Originally Posted by 2MacGyver

That is, if you are thoughtless enough to fly over people to capture the jittery video that you wanted.

Thoughtless? I feel like it's more thoughtless that we all purchase RC parts from hong kong instead of North American or European companies to save a few bucks. Show me 1 accident in the past year resulting from someone doing aerial photography and I'll show you ten thousand from the questionable working conditions in sweatshops, some of which where our toys were undoubtably made. It's absurd to look at this like a moral issue; the real question is how do we do it without invoking the wrath of others.

All FPV flying MUST have an AMA FPV pilot and AMA FPV spotter. If not already illegal in your state.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf

Tally is up to nine states and the list is getting larger everyday.

http://www.dronejournalismlab.org/po...t-uav-use-more

Texas State Representative Lance Gooden on his proposal to regulate drones. (3 min 16 sec)

Texas and Idaho join the growing list of a dozen states considering state laws aimed at legislating the use of unmanned aircraft systems (‘Drones’). The number of states either developing or actively pursuing UAS legislation includes…

California, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Virginia

Twelve states now. Growing in popularity.

Be careful guys.

FYI guys, this thread where I've been posting is active concerning the actual text of proposed and/or passed legislation
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...1821936&page=4
Jim

Originally Posted by experimentalrc

Thoughtless? I feel like it's more thoughtless that we all purchase RC parts from hong kong instead of North American or European companies to save a few bucks. Show me 1 accident in the past year resulting from someone doing aerial photography and I'll show you ten thousand from the questionable working conditions in sweatshops, some of which where our toys were undoubtably made. It's absurd to look at this like a moral issue; the real question is how do we do it without invoking the wrath of others.

Amen.
I submit that ,if approached in a methodical & safety conscious way, you can have the same success rate as the thunderbirds or blue angels or any other flying machine that we accept overhead. We need certification and standards so that people are doing it right.
Fear mongering wont deter me.
Ironic that the main one saying you cant fly has the username "aerialskycam".
and the messages end with "be careful"
I guess he means "we" cant fly but he can.
guess what? i'm an aerialskycam too !!!!

I was able to locate a petition that will assist those pilots that live in Oregon. Sign the petition and make things happen! There are already 48 signatures.

I hope this helps.

http://www.change.org/petitions/oreg...nate-bill-71-3

Originally Posted by AerialSkyCam

All FPV flying MUST have an AMA FPV pilot and AMA FPV spotter. If not already illegal in your state.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/550.pdf

That is if you are an AMA member, non AMA members are free to follow federal law, which states that the federal government doesn't own airspace below 400 feet AGL and therefore can't make rules about what happens there. I'm confused about why this is still an issue when I have seen nothing that says the FAA can tell me what to do under 400'.

I feel like a plane/heli/multi is much less dangerous to passing planes than say a kite that has little to no control over where it is in the sky. Should kite flying be banned? There isn't even experience as a barrier to entry into that, my six year old flies kites over populated areas with no licenses and thus far the FAA has said nothing.

That is if you are an AMA member, non AMA members are free to follow federal law

Yeah, being a member of the U.S. largest radio-controlled association does have its drawbacks, but the AMA does speak for its members. As an example, this is on the AMA site now.

Welcome to the Academy of Model Aeronautics' Government Relations page. As the FAA looks to regulate the hobby, sport and educational pursuit of model aviation, this site will keep you informed of the latest news and serves as an outlet to let your voice be heard by AMA and key officials nationwide.

For the last few years I’ve followed threads on AP forums with the same screen names posting over and over on multiple threads, multiple sites (you can no longer take aerial photos!!!!) It’s breaking the law you have to stop!! Read the AMA magazine where I talk about it. What is the point of all the fear mongering?

I totally agree FPV is a problem with some that feel they can fly anywhere without giving any thought to the fact people may own the property their on.

We’re not flying drones in any sense of the word. These are line of site R/C aircraft under 40 lbs. (most under 10lbs) most flying under 300-400 feet.

If we listen to the few Google earth along with any other satellite imagery is now illegal? Air hogs from Wal-mart? Yep do not pass go your headed straight to jail.

