HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Mar 08, 2013, 09:01 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickegan View Post
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirh...-using-drones/


"A drone rental runs $1,000 to $4,000 per day."
i dont understand how anyone could 'rent' a drone & operate it safely. they must be talking about getting a pilot along with the drone right ?
That would sound about right. good regular cameramen can get over 2000 a day for ground based stuff so that seems about right.
A premium is paid to get things like steadicam or crane, so that seems pretty fair. especially when you factor in insurance.
That interview i did, the reporter kept saying that i 'rent' drones to police and fire. i had to correct him and tell him it was a service.
A lot of folks seemingly cant understand that they cant' just buy a UAV and start shooting quality video no matter what they spend.
not to mention danger for operating wo experience...
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Last edited by harryarnold; Mar 08, 2013 at 09:07 PM.
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Mar 08, 2013, 09:16 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nocontrol1 View Post
9 lbs + mounting

Rob D.
it would be on a ground station sir , not in the air....
its a warning device so it would need to be near the pilot.

your airborne GPS would send location to the ground where an ADS-B device could match the drones location and direction against inbound traffic and issue a warning. Actual airborne weight increase would be nothing... (with existing telemetry)

the unit i linked to mounts in the plane along with the pilot.
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Mar 08, 2013, 09:26 PM
Registered User
Joined Jul 2012
448 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryarnold View Post
it would be on a ground station sir , not in the air....
Its a warning device so it would need to be near the pilot.

Your airborne gps would send location to the ground where an ads-b device could match the drones location and direction against inbound traffic and issue a warning. Actual airborne weight increase would be nothing... (with existing telemetry)

the unit i linked to mounts in the plane along with the pilot.
$24,000
tombrown1 is offline Find More Posts by tombrown1
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 08, 2013, 09:42 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
Front page of yesterdays Detroit Free Press.

"Drones bean veddy gude du me" (sammy sosa accent)
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Mar 09, 2013, 06:35 AM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombrown1 View Post
$24,000
Just like w other NEW electronics (gyros, gps,batteries,etc..)

price will fall when they make back the R&D money and start competing for sales.
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Mar 26, 2013, 11:33 PM
2dogrc's Avatar
WHere Flight Was Born, North Carolina
Joined Apr 2005
2,761 Posts
Here is the "law" regarding making money!:

"Model Aircraft
Recreational use of airspace by model aircraft is covered by FAA Advisory Circular 91-57, which generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic. In 2007, the FAA clarified that AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and specifically excludes individuals or companies flying model aircraft for business purposes."

Taken from here:http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=14153.

Now enforcing it is the hard part...

Oh, and the FAA does control the airspace at 400 ft, it can be Class, B,C,D,E or G. It is not class A because that starts at 18,000 ft and goes to 60,000 ft. To determine what class you are in you need a VFR sectional. Reference for the national airspace is here.
2dogrc is offline Find More Posts by 2dogrc
Site Sponsor
Latest blog entry: 2dogrc and 2dogs Flying FPV
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2013, 06:46 AM
Addict.
United States, NY, Binghamton
Joined Jul 2010
1,543 Posts
Quote:
Class G airspace includes all airspace below flight level 600 not otherwise classified as controlled. (AIM 3-3-1) There are no entry or clearance requirements for Class G airspace, even for IFR operations. Class G airspace is typically the airspace very near the ground (1200 feet or less), beneath Class E airspace.

Radio communication is not required in Class G airspace, even for IFR operations. Class G is completely uncontrolled.
I suppose this is the airspace we fall under then as long as we aren't near an airport from my understanding.

I still don't see where the FAA has legal authority to make laws about what happens say, below a tree line, where aircraft definitely should not be in the first place. I also don't understand how flying an RC plane is perfectly fine, but putting a camera on it suddenly makes it more dangerous to other aircraft (which seems to be the argument they are using). Has anyone that got letters tried to fight them on this or have they all just bent over and taken it?
skitchen8 is offline Find More Posts by skitchen8
Last edited by skitchen8; Mar 27, 2013 at 07:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2013, 07:09 AM
Registered User
United States, MO, Springfield
Joined Jul 2010
3,494 Posts
it isnt to other aircraft as much as people on the ground
you can put a camera on your rc plane as much as you want as long as your not using it to make money
Elios000 is offline Find More Posts by Elios000
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2013, 07:20 AM
Addict.
United States, NY, Binghamton
Joined Jul 2010
1,543 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elios000 View Post
it isnt to other aircraft as much as people on the ground
you can put a camera on your rc plane as much as you want as long as your not using it to make money
That last part actually makes it more ridiculous: how does selling the video after the aircraft is on the ground make a flight that already happened more dangerous? How is a flight with a camera more dangerous than a flight with a camera that you're also getting paid for? Wouldn't someone who is getting paid be more likely to not want anything to go wrong? How is a slow moving foam plane or a slow moving multicopter more dangerous to people on the ground than an RC airshow where I am less than 100 feet from a turbine doing almost 200 mph that weighs 40 pounds?

