TexasCHLforum.com

I was all set to buy a drone. Already had a paying photography job.

But the FAA says it's illegal for me to use a drone (UVS)

So I will have work up some tethered Balloon contraption.

Spoiling all my fun.

It's still in contention. A Judge ruled the FAA couldn't regulate them, then it just got overturned http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news ... /19265361/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bottom line, they still have outstanding issues that are pending and I am sure additional appeals will be made.

Hmmm. Seemed so much more clear on their website.

Thanks for the link.

Remember, their motto is 'The FAA: We're not happy until you're not happy!'

In all seriousness, there is a lot of discussion on these and how much oversight there can be. On one hand I don't blame the FAA for wanting to make sure they are not a hazard to other aircraft. We actually had an incident at a balloon festival this past spring where a drone flew into one of the balloon envelopes and caused substantial damage to the envelope. Enough so the pilot had to make an emergency hard landing. The fact any yahoo can buy one and fly it is an issue. Additionally, there are laws in Texas on the use and where you can and can't fly them over other people's property. On the other hand, they can't handle what they have now and this is probably a minor issue (until smoeone flys one into a plane engine on approach.)

Bottom line, if they are flown safely and not used to invade my space and privacy, i see no harm in them. But as we all know, they can be bought cheap enough now that the volume of them out there will cause an issue because Jimmy Joe Bob doesn't play properly with his new toy.

The problem at the moment is that if you want to by a drone and fly it for a hobby, that's OK. If you want to buy one to do something productive with it (not that hobbies are not productive, but bear with me here) or get paid for it, then the FAA says THAT is illegal. So paid photog gigs are a no-no, and if my VFD wanted to use one to monitor a wildland fire, that would be out as well. But I could by one and fly just for fun. Seems out of kilter.

That equine search and rescue org here in texas wanted to use one to help find lost people, but the FAA nixed that. The rescue group took them to court and won initially (on a somewhat technical basis I think), hadn't heard about that case that Keith linked to.

I believe Texas has some very strict drone laws. Check this out before buying one.

I've got one and fly it around all the time although I am just doing it for fun. Until the Feds come shoot it down with their bigger drones I'll keep on flying it.

rotor wrote:I believe Texas has some very strict drone laws. Check this out before buying one.

Here is a good summary and analysis of the Texas law as well as a link to the committee report http://diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/sum ... -drone-law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Drone hit a man near a football stadium in Alabama.

http://www.al.com/news/tuscaloosa/index ... _[abbreviated profanity deleted]_3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why does everyone keep referring to these things as drones? They are RC helicopters subject to rules and laws governing RC aircraft that have been around for decades.

I could not fire up a gas powered RC helicopter and fly it around downtown or a city park. Just because these are electric and an unusual rotor configuration doesn't change anything.

olafpfj wrote:Why does everyone keep referring to these things as drones? They are RC helicopters subject to rules and laws governing RC aircraft that have been around for decades.

I could not fire up a gas powered RC helicopter and fly it around downtown or a city park. Just because these are electric and an unusual rotor configuration doesn't change anything.

There has always been a contention that the FAA does not really have legal rule over model aircraft, but the FAA says they do. Here is their Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_airc ... c_rule.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With the cheap price of these new quad-copters with unlicensed radios and the capabilities they have, the FAA has a lot more to try to do oversight on now. Previously it was fairly expensive models with high end radios that required licensing, so the folks that flew them were usually very concerned about the safety of the model, as well as those on the ground due to the realization the engines and props were very dangerous. Billy Joe Bob doesn't think about that when he goes and buys a $200 package that has range capabilities that previously you had to spend $2000 plus and get training to learn how to fly to keep from smashing the model to pieces and/or hurting someone.

olafpfj wrote:Why does everyone keep referring to these things as drones? They are RC helicopters subject to rules and laws governing RC aircraft that have been around for decades.

I could not fire up a gas powered RC helicopter and fly it around downtown or a city park. Just because these are electric and an unusual rotor configuration doesn't change anything.

