The FAA has rules and laws for commercial use of a drone. That means selling you work for a profit. In order to do that you must be 333 exempt. Not an easy process. They you must register your drone and be assigned an "N" number.
That is another reason they are cracking down. People don't know the rules other that get a drone and do what I want to. There are so much "miss information" on the rules for flying in the airspace.
I'm still not understanding the difference between flying a drone for work and flying a drone for fun.
You have to become a licensed pilot to fly a DJI Phantom to make money... but anyone off the street can fly the same DJI Phantom for fun with no experience or training. What's the difference?
I'm not trying to fly a Cessna... I just want to fly a small radio-controlled aircraft to take pictures and video. And someone might pay me for it.
Do I really need to become an airplane pilot to do that?
I don’t have much need for one, but I’ll be purchasing the most advanced drone I can just prior to the law that hardwires in restrictions on their movements.
I doubt you'll see that kind of law. There have been some very stupid drone owners though.
No, you don't have to become a licensed pilot, not yet anyway, you just need to be 333 exempt to do it legally. Your DJI's then have to be registered and assigned an "N" number. Here is one sentence from the FAA and DOT website, "model aircraft operators must continue to satisfy all of the criteria specified in Sec. 336 of Public Law 112-95, including the stipulation that they be operated only for hobby or recreational purposes". People not knowing the rules and regulations is the reason that we are where we are now with having to register drones or ourselves as pilots.
You don't need to register for R/C models though, which is all drones are. They just have cameras and a somewhat better range. It's not an unreasonable recommendation, but it's probably useless. People up to no good (e.g. criminals) don't follow laws.
Oh sure. I'm not that worried about it. I don't even have a drone yet. But it's on my radar since I have a bunch of friends in real estate and they're asking about it.
I just wish the FAA would make a decision. I never really understood the difference between flying for "fun" and "commercial use" anyway.
It can't be safety reasons... a drone could injure someone in either case. It's more likely that someone who is being paid to fly would be *extra* careful.
The FAA is trying to regulate the activity because they don't want drones filling our skies. Only a small fraction of people actually use them for "fun", but once a few good commercial uses are identified, it could get out of hand very quickly.
Picture the way the future might look instead of just thinking about your small part in it.
The 250 grams, which is just over half a pound (the weight of a decent sized hamburger) seems a bit on the conservative side, although I still wouldn't want to get hit in the head with one.
It also seems to me that once you get over a certain weight and I don't know what that weight is, maybe 5 pounds(?), there should be fuller restrictions.
If only the user has to be registered, I don't really understand how this would work in daily practice. Let's say I'm in the park shooting pics/videos of kids roller blading or I want to do a sweeping shot of a wedding couple, regardless of whether this is amateur or pro. A cop comes over and says, "you need a license to do that". Is there something that I'm going to be showing him/her? Let's say I have both a very lightweight tiny drone and a much larger "pro" one. How does he/she know whether I've registered them both?
It seems to me that for smaller drones, someone should just need to carry liability insurance. For larger, heavier drones, a user should need liability insurance, registration and some kind of minimal certified training, even if all that is is reading a pamphlet of regulations and taking a little quiz. The training could be offered by the retailers who sell this stuff or by third parties. I've watched neophytes at trade shows try to fly these things and most people do have difficulty at first. It's one thing if you're out in the sticks somewhere and there's no one around or on a deserted beach , but it's quite another if you're in a city park with thousands of people within vicinity of the drone. I also think these things should be pre-programmed to not be able to fly near airports, even though that would probably preclude me from using one in my large local park.
In my local large park, RC cars can be used anywhere, but RC planes and planes flown by wire can only be used in a special fenced-in area.
I can't decide whether these things are going to be popular as hell or whether the drone manufacturers have already oversaturated the market and all but the biggest players will soon disappear. At the recent PhotoPlus show in NYC, there had to be 10 drone makers on the exhibit floor. Most were fairly expensive.
