http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-faa-says-you-cant-post-drone-videos-on-youtube

It seems the FAA is having a really hard time dodging absurdities with regards to drones. But in this case, it seems to me their actions would logically extend to private pilots in regular aircraft as well.

Posting any flight video to YouTube or any other public forum with any advertising or other income (like backcountrypilot.org), could be viewed as illegal. Or how about embedding your SPOT page? What if someone makes a video from the ground of your airplane in flight, and you post that?

Don't know a thing about the source reporting this but if true that's disturbing. UAV's have a place in the commercial arena in my opinion. Land surveying and mapping for one.

What's next? License to fly a kite?

Here's an example video by this guy. Makes me wonder if someone reported him to the FAA because of the IFR flying he does in some of his videos.



Edit: Here's another one where he flies over 3 miles away from where he's standing:

Surprising they didn't mention flying without line-of-sight as well given the above video. That seems a lot more clear cut as far as poor judgement and violation of the regs.

The letter from the FAA addressed commercial activity with the videos by posting them to YouTube, not at the flight operations themselves.

I've learned to call mine a quadracopter. I suck at it, but it's fun. The one thing I've noticed about the guys that fly them , is they are kind of wannabe pilots and they're always pushing into gray areas. The most disquieting thing is that they have amazing capability to fly programmed routes, which is probably how they're going through fog layers. Farmers have the most legitimate reason to use them, and are the worst offenders. One guy I know can barely hover his, but he can program it to go straight up to 200 feet, fly to a dozen waypoints on his farm and return to base. The whole time,except for the first and last 15 seconds, it's out of site. Air tractor drivers have reason to be concerned around here.

lesuther wrote:The letter from the FAA addressed commercial activity with the videos by posting them to YouTube, not at the flight operations themselves.

Actually the complaint the FAA received was for his commercial use. Their review of his videos revealed that he was violating the rules for hobbyists and therefore in violation of multiple FAA rules for drone operations.
The letter spells out the limitations of a hobby drone and the requirements for use beyond those limits.
Clearly from his videos he is in violation of the limits.
The last line of the letter defines the intent of the correspondence. They want him to comply with the FAA regulations relating to drone use.
I actually think they let him off easy.
This guy is defiantly the kind of guy that will get a pilot killed.

I am interested in this for commercial operations, looks like a 333 exemption is a possible way to go for non-gov use according to FAA website. Reading the directions, looks like the paperwork difficulty factor is about a 6 or 7. The application is sent to DC, but I wonder if local FSDO weighs in? Also looks like out of the 40 -some - odd applications roughly half are denied if I am reading this right.

Anybody done it?

Edit: we as real airplane pilots can bitch and whine all day long about how these things are going to "kill pilots". End of the day, UAV's are coming like it or not. We would all be better served to help figure out their place and how to manage the risk.

Update: The FAA says it's now looking further into how its safety inspectors send letters like this.

"The FAA’s goal is to promote voluntary compliance by educating individual UAS operators about how they can operate safely under current regulations and laws," the agency said. "The FAA’s guidance calls for inspectors to notify someone with a letter and then follow up. The guidance does not include language about advertising. The FAA will look into the matter." - FAA spokesperson Les Dorr

Seems it was more of a safety issue with this operator and an Inspector creatively trying to bridge the "Commercial Purposes" link. I expect further clarification coming. The FAA probably does not want Inspectors writing or re-interpreting their already shaky new rules on UAS.

gbflyer wrote:We would all be better served to help figure out their place and how to manage the risk.

We already did: 400 ft max altitude and within line of sight of the pilot.

I've been in and out of the RC hobby since I was 5 years old. Competed internationally in F4C Scale back in the day (before everything went giant scale). We were based on a Cub and ultralight field and everyone was dead serious about being on the ground as soon as any full scale aircraft was in the vicinity. Any deviation from that rule would mean getting thrown out of the club. All I personally want is for all the new folks entering the hobby thanks to these great new technologies to respect other users of the airspace and follow the rules.

Multirotors are awesome! I want one too. I do worry though that the combination of FPV technology, HD video, Youtube and super long-range receivers is going to keep encouraging people to fly these things way outside the limits of what would be safe for GA pilots.

I got ya, I agree, and not trying to start an argument.

Only thing I might add is that there are bald eagles and seagulls and geese and cranes around where I live and sometimes you have to avoid them by looking out the window, and they don't have an altimeter, or ADS-B out as has been suggested by some for UAV's. About the same size as some of the UAV's. Sometimes the birds move, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they act like they'd like to fight. Point is I don't think UAV's are the devil.

Interesting article about Air Force drone pilots. My understanding is pretty much the same thing is going on with CBP.

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/1 ... one_pilots

MTV

gbflyer wrote:I got ya, I agree, and not trying to start an argument.

Only thing I might add is that there are bald eagles and seagulls and geese and cranes around where I live and sometimes you have to avoid them by looking out the window, and they don't have an altimeter, or ADS-B out as has been suggested by some for UAV's. About the same size as some of the UAV's. Sometimes the birds move, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they act like they'd like to fight. Point is I don't think UAV's are the devil.

