Slashdot Mirror
FAA Pressures Coldwell, Other Realtors To Stop Using Drone Footage
mpicpp (3454017) writes For months, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been investigating realtors who use drones to film their properties. Now, Forbes has learned that the FAA's investigations have succeeded in intimidating NRT —the nation's largest residential real estate brokerage company — into advising their members to not only cease flying drones as part of their work, but to also cease using drone footage. This is a troubling development in an ongoing saga over the FAA's rules which punish the safe commercial use of drones. Currently, the FAA does not prohibit the use of drones for a hobby — flying over your home and taking pictures of it for fun is allowed, but because real estate drones take pictures for a commercial purpose, the FAA prohibits their use.
Drone? It was a model airplane, a teleguided kiddie zeppelin, a weather balloon, a ...
The FAA hasn't issued any "rule" only a policy guideline which is unenforceable. Most people don't know that and the FAA is counting on intimidation to do their dirty work for them.
From the post:
"This is a troubling development in an ongoing saga over the FAA's rules which punish the safe commercial use of drones."
Nope. It's a completely appropriate action according to the FAA's mandate and charter. It's their exact *job*.
Whether it's an appropriate restriction is to be debated.
Tom Geller
I think it's time for Nibbles the Hamster to get a pilot's license and go to work for real estate. With him in the cockpit, it's no longer a drone, right? He will also get some mini pilot goggles, because it will look adorable and no judge would ever convict.
> troubling development in an ongoing saga over the FAA's rules which punish the safe commercial use of drones
There's nothing troubling about this and whether or not it's "safe commercial use" is for the FAA to decide, which is exactly what they're doing here.
This administration has had this same 'if you don't like it too bad' attitude since day 1.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06...
It is common for the the movie industry to shoot scenes from drones. So they can't do that anymore? I am sure however Hollywood can do what ever the want, for the are the golden lamb.
I am usually a pretty big skeptic when it comes to regulation but I gotta agree with you here.
This seems like a federal agency operating well withing the boundaries of what it was established to do. I also think we do need some management of [commercial] drones, do to the sheer numbers and the fact that most operators are flying over other peoples properties, where crashes could cause damage or injury.
People doing purely as a hobby problem I would be more skeptical of the need to regulate them. There numbers are few enough and lets be honest most of the air craft they would be operating will remain small and light; we can probably expect incidents form their use to be infrequent enough and small enough in severity to sort out in our local small claims courts at least until that proves not to be the case.
The real-estate folks though are using the drones commercial and if we let every real-estate agent, grounds keep, delivery boy, paper boy, etc; fly a drone with no management whatsoever that is hell of lot of drones in air! Some of those crafts might start getting bigger and heavier pretty quickly as well.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Nope. It's a completely appropriate action according to the FAA's mandate and charter. It's their exact *job*.
Maybe. But then perhaps its time for Congress to rewrite the mandate and take the commercial/hobby distinction out.
Leave them with the safety and certification roles. But the operation of drones needs to be consistent across all uses. Something isn't more or less safe if money changes hands. We (the USA) are going to be left behind as other jurisdictions allow commercial drone use, subject to rules compliance. Commercial use brings money into the industry, which pays for R&D and the refinement of safety rules. US manufacturers don't have the ability to participate in this, leaving the business to foreign concerns. That is definitely NOT the FAA's charter.
Have gnu, will travel.
Just tell them you are an illegal migrant operating the drone. Those people are allowed to break any laws and be upheld as the greatest citizens of the country. Its just you middle class, tax paying, law abiding citizens that the administration has contempt for.
Hell, if you are illegal you don't even need ID to get past the TSA to board commercial flights anymore. story. So the FAA doesn't apply its laws to illegals, just people who haven't broken the law.
This administration has. So has the last one. That's where this one learned they could get away with it.
In the FAA Modernization And Reform Act of 2012 congress required the following:
SEC. 332. .—Not later than 1 year after the ... .—Not later than 18 months after the date on
(a)(4) REPORT TO CONGRESS
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Con-
gress a copy of the plan required under paragraph (1).
(b) RULEMAKING
which the plan required under subsection (a)(1) is submitted to Con-
gress under subsection (a)(4), the Secretary shall publish in the Fed-
eral Register—
(1) a final rule on small unmanned aircraft systems that
will allow for civil operation of such systems in the national
airspace system, to the extent the systems do not meet the re-
quirements for expedited operational authorization under sec-
tion 333 of this Act;
This law was passed on 1 Feb 2012. I don't know the exact date that the FAA made their report to congress, but even assuming that they waited till the last possible day, that would mean their final rule on small unmanned aircraft is due on 1 Aug 2014. Banning commercial use of small unnmanned aircraft is not "allowing for civil operation of such systems", so the FAA either is or soon will be operating in direct contradiction to the law passed by congress.
Worse, the rules and guidelines that they have created didn't follow the required process for creating new regulations, in particular they were effected without any public comment period, something a judge already slapped them down for. Come 1 Aug the FAA can claim small commercial drone use is illegal all they want, but the courts aren't going to back them up.
Seems like the FAA should have no jurisdiction on commercial or private use of drones being flown at heights that do not impact normal aviation and when flown exclusively over private property.
If I want to fly a drone at low altitude above my property, then why shouldn't I be able to do so? If I want to give permission to a realtor to fly their drone over my property and to use photography (of just my property) to sell my property...then why not?
