Just watched "Nova: Rise of the drones" for the most part it's just military issues but there was one interesting takeaway.

The FAA's own reports show that AUV pilots did better if they had no prior full scale training. Oops.

When I started flight school, we were going through terms of the helicopter. I said "elevator" makes the helicopter go forward and backward, "aileron" makes the helicopter go sideways, and "rudder" makes the helicopter turn.

My instructor said "there is no elevator, aileron, or rudder on a helicopter". That is when I knew all the terms RC heli pilots were wrong.

I found flying RC helis has helped my flying in a full size helicopter.

The FAA's own reports show that AUV pilots did better if they had no prior full scale training. Oops.

So true.

Originally Posted by AerialSkyCam

When I started flight school, we were going through terms of the helicopter. I said "elevator" makes the helicopter go forward and backward, "aileron" makes the helicopter go sideways, and "rudder" makes the helicopter turn.

My instructor said "there is no elevator, aileron, or rudder on a helicopter". That is when I knew all the terms RC heli pilots were wrong.

I found flying RC helis has helped my flying in a full size helicopter.



So true.

Then why are you saying you need a "full scale COMMERCIAL pilots license" to legally fly UAV AP?

You seem to agree that full scale doesnt help RC skills. I agree after handing my sticks to several "full-scale pilots".

still waiting for that statute

Originally Posted by AerialSkyCam

Law enforcement, Govt., and Universities are the only entities that can obtain a COA. If this wasn't so, I wouldn't be taking classes for my full-scale pilot license.

Thanks for the video Jovanx.

As an ATP, it escapes me where I read that the certificate is needed for UAV operations. So you are going for a commercial rotary wing cert so that you can be legal for flying a model for AP? Or you want to pursue doing it with full scale?

EDIT: Also, how is the video a FAIL? You seemed to have walked away from it.

Originally Posted by harryarnold

still waiting for that statute

It doesn't exist, but I suspect you already knew that.

Some photographers who do AP on request as a side offering to their normal studio work just hire a pilot/plane to get the shots they need. There's no requirement that I've seen, implied or otherwise, for you to have a pilots license to take aerial photographs for commercial use (unless of course you are the pilot and the photographer both, which is probably not very smart from a safety perspective). Even if you had a pilots license, it would not currently make it ok for you to do commercial RC AP, according to everything the FAA has said so far (publicly). The jist of the situation is that there is currently no regulatory path or specific statutes governing commercial RC AP, which according the FAA makes it illegal by default. This may be debatable, but thus far has gone unchallenged in court.

As ridiculous as it is, that is the situation as I understand it today.

As an ATP, it escapes me where I read that the certificate is needed for UAV operations. So you are going for a commercial rotary wing cert so that you can be legal for flying a model for AP? Or you want to pursue doing it with full scale?

The FAA has a dinstinction between private and commercial. Private you cannot charge any money. Commercial you can. The only ones who can receive a COA are Law enforcement, Govt. agencies, and Universities. So, I am taking my pilot training so I can legally take photos and sell them.

EDIT: Also, how is the video a FAIL? You seemed to have walked away from it.

When I was flying, i had lost control of the helicopter several times. That is why I put fail on my video.

Originally Posted by vewdew1

It doesn't exist, but I suspect you already knew that.

Some photographers who do AP on request as a side offering to their normal studio work just hire a pilot/plane to get the shots they need. There's no requirement that I've seen, implied or otherwise, for you to have a pilots license to take aerial photographs for commercial use (unless of course you are the pilot and the photographer both, which is probably not very smart from a safety perspective). Even if you had a pilots license, it would not currently make it ok for you to do commercial RC AP, according to everything the FAA has said so far (publicly). The jist of the situation is that there is currently no regulatory path or specific statutes governing commercial RC AP, which according the FAA makes it illegal by default. This may be debatable, but thus far has gone unchallenged in court.

As ridiculous as it is, that is the situation as I understand it today.

While i don't have my operation setup full time yet, my competitor in my area has and he's taking the rental/operator fee = free image collection approach. Not sure if this is a legal way to negate the FAA ruling, but he's doing it full time. I've been watching from the bushes to see what happens while i asses the viability of the business model. I have had several companies and even TV stations approach me and want exclusive usage, but i have everything on hold for just a bit longer. I've been at this about 3 years, just waiting to see what the FAA will do while i fine tune the service.

My lawyer seems to think with the insurance in place from Hill & Usher, and no official laws just a PRM, we should be safe to fly until we get a Cease and Desist. Be smart though, no sense in ruining the hobby or this potential gold mine business model for everyone flying stupid. I am not a lawyer and not qualified to give legal advice, just don't be stupid.

