FAA and Civil UAV's

[Pinecone]

They are still working on things. It is all part of the MAJOR rehab of US airspace. LOTS of committees and lots of meetings.

But the word I hear, is that the FAA doesn't really want to get involved with models, but the issue is trying to write the regs to not allow some operators of UAS to slip through.

Commerical use (AP) may still have some regulations.

[edhall]

Thanks,

The wife and I decided that if we didn't have kids now, we wouldn't do it, so my instructing, 135 flying got pushed to the back burner for a couple of years.

I was thinking of getting a add on ratting, but I have decided to do RC heli's now, and go get the ratting when my daughter is 2, which is in about a year.

[BrandonGold]

Originally Posted by cbergen

You are correct in that if used for recreational/hobby purposes, you should have no trouble.

The problem is, and this is difficult to get people to understand, that IF used for COMMERCIAL purposes, ie, YOU GET PAID, then the FAA is interested. They are also interested even if you are using it for NON-PROFIT purposes like SAR.

We KNOW this for fact as Gene Robinson was CALLED by the FAA and told NOT to fly using his foamy airplane for a SAR mission. He was NOT using a Yamaha R-Max, NOT using a Navy Firescout, but a FOAMY airplane at less than 400 ft, or at least was planning on it........This is not conjecture, this is fact.

heres my take on the situation , as ive educated myself quite a bit ... i understand the risks and I am still moving forward with my aerial videography business .... there are all kinds of loop holes for billing a client that can keep you safe ... and thats what i will do until they either crack down or have a set of laws that i can comply with ... until then ... im just going to keep flying , recording video in the air and getting paid to do so .... i just shot some footage for a group of LAPD motorcycle stunt riders .... and they didnt seem to have a problem paying me ... so my 2 cents are .... do what you do ... the laws are still in the works ...and when and if us commercial guys need to get certified we will ... for what im hearing ... its going to be some sort of dumbed down commercial pilots license .... by no means am I encouraging any one to break the laws ... but I however operate safely and have always lived by the rule if your not hurting anyone do it ... now playing devils advocate to my statements ... EVERYONE FLY SAFELY !!!! all its going to take is one idiot on a shoot to fly to close to someone have an error machine and or pilot and kill someone .... yes people ..... anything above a 500 class heli could kill someone in my opinion .... my 450 spun up on me once do to a faulty throttle hold and i needed about 10 stitches .... so its just going to take 1 incident and then all hell will rain down on all of us .....until then ... fly safe , have fun , and if you can make money doing it ... by all means .....

again ... just my 2CENTS

[Pinecone]

Except you ARE encouraging people to break the law, by your example of ignoring the regulations or trying to work through loopholes.

[BrandonGold]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

Except you ARE encouraging people to break the law, by your example of ignoring the regulations or trying to work through loopholes.

Currently the "Law" is very fuzzy on what is and isnt acceptable. If i do a real estate shoot on someones property with there consent I dont think its breaking the law ...

in its simplest terms ... yes I am breaking the law ... but the law is outdated and they are working on revamping it ... until then I think it is safe to say use your own judgement.

some laws in my opinion are just plain retarded if you ask me ... such as this one about uav's ....

there are others that are equally retarded , in my great state of california did you know this is on the lawbooks -
"No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour."
or
carmel ca - city law
"A man can’t go outside while wearing a jacket and pants that do not match."

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/california

look up your own state ... its really fun
http://www.dumblaws.com/

point being ... this FAA law is very hazy , it also does not account for almost all "commercial aerial business"

from what I hear from people who have been doing this longer than I have as well as many other companies , manufacturers and fellow pilots is that a more straight forward law is going to be set forth but has not been enacted yet ... at that time , commercial aerial video pilots might need to take a test and get a sudo license

[cbergen]

Something I learned from another forum, one discussing gun rights and carrying, that may be useful in this discussion.

Pinecone, you say that what he is doing is breaking the Law. I would ask for a cite, point out the law or regulation that he is breaking.

What I'm looking for is the law that states unequivocally that using an R/C Aircraft for taking pictures for hire is illegal.

As an example, relating to the gun board, in Michigan it is illegal for a gun to be transported openly in a vehicle, UNLESS you have a CPL.

And the cite is,

Section 227(2) of the Michigan Penal Code, MCL 750.227(2), makes it a crime to carry a pistol, whether concealed or otherwise,
in a vehicle. Section 227(2) states, in pertinent part, as follows:
A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, whether concealed or otherwise, in a
vehicle operated or occupied by the person, except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land
possessed by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if licensed, shall not carry the
pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any restrictions upon such license

[BrandonGold]

Originally Posted by cbergen

Something I learned from another forum, one discussing gun rights and carrying, that may be useful in this discussion.