The issues come in when you tresspass (already a crime) or you take photography of other people's property (not really a crime if done from your property afaik) or your talking about public safety because your flying your drone at 5000 ft or something (not being an aviation expert, I have no idea how high the lowest air traffic lanes are).
The FAA was created to regulate passenger and air traffic, not to assert arbitrary authority over any airspace above our heads.
And even with the massive mission creep, airplanes need to stay 1000ft above any buildings on private settled land. What you do below that on your land is your own business, and it should stay your own business.
That means that if you want to shoot down low-flying Amazon delivery drones, you should be able to do that. Likewise, if you want to fly your own drone to take pictures of your own property, you should be able to do that too as long as you stay below 1000ft.
And make no mistake, FAA's attempts to assert authority have nothing to do with safety. The motivating factor here is power and money. Ultimately, the FAA wants to assert rights over the non-aviation airspace over your property, something they never had any say about in the past. And the people benefiting from it won't be you, it will be a few wealthy corporations that will be flying low-flying drones through your backyard whether you want to or not.
"Something isn't more or less safe if money changes hands."
No, but:
a) Other factors come into play when money changes hands -- issues of liability, scale, entitlements, conversion of public benefits....
b) Commercial exceptions are well-established in U.S. law.. If you want to argue they shouldn't be, you'll have to go back something like a hundred years. These restrictions have been very good for the country, though, so you'd have an uphill battle.
Tom Geller
So, why not wait for it to be a problem? Too much in-advance regulation has too many unintended consequences. Is there a problem, now, other than the FAA rules? Why not wait for it to be a problem in order to better define what the problem is (i.e., something other than "it's against the rules.").
But the operation of drones needs to be consistent across all uses.
Why? You go on to promote commercial drone use, so it seems unlikely that banning of hobby use would satisfy you.
A distinction can be drawn and so there's no reason not to. Hobby use is likely to remain low, with a small number of people perhaps flying for an hour or two a week. Commercial use on the other hand is likely to be far more pervasive and intrusive. Better to assume they are not allowed and grant specific permissions for uses where the gain to society is seen to outweigh the costs.
It seems to me that "Safe" requires "Consistent." Otherwise, it's just "theoretically safe," not actually safe. And having just been through a house-buying process, I gotta tell you...I wouldn't entrust all the realtors with the safety of airspace. Especially since they seem to have no real guidance given to them on what "safe" commercial use of a drone actually entails.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
So, why not wait for it to be a problem?
Because we're not grasshoppers, but intelligent people who can realize that too little in the way of addressing problems has even more unintended consequences.
I wasn't aware the FAA's mandate went down to 12' in residential areas.
Cool.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
thanks for that information. I have not seen this yet. Wish i had mod points
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It's time for Congress to do a lot of things. But when was the last time Congress did anything at all? Has there been even a single non-trivial piece of legislation in the entire 113th? Was there any in the 112th?
The bar to legislation is fairly high and there's always a large set of voters prepared to punish their legislators for allowing anything through that would be seen as a victory for the other side or even as a compromise with them, regardless of the issue. Those Congressmen have been trained in a Pavlovian fashion to loudly denounce anything anybody tries to do.
So don't expect Congress to fix this, or anything else.
Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, and part of that act requires the FAA to have published final rulings allowing civil use of small unmanned aircraft by now. They have failed to do so, as even their hobby drone guidelines are not final rules, and rules were to be based on what is safe, not some artificial commercial/hobby segregation. They have failed to follow congresses' mandate.
Commercial exceptions are well-established in U.S. law.
But this isn't a case of a commercial exception. Commercial aircraft operators are subject to far more stringent regulations than private/recreational*. And that's fine, particularly for passenger carriers. For the public on the ground, I want the regulations to treat commercial and private safety equally. I'm not going to be happier if some billionaire drops his personal 737 on my house than if it was Southwest Airlines. On the other hand, once a drone operator 'goes comercial', I would expect them to carry liability insurance and have deep pockets to protect. As a result, I'd be more comfortable with a business operated drone than a hobby flyer over my house.
This is just like Uber and Lyft vs New York City. The entrenched cab interests have one way of doing things and they are using their regulatory agency to block new technology. The same appears to be happening for flight serice companies. Piloted aircraft for hire are having the FAA protect their turf.
*The general aviation manufacturing business almost went under in this country until legislation was passed to limit their liability. That runs counter to the idea that there is an atmosphere of business exception in this country.
Have gnu, will travel.
Renax is OK then - they use hot air baloons
People do get killed by these things.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
This administration has. So has the last one. That's where this one learned they could get away with it.
"Blame BOOOSH!!!" is getting fucking old. It's been six fucking years.
I don't know what's more pathetic - your posting that, or someone modding you up.
The FEDERAL Aviation Authority has any Constitutional basis for telling people they can't fly a drone around a house that doesn't cross state lines?
Or is that against the "rules" too?
Or is it the case of any airborne activity needs specific sanction from FAA if its for commercial purposes?
I am a Private Pilot with both fixed wing and rotorcraft ratings. Please ask your realtor to explain Class G and Class E airspace and what activities are permitted in them by a Private Pilot versus a Commercial Pilot and you will quickly discover why they ought not to be flying anything in the airspace that I fly in.
People also get killed shoving glass bottles up their butt on purpose. What's your point?