I think there's a lot of paranoia about these things, but I've yet to see one in action on city streets (or in the sky above). But some day, someone is going to get seriously hurt or killed by one and then you'll see states and cities implement regulations that will make them all but impossible to use. In NYC some years ago, a brick fell out of a building and killed a person. Because the local press made such a big deal out of this, politicians jumped on the issue and there's a local law that for all buildings six stories or higher, every bit of the facade has to be inspected every five years. For an apartment building, this costs hundreds of thousands of dollars each time and is absurdly ridiculous from a cost/benefit analysis. They'll be the same kind of reaction if someone gets hurt by a drone, since the general public is so paranoid about them anyway.
...should one ask if even a toy can easily go awol and end up effectively trespassing (privacy?), damaging valuable assets like a painting or vase, taking out a child's eye, perhaps even causing an auto or boating accident, or who knows what...
Collision avvoidance is coming, but when a signal is lost even the GPS capable drones are running blind... It happens.
I believe MAAC has hobby insurance, and a few insurers now offer options for professionals at commercial rates higher than some auto insurance...
It's not the FAA that makes any decisions. They can only make recommendations. Congress would have to pass a law. There is lots of confusion regarding drones and the law. For example, many people tell you not to fly above 400 feet, which the FAA recommends. The reality is, there is no law preventing anyone from flying their drone above 400 feet.
Not all that accurate, federal agencies such as the FAA establish regulations involving their area of responsibility which are legally enforceable : violate a big one and you get federal prison time. The Congressional "Law" was the legislation that established (The Federal Aviation Act of 1958) and appropriations bills that fund the FAA and has delegated the agency the authority and responsibility of the mission to manage, monitor and regulate the nation's airspace and air traffic. The details get worked out by the agency, NOT micromanaging by Congress.
That "recommendation" is the early step in the process to write the final regulations (produced by a story group, in this instance regarding drones), following a public input procedure and regulatory analysis system.
"
Safety Regulation
We issue and enforce regulations and minimum standards covering manufacturing, operating, and maintaining aircraft. We certify airmen and airports that serve air carriers.
Airspace and Air Traffic Management
The safe and efficient use of navigable airspace is one of our primary objectives. We operate a network of airport towers, air route traffic control centers, and flight service stations. We develop air traffic rules, assign the use of airspace, and control air traffic...."
No, you don't have to become a licensed pilot, not yet anyway, you just need to be 333 exempt to do it legally.
I keep reading about 333 Exemption and I keep seeing things like this:
The company (or individual running the company) that holds the 333 exemption does not need to be a licensed pilot, but the person actually flying the drone/UAV must be.
The person obtaining the 333 exemption for a company does not have to be a licensed pilot, however, whomever is piloting the UAV must be a certified pilot.
So it sounds like if I want to fly a drone for money... I have to become an airplane pilot.
But anyone can fly a drone for fun... no license needed.
And that makes no sense to me. The drone is the same... so why is "making money" and "not making money" the differentiator here?
The FAA should care about anyone flying a drone... not whether they're getting paid for it.
You don't need to register for R/C models though, which is all drones are. They just have cameras and a somewhat better range. It's not an unreasonable recommendation, but it's probably useless. People up to no good (e.g. criminals) don't follow laws.
Means of identifying drones and/or R/C models do help with some things. They don't help with criminals, but they do help with jackasses (note my California wildfires example).
Not all that accurate, federal agencies such as the FAA establish regulations involving their area of responsibility which are legally enforceable : violate a big one and you get federal prison time. The Congressional "Law" was the legislation that established (The Federal Aviation Act of 1958) and appropriations bills that fund the FAA and has delegated the agency the authority and responsibility of the mission to manage, monitor and regulate the nation's airspace and air traffic. The details get worked out by the agency, NOT micromanaging by Congress.
That "recommendation" is the early step in the process to write the final regulations (produced by a story group, in this instance regarding drones), following a public input procedure and regulatory analysis system.
"
Safety Regulation
We issue and enforce regulations and minimum standards covering manufacturing, operating, and maintaining aircraft. We certify airmen and airports that serve air carriers.
Airspace and Air Traffic Management
The safe and efficient use of navigable airspace is one of our primary objectives. We operate a network of airport towers, air route traffic control centers, and flight service stations. We develop air traffic rules, assign the use of airspace, and control air traffic...."
What I said is completely accurate. I'm talking about drone regulations. The FAA does not have the legal authority to enforce drone regulations without congress. Congress has not given authority to the FAA to regulate UAV's. When congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, it didn't confirm the FAA has authority to regulate drones. I've been following this for the last few years. Drones are going to become a legal mess since there is so much gray area regarding the FAA and their authority.
