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.

Comments

Dear Fed

[nospam007]

Drone? It was a model airplane, a teleguided kiddie zeppelin, a weather balloon, a ...

Re:Dear Fed

[phrostie]

i mixed opinions on this.

does the same rule apply to SpaceX when they film one of their tests?

Re:Dear Fed

[Anonymous Coward]

SpaceX has FAA approval for everything they do.

Re:Dear Fed

[DanielRavenNest]

... camera strapped to a very long pole.

Re:Dear Fed

[westlake]

Drone? It was a model airplane, a teleguided kiddie zeppelin, a weather balloon, a ...

If it is being used for commercial purposes, it is no longer a child's toy or an adult's R/C model aircraft.

Re:Dear Fed

[wealthychef]

I don't understand the commercial vs. private distinction here. Why is private drone US fine but commercial not?

Re:Dear Fed

[Anonymous Coward]

Not justifying the FAA actions, but it's consistent with how they license commercial operators. As a private pilot you can fly yourself around all you want, but if you want to charge people to come in your aircraft with you, you need a commercial license and a commercial operating certificate. Those don't exist yet for drones, so I can see it from their standpoint - if there are no rules for overseeing those sorts of operations, how can they let them proceed?

As a helicopter pilot, I do worry about widespread use of drones by small unlicensed operators, because unlike airplanes the helicopter community operates a low altitudes. If I hit one of these head on at speed, it's likely going to cause a fatal accident. If I'm not at speed, but somebody smacks into my tail rotor with one, it's likely going to be a very serious incident or crash.

So, while I wish FAA would have been a bit ahead of the game and been ready for the advent of drones in the commercial airspace, given that they are not I'm actually a little glad they're trying to slow stuff down until they can get some rules proposed for how we're going to share the airspace without putting helicopter crews/passengers in danger.

Re:Dear Fed

[Teancum]

In the case of the SpaceX flights of the Falcon 9R, it could be legitimately called engineering test data.

Re:Dear Fed

[marka63]

The commercial operating certificate is to protect the fare paying passengers by ensuring that you have the requisite experience.

Last time I looked drones were not carrying passengers. The two situations are in no way comparable.

Re:Dear Fed

[Jane Q. Public]

Sigh.

For about the sixth time, in only about two weeks, I am prompted to remind people of this:

Just recently -- only a couple of months ago -- a Federal judge ruled that the FAA has no authority over small low-altitude drones or models, regardless of whether they are being used commercially.

The ruling has been stayed pending appeal, but the judge ruled on the basis that it was never Congress' intent to give FAA authority to do this, and his argument was very strong.

In the meantime, the FAA has seemed to be intent on regulating everything in sight, before the appeals court slaps them down... which it is extremely likely that it will do, since it is pretty clear that it wasn't, in fact, Congress' intent to give the FAA such authority.

In that way, they have been acting just like the EPA, apparently trying to usurp every possible authority they can before the 2014 elections. I have no other explanation for their sudden, intense attempts to pass further regulations.

Re:Dear Fed

[buybuydandavis]

Like all good bureaucrats, they're all about their power, and don't give a shit about the law, because they're above it.

The NSA, the IRS, the EPA, the FDA, the FAA, all just spitting in our faces because they can, they know it, and they want to make sure that we do too.

They are the Tax Ranchers, we are the Tax Cattle.

Say it with me.

"Moo".

Re:Dear Fed

[Jane Q. Public]

Yeah, throw out the random bit of EPA FUD there! Everybody hates having clean drinkable water and clean breathable air. FUCK THE WORLD! LET'S KILL IT AND MAKE OUR OWN DAMN SPECIES GO EXTINCT!

Considering that the Supreme Court just got done slapping down the EPA, for exactly the reason I was discussing here, I don't think either "random" or "FUD" are accurate descriptions of my comment. In your dreams, maybe. It's sad that they're turning into nightmares for you. But be reassured that the reasons for that are good.

Re:Dear Fed

[BostonPilot]

And I don't want people driving down my road disturbing my sleep at night, but I have to share the road with my neighbors and to some degree the same thing is true of the airspace above our property. There are lots of things that may take a helicopter low over your property - I've done utility inspection jobs that sometimes require us to fly quite low - while the noise may be a nuisance, it's an even bigger nuisance when your home loses electricity because the transmission wires weren't inspected.

I've flown traffic helicopters and we try to fly high so as to not make a lot of noise for people on the ground, but there are circumstances where we may have to fly fairly low so again, it's a nuisance, but does serve a useful purpose in helping to keep driver's aware of traffic conditions.

Another case I can think of would be a medivac helicopter making a low approach over your house in order to land nearby to pick up a critically ill person.

In general, the helicopter community works hard to be responsible about how and where we fly; we try to be sensitive to the noise we make and the fact that people on the ground have a right to feel safe, i.e. we need to operate the aircraft in a responsible fashion so that people on the ground are not exposed to risk due to our presence.