It is astonishing to me that anyone can view these regulations as anything approaching sensible.
skitchen8 is offline Find More Posts by skitchen8
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2013, 07:22 AM
Registered User
United States, MO, Springfield
Joined Jul 2010
3,494 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by skitchen8 View Post
Wouldn't someone who is getting paid be more likely to not want anything to go wrong?
the answer to that sadly is no ask the airlines
the FAA has learned once money starts changing hands safety comes last profits come first
which is why to do AP with full scale you need a commercial ticket
and my guess is they are applying the same logic here

RC airshows like full scale airshows have a flight line
AP means at some point your going to be flying low over people and property

the other issue the FAA has is when flying out of line of sight with FPV rigs go look at the FPV forms and see how high most of them are flying they are up 1000 feet or more its only a matter of time be some one has a mid air with GA or airliner

imo if you want to fly FPV out of line of sight you should need at lest an LSA ticket a transponder on the aircraft and radio just like any other LSA or Ultralight
Elios000 is offline Find More Posts by Elios000
Last edited by Elios000; Mar 27, 2013 at 07:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2013, 12:33 PM
Suspended Account
Joined Jul 2012
1,861 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogrc View Post
Here is the "law" regarding making money!:

"Model Aircraft
Recreational use of airspace by model aircraft is covered by FAA Advisory Circular 91-57, which generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic. In 2007, the FAA clarified that AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and specifically excludes individuals or companies flying model aircraft for business purposes."

Taken from here:http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...m?newsId=14153.

Now enforcing it is the hard part...
This is simply not true. at fun flys all across the country, RC MODELERS fly FOR PROFIT with sponsorship and appearance fees paid in full.
Commercial hobby & part company owners fly and sell their parts. RC Modeling is a completely FOR PROFIT venture that has always been about making money.
Show up at a fun fly this summer and see for yourself. (after you pay for a ticket of course)
A law against RC modelers making money by flying would be very easy to enforce as these events are heavily publicized (with paid advertising).
Me carrying a camera has ZERO to do with it.
my 2kg bird is not a dangerous drone.
i built it with parts from my local hobby shop like all the other modelers.
I fly LOS under 400'. you can pay to watch me or for a picture or whatever you like.

BTW 2dogRC, there is a BIG difference between an administrative advisory and a "LAW"
"Laws" are made in a process you can learn more about here...
school house rock i'm just a bill (2 min 59 sec)


sorry - i know i'm a SA but i cant help it. i really do love all of you !!
FLY WELL AND BE SAFE / HAVE FUN
harryarnold is offline Find More Posts by harryarnold
Last edited by harryarnold; Mar 27, 2013 at 12:44 PM.
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Mar 27, 2013, 01:48 PM
Addict.
United States, NY, Binghamton
Joined Jul 2010
1,543 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elios000 View Post
the answer to that sadly is no ask the airlines
the FAA has learned once money starts changing hands safety comes last profits come first
which is why to do AP with full scale you need a commercial ticket
and my guess is they are applying the same logic here
I don't know that AP and passenger carrying can really play by the same logic here. With airlines you're talking about a bottom line that must be met, you have to pay for the fuel in the aircraft, and the employees that make up the flight and ground crews. Most AP businesses I have seen flying RC are one or two man operations. The aircraft is a sunk cost, and the "refueling" is at most $0.50 worth of electricity. One accident, at this stage, puts an AP business out of business, so I would imagine that as we have seen with forum members who are doing professional AP safety is paramount.