Cuz we ain't smart.

olafpfj wrote:Why does everyone keep referring to these things as drones? They are RC helicopters subject to rules ...

Maybe because they ARE drones, and not all drones (or RC-controlled aircraft) are "helicopters?" Why doesn't everyone refer to them as unmanned air vehicles?

And "RC" doesn't cover all the possibilities; the bigger ones employed by the government bifurcate into remotely piloted and (semi-)autonomous, and I'll bet some hobbyist has made an autonomous or semi-autonomous drone for fun.

Drone is a popular word for them, and it works. With all the capability the new generation has, cameras and extended range radios and such, "drone" is accurate enough.

I just hope "rules" are not used to squelch privately-owned drones or RC, or RPV or whatevers out of existence. It seems that General Aviation has to fight for its existence periodically, either from FAA rules or lawsuit-driven costs of ownership. I expect that will happen to drones as well.

ELB wrote:The problem at the moment is that if you want to by a drone and fly it for a hobby, that's OK. If you want to buy one to do something productive with it (not that hobbies are not productive, but bear with me here) or get paid for it, then the FAA says THAT is illegal. So paid photog gigs are a no-no, and if my VFD wanted to use one to monitor a wildland fire, that would be out as well. But I could by one and fly just for fun. Seems out of kilter.

That equine search and rescue org here in texas wanted to use one to help find lost people, but the FAA nixed that. The rescue group took them to court and won initially (on a somewhat technical basis I think), hadn't heard about that case that Keith linked to.

So ELB, what happens if your hobby is aerial photography? ......and then someone later offers you money for a print of one of your pictures?

I am a photography hobbyist, and I have subsequently sold a print to someone on a special request. The distinction here is that I took the picture for myself, and did not market it. But someone later liked it and wanted to buy it.

Does that make my aerial photography a profession, or am I still a hobbyist? Not trying to argue.... just trying to understand.

Keith B wrote:

olafpfj wrote:Why does everyone keep referring to these things as drones? They are RC helicopters subject to rules and laws governing RC aircraft that have been around for decades.

I could not fire up a gas powered RC helicopter and fly it around downtown or a city park. Just because these are electric and an unusual rotor configuration doesn't change anything.

There has always been a contention that the FAA does not really have legal rule over model aircraft, but the FAA says they do. Here is their Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft

http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/model_airc ... c_rule.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With the cheap price of these new quad-copters with unlicensed radios and the capabilities they have, the FAA has a lot more to try to do oversight on now. Previously it was fairly expensive models with high end radios that required licensing, so the folks that flew them were usually very concerned about the safety of the model, as well as those on the ground due to the realization the engines and props were very dangerous. Billy Joe Bob doesn't think about that when he goes and buys a $200 package that has range capabilities that previously you had to spend $2000 plus and get training to learn how to fly to keep from smashing the model to pieces and/or hurting someone.

First of all, for the sake of accuracy, his name is Bubba, not Billy Joe Bob. Billy Joe Bob can't even tie his shoes, let alone fly a drone.

I agree that the FAA ought to have some authority over where and how these things are flown. I sure don't want one getting sucked into the engine of the jet on takeoff that I am riding in. BUT.... there is also the danger of FAA mission creep, in the same way that the EPA keeps asserting expansions of its authority over such mundane things as your right to plant petunias in your back yard because a rare duck once landed there on its migratory flight south. I am generally not in favor of unelected bureaucrats inventing additional reasons to expand the scope of their mandate, and the increasingly easy availability of drones places them on a collision course (pun intended) with the FAA's mandate. How we solve that, I don't know. But I kind of like clean and easy to understand definitions (something the goobermint is almost categorically unable to produce), and I am interested in having a drone some day; so I sure hope we get some clarity soon.

I can't find the FAA anywhere in the Constitution. I also can't find a legitimate power to regulate the operation of aerial vehicles that aren't engaged in "Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

Therefore, I have no respect for the proclamations of America's Enemies, Foreign and Domestic, who deserve no respect, no cooperation, and no aid and comfort.