Representation for Commercial sUAS

[SamaraMedia]

Has anyone looked at this? http://dronepilotsassociation.com/

I joined this organization when it first came out. I know Peter Sachs, owner of association, we both have been fairly active in Connecticut working with the state legislators on educating them on the use of "drones". A couple weeks back there was a panel discussion about how to or if they need to put some kind of regulations in place for the state concerning the growing popularity and usage. Peter is a knowledgeable attorney and full scale licensed heli pilot. He has used his P2 to help a fire department in CT determine whether it was safe to send in firefighters to a fire at a quarry last summer using his drone to access the proximity of the fire to explosives on site. His video and a photo was used on the website and newspaper that I work for.

He used his P2 in demonstration for the PRI committee before the latest hearing on drone use - http://www.cga.ct.gov/pri/docs/2014/PRI Scope Drone Use Regulation.pdf. It was a pretty windy day but he flew his quad to 400 feet above the state Capitol building so the legislators could see what it looked like from that height. He also checked in with the local airport to let them know what his flight plan was since the airport is a few miles away. I found out about this last minute from a reporter at another newspaper the week before and tried to be a part of the demonstration but they told me it was too late to get approval from Capitol Police to fly there.

I think Old Man is correct in that the organization took off quickly during the heat of the FAA open comment period but cooled after Peter asked for donations, a reasonable request, to help in the cost of representation. He is currently involved in a couple suits against the FAA and would probably be a good person to have involved.

Also found it interesting that the production company (from NY) that was hired to promote our state (CT) tourism recently posted a video on Twitter of fall foliage in one of our state parks and was not bashful in titling it "drone" video - https://amp.twimg.com/v/bf029a13-ca12-46d4-9a22-c0d9d7ecaec2

Would love to continue but I need to get out and fly while the weather is good today and the leaves are still on the trees...

John

 

[Old Man]

Regarding the production company, what you can get away with is totally dependent upon "who you know".

 

[Ronan]

Just got some information back. Not looking good...

I was basically told it doesn't matter what a judge say or what the law say. The use of drones at any of the facilities i'm suppose to be contracted for is denied until FAA approval, pending 5-6 month.
What the FAA told them is basically: Commercial Drones are Illegal. We can give your facilities special permission, it takes around 6 month.

I'm pretty taken aback... rushing to get a COA so hopefully it doesn't take too long... i changed country for this when i was given the green light and now this after my personal funds have been exhausted?... Maybe it's time to get on the lawsuit bandwagon...

Edit: And i was just told they are trying to install jamming towers... apparently some eco-pirates tried to fly a DJI phantom over one of the restricted facility...

 

[Av8Chuck]

Just got some information back. Not looking good...

I was basically told it doesn't matter what a judge say or what the law say. The use of drones at any of the facilities i'm suppose to be contracted for is denied until FAA approval, pending 5-6 month.
What the FAA told them is basically: Commercial Drones are Illegal. We can give your facilities special permission, it takes around 6 month.

I'm pretty taken aback... rushing to get a COA so hopefully it doesn't take too long... i changed country for this when i was given the green light and now this after my personal funds have been exhausted?... Maybe it's time to get on the lawsuit bandwagon...

Edit: And i was just told they are trying to install jamming towers... apparently some eco-pirates tried to fly a DJI phantom over one of the restricted facility...

Where did you relocate from?
Sorry to hear about this, I certainly don't intend to rub salt in your wound but this is another example of why we need some sort of organization that protects our right to operate commercially. One of the things that this new organization can do is research the feasibility of simplifying and expediting the COA process.

Unfortunately I doubt it would have much of an effect on your current situation, but I hope everyone who reads about your situation realizes the impact this is having on all of us and not just be motivated to join but to aggressively evangelize for not only people who want to fly UAS for a living but also people who would benefit from those services. We need a lot of people to join us.

 

[Ronan]

Where did you relocate from?
Sorry to hear about this, I certainly don't intend to rub salt in your wound but this is another example of why we need some sort of organization that protects our right to operate commercially. One of the things that this new organization can do is research the feasibility of simplifying and expediting the COA process.

