3 ms·

If you make a profit derived from aviation activity in the U.S. you have to have a commercial pilot certificate. It's been this way for decades. The FAA has pro

by cmurf 12y ago

If you make a profit derived from aviation activity in the U.S. you have to have a commercial pilot certificate. It's been this way for decades. The FAA has proposed a reduced burden certification for drones that merely involves passing a test. A certified private pilot can't even break even when sharing expenses. It's operating cost divided by number of occupants, and since the pilot is an occupant he must pay a fair share or it's a violation of his certification. A certified commercial pilot can't even arrange the aircraft, or it's considered a charter operation, which operates under different regulations (FAR 135). So the commercial pilot has to be hired separately from the aircraft to engage in a general aviation for profit flight. Again, it's been this way for decades.

ccvannorman 12y ago
It would seem this law made sense before, but one should be allowed to video oneself with a drone and post it to YouTube without consequences. I don't really see what the general population has to lose from this action.
- cmurf 12y ago
  The same problem applies to a pilot who sells aerial photos, and even if there's a photographer on board taking aerial photos for the purpose of licensing them commercially, the purpose of the flight is commercial. It's a slippery slope if the purpose of the video is purely personal, yet the video author knows he's going to make money by putting it up on youtube. Seems like Google should have a way to opt out of being paid for videos. You're either selling a license, or you're sharing them under some e.g. "creative commons" type license and not making any money off of them.
  - hurin 12y ago
    You're saying every pilot whose flown a small Cessna where a passenger writing an article for a magazine took a photo or two was commercially certified? " In general, whenever we receive a complaint about an unauthorized UAS operation, we contact the operator and educate them about the regulations so they can comply," It seems to me that the above is more orientated towards repeat offenders than for a couple one-time pictures.
    - FireBeyond 12y ago
      Technically and absolutely they should have been (and in this instance, I agree) - the magazine and/or photographer likely compensated the pilot for their time, fuel and use of the aircraft which is very precisely the definition of a commercial air operation.
      - hurin 12y ago
        Is it a question of whether they were compensated or whether the art was used commercially? i.e. if a private pilot takes a friend along and the friend later sells said pictures to a magazine.
        FireBeyond 12y ago
        My feeling is that a coincidental situation like that should be acceptable (the FAA may well disagree). In terms of sharing costs (or accepting compensation) for rides, there is often a straight face test - is it genuinely and sincerely a shared interest in undertaking a flight, with a goal (outside the flight itself) for both the pilot and passenger. If not, then it's considered commercial. The FAA rightly or wrongly tends to view "nudge nudge wink wink" stuff on the conservative side.
    - cmurf 12y ago
      Yes. Most people don't know this, but there's two certifications for "getting paid as a pilot" one is the commercial certificate, the other is the airline transport pilot (pilot vernacular is to say "she/he's an ATP"). So when you think of "commercial air carriers" those are ATPs. People who fly cargo, certified flight instructors, many charter pilots, etc have commercial certificates.
  - knd775 12y ago
    Are you familiar with YouTube monetization? You have to specifically enable monetization on a video by video basis.
  - lutorm 12y ago
    cmurf is correct. The FAA has an absolutely ridiculous standard for what they consider commercial activity. If you are a private pilot, you may not: * Go joyriding with a friend if they pay you more than their share of the operating expenses (gas, oil, airport fees, etc) of the flight. * Have a friend ask you "hey, want to fly to <insert location> this weekend?" and then take him there. Doing so could be construed as you providing a transportation service, even if he pays you nothing. Basically, what you can do is offer friends to come along on a flight you intend to make and will make even if they don't come, while paying no more than their fair share. If making the flight is contingent on them coming, you are providing a transportation service. The fact that these activities would be perfectly fine if done in a car apparently matters not one whit to the FAA.
deelowe 12y ago
So, put another way, the law is outdated and needs to be fixed. I'm sure when the commercial requirements were added to the FAA regulations, they weren't intended to target what is essentially hobbyists operating RC planes with home video recorders attached. This seems needlessly burdensome and most likely net negative for the FAA.
scott_karana 12y ago
The law, as it's drafted, is daft. Holding companies, anyone? Drone pilot generates footage, donates it for free to his shell company. Shell company monetizes video. Shell company has never operated an aircraft. Profit. The law only makes sense for commercial activity directly related to flying, as far as I'm concerned.
- gamblor956 12y ago
  One of the mistakes armchair lawyers make is assuming that the mere text of the rules is all that matters. In many cases, and especially when dealing with regulations issued by agencies, the intent of the regulation also matters. (Note: statute/law = issued by Congress; regulation = issued by government agency.) Agency regulations are not held to the strict interpretive requirements as are statutes, since agency regulations by their very nature include a measure of interpretation. (For more information on this topic, lookup Chevron deference.) The clear intent of the regulations are to prevent unregistered commercial use of drone footage. Thus, in this case it doesn't matter if the drone pilot doesn't commercialize the footage if he gives it to his own shell company* to commercialize. That would be illegal under the plain intent of the regulations. (It could be different if he gave it completely for free to an unrelated company and they commercialized it without his permission or knowledge.) The right to fly a drone is a permissive license, so the burden to prove non-commercial use can be placed on the pilot. The pilot's intent not to commercialize the footage at the time of shooting can matter...but only if he can show that he did not intend to commercialize the footage at the time he recorded it. Thus, for example, a guy randomly shooting footage happens to capture a newsworthy event and later sells that footage to a news network will most likely be treated as not operating the drone commercially. However, if the guy flies his drone for the purpose of capturing a newsworthy event and later sells the footage, he will likely be treated as operating the drone commercially unless he can demonstrate a non-commercial intent.
codingdave 12y ago
But I could take my drone, hire my neighbor who is a commercial pilot to fly it for, say, a quarter, and then use the footage? I think he'd be up for that.
- fixedd 12y ago
  Is he multi-engine rotorcraft rated? ;)

by cmurf 12y ago

ccvannorman 12y ago

It would seem this law made sense before, but one should be allowed to video oneself with a drone and post it to YouTube without consequences. I don't really see what the general population has to lose from this action.

