4 ms·

The FAA has never been asked about it before, and the law of the land is "That which is not forbidden is legal." If there's no law against it, it's allowed. I

by bmelton 12y ago

The FAA has never been asked about it before, and the law of the land is "That which is not forbidden is legal." If there's no law against it, it's allowed. In this regard, it makes the statement that they are now banning it more true than they are still banning it, because they have never expressly disallowed it in the past (to my knowledge -- if incorrect, probably renders my point moot). Class E Airspace, that which is between the surface and 2500 feet, is unregulated for the most part (except near a commercial airport, and other such caveats). I don't know the ceiling on the drones in question, or what altitudes they intended to operate within, but if within Class E, this definitely falls under the scope of a 'new' regulation.

cromulent 12y ago
According to the FAA, they clarified this in 2007. No flying a UAS for commercial purposes, only one case has ever been approved. http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240 http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240
- bmelton 12y ago
  Oops. Thanks for the clarification. That explains the yo-yo voting patterns I'm seeing on my post, I suppose.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  at least the 2012 act requires them to allow flying UAS for commercial purposes (at the very least in the arctic, and likely elsewhere, depending on how you read it), and start a rulemaking about it
  - asynchronous13 12y ago
    The 2012 act requires that the FAA have rules in place by 2015. So far, the FAA has missed nearly every deadline that was required by the 2012 act. In theory, the FAA's funding is contingent upon having rules in place. In practice, I'm sure congress will grant them an extension when they end up late.
bri3d 12y ago
Nope! http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraf... UASes fall under the guise of "model aircraft" when operated as a hobby, but as soon as they're operated commercially, they're in their own, specifically defined class of aircraft, as clarified in 2007 (and linked in this comment's sibling). That's why quadcopter video operators often employ humorous (and probably not legally workable) workarounds to sell footage into commercial projects - for example, flying "as a hobby" and then later selling "found footage" back to production companies, or renting some related-but-not-flying piece of hardware like memory cards to the production company at an exorbitant rate (which is really the cost of flying the drone). EDIT: Oh, and 'baddox above reminded me that there's question as to whether any of the FAA's regulations about what is and isn't a model aircraft are enforceable, since they seemed to do an about-face about what counts as a model aircraft as soon as UAVs came onto the scene. One court and most observers said no, the FAA can't suddenly decide some things are model aircraft and some aren't based on whether or not they're used commercially ( http://www.dronejournalismlab.org/post/78814729933/judge-rejects-faas-drone-ban-now-what http://www.dronejournalismlab.org/post/78814729933/judge-rej... ), but the FAA appealed and based on my understanding their appeal means the ruling isn't in effect.
- newaccountfool 12y ago
  Regulating a commercial RCPlane or Multicopter, is it not just a way to extract more cash? No matter what training you have to go through if the aircraft is coming out of the sky its coming out of the sky. Now I know you can try to mitigate it with teaching but the hundreds of things that can go wrong with these aircraft is spectacular. In the uk when doing commercial flying tests your meant to bring the aircraft you aim to fly along with you, what happens if you have loads of aircraft and are a seasoned hobbyist wanting to make money from your passion? You can get around it, do something for someone and just tell them to keep it hush and make a donation to you in some way.
  - bri3d 12y ago
    Flying over densely populated areas, around other aerial operations, and over property is obviously more dangerous than flying in the middle of nowhere - there are approaches to risk mitigation that aren't "teach people how not to crash." I think these should be regulated, even though I own and fly several quadcopters and fixed wing planes regularly. Model aircraft have gone well in the US for the last 30ish years because people tend to self-regulate and the hobby hasn't been very big. Now that every Silicon Valley joker wants in on a perceived gold rush and DJI Phantoms work well and are available for a relatively low cost, hobby flying is moving into dangerous populated areas and the density of R/C craft is increasing. I don't trust the FAA to correctly regulate these, and I see a very depressing day where I won't be able to fly as a hobbyist, but I also see an unregulated future where regulation-skirting companies (maybe they'll "crowdsource drone pilots" or something similarly "sharing economy"-esque) accidentally hit people with drones and basically say "so sorry, sucker!" As for your latter point, that's basically what happens here, too. Lots of TV and commercials are filmed using drones, but the production company either sells the footage as "found footage" or rents out some non-drone piece of equipment (camera, memory card, etc.) from a drone owner at an exorbitant rate with the understanding that the rest covers the drone rental.