UAV's are not a problem any more than guns a the problem.
It's irresponsible UAV pilots like the guy in the article.
There are plenty of responsible UAV pilots doing a lot of interesting things with them. Their commercial and recreational uses are amazing.
The problem arises when guys tike this fly them in a manner that put other air traffic at risk.
The argument that we have to look out for birds and therefore drones are an acceptable new hazard is laughable and a straw dog argument at best.
As a pilot I have to accept natural hazards as part of flying. What I don't have to accept is some idiot carelessly flying a potential deadly hazard in
places he has no business flying. Nor should we be expected to accept a whole new class of potential hazards just because they have become popular. It's exactly guys like this that prompted government intervention in the first place. There is an alarming increase of drone near misses.
The FAA has created workable rules that allow for both recreation and commercial use of UAV's. This guy chooses to ignore them.
Even without the FAA rules, common sense should prevail and flying a drone without visual reference in busy airspace is gross negligence.
Just take a look at the Tampa Bay charts and you will see that it is a highly busy and congested area. The video over Tampa in the fog is in both the Clearwater and Tampa controlled airspace. And not far from military airspace. Not exactly the wide open spaces of Alaska.
I don't think UAV's are the devil either. I would enjoy flying one from time to time if I had one.
I do think guys like this who are too wrapped up in their own pursuit of pleasure that they fail to consider the potential danger to others are.

Sorry you think birds are laughable. You won't when you take one of those W CO buzzards through the windscreen. I am not going to argue with you, I don't have the wit for it.

I don't fly UAV's. I am interested in the technology. I am convinced we will have to share airspace with them soon enough.

Good. My dad almost hit one at 1200feet over downtown Boston. He was talking to skyways. The drone was obviously not. I'm sure you would be singing a different tune after you smash one out of the sky in your one afternoon, and who ever was flying it doesn't fess up and you have a nice maintenance bill to fix your airplane. Hopefully it doesn't take you down with it.

I agree Tom. What's your solution? Banning them is only an invitation to all the yahoos that will do it just because they can. Sort of like the unnecessary buzz job over the crowded beach.

Operations 400' and under I suppose is a start but I can tell you that where I live, we fly our airplanes there a lot.

I am taking this away from the OP. Sorry. How UAV's are going to be regulated and operated in the future is a valid discussion though.

My dad just got back from ROTAX school. Bunch of the guys there were government contractors doing maintenance on UAV's.

gbflyer wrote:Sorry you think birds are laughable. You won't when you take one of those W CO buzzards through the windscreen. I am not going to argue with you, I don't have the wit for it.

I don't fly UAV's. I am interested in the technology. I am convinced we will have to share airspace with them soon enough.

I certainly don't think that birds are laughable. I think your ridiculous argument that UAV's are the same as birds is comical.
You argument is, .... We have hazards, so therefore new hazards are inevitable and acceptable.
Birds are a natural hazard like winds and D/A. They come with the territory and beyond anyones control. Most birds fly fairly predicable paths until you get close to them.UAV's are unpredictable at best. I fly in a busy migratory fly way and share the airspace with thousands of birds all year long. From pigeons to geese, eagles, sand hill cranes, falcons and buzzards. They are a hazard on every flight I take.
Idiots flying UAV's in places they shouldn't is not an acceptable hazard. Guns and high powered lasers are popular too but I don't want anyone pointing them in my direction when I'm flying. And like UAV's, the FAA has regulations aimed at protecting pilots from them as well. Pilots have a hard enough time avoiding each other in congested areas. And that is with both operators practicing see and avoid. Some idiot focusing on getting a good video can't possibly see and avoid an aircraft looking at some 2 dimensional LCD screen.
That we have to share airspace with legitimate commercial, police and SAR users if understandable and inevitable.
Avoiding irresponsibly flown toys is is not.
No one is talking about banning their use. Just enforcing the limits on unregulated recreational toys.

The Rotax 912 is a widely used power plant in many military UAV's. The use of military UAV's is highly regulated in U.S. airspace.
Unlike little Johnny's battery powered quad copter.

Down in the lower 48, drone use has been a fact of life for years. The new technology has allowed their use to extend into areas that endanger pilots. That is why the government had to step in and regulate their use.
There are several videos posted on here taken with drones. They are all well done and flown responsibly. But a no time do any of them appear to be flown out of sight from the operator and without the other pilots knowledge that drones were in the air.

I agree with you S12 except for your condescending first paragraph. You can save that crap for your ER nurses. [emoji1]

So what's the solution? I see an emerging market for UAV assisted mapping and surveying. TOPCON which is a huge survey instrument device manufacturer is getting on it.

In AK the board of game just said the fish spotters can't use them. Only airplanes with pilots. They feel the aircraft owners would suffer due to loss of revenue. I don't recollect seeing one thing about safety.

So, it's a big deal. I would just like to see solutions is all.

I think the letter sent to the Tampa operator is a good start to getting the issue under control. Simply stated it said, if you are going to operate a UAV in a manner that exceeds thee limits for recreation flight, then you must abide by the existing FAA rules.
Personally I think it was handled in an uncharacteristically level headed manner for the FAA.
No fines, no unmarked black cars at his home or threats to confiscate his equipment.
Just a statement offering to help if he needed any clarification as to the rules. And asking him to be compliant in the future.
I would hope that most bonafide commercial operator will likely be far more concerned about the rules and liability.
Not some guy sitting on a beach chair with a beer or a joint in his hand seeing just how far or how high his toy will fly.
The guy posted the warning letter it in an attempt to garner support for his illegal activities. To the layman, it looked like the FAA was being heavy handed, but as several of the members here pointed out, he was posting videos that showed clear violations of the law.
Someone complained, and the FAA called him on it.