One worry I have is that crazy people with access to drones may try to enforce their desire to keep helicopters away from their homes by purposely crashing drones into helicopters. I'm thinking that there may be a market for armored civil helicopters in the not too distant future!. Or maybe a pod of anti-drone drones I can release from my helicopter... ;-)

Re:Dear Fed

[BostonPilot]

The reason FAA has the concept of commercial operating certificates is so that:

a) it can make sure those operators are following regulations enacted for safety reasons.
b) It can revoke the certificates of operators who for one reason or another violate those regulations.

The FAA has very little authority over an entity (person/corporation) who operates without a license or operating certificate. (I think it can levy fines against individuals but I'm not sure where their authority stops in that sense. I don't believe the FAA can act in a law enforcement capability, so it's not clear to me at what point a person can be arrested for violating FAA regulations).

By licensing drones, the FAA can enact rules to prevent them from endangering manned aircraft. For instance, if something akin to a type certificate is required by drones because FAA finds that certain equipment (like ADS-B) is required to insure separation from manned aircraft, how would they enforce that? Probably the way they will is by having certain equipment requirements for drones that want to operate in the national airspace.

Hopefully they will use a layered approach so that very small light drones will have little to no equipment requirements, but may have severe altitude restrictions, while larger/heavier drones, or drones that need to be operated at higher altitudes will have equipment requirements to keep them separated from manned aircraft.

We also have the issue of parts falling out of the air onto the public. In general this isn't an issue for manned aircraft, because usually when big pieces fall off the aircraft, the people on board are killed - it gives the crew plenty of incentive to make sure this doesn't happen. But what's to prevent an SLR carrying drone from falling out of the sky and killing people walking down the sidewalk? Since there's probably little to no risk on the part of the drone operator, we need a way to enforce some rules about how drones can be operated above people...

Re:Dear Fed

[marka63]

You still haven't show why a commercial operator should require a certificate when a hobbyist doesn't for the same class of drone. If a class of drone requires equipment to be fitted it should be independent of whether the drone is commercially operated or not.

Not a rule

[RogueWarrior65]

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.

Re:Not a rule

[MatthiasF]

FAA has no authority below the mandated altitudes for air travel. Property owners have air rights above their property up to the FAA's mandated altitudes or as locally mandated by code.

So, the FAA should kindly go fuck itself. It does not tell us what we can do in the immediate vicinity around our homes or property.

If I want to hire a drone to do a fly through of my home, or my realtor offers to do it themselves, I will do it and the feds can shove their rules as far up their ass as they please.

Re:Not a rule

[ColdWetDog]

So, the FAA should kindly go fuck itself.

Please don't say things like that. You might give them an idea (they won't think of them on their own). Godzilla was created under less extreme circumstances.

Re:Not a rule

[slimjim8094]

Those policy guidelines say "we think we can enforce this rule in this way". They may be wrong, but you'd have to go to court to find out, because they intend to sue anyone who violates their interpretation.

Re:Not a rule

[spire3661]

They have already been slapped down by the courts over this once. I would be happy to slap them again.

Re:Not a rule

[slimjim8094]

FAA has no authority below the mandated altitudes for air travel.

Wrong. FAA's authority applies to any flying vehicle in the airspace of this country. Don't believe me? Here's the quote from the law that established the FAA:

The Administrator is authorized and directed to develop plans for and formulate policy with respect to the use of the navigable airspace; and assign by rule, regulation, or order the use of the navigable airspace under such terms, conditions, and limitations as he may deem necessary in order to insure the safety of aircraft and the efficient utilization of such airspace. He may modify or revoke such assignment when required in the public interest.

Property owners have air rights above their property up to the FAA's mandated altitudes or as locally mandated by code.

Nope. Another common misconception, but "he United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States." (source).

Consider reading the Wikipedia page for some interpretation. Basically the idea is that you have airspace rights to the extent that you can use the space to have useful stuff on it (i.e., you can't build a 600 foot pole just to keep planes away, it has to be for some useful purpose). It's not at all clear that using drones grants you these rights, since they're definitely more aircraft than building.

So, the FAA should kindly go fuck itself. It does not tell us what we can do in the immediate vicinity around our homes or property.

If I want to hire a drone to do a fly through of my home, or my realtor offers to do it themselves, I will do it and the feds can shove their rules as far up their ass as they please.

Nobody's talking about flying a drone inside your house, they're talking about flying one over your house. You know, airspace. As far as thumbing your nose at the FAA - go nuts, but be prepared to win in court, suffer the consequences, or start a (successful) revolution. You could say the same thing about any other law or regulation - it's basically a question if whether you accept the rule of law or not.