When I sold my last house, I gave the Realtor footage I had taken using my R/C aircraft for fun.
The FAA is about to outlaw flying within 5 miles of an airport (up from 3 miles) and above 400ft, and all commercial uses.
Tell them what you think...
http://www.regulations.gov/#!d...
You have until 7/25...
-=Lothsahn=-
Is this a world wide standard behavior for whatever equivalent agencies we have around the world?
As much as I would love to blame Bush for this, the FAA has controlled the airspace for many decades. The last thing we need is random aircraft crashing into each other and crashing into things on the ground.
Yes, it is taking them a long time to finalize the rules, but considering the possibilities that are likely around the corner, it would be better to get the rules as comprehensive as possible rather than have to issue a ton of major corrections to them when folks like Amazon start using them for deliveries.
By very good you mean anyting labeled 'commercial' costs three times as much....yeah its been fucking great.
Good-bye
As a hobbyist, no offense but I tell you to STFU. The FAA has gone out of its way to allow hobbyists their niche, and there was nobody and nothing to ever tell them they had to. It is a special exemption, and one that has carefully laid out limits. I appreciate that. If you get your way, the whole goddam thing will just be closed down, because it's completely irrelevant to the mandate to regulate and oversee civil aviation. Nobody will be allowed to sling speeding weights through the air for any purpose, outside the bounds of customary civil aviation.
Let Amazon develop their tech ON THEIR OWN TEST RANGE PROPERTY under experimental rules. As far as I know nobody tells anybody what they can do under those conditions. After they have built up an adequate history proving safety under realistic conditions, then let them apply for type approval like anybody else. And if they are going to fly these hurtling objects down town streets, let them convince all localities they should be allowed to do so.
That's ridiculous Libertarian bullshit. Somebody has to write the rules about what is and isn't allowed for flight and the FAA is really the only body in the US that has the experience necessary to do it.
There's already been fatalities from out of control flying devices. If Amazon is really serious about using them for deliveries, then there's going to be a greatly increased amount of traffic and a greatly increased likelihood of people being killed by drones.
Bottom line here is that as popular as it is for the numbnuts around here to bitch about the government regulating things, it's far worse than having anarchy in the skies above major cities. The exemptions for hobbyists are mainly because those aircraft rarely go very far or travel very fast. If the types of large helicopters that are available now had been available at the start, there would have been a licensing requirement for that as well.
You make it sound like they're sitting in a backroom somewhere twirling their mustaches and contemplating how to ruin the industry so that commercial flight will be safe.
More likely, it's taking a long time because they're consulting with lobbyists and trying to get the rules right. I'd expect that whatever regulations they come up with will under-regulate the airspace rather than over-regulating them. These aircraft are much less likely to kill anybody than a fully loaded jumbo jet flying at 30,000 feet.
Some people survive that though:
http://www.1man1jar.org
Right and I'd wager that most hobbyists are people like myself that are operating tiny aircraft that aren't going to do much damage even if they do collide with a person. I do have one "large" helicopter, but it's a few years old and doesn't move very quickly. It would be incredibly challenging to hit somebody, even if I were trying to.
If the really large ones start becoming common or inexpensive, then it might make sense to place a limit on the size of aircraft that can be controlled without a license. Similar to what the FCC does with radios.
Just tell them you are an illegal migrant operating the drone. Those people are allowed to break any laws and be upheld as the greatest citizens of the country...
There is long history --- back to the very beginning, really ---- of illegal immigrants being employed - or simply being used --- by the middle class ---- and there are few countries in the world who imprison more of their illegals and citizens both than we do.
So, why not wait for it to be a problem?
FAA has historically taken this approach towards regulation and they catch flak for doing it that way, too. Many of the FARs exist because someone died doing XYZ in or with an aircraft, so they made a new rule that says you can't do XYZ in or with an aircraft.
RC aircraft have been a hobby for many years and most enthusiasts stick to a stringent set of (voluntary) safety rules developed by the Academy of Model Aeronautics. Now that "drones" have become popular, widely available, and relatively cheap, thousands of people are playing around with them and they aren't the responsible hobbyist type. You can get a camera capable quadcopter for under $100, they even sell one model at Wal-Mart. Many of the folks buying these couldn't care less about a voluntary code of safety, and I'm on the FAA's side here, there need to be rules with teeth to back them up.
Putting anything in the air for commercial purposes has always been heavily regulated and I for one don't see that as a problem.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
I have a friend that immigrated from Europe. He wanted to start a business and realized that businesses do not comply with numerous laws so he actually asked the clerks in the court house which laws it was customary to ignore. They replied that they could not tell him which laws he could break and that he had to figure that out for himself. People will use drones with or without the blessing of governmental agencies. Even police departments might be seen as commercial in nature as much of what they do involves taking in money for the city or county more than public safety or crime prevention.
...This is a troubling development in an ongoing saga over the FAA's rules which punish the safe commercial use of drones....
I thinking this is a good development in the safe commercial use of drones.
How do you know that all those real estate agents are using the drones safely? That's the problem the FAA is trying to address, the safety of all those things flying in the air. What if a real estate agent's drone crashes into a neighbor's house and hurts someone? How do you know that the real estate agent really knows how to fly one of the drones, or whether that agent recently saw one being used on youtube and thinks that he/she knows all there is to know about flying a drone?