I've had my share of stupid flights and things i wont do anymore. We shot for a blues fest once, way to close to people... the scenario was inadequately described and when we arrived on site after a 4 hour drive, we discovered there was almost no place to safely avoid flying next to the public. We didn't overfly anyone, but we wont be doing that festival, or any festival with so many people again. We do not use fully collective systems anymore
(only tested those systems)... They are just way to dangerous for populous flying if you ask us.

Originally Posted by geekrawker

My lawyer seems to think with the insurance in place from Hill & Usher, and no official laws just a PRM, we should be safe to fly until we get a Cease and Desist. Be smart though, no sense in ruining the hobby or this potential gold mine business model for everyone flying stupid. I am not a lawyer and not qualified to give legal advice, just don't be stupid.

thanks to you and vewdew1 for the intelligent reponses. i agree 101% with your statements.
Collective pitch is a no-go around people. Must have hoover-in-place/failsafe RTH & stabilized birds for AP. period.
Land < 3.5v per cell ANYWHERE near anything that can be damaged.
Line of sight. General flight and landing plan before launch. spotter if you are around people, to spot & keep people from talking to pilot and keep landing zone clear. NOTSAM awareness.
telemetry would be nice to self-police altitude rules (once agreed on) and battery. and so on.

I think we need a list of these commonly agreed items.
Thank God I have learned lessons without hurting anything or anyone, but it would be nice to pool our lessons learned. Thats the kind of mutual cooperation we will need to get to the place the 3D guys are at with acceptable risk & insurance.

Originally Posted by harryarnold

thanks to you and vewdew1 for the intelligent reponses. i agree 101% with your statements.
Collective pitch is a no-go around people. Must have hoover-in-place/failsafe RTH & stabilized birds for AP. period.
Land < 3.5v per cell ANYWHERE near anything that can be damaged.
Line of sight. General flight and landing plan before launch. spotter if you are around people, to spot & keep people from talking to pilot and keep landing zone clear. NOTSAM awareness.
telemetry would be nice to self-police altitude rules (once agreed on) and battery. and so on.

I think we need a list of these commonly agreed items.
Thank God I have learned lessons without hurting anything or anyone, but it would be nice to pool our lessons learned. Thats the kind of mutual cooperation we will need to get to the place the 3D guys are at with acceptable risk & insurance.

Thanks! i would say land at <3.70 ... had a miss hap with a old pack (hard landing) i try to wrap up when my cells tick past 3.83 now.

RCAPA was a "good try" but they seem to remain inactive. Why don't we re-group on a fresh thread and do what our "beloved" AMA did and establish our own proper set from our real world experience. "we" as a collective group could definitely show a safe commercial operating standard and be a self regulating civilian group if our voice is loud enough. I'm sure the FAA will pass a few laws, but lets face it... the AMA has no interest in this area and have show they are iffy with any FPV system. RAPA remains silent even though they "represent" us members. So who is really fighting for us safe operating APV guys (i like APV, photos are a snap, video has been the super fun challenge)

I agree with the safety comments you made. I do use FPV gear but i fly LOS. I'm awaiting a monocular system. as is, i use a non sealed set of googles atop my hat so i can glance at the live feet from time to time. Spotter yes, but i find he tends to watch the screen more. thoughts on starting a real RCAP national orginization?

Originally Posted by brushless55

I find comment #6 interesting in that thread......

"we have not responded. Figured the mighty FAA would come for a real visit if they actually saw us as a violator or threat. Honestly, the letter feels more like spam and we'll treat it as such until they knock on our door. Maybe they are looking for some sort of self implication as such. It's been more than the time allotted and no contact yet. Who knows....."

repost

Originally Posted by harryarnold

Im sorry. maybe you missed my post.. I didnt see a reply.
sir,
i have only asked you for the exact statute that backs up your statement that one has to be a " full scale commercial pilot" to legally fly UAV AP.
I was just curious as i couldn't find the statute/law/rule you represented.

Will you please respond so everyone won't think you are full of it.
Honestly seems like you dont want any competition out here.
Prove me wrong and post the statute.
thanks
(not a link to people talking about a statute either !!)

yep

Originally Posted by harryarnold

Then why are you saying you need a "full scale COMMERCIAL pilots license" to legally fly UAV AP?

You seem to agree that full scale doesnt help RC skills. I agree after handing my sticks to several "full-scale pilots".

still waiting for that statute

Originally Posted by vewdew1

It doesn't exist, but I suspect you already knew that.

Some photographers who do AP on request as a side offering to their normal studio work just hire a pilot/plane to get the shots they need. There's no requirement that I've seen, implied or otherwise, for you to have a pilots license to take aerial photographs for commercial use (unless of course you are the pilot and the photographer both, which is probably not very smart from a safety perspective). Even if you had a pilots license, it would not currently make it ok for you to do commercial RC AP, according to everything the FAA has said so far (publicly). The jist of the situation is that there is currently no regulatory path or specific statutes governing commercial RC AP, which according the FAA makes it illegal by default. This may be debatable, but thus far has gone unchallenged in court.