by bmelton 12y ago

cromulent 12y ago

According to the FAA, they clarified this in 2007. No flying a UAS for commercial purposes, only one case has ever been approved. http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240 http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=76240

bmelton 12y ago
Oops. Thanks for the clarification. That explains the yo-yo voting patterns I'm seeing on my post, I suppose.
DannyBee 12y ago
at least the 2012 act requires them to allow flying UAS for commercial purposes (at the very least in the arctic, and likely elsewhere, depending on how you read it), and start a rulemaking about it
- asynchronous13 12y ago
  The 2012 act requires that the FAA have rules in place by 2015. So far, the FAA has missed nearly every deadline that was required by the 2012 act. In theory, the FAA's funding is contingent upon having rules in place. In practice, I'm sure congress will grant them an extension when they end up late.

bri3d 12y ago

Nope! http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraft_spec_rule.pdf http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/media/model_aircraf... UASes fall under the guise of "model aircraft" when operated as a hobby, but as soon as they're operated commercially, they're in their own, specifically defined class of aircraft, as clarified in 2007 (and linked in this comment's sibling). That's why quadcopter video operators often employ humorous (and probably not legally workable) workarounds to sell footage into commercial projects - for example, flying "as a hobby" and then later selling "found footage" back to production companies, or renting some related-but-not-flying piece of hardware like memory cards to the production company at an exorbitant rate (which is really the cost of flying the drone). EDIT: Oh, and 'baddox above reminded me that there's question as to whether any of the FAA's regulations about what is and isn't a model aircraft are enforceable, since they seemed to do an about-face about what counts as a model aircraft as soon as UAVs came onto the scene. One court and most observers said no, the FAA can't suddenly decide some things are model aircraft and some aren't based on whether or not they're used commercially ( http://www.dronejournalismlab.org/post/78814729933/judge-rejects-faas-drone-ban-now-what http://www.dronejournalismlab.org/post/78814729933/judge-rej... ), but the FAA appealed and based on my understanding their appeal means the ruling isn't in effect.

newaccountfool 12y ago
Regulating a commercial RCPlane or Multicopter, is it not just a way to extract more cash? No matter what training you have to go through if the aircraft is coming out of the sky its coming out of the sky. Now I know you can try to mitigate it with teaching but the hundreds of things that can go wrong with these aircraft is spectacular. In the uk when doing commercial flying tests your meant to bring the aircraft you aim to fly along with you, what happens if you have loads of aircraft and are a seasoned hobbyist wanting to make money from your passion? You can get around it, do something for someone and just tell them to keep it hush and make a donation to you in some way.
- bri3d 12y ago
  Flying over densely populated areas, around other aerial operations, and over property is obviously more dangerous than flying in the middle of nowhere - there are approaches to risk mitigation that aren't "teach people how not to crash." I think these should be regulated, even though I own and fly several quadcopters and fixed wing planes regularly. Model aircraft have gone well in the US for the last 30ish years because people tend to self-regulate and the hobby hasn't been very big. Now that every Silicon Valley joker wants in on a perceived gold rush and DJI Phantoms work well and are available for a relatively low cost, hobby flying is moving into dangerous populated areas and the density of R/C craft is increasing. I don't trust the FAA to correctly regulate these, and I see a very depressing day where I won't be able to fly as a hobbyist, but I also see an unregulated future where regulation-skirting companies (maybe they'll "crowdsource drone pilots" or something similarly "sharing economy"-esque) accidentally hit people with drones and basically say "so sorry, sucker!" As for your latter point, that's basically what happens here, too. Lots of TV and commercials are filmed using drones, but the production company either sells the footage as "found footage" or rents out some non-drone piece of equipment (camera, memory card, etc.) from a drone owner at an exorbitant rate with the understanding that the rest covers the drone rental.