For now, I am pleased that the FAA is slowing down the commercial use of the drones. When you're up in the air, you have the distinct possibility of affecting more than just yourself...
The problem with the approach the FAA has been taking on this issue is that the deciding factor is whether money changes hands. If an activity is safe for a hobbyist to perform, why is it suddenly dangerous and in need of regulation when a professional does it? If anything, commercially operated remote controlled planes/helicopters would be safer in a given situation, as the parent company is going to have real liability insurance, and the insurer is going to have all sorts of maintenance and training requirements.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
I think that it's hard to draw a logical link between someone buying a quadcopter and Wal-Mart and doing something irresponsible with it because they aren't a dedicated member of the RC community, and a commercial entity using a RC planes/helicopters in the course of their enterprise.
In the former case, it seems that the issue is that technological advance has removed the barriers to entry that have historically regulated access to these machines to those who have a responsible and dedicated interest in the field. Perhaps regulations are needed as to the capabilities and safety features of "cheap" RC craft, similar to how there are limits on the model rocket parts you can buy at the big-box.
In the later case, for-profit companies use all manner of potentially dangerous equipment, often in places where it might come in contact with the public. Imagine if the DOT prohibited taking a vehicle on the Interstate for a commercial purpose; it would be absurd. Instead, you can drive the company pickup just the same as if you were driving your own. Then, for larger vehicles or those being used in a non-standard manner, there is a system of commercial driving licenses and insurances.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
If you are trying to ban non government use of drones, getting rid of all "reasonable" uses of drones is a required first step.
So then we'll need a Drone License. And the police will as well, clearly. At least we'll have rules about what police drones are allowed to do.
No I think we should require a license if you are a commercial operator. If you are just flying for fun than you should not need a license. I don't think the number of aircraft that will be operated by pure hobbiests is going to be large enough to present a public nuisance.
I do think the totality of drones in the air will. So licensing commercial operators makes sense. If you fly as a hobbyist and your drone crashes causing damage or injury its a civil matter between you and injured party. If you are an unlicensed commercial operator you should face additional penalties.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Nope. It's a completely appropriate action according to the FAA's mandate and charter. It's their exact *job*.
Wrong. There is no difference between flying a hobby drone, and a commercial one. If it is legal for you to fly one in a particular area it is legal to fly the other. The FAA has no legal authority to stop commercial use of drones, they lack the proper legislation to prevent drones from flying under current regulations for model aircraft. This isn't my opinion these are the rulings of federal judges. If you actually stand up and fight, the bully goes away. At least until congress gives them the required legislation, which will come eventually. [[www.wired.com/2014/03/drone-pilots-flying-high/]]
With that being said, there needs to be some REASONABLE regulations taken on a case-by-case basis. For example Paparazzi using drones should be illegal. Using drones to peer over your neighbors privacy fence should be illegal. Using drones for hunting should be illegal. But taking commercial pictures of a property you own should be perfectly legal. Taking videos of corporations illegally dumping toxic waste on public land should be legal. Filming the police doing illegal things should be legal. The idea of trying to fine a drone pilot for selling an otherwise perfectly legally taken video is a pure government overreach.
I guess the Real Estate people are bad enough. Wait until the news people do it. Already in many areas if there is a bad traffic accident or maybe an ongoing police operation the news people put a helicopter over it that circles around and around and around making annoying noises. Just wait - they'll do it with drones for even smaller stories. Your neighbor is getting busted for an illegal grow operation and some loud stupid drone will be circling your house so that the news media can report, "oh, I'm not going to draw conclusions from this Frank, but it looks like they may have just carried out another 5 plants." or "Check out this closeup of the power meter; boy those grow lights sure do 'pull' the juice!". No. Just No. I don't want the noise and I don't want to have to dodge the lousy things.
For real-estate purposes, especially for 1-2 story buildings, a tethered powered aircraft should be fine. The question is, does the FAA claim jurisdiction over tethered flying machines flying at low altitudes (e.g. under a few hundred feet) and not close to "regulated airspace" like an airport or close to "an obvious federal jurisdiction" like crossing a state line or in the "airspace" of federal property, a U.S. Highway or Interstate Highway, or a navigable waterway?
If the FAA does claim jurisdiction over tethered flights that don't have any obvious "federal jurisdictional nexus" then it's ripe for a court challenge.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You realize that if the FAA had their druthers, there wouldn't be any private aviation in the US at all. So one can imagine what they think about small drones.
From the post:
"This is a troubling development in an ongoing saga over the FAA's rules which punish the safe commercial use of drones."
Nope. It's a completely appropriate action according to the FAA's mandate and charter. It's their exact *job*.
Whether it's an appropriate restriction is to be debated.
Hmmm. You're right! Let's begin the debate.
This is a troubling development in an ongoing saga over the FAA's rules which punish the safe commercial use of drones.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I doubt there are any safe uses for a drone. Do we really want a remotely controlled small aircraft flying around our homes and communities?
I would expect them to carry liability insurance
Give money to an industry that buys laws to demand you buy their product.... why?
Next you'll join Wolf-Pac and demand that corporations stop financing elections (fine whatever) yet force us to publicly finance all the junk mail (CO2), tv spots (why?), and telemarketers (fuck you!). Why not just stop it?
and have deep pockets to protect
One or the other might suffice. If you are so in love with fellating the insurance industry, what you want is term life and a homeowner's. Maybe an umbrella policy. So much of insurance is just a huge fucking waste of money. I've yet to own a car that didn't cost far more in insurance than they ever paid out.