Just so we're all clear on the sequence of events: the law creates the FAA and says "you regulate our airspace". The FAA, in the course of performing its legal mandate, creates a number of regulations (such as how pilots and aircraft are certified, standards for airports and navigation, etc) through a process called "rulemaking". They also issue more specific interpretations of the rules they've already enacted. (None of this is unusual; all federal agencies work the same way.) One such opinion decides that drones are basically model aircraft and that's OK so long as they follow the rules - one of which is no commercial use. The court decided that an opinion wasn't good enough here, so the FAA is going through the rulemaking process like they're supposed to. The end result will not be "yeah do whatever the hell you want", it'll probably be "be a hobbyist model aircraft (and comply with the rules, including noncommercial use) or get certified like an aircraft/pilot".

Re:Not a rule

[slimjim8094]

Go nuts. Their policy notice (basically "we interpret the already-existing regulations in this way") was struck down as insufficiently supported, so they're going through the official rulemaking process to make an actual regulation out of it. I suggest you keep an eye on that (there is a public comment period), because that will not be struck down and I guarantee that getting hit with it will hurt. Oh, and it'll probably be something like "be a model aircraft (with all the restrictions, including noncommercial use) or the drone and person have to be certified like aircraft and pilots" - not exactly "do whatever you want"

Re:Not a rule

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Keyword is "navigable airspace" though. FAA has established authority over "navigable airspace" only which FAA itself defines as

'"Navigable airspace" is airspace at or above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by the Code of Federal Regulations, and must include airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft.' https://www.faa.gov/air_traffi...

So what is the minimum altitude of flight? I would bet that it excludes the entire range where drones can fly as they can fly pretty darn low. It must be some number, so if it is e.g. 100m, so drones that fly under 100m should be clear, should they not?

Not saying that some regulation isn't needed, just that the existing one does not apply.

Re:Not a rule

[ctg77]

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te... Quoting from there: 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Thus, using a drone / RC Plane / etc. at a height of less than 500 feet would NOT be subject to FAA approval if the above information is accurate and they do not, in fact, have jurisdiction below navigable airspace levels.

Re:Not a rule

[slimjim8094]

You're misreading the regulations. Over a sparsely populated area there is no altitude restriction, there's a distance to "person, vessel, vehicle, or structure" requirement. You can fly as low as you want over e.g., a cornfield (say, for crop dusting) or the desert or ocean so long as you don't compromise the "emergency landing without undue hazard" rule. I'd argue that it's not reasonable to expect everyone who buys a drone to become intimately familiar with 14 CFR 91's requirements, so some general rules are warranted. For instance: what if someone wants to operate a drone within a Class E surface area (which is within several miles of many airports, and explicitly goes all the way to the ground because it's for the purposes of taking off or landing) - should they be subject to visibility and cloud clearance requirements? The reason they exist is because instrument traffic coming in to land may be coming out of the clouds and VFR traffic needs to stay clear enough to see-and-avoid them. Seems fairly reasonable, right? But a drone might be below 500 feet and still kill someone if they don't follow these rules.

But that's not really the point. Something makes an aircraft subject to these regulations, right? You can't just get a plane and say you're not an airplane and as long as you fly it below "navigable airspace" you're fine - in fact that's the exact opposite of the rules. The FAA certainly doesn't assert authority over hovercraft or other "ground effect vehicles" - it seems reasonable to assume that the FAA considers its authority over aircraft to begin when they can and/or are designed to be flown into the "navigable airspace". Many drones can fly over 500 feet just fine. I suspect the FAA would be less concerned about a drone with a GPS map magically kept up to date that prevented it from flying into any airport's approach path, and kept it below the minimum altitude for manned flight (including refusing to take off from a field or other "sparsely populated area").

I think the regulation just hasn't caught up with drones, but they're working on it. It won't be the free-for-all some people want it to be, but the FAA isn't some antagonistic supervillain of a government agency. They just want to make sure these things don't get sucked into someone's jet engine or going through a windshield, and they also don't want commercial operations without a higher standard of safety. I'm a private pilot and there's all sorts of rules about money changing hands in regards to my flight, and while it's occasionally obnoxious the intent to prevent a bunch of "Billy Bob's Charter" services from popping up everywhere. If you're in a manned aircraft and you want to be compensated for flight, you need to be a commercial pilot, which has higher standards. I don't see why the same basic principle of having higher standards shouldn't apply to commercial drone operations - and neither does the FAA, which is why they're going through the rulemaking process as we speak.

Re:Not a rule

[sjames]

In a neighborhood where a realtor might use a drone to photograph the property, a manned plane would certainly violate the safe landing requirement anywhere near an altitude suitable to photograph the home.

Re:Not a rule

[Above]

Another reply has already pointed out the "navigable airspace" limitation. The specific FAA rule is FAR Part 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes. Basically 500 feet everywhere, and 1,000 feet over "populated areas".

Back in 1981 the FAA addressed RC operators with Advisory Circular 91-57. It requires RC operators stay under 400', remain in line of sight, and coordinate with an airport if they are within 3 miles of the airport (which is where planes may be under those minimums due to take offs and landings.

