Why bother listening to the FAA?

Kilby

Kilby

Active Member
I try to be a good guy and follow the rules laid out in front of me. From many of the threads that are on this board here, as well as others I've seen, it's obvious that the FAA has laid out a "no commercial" flights rule for our aircraft. There seem to be countless discussions about it here, there and everywhere else. I know that some of us, including myself at times, have taken on the occasional odd job under the radar to make a few extra bucks. That I can kind of understand and see how people can get away with it, but lately it seems like there is a growing trend of people doing very "on the radar" jobs for huge TV networks. Is everyone just saying screw it to the rules laid out and having at it or what? Just with in the last few days I've seen multirotor use from Fox Sports, CBS Sports, NBC, History Channel and Discovery Channel. If you told me that one, or maybe a couple of those networks were willing to step around the rules and use this technology I might agree, but I have a hard time believing that they are all doing it unless they know something that we don't... that the FAA really doesn't have any way to stop them.

So my question is, if those major networks are not following the rules and using small independent aerial guys for work, why do the rest of us have to play by the rules? Is there maybe some loophole that they are using?

Thoughts?

This is a perfect example... shot with a cinestar 8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eH5Qo5d4vE
 

DucktileMedia

DucktileMedia

Drone Enthusiast
My logic is just be safe. On a closed course it is a lot more planned and open area. It's no different than gun control. It's less the gun than the owner. But none of this would fly in court of course. Common sense goes a log way.
 


R

RTRyder

Merlin of Multirotors
This is the gray area that causes so much debate. The network isn't actually doing commercial work because they aren't charging to use the multirotor for doing the video, they are simply recording and broadcasting whatever that particular subject may be. The argument could be made that doing so consitutes a commercial use if they get paid by the sponsor of the event for the coverage but usually the network makes it's money off the paid advertising while broadcasting and often has to pay the event sponsor for the right to video what they are broadcasting. Lawyers could have a field day with it taking years to drag it all through the court system if it came to that so none of the involved parties are willing to put it to the test knowing that's what would likely happen.

The flip side is if you do the video as a consultant or contractor and then charge the network for doing so you are clearly a commercial venture and subject to the scrutiny of the FAA if they so choose. Once again there is no explicit law forbidding what you're doing, they are relying on the fact that they govern the national air space and therefore the registration of aircraft flying within it. Their regulations say that any commercial use of a sUAS must comply with existing registration and certification already in place for experimental aircraft, the catch 22 being commercial use is not allowed with an experimental registration so even if you did get the cert it would still be against the rules to use it for commercial purposes. That is the basis of fact they use for leaning heavily on the little guys they "catch" doing commercial work with RC helis and multirotors knowing full well you aren't going to be willing to pay a lawyer to fight it through the years of litigation it might take to resolve the matter if it came to that. The big boys with deep pockets and legal departments get a pass from Uncle Sam as they can afford to fight it out if necessary.

The bottom line for the average Joe is that the FAA could make your life a nightmare if they wanted to and very few are willing to openly push the limit to see just how far they can go before that happens, some folks just take it a little further than others but no one has actually wound up in a courtroom over it (yet)...

Ken
 

You must log in or register to reply here.
Top