Unfortunately I doubt it would have much of an effect on your current situation, but I hope everyone who reads about your situation realizes the impact this is having on all of us and not just be motivated to join but to aggressively evangelize for not only people who want to fly UAS for a living but also people who would benefit from those services. We need a lot of people to join us.

I was living in Canada for a few years before. I was moving back to NY but took, what i was told, a big opportunity in Maryland. I'm used to living in big cities (ie Paris, NYC, Montreal, London) so imagine moving to Annapolis... I sucked it up and moved to get this started and now i'm 'hanging'...

Hopefully my COA will be quick... But honestly this whole situation...it's ridiculous... I think i facepalm twice in those 2 meetings...

 

[Av8Chuck]

Keep in mind that it has taken some years, not months to get their first COA and I believe that the FAA has stated publicly that they are trying to answer the COA request within 120 days so I would imagine that's the absolute soonest you could expect it.

I also think your going to need the services of a consultant or attorney that specializes in getting COA's. COA's are nothing new, they've been around as long as the FAA and are used in other branches of government as well, although COA's for commercial drone use are a bit different there probably are organizations that can help.

 

[Ronan]

Keep in mind that it has taken some years, not months to get their first COA and I believe that the FAA has stated publicly that they are trying to answer the COA request within 120 days so I would imagine that's the absolute soonest you could expect it.

I also think your going to need the services of a consultant or attorney that specializes in getting COA's. COA's are nothing new, they've been around as long as the FAA and are used in other branches of government as well, although COA's for commercial drone use are a bit different there probably are organizations that can help.

Could be. I saw the sUAV COA is different and is in a different category. This should take more than a few weeks to get. Anything more and the FAA is doing this on purpose, so another hit for sUAV business owners.

I'm not waiting that long to be bullied or told to wait silently in the corner. We are talking about a lot of money and my livelihood (and the one's of any other sUAV business owner).

Also every week that goes by, means loss of $ for me and the facilities that need my service (meanwhile they have to hire a traditional helicopter service which cost a LOT more). I doubt the FAA will pick up the bill...

 

[Av8Chuck]

Yes and very unfortunately for you your having to live through this problem. But what choice do we have at the moment? We can individually take this issue on which is cost prohibitive for most with no guarantee for success or we can organize into a large group with leverage to address this in any number of ways. The more members we have the more leverage and choices available to deal with this sort of regulatory process.

 

[Ronan]

Yes and very unfortunately for you your having to live through this problem. But what choice do we have at the moment? We can individually take this issue on which is cost prohibitive for most with no guarantee for success or we can organize into a large group with leverage to address this in any number of ways. The more members we have the more leverage and choices available to deal with this sort of regulatory process.

I'm signed up to the 2 biggest sUAV business organizations, but i don't see anything happening for a few months if not years.

Heck i'm ready to pay a lawyer to come tell my client lawyer what is and what is not... but i doubt that will do anything...

So far:
I'v educated them.
I'm getting the biggest insurance i can.
I'm trying the FAA COA approach, out of good will, and if it's done in a timely manner, no business can wait months, they will die off.
I keep pressing and pushing, so this doesn't 'slide off'.

I haven't told my life-partner how bad it is (she knows enough, i don't want to worry her too much)... but i am concerned about her (and my) well being if this keeps up... I'm not doing this 'just for me'...

I guess i keep hoping i missed something, which is why i'm pushing for this so much... Hmnn

 

[Old Man]

Enough people come together and a class action suit could be filed, but two things are assured in that. One is that it will be years before seeing a court and the second has the plaintiffs receiving at best a very small individual judgement in their favor if they win. They might even get the law clarified.

Aside from having extreme empathy with what you are experiencing, a couple of things are quite troubling with what is going down. The first has the FAA informing the potential client sUAS activities are illegal when courts have already ruled on more than one occasion it is not. The second is reference to installation of "jamming towers". Under FCC regulations frequency jamming devices are illegal, and why so many states have won out in cases where people used radar jammers and tattletales. Recently the FCC just went hard after a Chinese company selling 2.4 jammers to the public via the internet.

I can candidly state that if you are large enough, have high level political access and need a COA, if correctly filing the paperwork you would have it in weeks. If the situation was dire or if trying to prevent criminal activity, you could have it in hours. But you have to be a major player or law enforcement to be provided that level of favoritism. You could even be awarded experimental tail numbers to "legalize" your activities.

