absolute NO GO. safety first.
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
I think I do not want drones holding Epics to fly over me in the city unless they are manned by trained, licensed operators, nor do I want the untrained to fly them near heritage buildings, church stained glass etc. There is real danger when you fly one of these things. I can understand the FAA's concerns.

I think, also, that even after 2015 if you were thinking of getting drone shots without months of paperwork in such places as Times Square.... Not going to happen.
Click to expand...

I agree with Robert, we just set up a new aerial drone filming business here in Australia and once I saw all the paperwork, licensing and hoops we had to jump through I was angry. It took us about 6 months to get all the licenses in place, pilots trained, maintenance shed set up and cost us about AUS$8.000.

But now I agree with the CASA (Australian FAA equivalent) regulations.....licensing is important and protects us people serious about this business and safety from the jackass backyard flyers......just two weeks ago an amateur crashed a drone into the Sydney harbour bridge. which has one of the traffic heaviest roads in all of NSW going across, not to speak countless tourists walking there every day. Unacceptable.

Patrick I dont think it kills the industry, if someone is serious about drones and flying...they will go through the proper training, get the licenses necessary, set up a properly run maintenance area for their drones and so on. its the same with someone wanting to become a scuba diver or a truck driver or anything that requires licensing these days.
Besides, you'd be surprised what people do these days with hire gear that the rental house isn't aware off...I could tell you some horror stories....and some even involve big commercial Dp's well known and respected in the industry.

I'm against a complete ban as well...but the licensing is necessary to weed out all the jackasses around....just google drone accidents and see what happened around the world in the last 6-12 months alone with these things. Two years ago at an RC plane show in Germany a guy got killed getting hit by an electronic glider plane. Just a few months ago a hobby RC chopper guy decapitated himself with his own rig in a public park......no thanks.

If I as a serious business guy wanting to make a living with this kind of work has to jump through all these hoops and fork out all the $$$$ on training and being professional...why shouldn't everyone else who wants to use these things ?
After all you cant just wake up one morning and decide you're a dentist now either and start working on people. Just because drones are readily available in shops doesn't mean they should be....so is cocaine and crystal meth if you look hard enough, that doesn't make it any more acceptable or less dangerous.
 
Although I absolutely hate the idea of loosing freedom, I don't see restrictions as hurting the industry as much as making legitimate aerial footage that much more valuable, and therefore worth the extra effort to pursue. There's always a compensating factor. If it is hard for everyone, at least the playing field is still level.

Phil
 
More significant for what the letter doesn't say; there's nothing covering drones or UAVs, commercial or otherwise, in the current FARs at all; it's a free for all, you can fly as you like. But they're curiously reticent about admitting that...

Mike
 
Mike 'Fireman' Ross said:
More significant for what the letter doesn't say; there's nothing covering drones or UAVs, commercial or otherwise, in the current FARs at all; it's a free for all, you can fly as you like. But they're curiously reticent about admitting that...

Mike
Click to expand...

Mike,
Please do some research before making a statement like "It's a free for all, you can fly as you like".
It is just not true.

There is plenty of documentation out there - including on REDUser - that clearly documents it is illegal to commercially operate these units in US Airspace..

This is part of language in the Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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."

In other words, until they finalize and release rules allowing it, it is illegal.

Am I against being able to use a UAS with my EPIC - or any other camera? Absolutely not.
I agree fully with what Robert and Dominick posted.

Safety is important. Otherwise, why bother to ground the electrical system, why use safety cables on light fixtures, why apply flame retardant treatments to fabrics - or limit the number of hours one can work in a row so one of your crew members doesn't die in a car wreck.

While some see it as government control, I appreciate some level - especially when the "free for all" can place one of these units in the hands of someone that may not have achieved a three digit IQ. To those that would argue that point, would they also say no license to drive a car? Or eliminate the requirement for a CDL to operate a large truck? Already, some folks out there have done some really stupid things - including flying one between buildings in Manhattan and crashing it into a sidewalk (just missing a pedestrian).


Rant over. I look forward to the conclusion of the process that is underway.

What is particularly frustrating for many of us is why it will take until 2015 for the regulations to be finalized. Why so long?
The need is there now, not over a year away. I'd like to know what will be required and begin preparing...
 
Patrick Tresch said:
Ok your speaking about creating a license for drone flying. But I think this is the kind of stuff that kills our industry. I think none will fly an Epic without training. No renting house will allow this. It's a pitty people are willing to give up freedom without having to get asked for.

fiming the Eifel tower in Paris = banned
filming freely with a tripod on the street = banned
filming freely in the street with a crew larger than 4 people = banned
filming people in streets = banned
filming in subway = banned

Remember we live in a free world!

Let's stop all those damn banns!

Pat
Click to expand...

A genuinely free world is never a world without laws. If you want that, visit the poorest countries in Africa - you might not like it as much you think, and someone will likely steal your camera before you get the chance to film anything.

One man's freedom is another man's violation of privacy rights. That said, filming people in the streets is not banned in most places, and I know someone who got a permit for the Eiffel tower last year

But, you know, for what you list I mostly agree with you, but it's not at all the same set of concerns as there are no safety concerns involved. It's pretty hard to accidentally injure someone with a camera on the ground. It's very easy to do so with a drone. It's a heavy, flying object. I don't want any jerk with an extra 20K to just be able to risk my physical safety whenever they want, and I'd rather a serious legislative body control who can do this and where than "the guy at the rental house".
 
Last edited:
Drones should not be allowed above people. I've been on 5 shoots with them, and they've fallen to the ground twice breaking both the epics and lenses.

While government regulation can be burdensome, this is a pretty clear cut issue. The FAA needs to put very specific rules in place as to where and when you can fly, and who can fly them.
 
Brian F Kobylarz said:
Mike,
Please do some research before making a statement like "It's a free for all, you can fly as you like".
It is just not true.

There is plenty of documentation out there - including on REDUser - that clearly documents it is illegal to commercially operate these units in US Airspace..

This is part of language in the Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
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."

In other words, until they finalize and release rules allowing it, it is illegal.
Click to expand...

Errr, actually no.

The FAA have dropped the ball VERY badly on this one, and have been maneuvering frantically to cover that up.

I suggest you read and inwardly digest this brief:

http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/FAA-v-Pirker.pdf

It's fascinating. He takes the FAA pronouncements about their 'policy' and basically hands them their arse.

Executive summary: it is and always has been legal and unregulated. They can't make it illegal or subject to regulation without making a new rule. To make a new rule they have to jump through the mandatory hoops, issue a notice of proposed rulemaking, have a notice and comment period etc. They haven't done any of that; they've just invented a new rule - a ban, in fact - which goes against everything they've said or done before, and dressed it up as a 'policy statement' to try and do an end run around the notice and comment thing. They're not allowed to do that! The 'policy' you posted isn't worth the paper its written on.

I don't disagree with your strictures about safety. I'm not saying it shouldn't be subject to regulation.

I am saying the FAA appear to have been caught with their pants down.

Mike
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top