If there's any manned plane flying at an altitude where a realtor's drone would be, there are already larger problems, like manned planes crashing into people's homes.
The entire post is based on incorrect premises, namely a failure to reference the definition of the term "navigable." The real-estate drones aren't using navigable airspace, defined by the FAA itself as a few hundred feet.
Parent is just trying to justify the actions of a berserk, power-drunk Federal agency.
My mother was a drone, you insensitive clod!
The phrase, "...the safe commercial use of drones", is a contradiction of terms.
The FAA is correct in it's regulation of drone usage.
I fly UAVs to take pictures of real estate for realtors as well as construction jobs and other various things. I do it 'for fun at cost' which means I pretty much never charge unless I'm asked to do something that results in damage to my UAV. I'm also carrying a few million dollars worth of liability coverage for this purpose.
The 'good shots' are often the ones that would put me well into areas that it is perfectly legal to fly passenger carrying light aircraft, which is only 500 feet outside of congested areas. To get good framing, 500 feet isn't that high. In a city its actually better because higher shots aren't generally as useful unless you're trying to get a tall building because you have to crop so much out of the shot anyway (no one wants to advertise someone ELSEs buildings) and the minimum altitude for aircraft there is 1000 or 2000 feet above obstructions (depending on various other aspects too numerous to get into here)
However, I easily get 'good enough' shots from below 400 feet in most cases. The only problems are large estates where you need to be higher to get enough of the place in view.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You have no choice or say anyway. If private citizens doing it to further technological advancement and provide services to the community aren't allowed then it grants a monopoly of power. The government will certainly be flying as many drones and small rc aircraft around anything the please including your backyard or window regardless of if it's safe for you or your family or in their best interests.
NRT, the parent company doesn't procure the footage in the first place. The individual agents do. They don't process it either; I'm not sure what that's all about. They didn't tell the local operating companies they'd be penalized by NRT for using drone footage, they just said of the operating companies "they may be held responsible for all fines, penalties, costs and fees related to the use of that photography". NRT just wants to be on the record as saying they don't encourage use of drones for real estate photography, that's all.
No real estate agent is going to stop using drone footage if it sells houses.
It's 500 feet AND they have to be able to glide to a safe landing location if their engine cuts out. 500 feet doesn't make that a good bet in a neighborhood for a manned vehicle.
I've been in the drone commercial, not military, business for quite some time and I find it funny about all the comments and arguments on what is right.
Just today as well Forbes lists that the FAA's RFC shows about 3200 comments, mine included. That's not the millions, nor tens of thousands of DJI Phantom users out there... in the US.
So, let's clarify what the heck is going on, cause sure drones are regulated in other countries, those gov't, businesses, and even users are watching the FAA closely. Why? Cause the FAA does have weight on how drones should be regulated, the US is a big market opportunity, and WTH, I'll say it, everyone really respects the US as pioneers in drone tech, hands down.. So, lets all take a step back folks:
Flying model R/C line of sight as been around for decades, and perfectly fine cause 98% of hobbyists 5yrs ago flew in big fields, AMA sponsored areas or areas negotiated with local/state/fed agencies. And it had to be that way cause 72mhz sucked balls in robustness. Then there was fuel: glow fuel was the only way, not electric... it was hazardous. Considering crashes == hundred to thousands of $$$, the hobby became a niche. Remote areas, LOS flight due to unreliable 72mhz, gas powered dangers, and $$$ meant a limited number of flights. So the FAA concluded: why even care, let the users regulated it. and they did, which is the sole purpose of the AMA.
Case in point, does anyone know folks flying their foamy over the 405 in Los Angeles out their balcony? Nope. Pretty much never. If so, it was done by pros, like Flying Cam Inc.. 10yrs ago.
LiPos and digital wireless (2.4) revolutionized that picture.
Now anyone can goto BestBuy, get a 80% reliable quadcopter, all electric with all the sensors for cheap and literally fly out their balcony over the 405 in Los Angeles.... and it's been done numerous times. What does that say:
More drones in the sky, more accidents, less flying in regulated areas, more people involved--meaning less knowledgeable people involved. How is the FAA going to handle this? Working with their UAS divisions: there is no way today unless you change the tech. FAA's solutions don't scale cause the tech is so basic. They have the same problem with NextGen, and ADS-B barely cuts it on the manned side. Oh did I mention the drones on the market are 80% reliable? That 20% sure counts. Remember what I said above about everyone watching the FAA, cause all those other countries with regulations already in place are either, a. making them more strict, or b. users realized that 20% was REAL and dangerous--see a lot of flights and videos from the EU? AUS/New Zealand? Not really, but instead all those users bring their quads to the US on vacation!
Seriously, the FAA doesn't care if you're flying in a AMA regulated field, out in the hills, the desert, over a large body of water, or some place remote/controlled, like even a large parking lot. BUT they do care if your flying in downtown NYC, over a major highway, a concert/stadium, near manned flight paths, or in a populated area. And that's the problem. the users don't care and the majority of flights in the last year are in the latter case due to the aerial photography and FPV interest. And the vendors made it easy to fulfill those photo/video dreams. The 2012 ruling sort of 'asked' users to be more respectful, but honestly, the users gave the FAA the finger. Thank the pressing need to post cool shots on you tube?... which led to the ultimate finger when Piker won his case, And some of the biggest users I have to admit, are not even citizens of the US and disrepected all US guidelines while hitting every loop hole possible to blame it on the industry. Where's my downtown Tokyo aerials? Anyone fly over the Kremlin? Effiel tower? All I see are AP flights over downtown somewhere (like DC), NYC, Vegas and even DisneyWorld.