The above are a few more reasons we need an active and involved organization to represent us with our rights and freedoms. We do not have equal access to the airspace system and laws are being abridged to prevent our access. Those that care and look to the future need not be deeply involved but their support would be required by the group of dedicated group of people that would be. What you are dealing with has more to do with politics than law. The utility likely knows the law inside and out since they have outstanding legal teams but doesn't want to upset the FAA who would in turn pass that irritation on to members of the PUC.

 

[Ronan]

Enough people come together and a class action suit could be filed, but two things are assured in that. One is that it will be years before seeing a court and the second has the plaintiffs receiving at best a very small individual judgement in their favor if they win. They might even get the law clarified.

Aside from having extreme empathy with what you are experiencing, a couple of things are quite troubling with what is going down. The first has the FAA informing the potential client sUAS activities are illegal when courts have already ruled on more than one occasion it is not. The second is reference to installation of "jamming towers". Under FCC regulations frequency jamming devices are illegal, and why so many states have won out in cases where people used radar jammers and tattletales. Recently the FCC just went hard after a Chinese company selling 2.4 jammers to the public via the internet.

I can candidly state that if you are large enough, have high level political access and need a COA, if correctly filing the paperwork you would have it in weeks. If the situation was dire or if trying to prevent criminal activity, you could have it in hours. But you have to be a major player or law enforcement to be provided that level of favoritism. You could even be awarded experimental tail numbers to "legalize" your activities.

The above are a few more reasons we need an active and involved organization to represent us with our rights and freedoms. We do not have equal access to the airspace system and laws are being abridged to prevent our access. Those that care and look to the future need not be deeply involved but their support would be required by the group of dedicated group of people that would be. What you are dealing with has more to do with politics than law. The utility likely knows the law inside and out since they have outstanding legal teams but doesn't want to upset the FAA who would in turn pass that irritation on to members of the PUC.

I advised my 'client' of the legality problems with jammers.

The thing is this client is huge... i mean billions huge and then some... So if they put their backs into it, they could easily change things up. Problem is the guy in charge of this... seems to be scarred of the FAA. He outright ban anything drone. I can convince people around him, i'm even talking to some of their lawyers... but the big guy in charge... that's a tough one.

Honestly if i get their support, i should get a COA within weeks and everyone can be happy and move along. But with the FAA claiming my business is illegal... since it's a commercial drone business... that just took me aback, concerning a JUDGE say's it's valid! That took me by surprise in last week's meeting and honestly... i think it's illegal... It's one thing to fishy tail about it, but when a court case defines it for you and you go against it... Isn't that breaking some kind of law?

Throughout the day i get such a range of emotion... scared for my business/income, worried about my family, angry, frustrated, hanging on to hope...

 

[Old Man]

Sorry to say, but ignoring legal precedence and Constitutional process has been much too common over the past 6 years. You've got a shot at helping to fix that in a couple weeks. I feel for ya man, I really do.

A lot of notices went out to big companies some time back advising them that commercial "drone" photography was "illegal". A fair number of those businesses had contracts or jobs getting done for them by people like us, and immediately cancelled their contracts or terminated upcoming projects rather than fight "city hall". Fear of a government subpoena is a powerful thing, and costs attorney time even if you're in the right. They didn't really care if it was legal or not but after being notified they went the easiest route and dumped the people that could not afford to lose the work. I'm not an attorney and therefore can't advise but those that had contracts terminated might have cause to speak with an attorney, but without focusing on the people that cancelled contracts. Those that did not have contracts may or may not have similar cause. You have some heavy thinking in front of you. Choose your path carefully by thinking in the long term.

 

[jdennings]

It really is a tough one. As far as the illegality of "the FAA telling it's illegal", I am no attorney but it sure feels like it, problem of course is it's all in the legal details + as Old Man says a related class action lawsuit would take forever. That said enough noise could force an attitude change. I also really wish that heavyweights like Brendan Shulman or Peter Sachs, or larger organizations, could take this on with some sort of immediate cease and desist.