Pinecone, you say that what he is doing is breaking the Law. I would ask for a cite, point out the law or regulation that he is breaking.

What I'm looking for is the law that states unequivocally that using an R/C Aircraft for taking pictures for hire is illegal.

As an example, relating to the gun board, in Michigan it is illegal for a gun to be transported openly in a vehicle, UNLESS you have a CPL.

And the cite is,

ive been trying to find that myself ... i can not ... ps we need to talk about a new aerial ship to add to my fleet soon very very impressed with your eobserver and you whole observer line .... bump for an awesome dude who owns quite possibly an even more awesome company ...

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by cbergen

Pinecone, you say that what he is doing is breaking the Law. I would ask for a cite, point out the law or regulation that he is breaking.

What I'm looking for is the law that states unequivocally that using an R/C Aircraft for taking pictures for hire is illegal.

The point is, AC 91-57 exempts model aircraft operations from the FAA regulations. The FAA is saying that these uses are NOT model aviation and therefore must comply with the regulations.

The bad news is, a government agency can change the interpetations of the regulations without any rules changing process.

[cbergen]

therefore must comply with the regulations.

WHAT regulations? That's my point. Find me the regulations. Find the FAR's that tell me flying a UAV is illegal.

[BrandonGold]

Originally Posted by cbergen

WHAT regulations? That's my point. Find me the regulations. Find the FAR's that tell me flying a UAV is illegal.

[Skiddz]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

The point is, AC 91-57 exempts model aircraft operations from the FAA regulations. The FAA is saying that these uses are NOT model aviation and therefore must comply with the regulations.

91-57 is ANCIENT. The guys who wrote it aren't even around anymore... The FAA is working on new ACs for this very reason.

The bad news is, a government agency can change the interpetations of the regulations without any rules changing process.

and i this case, then you can argue those interpretations with your local FSDO.. We get into these types of discussions with FDSOs all over the country when our customers try to get our simulators certified for specific tasks/training missions.

Originally Posted by cbergen

WHAT regulations? That's my point. Find me the regulations. Find the FAR's that tell me flying a UAV is illegal.

Let me know when you do. I'd like to read them and "interpret" them as well.

[Pinecone]

It is not that thre are regulations making them illegal specifically, it is just that once you get out of the realm of AC 91-57, you have to meet ALL the regulations, just like full scale.

And AC 91-57 is ancient, but it is the only thing we have to exempts us from the full regulations. And since it has never been revised or replaced, it is still in force.

And no, no more ACs, just a fully new airspace system that adresses sUAS and other systems that were not known when the last revision of the airspace came about.

[txaggie08]

I work for a police department, and will be working with the VFD, they had an interesting question....


Has there been any real ruling on SAR UAV's for law enforcement and FD?

[cbergen]

There is an avenue for Public entities to obtain a COA. It is a lengthy, typical bureacratic type of paperwork chase, and has requirements that are way above what I think are necessary to fly these aircraft.

The NPRM that we have been waiting for has now been pushed even further back, hopefully to come out in the last quarter of this year, but I'm not holding my breath...

[txaggie08]

I'll pass it along to the ones asking the question. We where discussing the possibilities of even a simple IR video download for SAR and firefighting with a bird like this, and I think I got some people very interested.

[Cletus]

I've got the politicians very interested here for a bird that can do some surveillance, AP, etc. The Civil Aviation Authority would be the next hurdle (but not insurmountable), if I could just get the damned politicians to commit to the pilot project. Even considered owning the thing myself and jobbing it out, but the price-range for what I want is just out of reach at this time.

[daveyht3]

Ok I don't own A bergan nor do i ever expect to but i do fly Photography rigs and was one day hoping to turn some sort of profit out of it (not in the near future) anyway my 2 cents is the Government would not be where they are today if it was not for the people in this hobby who put the time effert and money into perfecting UAV's (helis and planes). It seems once a civilian develops and makes a working prototype they find a way to take it away regulate it and make us pay to get it bacK!!! Yes you will get your provision but at what cost? will there be flight reviews, tests, and rating's to obtain? of-course there will!!! You will need a medical cert, a rating for yourtype heli and on and on and on! I got out of real avation because of this mess and now it shows it's ugly head again. Yes It is important that the guy hovering over a house shooting a roof should be competent but jeez just straght up make a law without recourse for the guy who was doing this before the government knew it was around makes me sick. Good luck you guy's I love Bergans but way out of my skill level and price range.

[pappypower]

Hi, guys,

I'm usually found on other forums but I like to read the Bergen posts once in awhile. I saw this article that you might find interesting:

http://arst.ch/t8q

Ars Technica is an online news journal that covers a variety of tech topics. Hope this helps the discussion!