And so, within FAA jurisdiction and yes, they do reg all airspace in the US(!) even below class G, the small biz side of drone
If an activity is safe for a hobbyist to perform, why is it suddenly dangerous and in need of regulation when a professional does it?
Because "commercial" is really code for "on a large scale", and "hobbyist" is code for "on a small scale". What's safe on a small scale need not be safe on a large scale.
Of course, "commercial" is only a poor approximation of "on a large scale", but it's measurable and hard to game and does a pretty good job as an approximation in practice, so that's what the law will say.
The lesson here is that a sufficiently large corporation is indistinguishable from government. --ultranova
Like "FDA approved" "medical devices", "FAA approved" avionics systems may only be sold by vendors who can get through the FAA approval processes - so $40 circuits end up costing the customer $2500. THAT is the "economic burden" that government regulations impose and which most people never seem to grasp. If the FAA would allow any transponder to be sold that passed a fixed battery of tests at UL or some such thing, then this stuff would be a LOT cheaper. Their current rules, however require the involvement of DERs and bureaucrats through an entire development cycle (amongst other things). This is the same thing that keeps killing the "flying car" and has so completely ruined the small plane business; it currently costs about $50,000,000.00 to clear the FAA hurdles to certify a new small aircraft - if you plan to start a new airplane company and think you might be able to make and sell 1000 airplanes then you need to add $50,000.00 to the price of each plane just to pay for the FAA paperwork costs.
1. Congress creates an "agency" and as part of the law that creates it, grants it authority to write "rules" that will have the power, effect, and enforceability of LAW
2. The agency, over time, sees more and more stuff that "needs to be regulated" and that only the agency and its people are "qualified" to regulate. They write rule upon rule with no regard to the impact these rules have on the citizens, how "common sense" these rules are, or whether these rules are actually needed or are the best way to achieve the desired results.
3. When a citizen runs afoul of the rules and complains to his elected officials (sentors, congressman, etc) these officials feign innocence and say "I didn't write that rule {or law}" (thus dodging any responsibility). The politicians are REALLY happy with this arrangement no matter how "outraged" they might claim to be - it keeps government powerful (thus keeping bribes - errrr "campaign contributions" flowing from rich people and businesses) while providing them with the armor plating of unaccountability when confroned by a voter.... they just hope the voters never remember that these agencies are all accountable to congress and that congress still has the overall responsibility for them.
Hobbyist also can build their own airplanes, but airplanes used for commerical uses must be certified (or given an experimental certification for an extremely small area".
THERE ARE NO SAFE DRONES!!!!! There are no safety rules for drones. None are designed to the extant safety rules for digital fly by wire airplanes. If you believe that they're inherently safe because they're small, go catch a battery dropped off a 10 story building with your head.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because once money changes hands, well, they want to make sure you have SUFFICIENT liability insurance, and that your equipment is well maintained.
A realtor probably only has their malpractice insurance - if they crash into a neighbours house, that insurance may not be sufficient, or even covered. The realtor would just close their business, while the neighbour is stuck suing a bankrupt company (they're all "independent franchises").
So the FAA would like to make sure you accidentally kill someone, they can be adequately taken care of.
The other reason is well, drones are getting REALLY popular. The problem with this is how well qualified are these people flying them? A hobbyist probably knows the rules of t heir hobby and is conscious enough to fly it properly.
Some guy with a rich parent buying their kid a drone flying it into traffic and causing accidents? Imagine all those people who can't figure out where the "any" key is flying those things everywhere.
The other issue is well, what jurisdiction is it when clashes happen? If you're flying a drone taking photos of a house, what's to differentiate it from taking photos of hunters, taking photos of nude people on a beach, taking photos of you in your backyard?
Plus, it's easier to go after people with money and regulate that first. Because they're using it to make money, it's easier to go after them for commercial activity than someone who wants to take a neat photo of their kid in their backyard.
It's really only a matter of time before some idiot with a drone goes and misuses it. The FAA is really trying to warn them to not even try so the activity can progress by those who know what they're doing. Want some crazy legislation? Watch it when a bunch of lawmakers get their panties in a knot. It's what led to the awful legislation that banned scanners from receiving cell-band (800 MHz) signals.
They're getting cheaper, better, and are available to anyone with a credit card. And everyone knows there are lot of rich idiots out there who will ruin it for everyone. Especially since the FAA is still trying to come up with reasonable rules that take into account everyone - pilots, law enforcement, commercial interests, the public, etc. Take an idiot with a drone who crashes it into a busy intersection, and you'll have lawmakers screaming "something must be done" and enacting all sorts of overbroad legislation ahead of the FAA.
After all, everyone knows that drones are intended exclusively for performing targetted assassinations, not potentially beneficial, civilian applications like advertising.
What on Earth were those real estate people thinking?
500 feet, AND safe gliding distance, AND not over a large gathering of people, AND not into an airport's air traffic zone.