This set of rules basically insures vertical separation of RC operators and "real" planes. It's worked for over 30 years, quite nicely. In fact the FAA is quite happy with this for "drone" (really RC quadcopter) operators. Buy one, fly it over your house within the rules, take a video and post it on YouTube for your "hobby" and the FAA is perfectly ok with it, and won't give you a hard time.

Rather, the FAA is drawing a different line here. They have a long history of distinguishing between commercial and private operations, and have different regulations for both. They have generally held in the past that "all commercial operators must be licensed", which in the context of real planes makes perfect sense. But with these new quadcopters this rule has gone screwy. If you take the same video from the last paragraph and provide it to your realtor to help sell your house, suddenly you are a "commercial" operator and can't operate without an FAA License, and oh by the way they have no procedure to license RC operators right now so you can't get one, but you can ask for a one off waver, it may be approved in a few months.

And that's what is stupid here. If it's a RC device, operated by a human, under 400' and in line of site, they should stay out of it. Commercial or hobby shouldn't matter.

Re:Not a rule

[BitZtream]

Stop quoting that single court case bullshit. The case was dismissed because of an overly broad statement in the way the FAA filed it. The judge pretty much told them to narrow it down and I'll see you again in 3 months ... which it will go through. Guess what ... that very case is already back in the schedule to be retried.

And for reference. There have been 2 cases dismissed. One was retried and found in favor of the FAA and the fine stood, the second is on the schedule for retrial.

Re:Not a rule

[Fnord666]

I wonder where crop dusting comes into play under these rules?

Re:Not a rule

[Deadstick]

14 CFR 137.49

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/C...

Re:Not a rule

[iMadeGhostzilla]

But that's precisely the point -- FAA should admit that that the current laws aren't good enough. They were made when only a few toy helicopters existed and that wasn't worth regulating, but times have changed. Instead, the FAA goes after realtors using footage of drones and otherwise spend time and resources trying to enforce laws that need updating even in situations that do not seem to be endangering the public (such as using footage). It's this zeal that I find out of place, with the understanding that I have at the moment.

Appreciate the pilot's perspective though.

Re:Not a rule

[BostonPilot]

You forgot to quote paragraph d:

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

We frequently operate at 500 feet and below - it's one of the things that makes a helicopter useful. It's going to be a real issue when we start sharing the airspace with drones. Birds are already enough of an issue, but birds large enough to take down the helicopter are generally visible at the speeds we fly close to the ground. A maneuvering quadropter on the other hand is probably close to invisible to us - it's hard enough to see flying objects below the horizon, but one that can maneuver aggressively such as a model helicopter or quadropter is almost impossible to see and avoid. Usually we see RC Fields well before we see the RC Aircraft - the fields tend to look a certain way so when we see such a field we generally keep clear or at least are much more vigilant (and would be reluctant to go below 500 feet if we though an RC aircraft was being operated).

Anyway, there are lots of operations that legitimately take us below the altitudes specified in paragraph b & c.

Re:Not a rule

[sjames]

You should also be better able to manage sharing airspace with a properly operated drone.

Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to take

[tgeller]

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.

But with a pilot it's still ok?

[Dr. Spork]

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"

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Re:Not a rule - Not just the FAA

[schwit1]

This administration has had this same 'if you don't like it too bad' attitude since day 1.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06...

Movies

[SuperTechnoNerd]

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.

Re:Movies

[DarkOx]

I know its a fun conspiracy theory and all but I don't think the double standard is deliberate, even if it does exist.

The real-estate lobby is probably only slightly less powerful than the Hollywood lobby. I mean lets see:

There are huge tax advantages for income properties, in terms of you can take losses against capital gains on them, but you can't on a property you used as a residence? Why?

The mortgage interest tax deduction -- exists almost exclusively to increase borrowing power and willingness, which DOES NOT really help buyers and owners, it just pushes values up in general which means banks get more interest realtors and title companies get bigger commissions.

There was never any real financial reform done; and if look into the debate carefully you can't count that all up to GOP obstructionism non of the proposals from the left did much to address predatory lending or liar loans/documentation requirements.

Given how much Gall Street has tied up in it the only thing more untouchable to regulators than Hollywood might be Real-Estate.

Re:Movies

[Shoten]

Actually, it's vastly more common to use a helicopter, though that is going to change soon...but in favor of much bigger drones than are used by realtors. My significant other is a producer of documentary content (which uses tons of aerial shots) and they follow a much more stringent process than any realtor does. There's insurance, for one thing, for every aerial shooting session. Insurance for liability, insurance for the aircraft, insurance for the camera (aircraft and camera almost never go together...which is one level of complexity and uncertainty that would go bye-bye with a drone...but at the cost of a certain degree of flexibility as well; you can't specify that a drone will carry a Red, for example) insurance for the pilot, insurance for the cameraman. There are permits that are filed as well, and these vary enormously by jurisdiction. But it's a huge task just to put the shoot together; they don't just drive up with some kind of aircraft and start flying around.

Re:Movies

[BasilBrush]

It is common for the the movie industry to shoot scenes from drones.

