JohnShe

Why do you keep repeating what I have said?

JohnShe

Just about every law or regulation can have loopholes.

JohnShe

public law 112–95—feb. 14, 2012

bogbeagle

Well, the word here was that Todd was operating on a PPL and that his aeroplane was flying on a Permit-to-Fly, as opposed to the commercial requirement of an AOC. This is a much lower standard of airworthiness and maintenance. If I'm wrong about that, would you be kind enough to provide a link to your source?

Also, dates are important. I first became aware of his operation round about the year 2001 or 2002. It could be that he acquired ratings after that time, for all I know. As to American ratings ... meaningless, here, unless you are flying an American-registered machine.

You could become a QFI using the old Basic Commercial Pilot's Licence, which was little more than a PPL, as I recall. Some people were even gifted them under "grandfather rights". I don't know about Mr Todd's circumstances.

The point is that he did not meet the requirements for a commercial operation, but that he found a way around them. He did not sell "the flight" , because that would have been illegal... he sold membership of the JP Club. That sort of thing will happen with FPV, too, whatever rules you make.


Oh, and there's no need to shout abuse at me. It does you no credit.

kerryg

As someone who is heavily invested in seeing drones used for commercial purposes, I am still surprised by many of the comments in here. Comparing flying a drone to a constitutional right? how so? We have to seriously consider a lot of things here. We have possible invasion of privacy issues, trespassing issues, liability concerns, current airspace restrictions, safety issues, etc. To think you have the "right" to fly anything you want is simply absurd. I am seeing people build SERIOUSLY janky ass tris and quads or buying cheapo toy drones and billing themselves as professional aerial photographers. most of these things should only be flown in huge open fields, basically the same regulations as other experimental aircraft.

Commercial work of almost any kind requires insurance and drone photography work should carry quite a bit. A nice "pro" rig will weigh several pounds and having that drop out of the sky most certainly has the ability to injure, main, or kill someone. This is not something to be taken lightly. I have seen numerous people buy a Phantom 2 Vision and throw up a website offering services. While the Phantom 2 is an incredible piece of technology, the US office alone gets so many repairs sent in that they are backlogged SIX WEEKS, thats not counting all of the ones people repair themselves. That is a serious amount of crashes going on for a single product. Multiply that by the number of products out there and you can see just how big the potential safety issue is.

There absolutely has to be rules and guidelines for commercial use for a product that has such a big liability concern. At minimum the following:

* $2 million dollars in insurance coverage
* Rules about minimum safety distance from people
* Drone must always be visible to operator
* Fail safes and redundancy (may have to require a hexcopter with technology as in Naza v2 that can land a hexcopter even in the case of a motor failure)

I am not saying this to try to weed out the small guys or make it harder to have a business but people ARE going to get hurt, property WILL get damaged and unless we are covering our collective asses, this is going to be a hard fought battle.

To think there is some "right" to do as we please is simply lunacy. I cannot go buy a DSLR and shoot commercial photography anywhere I want. Most venues require at least a million dollars in liability insurance, I can't hop over a fence into someone's yard to get a better angle, I can't point a camera into someone's house and yet I see people here talking like there should be less restrictions on drones than there is with a regular camera.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

So you are pro license to kill?

You make a very good argument for why we shouldn't allow guys like you to fly at all...

bogbeagle

It don't matter. He's got insurance.

And, the purpose of insurance is to protect the pilot from the consequences of his actions.

The purpose of insurance is to avoid your having to make financial restitution to someone that you harmed.

We don't buy our insurance to "make sure" that our victims will be compensated. In fact, we expect that our insurance companies will do everything in their power to avoid paying any compensation.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Sad but true...people that have no more thought than what it might cost themselves when they cause pain and suffering to others. I've always had a hard time understanding people like that.

kerryg

Insurance is because accidents do happen. If drones were a perfect technology there might be less concern but accidents do happen, drones do fall out of the sky. I am as safe as I can possibly be but I have still seen motors or electronics fail and in the off chance that something goes wrong I do not want to loose everything I own in a lawsuit. We need to consider safety first and foremost but we also need to cover our butts.

Jim Branaum

My Feedback: (3)

I think you did not read the entire post because the important part pretty much echoes what some have been saying about regulation in a commercial environment. Here is the citation

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

So basically your saying that protecting your worldly possessions outweigh your desires to prevent any possibility of causing someone's death...and insurance allows that...

I have a real hard time trying to understand that mindset when I see it but its all to common now...and I am sure the calvary will come to defend you soon and call for my hanging...

bogbeagle

I'm in full agreement with you.

You could make a good case for insured flight being more dangerous than uninsured flight, owing to the existence of Moral Hazard.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I read it...still can't believe it.

kerryg

No, I am not saying that at all. I have said multiple times that safety has to come first. As a pilot your first and foremost responsibility is the safety of the people and property around you. Period. Insurance is not there so that you can be an idiot and do whatever you want. Insurance is to protect you in case something goes wrong despite every possible safety precaution. Why this relates to me being someone that shouldn't fly I don't quite follow as I wish more people took safety as seriously as I do.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Ok, let's ask this for the true litmus...Would you fly your drone without insurance as you would with insurance???...answer honestly please.

kerryg

Absolutely not! Insurance is NOT a license to ignore safety or common sense. I don't drive my car like an idiot because I have insurance either.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I figured that based on your posts...thanks for the honest answer.

kerryg

I think you are twisting my words a little. The fact is I fly in as safe as manner at all times as possible. I wouldn't buzz over a group of people just because I have insurance. That is just stupidity. You take the same precautions at all times whether you have insurance or not.

Sport_Pilot

The FAA was never given authority of non navigable airspace, except for obstructions that endanger navigable airspace. The Causby case established that the land owner has rights in his own airspace and established that he has airspace rights above his property except very near airports.

The Constitution kicks in because it gives the government the right to regulate only interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce.

Common sense kicks in because the FAA will not be able to track objects so low and will only catch those who post on YouTube or when someone complains to the FAA. Thus the states should be able to do a better job. Some disagree that states can do a good job, but keep in mind that building codes are enforceable only by the individual states because buildings cannot move across state lines. For the most part states do a very good

bogbeagle

You might behave so. But, many people do not.

I have personal knowledge of modellers ... poor flyers ... who will not fly until they have their insurance up to date. They know full well that they are "dodgy pilots", but the possession of insurance pretty much absolves them of the consequences of their actions.

I'll bet that many of you know people just like that. It's just human.

Sport_Pilot

Actually, you can. At least in most states. In fact many get started shooting a friends wedding or portriat for a fee.

Sport_Pilot

Actually many years ago, possibly before insurance was required, I forgot to pay my insurance. I remember driving real slow and safe till the check cleared. Yeah I think it was before you could pay online.

That said I think it better to have insurance, but it is up to the states to require it. I somehow doubt that the FAA would make that requirement.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Yep...there are those that think just because they paid AMA $58 they are "free" for full steam ahead... I despise that quality in some people.

Sport_Pilot

.I think you asked him a "When will you stop beating your wife!" question.

Not sure if you knew it, but he obviously did not.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

LOL...maybe but either way I got an honest answer from him...he didn't mince words much and I can truly respect him for that...