Comments
I'm still not understanding the difference between flying a drone for work and flying a drone for fun.
You have to become a licensed pilot to fly a DJI Phantom to make money... but anyone off the street can fly the same DJI Phantom for fun with no experience or training. What's the difference?
I'm not trying to fly a Cessna... I just want to fly a small radio-controlled aircraft to take pictures and video. And someone might pay me for it.
Do I really need to become an airplane pilot to do that?
.
That's a very big difference -250 grams up to 55 pounds!
There should be a group of 1-20 pounds then 21-55 pounds and finally 55 pounds and up...
A DJI carrying a GoPro is a lot different than an Octo carrying a Red...
I don’t have much need for one, but I’ll be purchasing the most advanced drone I can just prior to the law that hardwires in restrictions on their movements.
I doubt you'll see that kind of law. There have been some very stupid drone owners though.
Drones impede air battle against California wildfires.
Then of course people have shot down drones that they believe are too close to their property. Firing into the air is illegal in quite a few situations. I'm kind of surprised he got out of that one. The second is probably an uncommon event. The first is something that will definitely end in legislation.
No, you don't have to become a licensed pilot, not yet anyway, you just need to be 333 exempt to do it legally. Your DJI's then have to be registered and assigned an "N" number. Here is one sentence from the FAA and DOT website, "model aircraft operators must continue to satisfy all of the criteria specified in Sec. 336 of Public Law 112-95, including the stipulation that they be operated only for hobby or recreational purposes". People not knowing the rules and regulations is the reason that we are where we are now with having to register drones or ourselves as pilots.
Oh sure. I'm not that worried about it. I don't even have a drone yet. But it's on my radar since I have a bunch of friends in real estate and they're asking about it.
I just wish the FAA would make a decision. I never really understood the difference between flying for "fun" and "commercial use" anyway.
It can't be safety reasons... a drone could injure someone in either case. It's more likely that someone who is being paid to fly would be *extra* careful.
The FAA is trying to regulate the activity because they don't want drones filling our skies. Only a small fraction of people actually use them for "fun", but once a few good commercial uses are identified, it could get out of hand very quickly.
Picture the way the future might look instead of just thinking about your small part in it.
The 250 grams, which is just over half a pound (the weight of a decent sized hamburger) seems a bit on the conservative side, although I still wouldn't want to get hit in the head with one.
It also seems to me that once you get over a certain weight and I don't know what that weight is, maybe 5 pounds(?), there should be fuller restrictions.
If only the user has to be registered, I don't really understand how this would work in daily practice. Let's say I'm in the park shooting pics/videos of kids roller blading or I want to do a sweeping shot of a wedding couple, regardless of whether this is amateur or pro. A cop comes over and says, "you need a license to do that". Is there something that I'm going to be showing him/her? Let's say I have both a very lightweight tiny drone and a much larger "pro" one. How does he/she know whether I've registered them both?
It seems to me that for smaller drones, someone should just need to carry liability insurance. For larger, heavier drones, a user should need liability insurance, registration and some kind of minimal certified training, even if all that is is reading a pamphlet of regulations and taking a little quiz. The training could be offered by the retailers who sell this stuff or by third parties. I've watched neophytes at trade shows try to fly these things and most people do have difficulty at first. It's one thing if you're out in the sticks somewhere and there's no one around or on a deserted beach , but it's quite another if you're in a city park with thousands of people within vicinity of the drone. I also think these things should be pre-programmed to not be able to fly near airports, even though that would probably preclude me from using one in my large local park.
In my local large park, RC cars can be used anywhere, but RC planes and planes flown by wire can only be used in a special fenced-in area.
I can't decide whether these things are going to be popular as hell or whether the drone manufacturers have already oversaturated the market and all but the biggest players will soon disappear. At the recent PhotoPlus show in NYC, there had to be 10 drone makers on the exhibit floor. Most were fairly expensive.