One of the things that's surprised me is how mainstream media just takes what the FAA feeds them, and there isn't even a mention that well, there's some disagreement out there, to say the least, as to the veracity of FAA drone statements. I have yet to see a WSJ or Bloomberg that does not bluntly repeat the "drones for commercial use are illegal" mantra. Heck, even SuAS News or an associated member reported, when FAA cancelled the model aircraft of operations (before uncancelling it) that there would be no more hiding behind it for commercial drone pilots. No mention whatsoever as to the legality of the FAA deciding out of the blue to cancel it, or a federal judge's former ruling that, well, its been perfectly legal, and unilateral cancellation is not going to affect that. Besides Vice Motherboard everynews media I see is just going with the flow and what the FAA says.

All seems also like typical bully behavior to me. And as such far from unfightable, but definitely difficult. After all the FAA went after that Texas search and rescue operation, but quickly changed their tune when that organization showed some teeth and fought back. Lots of noise is one way to fight this, not for the faint of heart but effective as with any sort of political fight and grassroot opposition. But I am not even sure, even if that approach was successful, that this would be the best option. For you Ronan, without going that far, it may help if they get the idea that you mean business, and that COA could come quick if somehow they get a feel that this thing could snowball out of control. But it’s a very dangerous game and there is also a lot to lose. And a political game for sure. And so far they haven’t exactly shown any sign of restraint ...

Looks from the comments (thanks!) from those familiar with the Drone Pilot Association that it may be too restricted as an association, at least compared to what Filmfly is proposing to achieve here. Their firepower as attorneys sure seems attractive, though. Maybe some sort of affiliation or partnership could be looked at. One of the things I’d suggest in addition to that great start here is major media presence and education. Getting issuesdiscussed here out in the open ...

 

[Av8Chuck]

It really is a tough one. As far as the illegality of "the FAA telling it's illegal", I am no attorney but it sure feels like it, problem of course is it's all in the legal details + as Old Man says a related class action lawsuit would take forever. That said enough noise could force an attitude change. I also really wish that heavyweights like Brendan Shulman or Peter Sachs, or larger organizations, could take this on with some sort of immediate cease and desist..

This is not about attitude, its a culture that has taken decades to get to this level and it is systemic throughout the entire Federal Government. There's only one ting that will level the playing field, the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees us the right to be in any business we choose as long as it is legal and it is not up to us to prove that its legal its up to the government to prove that it isn't. They have failed at every attempt to do that.

One of the things that's surprised me is how mainstream media just takes what the FAA feeds them, and there isn't even a mention that well, there's some disagreement out there, to say the least, as to the veracity of FAA drone statements. I have yet to see a WSJ or Bloomberg that does not bluntly repeat the "drones for commercial use are illegal" mantra. Heck, even SuAS News or an associated member reported, when FAA cancelled the model aircraft of operations (before uncancelling it) that there would be no more hiding behind it for commercial drone pilots. No mention whatsoever as to the legality of the FAA deciding out of the blue to cancel it, or a federal judge's former ruling that, well, its been perfectly legal, and unilateral cancellation is not going to affect that. Besides Vice Motherboard everynews media I see is just going with the flow and what the FAA says. .

The media takes whatever they're being fed period. Since no one is feeding the media from the side of commercial sUAS they have nothing else to report. Think about the people producing the news, most are twenty something working in a very competitive low wage environment where quantity is king, not quality of information. What do they know about any of this? Only what they're being told and if you were them who would you listen too, a bunch of disgruntled Phantom pilots or the FAA? If we want to make a difference in the media then we have to do their job for them. Make it easy for them to source stories and provide them with great examples of the benefits of UAV's.

All seems also like typical bully behavior to me. And as such far from unfightable, but definitely difficult. After all the FAA went after that Texas search and rescue operation, but quickly changed their tune when that organization showed some teeth and fought back. Lots of noise is one way to fight this, not for the faint of heart but effective as with any sort of political fight and grassroot opposition. But I am not even sure, even if that approach was successful, that this would be the best option. For you Ronan, without going that far, it may help if they get the idea that you mean business, and that COA could come quick if somehow they get a feel that this thing could snowball out of control. But it’s a very dangerous game and there is also a lot to lose. And a political game for sure. And so far they haven’t exactly shown any sign of restraint ....

We don't need to fight against the FAA we just need to fight for our rights. We have to believe in our right to do this and stand up for that right. No -ne is in a position to do that for us.