Quote:
RC airshows like full scale airshows have a flight line
AP means at some point your going to be flying low over people and property
Well, over people is debatable, but getting a waiver for people on private property could easily be made standard practice. As far as flying over property: 99.9% of the situations I can think of where someone is hiring you for AP is going to be flying over their own property. Maybe a legal waiver is necessary for that as well, but at that point you're being given permission to fly over the private property you are filming. This again brings up the question: what right does the FAA have to tell a golf course owner that they can't hire a quadcopter to take shots of their course, but a totally out of control golf ball flying at around the same height is safer. I've been hit with a golf ball before, I've never been hit with a plane or copter.

Quote:
the other issue the FAA has is when flying out of line of sight with FPV rigs go look at the FPV forms and see how high most of them are flying they are up 1000 feet or more its only a matter of time be some one has a mid air with GA or airliner

imo if you want to fly FPV out of line of sight you should need at lest an LSA ticket a transponder on the aircraft and radio just like any other LSA or Ultralight
I agree with you completely here. If you want to fly FPV outside of line of sight you need a transponder. It sucks, FPV is such a cool technology, but doing what these guys do does present a very real danger to the public. Flying AP over private property with permission is totally different than passing over every bit of property between where you take off and where you want to go. I want to try FPV sometime soon, but I will never do it in a public place and never outside of what would be my line of sight, and until I get a lot of practice will not do it without a spotter that can tell me exactly where I am and if I am putting my aircraft, anyone else, or myself in some sort of danger without knowing it.
skitchen8 is offline Find More Posts by skitchen8
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2013, 02:38 PM
2dogrc's Avatar
WHere Flight Was Born, North Carolina
Joined Apr 2005
2,761 Posts
Okay.
I am posting accurate factual information and a source. There is no law yet about carrying a camera. That is completely legal as well as flying FPV is legal. You only need a spotter and are restricted to Line of sight if you are flying at a AMA field. These are AMA guidelines which carry no weight when not on AMA fields.

I am not sure of legally how sponsored pilots do not fit into this. I do know that there are many people using model airplanes for movies, aerial photography and other uses now. I think it boils down to more of an enforcement issue. The FAA does not have the personal to be proactive, only reactive. Kinda like police. They try and prevent crime, but really they are mostly used after the crime has been committed.

I am not telling you or anyone what to do or not do, just provide references to help make decisions.

Oh yeah, if you are transmitting video on HAM operator frequencies you might want to check and see if you are allowed to profit from the use of that.....
2dogrc is offline Find More Posts by 2dogrc
Site Sponsor
Latest blog entry: 2dogrc and 2dogs Flying FPV
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2013, 04:56 PM
Registered User
United States, MO, Springfield
Joined Jul 2010
3,494 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogrc View Post
Oh yeah, if you are transmitting video on HAM operator frequencies you might want to check and see if you are allowed to profit from the use of that.....
this is the same thinking the FAA is using
just like you cant use HAM bands for commercial use you cant fly for hire
which is key here sponsored RC pilots are flying for hire
Elios000 is offline Find More Posts by Elios000
Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2013, 05:16 PM
Addict.
United States, NY, Binghamton
Joined Jul 2010
1,543 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elios000 View Post
this is the same thinking the FAA is using
just like you cant use HAM bands for commercial use you cant fly for hire
which is key here sponsored RC pilots are flying for hire
The difference is that the FCC can provide logical reasoning for not allowing commercial operators in the HAM band. That is a finite resource, and allowing commercial operators to use it means restricting non commercial operators from using it. Airspace is not finite, and the areas most would be flying in for professional AP would be terribly unsafe for a full size aircraft (one of the many benefits of allowing it to happen).

I understand what you are saying, and it isn't you I am debating, it is the absolute absurdity of these "regulations."
skitchen8 is offline Find More Posts by skitchen8
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion What size RC airplane would be illegal for me to fly? brtlmj Electric Plane Talk 35 Apr 01, 2014 11:36 AM
Discussion **Update** Fixed my busted plane - now it's forgotten how to fly! - Fixed! kenzietech Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 7 Apr 05, 2012 07:29 PM
Discussion my, 'fly right now' plane. twin 26 inch bipe nemoskull Scratchbuilt Indoor and Micro Models 2 Mar 14, 2012 05:53 PM
Discussion charger help needed for RC car now/RC plane later Will91 Batteries and Chargers 10 Jul 30, 2010 10:47 AM
Cool A commercial use for RC heli's - Getting paid to fly the lucky people! Bowerz Electric Heli Talk 4 Jun 01, 2010 06:48 PM