OK.. SO whats really up the the FAA regs!

[vrwired]

Ok.. I read and read.. I read that the regulations are vague.. and I also hear that they have maybe ruled against AP for profit?

What gives... what is the real deal with this.. I would love to really do this and make some side money, but would I be busted or not?

I am currently in the process of shopping out a JR GSR Voyager... would I just be wasting my time?

Any input would be great.. oh yeah.. can I run a JR Voyager on a DX7 with a 401 on the tail?

[ErichF]

The basic jist is this:

You cannot operate any unmanned aircraft, regardless of command/control system employed, in the conduct of a commercial operation within the National Airspace System, without a Certificate of Authority or Waiver (COA). You cannot apply for said COA unless you are under a government agency. Such operation is against current FAA Policy. Note the wording...this is not a Federal Aviation Regulation. What it is, is a liability shift from the FAA. Lets say you have an engine failure and your bird autos onto someone's head and severly injures them. If the FAA had no policy against such operations, the injured party could sue the FAA for "Letting those things fly". So, in my opinion, this whole policy is just an effort in liability sheltering.

Now, as for recreational use, the FAA relies on AC91-57, operations of model aircraft, as a guide for such operations. However, it doesn't shelter the FAA from the same litigation as above. So, the question is, why one and not the other?

As a DOD contractor, I have operated UAVs in government sponsored COAs, and it's a red tape nightmare, especially if you have an excursion (accidentally leave the COA airspace).

The is no real end in sight. Many have chosen to take different interpretations of the policy and spin it in their favor. Others choose to ignore the policy, and deal with consequences if something were to happen. It's not like the FAA has the manpower to enforce the policy to any real effect.

[crewchief]

Nice insightful analysis, Erich. Interesting to hear about somebody sweating excursions, rather than incursions!

[vrwired]

Interesting... Thanks for chiming in. Yeah, the word in question is the word Policy...
They dont say it is law.. just policy. hmm and it is interesting that they try to cover themselves regarding the commercial activities and not the private for fun activities.

Wouldnt the business side of flying helicopter be much more responsible in nature?.. compared to yahoos out there just havin fun.

One way I thought about going about doing AP business is to not only photograph Aerial shots but also regular land shots... the invoice that is given to the employer of your service will show a charge for normal photography... and the aerial images can either be written in as given for free.. or for demonstration purposes, or not at all... That way your flying is not about a business or commercial application and therefore not against the FAA's so called policy.

Imagine I was just doing some photo shots for my customer say... then decide to take a heli break!

So, I guess you could say this would be spinning things in my own favor!

Also.. I hear that I can get insurance for this? AM I wrong... I have read that people have gotten insurance... recently aquired insurance also.

[raginredneck93]

I'd be interested to know more about this as well. I've been seriously considering starting up a side business doing AP for real estate agents and such, but the last thing I need to do is get in trouble with the FAA. Lucky I found this post, as I was assuming that the regulations for model aircraft were the same regardless of whether it was for business or pleasure. If this is an FAA no-no, then I'd assume that an insurance company wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole either, and I'm definitely not too interested in doing this without some kind of insurance. I know my AMA insurance isn't any good for commercial operations, so what's a person to do?

I have another question though. If it's illegal, or at least poo pooed by the FAA, to operate an unmanned aircraft for commerce, then how do "pro" pilots get away with being sponsored by the manufacturers to fly in competitions and such. I'm sure it's a case of the aforementioned "spinning the rules in their favor", but wouldn't getting paid to fly an RC aircraft in a competition or as a demonstration qualify as operating an unmanned aircraft in commerce? Maybe I'm an idiot, but I can't really see a difference. Getting paid is getting paid, and that's commerce in my opinion. Has anyone actually asked the FAA about this? Perhaps they, or an aviation lawyer could clear up how the regulations, or "Policy", should apply in this case? What's the penalty for violating a "policy"? Inquiring minds want to know!