Your assertion doesn't appear to be true.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/04/...

This is the way it SHOULD happen. An overall prohibition on drones then specific exceptions for uses where the benefits to society are seen to outweigh the costs.

Re:Movies

[ScentCone]

This is the way it SHOULD happen. An overall prohibition on drones then specific exceptions for uses where the benefits to society are seen to outweigh the costs

You have your entire concept of liberty, and of the constitution, exactly backwards.

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?

And in the case at hand, picture two people standing right next to each other. Each has their hands on the controls of a 4-pound plastic quadcopter carrying a GoPro. Each takes off, sends the little machine up to 45 feet above the same house. Each of them use the device to record the condition of the houses's gutters, sparing somebody a couple hours of putting up a dangerous extension ladder a dozen times. Each of them get the job done in minutes, and land their little quad back down in the driveway right next to each other. You think that one of those two people should be banned from what the both just did, but the other should not. Why? Be very specific.

Re:Movies

[bill_mcgonigle]

I know its a fun conspiracy theory and all but I don't think the double standard is deliberate, even if it does exist.

The only real double standard is that the government is rapidly advancing its UAV technology while keeping private industry from doing so. Notice how Greenpeace floated a blimp over the NSA data center? Good for publicity but not the most efficient way to gather the photos they did.

Amazon shouldn't be calling them drones, though - drones kill Pakistani children, aerobots save puppies.

Re:Movies

[spire3661]

Thats not Liberty at all.

Re:Movies

[ScentCone]

But one could describe yours as being backwards just as easily as mine. It's simply a matter of perspective.

If by that you mean that clearly written words in the English language have no actual meaning, then sure, I guess. If you mean that the Constitution, and the countless supporting documents and correspondence written to, between and about its authors and the large groups of representatives that agreed on its purpose and amendments to it were just setting us with something that had no actual meaning, then sure. But that's BS, and you know it.

No, I never said "every" anything. I said drones. Period.

The Constitution makes no such distinctions between one tool and the next. But of course the people who wrote it were very clear that there were some tools that some people would - given a period of power in the congress - try to deny to the public, and so they added amendment that explicitly reminded the government that it cannot act in those areas. The Constitution is built around the concept that the government's powers over what you may or may not do it inherently limited to the things that are enumerated therein, and generally prohibited otherwise, with the states having all such other authority. This isn't a matter of "perspective," and it isn't true for certain tools, and false for other tools. If you think that "drones" (but not, say, chain saws) should be singled out for capricious bans by the federal government despite laws recently passed by the congress explicitly to the contrary, then you're completely missing the point.

Personally I'd say they were flying model aircraft not drones.

Semantic games like that show how completely unserious you are.

... using a car to take people where they ask. If you are doing it for free, or nothing more than fuel cost split, no problem. If you are doing it commercially then you tend to require a permit.

A matter decided upon, legislatively. at the municipal, county, and (rarely) state level. Not by capricious extra-legal, counter-constitutional fiat from a political appointee of the White House, as in the case at hand.

Re:Movies

[vux984]

There are huge tax advantages for income properties, in terms of you can take losses against capital gains on them, but you can't on a property you used as a residence? Why?

"Under 26 U.S.C. 121 an individual can exclude, from his or her gross income, up to $250,000 ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) of capital gains on the sale of real property if the owner used it as primary residence for two of the five years before the date of sale."

You can't claim take losses because you have this massive exemption on gains on your primary residence. In the vast majority of cases that's a much better deal for tax payers.

Re:Movies

[nabsltd]

But it's a huge task just to put the shoot together; they don't just drive up with some kind of aircraft and start flying around.

Because they are generally flying over property that they don't own.

I'm willing to bet that an insurance company would laugh at me when I ask for insurance to protect my own home against what might happen if I crash a model airplane into it.

Re:Movies

[nabsltd]

any major insurer should cover such damage after your deductible so long as you were not negligent.

I suspect that "any major insurer" would consider the act of flying the drone "negligent".

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[DarkOx]

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.

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[PPH]

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.

Re:Not a rule - Not just the FAA

[Anonymous Coward]

This administration has. So has the last one. That's where this one learned they could get away with it.

The FAA needs to follow the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the FAA Modernization And Reform Act of 2012 congress required the following:

SEC. 332.
(a)(4) REPORT TO CONGRESS .—Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Con-
gress a copy of the plan required under paragraph (1). ...
(b) RULEMAKING .—Not later than 18 months after the date on
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.

Re:The FAA needs to follow the law.

