Don't start a RC helicopter/camera business..

So if you fly a kite and film it for a movie you're a bad guy? Some form of regulation is inevitable but this seems like overcompensation, a blanket rule because thinking about specifics would be like, hard and stuff. Shameful to see my country lead the way.
 
There is more to this story, My wife and I did quite a bit of research into hiring one of these companies to fly some shots for a project we bid on. I've flown plenty of aerials in my day setting out the door of a helicopter and the shots these new RCs can make with the new lightweight cameras can't be beat. I also own and operate a jimmy-jib and I've seen shoots from the RCs that can't be duplicated by even a Technocrane. I got an explanation from an owner of one of these companies on what is happening to his industry. I will see if he would like to shed some light on this subject on this forum. The bottom line is in a year of so the FAA is going to issue laws governing the use of RC aerial photography for hire but it will most likely not go away.
 
So instead of letting the experienced guy, who actually knows how to fly, do this as a business they are going to let newbie rig his own camera and RC for that aerial shot he 'has' to have for his indie feature? Camera companies probably love the idea considering how many first time RC operators crash.

A balloon rig is safer, but probably not allowed from this either.
 
i was on a shoot for a Science Channel show recently where there were a number of remote aircraft deployed. the operators were all licensed pilots, and given the setting and number of people around, that seemed like a good idea to me.

nevertheless, my tin foil hat remains in place. i think in the age of surveillance, .gov would like to maintain some control over access to information. just shooting around nyc and d.c., there are so many "no-fly zones," where any camera bigger than a dslr will get you in seriously hot water before you even know you're standing next to some special structure or something.
 
I've been following this for several years, and there are a number of issues. The FAA is in a very difficult position.
To operate a commercial aircraft in the US you have to have an airworthiness certificate, testifying that the craft is operating exactly as designed by the manufacturer, with no unauthorized modification whatsoever. This makes sense, but it has had a number of blow-backs. For one thing, it has killed off a great many sport pilot instructors, who bought their ultralights as "partial completes" and finished them off (bolted the wings on, etc) in their garage. By doing so they could claim a technical manufacturer status, thereby lowering the liability costs to the 'real' manufacturer, which generated a significant savings. This backfired of course when the new laws came in after 911 ... suddenly they could not do sport pilot training any more because they could not get an airworthiness certificate on a craft with with more than one manufacturer. I have a good friend who was left high and dry on this one...
It would be impossible, of course, for a manufacturer of R/C aircraft to provide certificates, since they are so easy to modify and inspection would be cost-prohibitive. The logic is that without a certificate there can be no tail number, with no tail number there can be no commercial operation. This kinda bites, as I personally have thousands invested in a quad system that I fly a few times a year just so I can remember how.
I can kinda see both sides of this, but I think the FAA is over-reacting. I have wondered if it would be legal to fly tethered (fishing line, perhaps) or under the auspices of some organization. For me it is a little bit of a moot point - the real estate market here is still pretty flat and I've moved on to other things.
These regs will probably prevent some small tragedies, but it will probably do little to prevent everyone's worst fears -- the technology is too readily available. I think most of this is just political FYA.
 
macgregor said:
So can we still fly our RC helicopters just for fun?
Click to expand...

Yes. Hobbyists are exempted from all this. Commercial is the key word.

I don't think this is a horrible idea, requiring some training for flying a big UAV around people where somebody could get killed, but at the same time the FAA in the past has given people warning. In addition, is it REALLY necessary for somebody to have to get a fixed wing license and then a further endorsement? That seems a bit much.
 
I agree -- some kind of training and certification makes sense....can you imaging some idiot paparazzi crashing their camera headfirst in the windshield of a car on Rodeo drive? There's a good chance the car would swerve and take out some shoppers on the sidewalk and everyone would be wondering why "someone hadn't done anything." Hopefully some reasonable solution can be found...what I am hearing and reading right now is just nuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top