Yes, it most definitely is more dangerous when money is a motivation. This is true of anything.
But I think the important issue here is that regulation is more appropriate when revenue is changing hands.
This.
Commercial radio stations have to be licensed by the FCC. They're free to do as they wish with their licensed spectrum, within a reasonable limit
Ham radio operators have to be licensed by the FCC as well. They're free to do as they wish within the same limits as commercial operators, but they get a slightly different frequency allocation (shared among all operators, but restricted to exclude commercial and non-licensed operations). They also cannot operate as a commercial entity. This is purely for the love of playing with radio toys.
Anyone can use a walkie-talkie, a CB radio, a cordless phone, a cellular phone, or wi-fi. All of those use unrestricted, unlicensed frequency bands. You can cuss on these bands. Those seven words can be said on the radio, but only if it's unlicensed spectrum. Porn flows across wi-fi every damned day. You don't even have to know what you're doing to make some of this stuff work now. This is "n00b" radio.
The FAA could adopt a similar model. Commercial operators get the highest privileges and the optimum space for their traffic. Licensed amateurs get a shared, but otherwise restricted space to operate in (anything otherwise unrestricted under 500 feet, plus uncontested take-off and landing through unlicensed space on an as-needed basis), and unlicensed, unwashed masses get a tiny, crowded, idiot-proof (mostly) place to play (anything unrestricted under 100 feet, as long as a licensed user isn't taking off or landing there).
I'm not sure what further regulatory permission the FAA would need from Congress to make that happen, but it's probably the best way to regulate it. Devices could even have the FAA equivalent of the FCC Part 15 order built in, with an altimeter that prevented them from going out of the airspace limit for their class.
Should every new concept, innovation, invention, tool, technique, strategy, and technology be prohibited by default? What the hell is wrong with you? If I come up with a clever new way of slicing deli meat, should I be prohibited from using it or showing someone else how to use it until I've sufficiently begged an un-elected, un-accountable agency bureaucrat to allow me to use it?
BasilBrush is known in Android vs. iOS articles for claiming that every application should be approved by "an un-elected, un-accountable agency" by the name of Apple to make sure it isn't malware, doesn't waste battery charge or data transfer allowance, and doesn't let the user help contribute to a crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi hotspots.
Because you compete with hypothetical professional drone pilots who cross state lines to photograph real estate. Competition with hypothetical interstate commerce is interstate commerce per Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich.
This is absolutely untrue but gets parroted by many as somehow accurate.
1) Congress, not the FAA, statutorily defines aircraft and national airspace. Essentially, Congress, not the FAA, broadly defines aircraft and model aircraft and drone aircraft are aircraft by Congressional definition. An aircraft in national airspace (essentially,anything outside under Ad coelum doctrine) IS subject to FAA regulation.
2) In 1981, the FAA struck a compromise with RESPONSIBLE model aircraft operators who by definition are subject to FAA regulations applying to ANY aircraft. Essentially, the FAA said, hey, if model aircraft hobbyists act responsibly and voluntarily fly away from people, away from noise sensitive areas, and away from occupied aircraft, we, the FAA, will not prosecute hobbyists or develop onerous formal regulations for model aircraft.
3) Enter the drone aircraft operators who incorrectly parrot "we don't understand the law, don't want to obey the voluntary guidelines, and want to do what ever we want to." The legally flawed argument here is because no specific regulations exist, then no regulations exist. This is absolutely false and misunderstands how the law works and specifically misconstrues administrative regulations.
4) In 2012, Congress, responding to illegal and extremely risky activity by drone aircraft operators, specifically defined model aircraft BY STATUTE. The statute specifically defines model aircraft as aircraft NOT used for commercial uses and flown responsibly AWAY from people and other aircraft. Any other use is a commercial use and now, per Congress, is subject to FAA normal regulations for any other aircraft activity.
5) In 2014, a NTSB administrative law judge deciding on a $10,000 fine for alleged reckless operation of aircraft in 2011 (note the date carefully), initially held the general regulations did not apply under 2011 law--called the Pirker opinion. First, this Pirker decision was appealed and is stayed so it has no effect until decided on appeal. Second, Pirker itself specifically states that the 1981 guidelines DO apply. Third, even if Pirker would somehow be upheld on appeal (unlikely), Pirker applies to activities occurring BEFORE 2012 when Congress specifically defined model aircraft by statute (a statute usually trumps a regulation). Thus, while drone aircraft activists make wild claims about Pirker, Pirker is really of little or no value.
The sum: drone aircraft are aircraft, are subject to statutory law, are subject to FAA regulation, and unless meeting the very specific criteria of the 2012 statutory definition of model aircraft, cannot be flown as many are flying them today--especially cannot be flown for commercial purposes, around people, in noise sensitive areas, or near ANY other aircraft including other drone aircraft.
The idea that hobbyists don't have rules is absurd. The FAA exemptions, and the FAA Modernization Act 30 2012, still make clear that an unmanned radio controlled vehicle must be operated in a safe manner away from populated areas. That distance really depends on the size of vehicle. Tommy's little electric helicopter that he flies IN the house would be consider a reasonable safe operation. A 35 pound, 20 horse power, 200 mph model airplane (yes, these are quite common) would NOT be considered safe to operate in a subdivision. Even a large drone operated my a hobbyist may be in violation of the rule if it is not operated in a safe manner.