As ridiculous as it is, that is the situation as I understand it today.

Originally Posted by geekrawker

While i don't have my operation setup full time yet, my competitor in my area has and he's taking the rental/operator fee = free image collection approach. Not sure if this is a legal way to negate the FAA ruling, but he's doing it full time. I've been watching from the bushes to see what happens while i asses the viability of the business model. I have had several companies and even TV stations approach me and want exclusive usage, but i have everything on hold for just a bit longer. I've been at this about 3 years, just waiting to see what the FAA will do while i fine tune the service.

My lawyer seems to think with the insurance in place from Hill & Usher, and no official laws just a PRM, we should be safe to fly until we get a Cease and Desist. Be smart though, no sense in ruining the hobby or this potential gold mine business model for everyone flying stupid. I am not a lawyer and not qualified to give legal advice, just don't be stupid.

Originally Posted by harryarnold

thanks to you and vewdew1 for the intelligent reponses. i agree 101% with your statements.
Collective pitch is a no-go around people. Must have hoover-in-place/failsafe RTH & stabilized birds for AP. period.
Land < 3.5v per cell ANYWHERE near anything that can be damaged.
Line of sight. General flight and landing plan before launch. spotter if you are around people, to spot & keep people from talking to pilot and keep landing zone clear. NOTSAM awareness.
telemetry would be nice to self-police altitude rules (once agreed on) and battery. and so on.

I think we need a list of these commonly agreed items.
Thank God I have learned lessons without hurting anything or anyone, but it would be nice to pool our lessons learned. Thats the kind of mutual cooperation we will need to get to the place the 3D guys are at with acceptable risk & insurance.

Originally Posted by geekrawker

Thanks! i would say land at <3.70 ... had a miss hap with a old pack (hard landing) i try to wrap up when my cells tick past 3.83 now.

RCAPA was a "good try" but they seem to remain inactive. Why don't we re-group on a fresh thread and do what our "beloved" AMA did and establish our own proper set from our real world experience. "we" as a collective group could definitely show a safe commercial operating standard and be a self regulating civilian group if our voice is loud enough. I'm sure the FAA will pass a few laws, but lets face it... the AMA has no interest in this area and have show they are iffy with any FPV system. RAPA remains silent even though they "represent" us members. So who is really fighting for us safe operating APV guys (i like APV, photos are a snap, video has been the super fun challenge)

I agree with the safety comments you made. I do use FPV gear but i fly LOS. I'm awaiting a monocular system. as is, i use a non sealed set of googles atop my hat so i can glance at the live feet from time to time. Spotter yes, but i find he tends to watch the screen more. thoughts on starting a real RCAP national orginization?

I'm just throwing up a post of things I agree with...
and the last few post are very helpful!

lets have fun with this hobby getting the shots and videos other cannot!

The rental angle will not work, the FAA has seen that for decades in charter operations of full scale. It's called 134 and a 1/2, where 135 is a full charter service. They work on intent. Neither will selling a $500 coffee cup with an picture or two thrown in for free. Intent. If you think you are fooling them, your not. They probably just don't care, no one has complained, they don't have the resources, or are not ready to go down that road yet.
Furthermore, and I think this is a biggy, we are dealing with Administrative Law. All that gobilygook about the presumption of innocence? Gone. You are presumed guilty, and have to prove your innocence.

Like I said earlier, anyone who has a serious business here in the states based on AP via uav, the business is built on a house of cards. Some have already had that demonstrated, others have yet to feel it.

Originally Posted by AerialSkyCam

The FAA has a dinstinction between private and commercial. Private you cannot charge any money. Commercial you can. The only ones who can receive a COA are Law enforcement, Govt. agencies, and Universities. So, I am taking my pilot training so I can legally take photos and sell them.


When I was flying, i had lost control of the helicopter several times. That is why I put fail on my video.

My point is that nowhere in the privileges stated for commercial pilot, does it mention UAV's.

Originally Posted by brushless55

I find comment #6 interesting in that thread......

"we have not responded. Figured the mighty FAA would come for a real visit if they actually saw us as a violator or threat. Honestly, the letter feels more like spam and we'll treat it as such until they knock on our door. Maybe they are looking for some sort of self implication as such. It's been more than the time allotted and no contact yet. Who knows....."

we have yet to see any real anything come from this so called letter

Originally Posted by brushless55

we have yet to see any real anything come from this so called letter

Well, according to you, you never charged anyone for your pictures. That is what they were looking for. If it is as you say, I doubt you will see anything.

Originally Posted by Deadstick 8409

Well, according to you, you never charged anyone for your pictures. That is what they were looking for. If it is as you say, I doubt you will see anything.

I was talking about someone elses comment about a letter they received from FAA or possible spam
I have yet to see any RCAP taken to court