Looks from the comments (thanks!) from those familiar with the Drone Pilot Association that it may be too restricted as an association, at least compared to what Filmfly is proposing to achieve here. Their firepower as attorneys sure seems attractive, though. Maybe some sort of affiliation or partnership could be looked at. One of the things I’d suggest in addition to that great start here is major media presence and education. Getting issues discussed here out in the open ...

I think your spot on! If we can get the subscribers that they have been unsuccessful at recruiting then we have leverage for a meaningful partnership. That is a strategy we could employ with a lot of other organizations and when you put all those organizations together it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore our concerns during the regulatory process..

Viva La France....!

 

[Old Man]

One might think the "illegality" is something that is being established via public perception. Tell a lie often enough and with conviction and eventually people start to believe it. This is way deep in political manipulation of the press and other media but such has been the case for again, the past 6 years. The only story being told is what a few select groups want to be told. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

 

[Ronan]

One might think the "illegality" is something that is being established via public perception. Tell a lie often enough and with conviction and eventually people start to believe it. This is way deep in political manipulation of the press and other media but such has been the case for again, the past 6 years. The only story being told is what a few select groups want to be told. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

That's pretty much it.

I have educated a few people that works for my potential client and they were astonished that commercial drone's are in fact legal. I even talked to the person that called their FAA contact. She told me, if that's the case, she was straight forwardly lied to on the phone, by the FAA. "Commercial drones are illegal, you can't use them or hire their services".

You can't really interpret that any differently! Maybe that judge in the pirker vs faa case needs to call up the FAA to let them know the outcome of that case...
I handed this ( http://www.kramerlevin.com/files/upload/FAA-v-Pirker.pdf ) out to a few people and it's starting to get some momentum. Probably not enough when you have the FAA pounding on every potential client...

 

[Old Man]

Looks like Flying-Cam got their waiver, but check the battery use restriction.

http://www.auvsi.org/13102014/17102014flying


That sort of leads to something I got wind of yesterday. Seems some in mega aerospace are already stating that hobby grade products are not going to be able to meet some future regulatory requirements, leaving a void to be filled in Hollywood, agriculture, and oil/power industry activities by the mega aerospace players.

 

[Ronan]

Looks like Flying-Cam got their waiver, but check the battery use restriction.

http://www.auvsi.org/13102014/17102014flying


That sort of leads to something I got wind of yesterday. Seems some in mega aerospace are already stating that hobby grade products are not going to be able to meet some future regulatory requirements, leaving a void to be filled in Hollywood, agriculture, and oil/power industry activities by the mega aerospace players.

Talk about a punch in the face/guts of sUAV business owners...

 

[gtranquilla]

That brings up an interesting point. In general the highest reliability products tend to be those installed in road vehicles and aircraft. Reliability is heavily regulated by SAE.
Hence the reason why a top quality vehicle navigation/entertainment system will remain reliable at extreme temperatures and handle rapid system reboots etc. without complaint.
A BSOD or similar incident with a PC or smart phone is not a big deal...... but is unacceptable with RC flight over property and people.
The same reliability forced on to sUAVs would make a significant difference but also drive the cost of complete functional systems up significantly.

In view of certain incidents that we are already familiar with by one or two major brand MR system sellers, that would be a big step in the right direction.
The downside is that the cost would rise rapidly, there would be a lot more paperwork and timely availability would slip.

Looks like Flying-Cam got their waiver, but check the battery use restriction.

http://www.auvsi.org/13102014/17102014flying


That sort of leads to something I got wind of yesterday. Seems some in mega aerospace are already stating that hobby grade products are not going to be able to meet some future regulatory requirements, leaving a void to be filled in Hollywood, agriculture, and oil/power industry activities by the mega aerospace players.

 

[Old Man]

Heavy regulation will always favor organizations with large employee bases. They already have the specialized staff necessary to divide up the workload. One can be driven out of business simply because regulatory requirements generated more documentation than a company could afford to pay for. Something does not need to be made illegal to remove most of the participants from the playing field. It only requires the rules to become more complex than a small business can afford to deal with.

More important in this is what appeared to be advance knowledge of what those requirements would contain that would make them impossible for us to meet. There are some serious implications in that.