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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
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
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.
... camera strapped to a very long pole.
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.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
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.
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.
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 don't understand the commercial vs. private distinction here. Why is private drone US fine but commercial not?
Currently hooked on AMP
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
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.
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.
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".
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.