[ScentCone]

so the FAA either is or soon will be operating in direct contradiction to the law passed by congress

Why should the FAA, which is part of the Obama administration, feel any urge whatsoever to enforce or obey laws passed by congress? We have ample precedent of him using the pen and phone about which he so regularly boasts to simply do what he wants anyway, even in direct contradiction of plain language in the laws he swore to uphold. Any expectation that the chief executive of the administration will be asking his immediate (appointed, by him) subordinate (the Secretary of Transportation) to instruct HIS subordinate (Huerta, the director of the FAA) to actually comply with the law, is laughable. The administration takes laws (like their own favorite, the ACA), and completely ignores hard-wired dates and other requirements as it suits them for political leverage with the portion of the voters to whom they pander. Happily, that particular instance is about to be challenged in a civil suit coming out of congress - that's very good news.

We just need another suit, along the same lines, requiring the administration's law breaking at the agency level in the FAA to be discussed in the bright sunshine of court. Something you'd think that the "most transparent administration in history" would applaud, right? Yeah.

Personal opinion on this....

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Personal opinion on this....

[aviators99]

Controlled airspace goes down to ground level in an inverted cone shape at controlled airports, that is quite wide. This is to allow IFR traffic to take off and land at controlled airports and never leave controlled airspace. So you can't fly 10 feet next to a large airport without breaking the law, but you can fly 10,000 feet in remote areas without telling them anything and be legal. It can get a bit complicated when learning to fly in the midst of 3 international airports while taking off from an uncontrolled one. I usually flew without touching controlled airspace, but had to keep track of my position when I got near them.

Just trying to give you some information for your viewpoints.

I think you're confusing "positive controlled airspace" with "controlled airspace", but you are otherwise correct.

But I do wonder about the true "uncontrolled" airspace and how the FAA's rule-making may or may not apply. This is different from what you describe. I believe you are regularly flying in "controlled airspace", in which you usually don't have to deal with controllers Uncontrolled airspace is rare in areas where manned aircraft fly, but is probably more prevalent where drones fly.

that's not the FAA's job

[silfen]

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.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[BasilBrush]

The FAA was created to regulate passenger and air traffic

Drones are air traffic.

And make no mistake, FAA's attempts to assert authority have nothing to do with safety.

For sure there's a safety angle to drone regulation. A toy drone probably weighs a few ounces, but commercial uses of drones will include much heavier vehicles. There's Amazon's plans, plus the existing illegal use by smugglers that show the way that's going to go.

But there's also the intrusiveness aspect. Sunbathers may not want their gardens overflying, nobody wants a drone hovering outside their bedroom window.

Drones are certainly not something that some be free from regulations.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[ColdWetDog]

That means that if you want to shoot down low-flying Amazon delivery drones, you should be able to do that

Please run for Congress....

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[drinkypoo]

That means that if you want to shoot down low-flying Amazon delivery drones, you should be able to do that.

Well, no. Not unless you can account for ballistics, and the drop zone for your projectiles. But perhaps you should be permitted to use a tethered net launcher.

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.

Or any public property. Whether the restrictions on line-of-sight are reasonable is a whole other discussion (my thought is "maybe") but public lands belong to all of us. As always, the thing must be operated in a manner which does not represent a realistic risk to others.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[Rich0]

What is the risk of a drone hovering 100 feet up taking photos of a house?

Just have the FAA issue $50 ADS-B transponders which anybody can install on a drone or aircraft and that would probably do a lot more to promote collision avoidance than keeping people from taking pictures of their own houses.

As far as heavy drones go - regulate them like baseballs hit into windows and such. You don't need a license to operate a baseball and yet we don't have them showering down on our cars all day long.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[silfen]

No, it's not "air traffic" because it's not "traffic": it is simply something you do on your private property in your private airspace, airspace that you own. It's the FAA's job to keep traffic out of your private airspace. It isn't their job to regulate what you do there.

And you are absolutely right that there is a safety aspect there and that I don't want a drone outside my bedroom window. That is why the FAA's attempts to assert jurisdiction over my private airspace are so disconcerting, because if the FAA has jurisdiction, they can (and don't kid yourself, will) allow Amazon to violate what is currently my private property.

You are erroneously assuming that the FAA is trying to protect you and your rights, when the only consequence of the extension of their jurisdiction is to take away your property rights and prepare for intrusions into what used to be something that you had total control over as a property owner.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[rhodium_mir]

ADS-B transponders start at $2500.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[silfen]

I can account for ballistics, yes. Kind of depends on the size of the property doesn't it?

Furthermore, there is no need for regulation there. If I were stupid enough to injure you by taking reckless action against a drone that was violating my private property, you can already recover damages and penalties under existing law; there are no new regulations needed.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[BasilBrush]

What is the risk of a drone hovering 100 feet up taking photos of a house?

What's the risk of a box of electronics, possibly with cargo, falling out of the sky?

Just have the FAA issue $50 ADS-B transponders

Just? Will the system scale? And in what way will it stop faulty drones from falling out of the sky?

As far as heavy drones go - regulate them like baseballs hit into windows and such. You don't need a license to operate a baseball and yet we don't have them showering down on our cars all day long.