cmurf 12y ago
The same problem applies to a pilot who sells aerial photos, and even if there's a photographer on board taking aerial photos for the purpose of licensing them commercially, the purpose of the flight is commercial. It's a slippery slope if the purpose of the video is purely personal, yet the video author knows he's going to make money by putting it up on youtube. Seems like Google should have a way to opt out of being paid for videos. You're either selling a license, or you're sharing them under some e.g. "creative commons" type license and not making any money off of them.
- hurin 12y ago
  You're saying every pilot whose flown a small Cessna where a passenger writing an article for a magazine took a photo or two was commercially certified? " In general, whenever we receive a complaint about an unauthorized UAS operation, we contact the operator and educate them about the regulations so they can comply," It seems to me that the above is more orientated towards repeat offenders than for a couple one-time pictures.
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    Technically and absolutely they should have been (and in this instance, I agree) - the magazine and/or photographer likely compensated the pilot for their time, fuel and use of the aircraft which is very precisely the definition of a commercial air operation.
    - hurin 12y ago
      Is it a question of whether they were compensated or whether the art was used commercially? i.e. if a private pilot takes a friend along and the friend later sells said pictures to a magazine.
      - FireBeyond 12y ago
        My feeling is that a coincidental situation like that should be acceptable (the FAA may well disagree). In terms of sharing costs (or accepting compensation) for rides, there is often a straight face test - is it genuinely and sincerely a shared interest in undertaking a flight, with a goal (outside the flight itself) for both the pilot and passenger. If not, then it's considered commercial. The FAA rightly or wrongly tends to view "nudge nudge wink wink" stuff on the conservative side.
  - cmurf 12y ago
    Yes. Most people don't know this, but there's two certifications for "getting paid as a pilot" one is the commercial certificate, the other is the airline transport pilot (pilot vernacular is to say "she/he's an ATP"). So when you think of "commercial air carriers" those are ATPs. People who fly cargo, certified flight instructors, many charter pilots, etc have commercial certificates.
- knd775 12y ago
  Are you familiar with YouTube monetization? You have to specifically enable monetization on a video by video basis.
- lutorm 12y ago
  cmurf is correct. The FAA has an absolutely ridiculous standard for what they consider commercial activity. If you are a private pilot, you may not: * Go joyriding with a friend if they pay you more than their share of the operating expenses (gas, oil, airport fees, etc) of the flight. * Have a friend ask you "hey, want to fly to <insert location> this weekend?" and then take him there. Doing so could be construed as you providing a transportation service, even if he pays you nothing. Basically, what you can do is offer friends to come along on a flight you intend to make and will make even if they don't come, while paying no more than their fair share. If making the flight is contingent on them coming, you are providing a transportation service. The fact that these activities would be perfectly fine if done in a car apparently matters not one whit to the FAA.

deelowe 12y ago

So, put another way, the law is outdated and needs to be fixed. I'm sure when the commercial requirements were added to the FAA regulations, they weren't intended to target what is essentially hobbyists operating RC planes with home video recorders attached. This seems needlessly burdensome and most likely net negative for the FAA.

scott_karana 12y ago

The law, as it's drafted, is daft. Holding companies, anyone? Drone pilot generates footage, donates it for free to his shell company. Shell company monetizes video. Shell company has never operated an aircraft. Profit. The law only makes sense for commercial activity directly related to flying, as far as I'm concerned.

gamblor956 12y ago
One of the mistakes armchair lawyers make is assuming that the mere text of the rules is all that matters. In many cases, and especially when dealing with regulations issued by agencies, the intent of the regulation also matters. (Note: statute/law = issued by Congress; regulation = issued by government agency.) Agency regulations are not held to the strict interpretive requirements as are statutes, since agency regulations by their very nature include a measure of interpretation. (For more information on this topic, lookup Chevron deference.) The clear intent of the regulations are to prevent unregistered commercial use of drone footage. Thus, in this case it doesn't matter if the drone pilot doesn't commercialize the footage if he gives it to his own shell company* to commercialize. That would be illegal under the plain intent of the regulations. (It could be different if he gave it completely for free to an unrelated company and they commercialized it without his permission or knowledge.) The right to fly a drone is a permissive license, so the burden to prove non-commercial use can be placed on the pilot. The pilot's intent not to commercialize the footage at the time of shooting can matter...but only if he can show that he did not intend to commercialize the footage at the time he recorded it. Thus, for example, a guy randomly shooting footage happens to capture a newsworthy event and later sells that footage to a news network will most likely be treated as not operating the drone commercially. However, if the guy flies his drone for the purpose of capturing a newsworthy event and later sells the footage, he will likely be treated as operating the drone commercially unless he can demonstrate a non-commercial intent.

codingdave 12y ago

But I could take my drone, hire my neighbor who is a commercial pilot to fly it for, say, a quarter, and then use the footage? I think he'd be up for that.

fixedd 12y ago
Is he multi-engine rotorcraft rated? ;)