Originally Posted by AerialSkyCam

Yeah, being a member of the U.S. largest radio-controlled association does have its drawbacks, but the AMA does speak for its members. As an example, this is on the AMA site now.

I don't disagree, and there are a lot of very good things they do for the hobby, but since I don't pay dues I have zero responsibility to follow their rules.

I also don't disagree that some things people do can be pretty irresponsible, and maybe dangerous.

The point where I disagree is that the FAA has any jurisdiction to tell me that someone cannot pay me to fly LOS over their property, under 400' AGL and take a picture. I know of no legal precedent that gives them authority over any airspace above 400' except near airports, and therefore commercial AP is not illegal. It is positively ridiculous to even suggest that I can put a camera on a kite, an air hogs plane, or a rocket and sell those pictures but somehow this thing that I can totally control in the sky is a danger to aircraft. Actually, in most situations if an aircraft is flying low enough to hit any of these things they are in fact breaking the law and putting the general public in danger, or crashing, and an rc plane/copter is the only one of those airborne things that can move out of the way.

Originally Posted by skitchen8

I don't disagree, and there are a lot of very good things they do for the hobby, but since I don't pay dues I have zero responsibility to follow their rules.

I also don't disagree that some things people do can be pretty irresponsible, and maybe dangerous.

The point where I disagree is that the FAA has any jurisdiction to tell me that someone cannot pay me to fly LOS over their property, under 400' AGL and take a picture. I know of no legal precedent that gives them authority over any airspace above 400' except near airports, and therefore commercial AP is not illegal. It is positively ridiculous to even suggest that I can put a camera on a kite, an air hogs plane, or a rocket and sell those pictures but somehow this thing that I can totally control in the sky is a danger to aircraft. Actually, in most situations if an aircraft is flying low enough to hit any of these things they are in fact breaking the law and putting the general public in danger, or crashing, and an rc plane/copter is the only one of those airborne things that can move out of the way.

You can wish in one hand and poo in the other...Just because you think your version of the regs is appropriate, it would not hold up in (administrative no less) court. On the other hand, you will never be called on it, unless you advertise, and steal business from a full scale photo operation and someone complains.

RC AP pilots are in the same group as RC 3d and "Fly Meet" pilots who are with AMA. We are "RC Modelers". As long as we are under 400' & LOS.

'Commercial' UAV is raytheon,boeing,lockheed,ect.

THEY need COAs because they are flying autonomous , 35lbs, DRONES in the NAS.
we (RC APers) fly 5lbs RC MODELS below the NAS & LOS.
understand the difference?

fear-mongers, stop telling independent RC AP pilots that they need a COA or anything else to fly their models over private property taking pictures for the property owner.
We don't. Show me the statute.

Go post in the 3d & pattern sections that they are doing RC commercially / illegally
(they're getting paid right?)
they'll laugh at you.

i carry a camera, but ITs STILL AN RC MODEL!

Originally Posted by harryarnold

RC AP pilots are in the same group as RC 3d and "Fly Meet" pilots who are with AMA. We are "RC Modelers". As long as we are under 400' & LOS.

'Commercial' UAV is raytheon,boeing,lockheed,ect.

THEY need COAs because they are flying autonomous , 35lbs, DRONES in the NAS.
we (RC APers) fly 5lbs RC MODELS below the NAS & LOS.
understand the difference?

fear-mongers, stop telling independent RC AP pilots that they need a COA or anything else to fly their models over private property taking pictures for the property owner.
We don't. Show me the statute.

Go post in the 3d & pattern sections that they are doing RC commercially / illegally
(they're getting paid right?)
they'll laugh at you.

i carry a camera, but ITs STILL AN RC MODEL!

heh id LOVE to see IMAC or patten try to fly under 400' gl with that
they fly WAY over it most of the time
i can only imagine the backlash if they made a 400' rule for IMAC

and yes the FAA can say what you do under 400' its just that under 400' isnt monitored by ATC
and 400' isnt a high as you think my clubs runway is 300'