A drone carrying cargo is not like a baseball, and no amount of regulation will make it so.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[HornWumpus]

A drone can and does fly safely 1 foot off the floor of my living room. Should the FAA protect it from my cats and dogs? They (hide/bark from a safe distance) so no issue.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[slimjim8094]

"The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States." And they've delegated the administration of it to the FAA. The only air rights you have over your property are those you can reasonably use in connection with the property, e.g. adding another storey to your house. It's not at all clear that drones are more "stuff related to your use of the property" than aircraft - that's the question, right? (IANAL)

And it's 500 feet, unless you're in a "congested area" like a city (where it is 1000 feet). Even then, it doesn't apply if the aircraft is that low for the purposes of takeoff or landing, so everyone within a few miles of any runway threshold will have planes closer than 500 feet.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[fnj]

Actually, sport aviation under ultralight rules does not have minimum altitude rules per se. And no, you are not allowed to shoot them down. Yes, they could get into trouble doing blatantly dangerous or intrusive things. And I believe they themselves would take umbrage if you operated your drones in any manner dangerous to them. They certainly have the law firmly on their side on that one.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It will induce drone makers to start donating to Congress (cynical, but difficult to actually disprove that's the reason for the regulation, not the ostensible surface reasons) and in short order, people here on Slashdot will be talking about the corrupting influence of drone makers on Congress.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The FAA is concerned with you accidentally flying it into a restricted area like way up there (evidently 1000 feet) or near an airport or the White House.

It is not concerned with whether some idiot crashes it into someone's window or head. That's the concern of local police and states.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[silfen]

"The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

Yes, as opposed to the French government etc. That means that only the laws of the US apply. It does not mean that the US government can impose arbitrary restrictions on the air above people's private property.

The only air rights you have over your property are those you can reasonably use in connection with the property, e.g. adding another storey to your house

No, traditionally, I have rights "from heaven to hell", i.e., everything above and below my property. When commercial aviation appeared, an act of Congress limited that right upwards in order to enable commercial aviation. The intent of those laws was certainly not to create the legal situation you state.

The FAA is now attempting to encroach on the space above private land further, and they are trying to do it simply by issuing regulations and hoping that they stick. That is wrong. One can debate whether the FAA should have this expanded authority, but granting that authority should require an act of Congress, not simply rule making by the FAA.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[Rich0]

As far as heavy drones go - regulate them like baseballs hit into windows and such. You don't need a license to operate a baseball and yet we don't have them showering down on our cars all day long.

A drone carrying cargo is not like a baseball, and no amount of regulation will make it so.

How do you figure. The damage from either is kinetic energy. Either can smash a window, distract a driver, and so on.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[Rich0]

ADS-B transponders start at $2500.

As the other post indicated, this is all from certification costs. These would be issued by the FAA, and thus the FAA would bear these costs and not pass them along (out of interest for public safety). This would make planes safer as well, since everybody would have them and not just pilots with more money to burn.

There is nothing in an ADS-B transceiver that isn't present in a feature phone. It is a GPS, a micro-controller, and a radio. Many cheap hobby UAVs already have all 3 anyway.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[BasilBrush]

You forgot shape and materials.

Is a dart and a block of polystyrene of the same weight equally dangerous?

Do you think a car with a chassis is no more dangerous than a monocoque design with crumple zones?

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[Rich0]

Sure, but a drone's shape and materials will probably be less likely to cause damage than a baseball or other more common object flying through the air (like a tree branch).

The drone is designed to fly - it is going to be light and flimsy.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[BasilBrush]

Tree branches kill people. Being safer than that is a low bar.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[Rich0]

Tree branches kill people. Being safer than that is a low bar.

I agree, but we still manage to get by without issuing federal licenses to tree owners.

I just don't see the need to regulate low-flying drones at all (1000'). I can see the need to come up with a more workable way to handle aircraft of any type including drones at higher altitudes, since a drone getting sucked into an engine can cause serious problems or death for hundreds of people. Frankly, the FAA's approaches aren't really adequate even for small aircraft, which is why the whole general aviation industry is dying out. They need to get past "see and avoid" which is basically just another way of washing their hands of doing anything to proactively prevent collisions.

Re:that's not the FAA's job

[BasilBrush]

I don't see that much need to regulate them now, as there are so few of them. Just as when there were only a few hundred automobiles, there probably wasn't a lot of need to regulate them. But clearly there'd be big problems if automobiles weren't regulated. And the regulations started pretty early.

Drones are going to get far more numerous, and cause lots of problems. In a precedent based world, it's best to take account of forethought, and not set the precedent that drones are a free-for all.

Drawing the distinction between private and commercial is good. No criminalising of toys, whilst still making sure that those that have the business model to fill the skies with problem causing drones are limited to specific uses.

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[tgeller]

"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.

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[Anonymous Coward]

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.").

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[BasilBrush]

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.

"Safe"

[Shoten]

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.

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[Maxo-Texas]

I wasn't aware the FAA's mandate went down to 12' in residential areas.

Cool.

mod this up

[ganjadude]

thanks for that information. I have not seen this yet. Wish i had mod points

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[jfengel]

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.