The question then, is what would be considered safe operation for any X sized/powered aircraft. Unfortunately, there are no clear regulations other than provided by the Academy of Modeling Aeronautics with which the FAA signed an agreement to develop these rules (this is the Congressional exception in the 2012 act). In other words to take advantage of the Congressional exception in the 2012 Act you must essentially follow the standards and regulations set forth by the AMA or other similar organization. They are all quite strict about operation near people and property.
Your comments, although disjointed and full of industry-speak, are right on. The FAA really did not want to have to get into regulating all Radio Controlled aircraft, and they acknowledge the responsible practices of members of the AMA in operating aircraft in safe areas (industry-speak: AMA means Academy of Modeler Aeronautics which is a long respected organization). The rule limiting commercial use is really just a backhanded way to slow down the proliferation of drones until the rule-making can catch up. Piker's case was indeed ironic in that he was flying a very safe light-weight electric fixed wing vehicle. But his case is a bump in the road for FAA Rule-making.
I suspect that the FAA is going to limit unlicensed operations to the traditional AMA-style rural fields, and require licensing for certain classes of aircraft (say, over 2 pounds with gas motors) that are operated in populated areas. This will still leave open the possibility of using those very light, and quiet, electric quad-copters for video use which will keep the Realtors happy.
It also gets to the issue of having a bunch of leaf-blowers flying over your house at all hours. Once irresponsible users come into the picture, the regulations follow.
I've yet to own a car that didn't cost far more in insurance than they ever paid out.
What's the life of the kid on the bicycle that you are about to run over worth? You carry insurance (or otherwise demonstrate financial responsibility) to cover damage that you might do to others.
Have gnu, will travel.
Actually, believe it or not, pilots working for public agencies like police departments are NOT required to have a pilot license. Every one that I've talked with does in fact have one, but it's not REQUIRED. When you read the appropriate regs (Part 61.3):
(a) Required pilot certificate for operating a civil aircraft of the United States. No person may serve as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of the United States, unless that person...
Note that a police helicopter, for instance, is NOT a civil aircraft, it's a public aircraft. (from Part 1: Civil aircraft means aircraft other than public aircraft )
Many of the FAA regulations DO apply to public aircraft, but having a pilot license isn't one of them. So, no, police departments wouldn't be required to have a licensed drone operator. However, it's likely that the rules concerning operating of drones in the national airspace will apply to them...
Kind of a nit, but an interesting one nonetheless...
Actually, as a helicopter pilot I've done lots of realtor types of photography, and we do often work below 500 feet. So, if I'm there working with my photographer and an Amazon delivery drone takes us out, I agree there's a problem! But seriously, we do operate at low altitudes and we take a great deal of care to do it in a way so that risk to the people on the ground is essentially zero.
I have no doubt that FAA will propose rule making for drones which may limit helicopter operations at this altitude, or may force us to accept some risk of drone collisions when we need to work at these altitudes. Still, it's reasonable to have some sets of regulations to try to make everyone share the same airspace safely.
BTW, the use of helicopters for realtor work is quickly vanishing because the work is being taken over by drones. I'm sure within a couple years all but the highest end real estate will be shot by drones, not helicopters, and I'm okay with that. It's substantially cheaper to do that way, and you may even get better results in some cases (you might fly a small drone over your neighbor's house, whereas we would never do that with a manned helicopter).
I'd like to second this. If I go out flying I'm likely to see one or two fields where people are flying RC aircraft. Not too hard to avoid. (and they have maximum altitudes the keep them below most manned aircraft). When uses for commercial drones are found, it's likely to suddenly flood the national airspace with a huge number of drones, and at that point we're going to need to have safety regulations already in place. If anything, I think FAA has been a little slow to enact drone regulations. I hope they hurry up, but also make balanced regulations that protects the flying public (and public on the ground) but also does not hinder the development of what will certainly be a huge and useful capability - I'm thinking autonomous drones here......
"realtors". given their deep pockets, these folks will prevail.
What's the life of the kid on the bicycle that you are about to run over worth? You carry insurance (or otherwise demonstrate financial responsibility) to cover damage that you might do to others.
Mandating I carry a $25000 insurance policy doesn't do shit to protect the kid. That life is worth a million easy. The mandatory insurance guarantees a job for the agents selling and the cops enforcing. It is feel good BS especially when they don't make an easy way to simply post the bond or deposit into account XYZ (in my name for purpose ABC) and then I can do away with the MANDATORY insurance and simply negotiate for the insurance I want. One change I would like to make is an umbrella policy over and above my $500,000 auto limits and covering lots of non-auto situations. You know, so I can run down 2 kids and still be covered.
The insurance thing is a huge regressive mandate as well. I make $250,000+, what irks me is having to change out those little insurance cards or risk a big-ass ticket/court hearing (or Illinois impound fees which approach $1000 after a $500 release and tow fees).
I've seen the people hit by not carrying insurance. Their money is not going to compensate all the children they ran down. The police, tow companies, and then the - often - cut-throat insurance outfits.
If you want protection against other drivers, you get uninsured motorist on your policy. Done. I got it. If you want to protect that kid you just ran down, then you need 6-7 figure policies.
To protect your life or your kid's, well, protection is hard but term life is easy. You can still sue the fuck out of everybody and that million dollar policy will make it a lot easier.