[raginredneck93]

OK, I went to the FAA website and found this http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/452254.pdf. According to the "policy", a COA waiver wouldn't be required for the type of operation that most of us would likely be involved in, but we would need an FAA airworthiness certificate. I don't know if it would be possible to get one for a T-Rex 600, but I'm not done researching either. The other bright side is that according to the document linked above, the FAA is looking into a special category for model aircraft used in commerce since I'm sure they realize that snapping aerial pics for real estate ads isn't exactly the same as trying to build the next generation of Predator drones to fire missiles and hunt down illegal aliens trying to smuggle drugs across the border. We're not likely to fly high enough to mess with full scale aircraft, and I'm sure they realize that. I fired an email off to the FAA asking how the rules would apply in this case, don't know if they'll answer me, but if they do I'll be sure to post the answer here for all to see.

[ErichF]

Been there, done all that.

BTW, you need an airworthiness certificate to even apply for a COA.

I was going to apply for an A/W Cert for our stuff, but have put it off for now.

[cbergen]

I have another question though. If it's illegal, or at least poo pooed by the FAA, to operate an unmanned aircraft for commerce, then how do "pro" pilots get away with being sponsored by the manufacturers to fly in competitions and such. I'm sure it's a case of the aforementioned "spinning the rules in their favor", but wouldn't getting paid to fly an RC aircraft in a competition or as a demonstration qualify as operating an unmanned aircraft in commerce? Maybe I'm an idiot, but I can't really see a difference. Getting paid is getting paid, and that's commerce in my opinion. Has anyone actually asked the FAA about this? Perhaps they, or an aviation lawyer could clear up how the regulations, or "Policy", should apply in this case? What's the penalty for violating a "policy"? Inquiring minds want to know!

The difference, as I see it, is that this "commerce", as you call it, is HOBBY related. These "commercial" flights are usually flown at R/C Model fields, usually under AMA guidelines, for the purpose of demonstrating HOBBY model aircraft. I believe that these Pilots ARE covered by AMA insurance while engaged in these activities, which lends creedence to this view. You have to delineate the purpose for the flight, Hobby commerce related or (enter your AP business name here).

On the other hand, some people may be flying aircraft used for commercial purposes at AMA fields, while doing test flights and maybe camera vibe testing, but NOT actually doing a commercial paying job. Are they then covered by AMA insurance if there is an incident? We may NOT want to know the answer......:)

[Tonystott]

Here in Australia, I directly asked CASA (our FAA equivalent) why commercial R/C AP is forbidden but amateur/hobby is not.The answer has some logic superficially at least... a commercial operator is going to log more flight hours and therefore, through exposure, represent a higher risk. We could well argue this, as I am sure many AP operators work on the up/shoot/down principle, compared to "tooling around".and I reckon it is a crap answer!

[raginredneck93]

I have to wonder if the whole thing has to do with the fact that the FAA and its international equivalents are around to regulate/represent the interests of full scale pilots. If every RC heli pilot with a desire to turn their hobby into a profitable AP business were to actually do so, I would imagine it might cut into the profits of various flying services that carry photographers aloft from time to time no doubt for a hefty fee. Our overhead would no doubt be exponentially lower than that of a full scale operation, so they would have no chance of competing price wise. I doubt that they feel too terribly threatened at this point, but when it comes to the government it's hard to say what they're up to. I'd be willing to bet however, that if it were to become clearly legal there would be a few full scale pilots/flying services crying to their local lobbyists in pretty short order.

[Skiddz]

I spoke to our (meaning my work's) contact at the FAA regarding this and he basically said the Advisory Circular in question (91-57 if memory serves) was written in 1981 and is being "revamped" and to be safe, just talk to your local FSDO (Flight Services District Office) about what you're doing. If the local FSDO folks give you the ok, you're good to go as far as the FAA is concerned.

It'd still be a very good idea to have some sort of liability policy in place and not rely solely on the AMA's.

[raginredneck93]

Good info Skiddz, you definitely got a lot farther than I did sending the FAA an email. ;)

[Skiddz]

Well, take it with a grain of salt. "Our" guy, deals more with certification of training devices than this particular area, but he did read the AC in question and provided the comments above.

I've dealt with the local FSDO a couple times and it seems that if you've got all your ducks in a row and are making safety a top priority, they seem amenable to granting the request(s).

Not sure how other FSDOs would be, but that's my experience around here.

[aramsdell]

I have flown several times this year with the express permission of an FSDO. An FAA guy from that office was onsite at least once when I was flying. The biggest concern was don't fly over anyone. This was at an airport event BTW. It may have helped that the airspace was completely controlled.