No it isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[PPH]

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.

Renax

[rossdee]

Renax is OK then - they use hot air baloons

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[nbauman]

People do get killed by these things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

Can someone explain how...

[0123456]

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?

Re:Can someone explain how...

[ScentCone]

Because the FAA, by federal statute (passed by congress, which is made up of representatives of all of the states), is granted that regulatory authority. There is legal precedence for their authority over everything that flies in the air, right down to an inch above the ground. Which doesn't mean that their position on this stuff isn't incredibly absurd. But it's their turf.

Airspace

[Anothermouse Cowered]

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.

Re:Airspace

[BostonPilot]

I don't think he's saying the airspace should be reserved for him, I think most of us think that those of us who fly deserve some regulations to prevent us from being killed because some idiot realtor caused a drone to strike our aircraft. I haven't heard anyone here say drones shouldn't be allowed. What we want is to be able to share the airspace safely.

Currently, a drone operator who causes a manned aircraft to crash has little fear for their own personal safety. They may have some liabilities (civil or even criminal) but they probably won't lose their life. I'd certainly like some regulations so that I'm not risking my life due to drone strikes every time I go flying.

I took my own drone footage

[EmagGeek]

When I sold my last house, I gave the Realtor footage I had taken using my R/C aircraft for fun.

Re:I took my own drone footage

[naughtynaughty]

I took drone footage of my house for fun. If I decide to use it two years from now to sell my house that doesn't convert the legal-at-the-time drone usage to something illegal.

Instead of griping on /., tell the FAA

[Lothsahn]

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...

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[spire3661]

By very good you mean anyting labeled 'commercial' costs three times as much....yeah its been fucking great.

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[ShaunC]

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.

Which Laws To Break

[JimSadler]

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.

Define "safe commercial use of drones"

[QuietLagoon]

...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...

Re:Define "safe commercial use of drones"

[Man On Pink Corner]

Not everything has to be a Federal matter.

Re:Define "safe commercial use of drones"

[ScentCone]

How do you know that all those real estate agents are using the drones safely?

Never mind the tiny number of people shooting a few real estate stills from treetop level. How do you know that the many, many thousands of people who are flying around for fun are being safe? But the FAA (so far) is honoring congress's mandate that hobbyists be left alone, even though they just said that hobbyists flying FPV style are no longer allowed. Regardless, the hobby drone market has hundreds of thousands of customers. There might be a few hundred people shooting real estate. Can you explain why you think it's a good thing to hurt them, but not to care about all sorts of reckless hobby newbies (just search on YouTube)? Please be specific.

How do you know that the real estate agent really knows how to fly one of the drones

How do you know that your neighor, who just had a ready-to-fly quad dropped off by UPS and who's in the air 30 minutes later, is safe? Really. How do you know? And why do you think that people who are doing it professionally, with their businesses and reputations on the line, are more dangerous than a 12 year old kid next door who's on his third quad having crashed the first two in spectacular fashion? How do you know? Please be specific. Because the FAA thinkks the 12 year old kid is fine, but the person who takes great care to avoid endangering their real estate business liability coverage while shooting the occasional photo should be stopped. An odd thing for you to support.

Re:Not a rule - Not just the FAA

[TheGavster]

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.

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[TheGavster]

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.

Re:Not a rule - Not just the FAA

[currently_awake]

If you are trying to ban non government use of drones, getting rid of all "reasonable" uses of drones is a required first step.

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[currently_awake]

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.

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[DarkOx]

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.

10th ammendment, and tethering

[davidwr]

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.

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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.

No safe uses

[whizbang77045]

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?

Re:No safe uses

[ScentCone]

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?

You're right. You're definitely on to something there. And while we're making sure that a professional real estate photographer with his reputation on the line is not to be trusted with a three and a half pound quadcopter, we should be even MORE restrictive of the OTHER dangerous stuff that's moving around our homes and communities. Like, pre-occupied 19 year olds driving cars. Like large dogs on cheap leashes. Like idiots on mountain bikes hopping curbs and cutting through read lights. Definitely start with the Evil Drones, but please don't stop there! There are so many dangers! Oh, definitely don't forget steak knives and riding lawnmowers.

Re:Not a rule - Not just the FAA

[sjames]

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.

Re:Not a rule - Not just the FAA

[BitZtream]

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.

This is just ass-covering

[russotto]

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.

Re:Not a rule - Not just the FAA

[sjames]

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.

As an actual professional

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Not a rule - Not just the FAA

[Palinchron]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not a rule - Not just the FAA

[tlhIngan]

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 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.

Quite right, too

[petrus4]

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?

App approval

[tepples]

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.

Wickard v. Filburn

[tepples]

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.

Baloney Re:Not a rule

[NatZi]

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.

Re:Perfectly appropriate action for the FAA to tak

[PPH]

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.

Re:Not a rule - Not just the FAA

[BostonPilot]

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......