I think there's a lot of paranoia about these things, but I've yet to see one in action on city streets (or in the sky above). But some day, someone is going to get seriously hurt or killed by one and then you'll see states and cities implement regulations that will make them all but impossible to use. In NYC some years ago, a brick fell out of a building and killed a person. Because the local press made such a big deal out of this, politicians jumped on the issue and there's a local law that for all buildings six stories or higher, every bit of the facade has to be inspected every five years. For an apartment building, this costs hundreds of thousands of dollars each time and is absurdly ridiculous from a cost/benefit analysis. They'll be the same kind of reaction if someone gets hurt by a drone, since the general public is so paranoid about them anyway.
Collision avvoidance is coming, but when a signal is lost even the GPS capable drones are running blind... It happens.
I believe MAAC has hobby insurance, and a few insurers now offer options for professionals at commercial rates higher than some auto insurance...
"A cop comes over": That would appear to be a separate issue from FAA regulations, which local police don't enforce.
It's not the FAA that makes any decisions. They can only make recommendations. Congress would have to pass a law. There is lots of confusion regarding drones and the law. For example, many people tell you not to fly above 400 feet, which the FAA recommends. The reality is, there is no law preventing anyone from flying their drone above 400 feet.
Not all that accurate, federal agencies such as the FAA establish regulations involving their area of responsibility which are legally enforceable : violate a big one and you get federal prison time. The Congressional "Law" was the legislation that established (The Federal Aviation Act of 1958) and appropriations bills that fund the FAA and has delegated the agency the authority and responsibility of the mission to manage, monitor and regulate the nation's airspace and air traffic. The details get worked out by the agency, NOT micromanaging by Congress.
http://www.faa.gov/about/mission/activities/
That "recommendation" is the early step in the process to write the final regulations (produced by a story group, in this instance regarding drones), following a public input procedure and regulatory analysis system.
"
We issue and enforce regulations and minimum standards covering manufacturing, operating, and maintaining aircraft. We certify airmen and airports that serve air carriers.
The safe and efficient use of navigable airspace is one of our primary objectives. We operate a network of airport towers, air route traffic control centers, and flight service stations. We develop air traffic rules, assign the use of airspace, and control air traffic...."
I keep reading about 333 Exemption and I keep seeing things like this:
The company (or individual running the company) that holds the 333 exemption does not need to be a licensed pilot, but the person actually flying the drone/UAV must be.
The person obtaining the 333 exemption for a company does not have to be a licensed pilot, however, whomever is piloting the UAV must be a certified pilot.
So it sounds like if I want to fly a drone for money... I have to become an airplane pilot.
But anyone can fly a drone for fun... no license needed.
And that makes no sense to me. The drone is the same... so why is "making money" and "not making money" the differentiator here?
The FAA should care about anyone flying a drone... not whether they're getting paid for it.
You don't need to register for R/C models though, which is all drones are. They just have cameras and a somewhat better range. It's not an unreasonable recommendation, but it's probably useless. People up to no good (e.g. criminals) don't follow laws.
Means of identifying drones and/or R/C models do help with some things. They don't help with criminals, but they do help with jackasses (note my California wildfires example).
Not all that accurate, federal agencies such as the FAA establish regulations involving their area of responsibility which are legally enforceable : violate a big one and you get federal prison time. The Congressional "Law" was the legislation that established (The Federal Aviation Act of 1958) and appropriations bills that fund the FAA and has delegated the agency the authority and responsibility of the mission to manage, monitor and regulate the nation's airspace and air traffic. The details get worked out by the agency, NOT micromanaging by Congress.
http://www.faa.gov/about/mission/activities/
That "recommendation" is the early step in the process to write the final regulations (produced by a story group, in this instance regarding drones), following a public input procedure and regulatory analysis system.
"
We issue and enforce regulations and minimum standards covering manufacturing, operating, and maintaining aircraft. We certify airmen and airports that serve air carriers.
The safe and efficient use of navigable airspace is one of our primary objectives. We operate a network of airport towers, air route traffic control centers, and flight service stations. We develop air traffic rules, assign the use of airspace, and control air traffic...."
What I said is completely accurate. I'm talking about drone regulations. The FAA does not have the legal authority to enforce drone regulations without congress. Congress has not given authority to the FAA to regulate UAV's. When congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, it didn't confirm the FAA has authority to regulate drones. I've been following this for the last few years. Drones are going to become a legal mess since there is so much gray area regarding the FAA and their authority.