5 ms·

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 se

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.

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.