RunRyder RC
 31  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 5 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )     4      5     NEXT    >> ] 5686 views
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterAerial Photography and Video › Flying Cam Shut Down????
03-22-2009 08:19 PM  8 years agoPost 41
trunkmunki

rrApprentice

Bangor

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You don't need an instrument to get a commercial, and you can get a commercial in about 150hr total time if you go to an FAR Part 141 school. Still, even if it was $200 (which is nearly unheard of in the helicopter world) per hour, it would be $30,000. You could probably save some cash by doing a 141 fixed wing commercial, then getting a helicopter add-on, then again, maybe not.

Or you could join the Army and they will get you your commercial/instrument helicopter rating.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 08:29 PM  8 years agoPost 42
totu

rrApprentice

Colorado

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Let me clarify a little:

"Requirements to Obtain a Commercial Pilot Certificate(fixed-wing)...Hold an instrument rating or your commercial certificate will be endorsed with a prohibition against carrying passengers for hire on flights beyond 50 NM or at night. "

I'm not familiar with rotary-wing certifications but agree that $30k for a rotary-wing commercial pilot certificate sounds more reasonable.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 08:29 PM  8 years agoPost 43
Flint325

rrApprentice

xxx.xxx

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It’s obvious that the FAA doesn’t want anyone other than the military operating anything remote controlled. Sad, especially due to the fact not one reported incident in the United States where a UAV was used to harm someone (not that I could find).

Let’s face it, it takes some talent to fly these things and I thing we would all agree the only plan so far carried out using an airframe to harm someone was real aircraft and a flight school. So now with regulation, we must open up RC UAV flight schools to teach people? God I wish the FAA would leave these matters up to AMA, or at least work together on this issue.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 08:31 PM  8 years agoPost 44
Flint325

rrApprentice

xxx.xxx

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I take back everyting I sad, I found an RC incident, what was I thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Yzf4jk0Ko

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 08:34 PM  8 years agoPost 45
totu

rrApprentice

Colorado

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It’s obvious that the FAA doesn’t want anyone other than the military operating anything remote controlled.).
As I said, the FAA needs to ensure UAV operations (including RCAP) integrates within the current system.
Sad, especially due to the fact not one reported incident in the United States where a UAV was used to harm someone (not that I could find).
The key-phrase here is "(not that I could find)". Injury, death, and collision with manned aircraft have occured in the US with RC-VLOS UAV's. (that I'm aware of)

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 08:34 PM  8 years agoPost 46
patrickegan

rrKey Veteran

Sacramento, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The FAA's own definition lacks support for "compensation and hire". A lot of what we do is exempted under part 119. Beyond that, with what is on the table the idea of having some sort of commercial certificate (besides being inane) is unenforceable. It will be nothing more than a feel good regulation that only locks out the law abiding types and the vendors. They tend to disagree, but I in my opinion if this goes out as an SFAR it will lead to a breakdown in the regulatory status quo.

As far as autonomous aircraft are concerned, they are here to stay with the marketing of $24 autopilots. Regardless of what the FAA decrees, it is too late the manned community has no choice but to share the sky with UAS.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 08:36 PM  8 years agoPost 47
patrickegan

rrKey Veteran

Sacramento, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The key-phrase here is "(not that I could find)". Injury, death, and collision with manned aircraft have occured in the US with RC-VLOS UAV's. (that I'm aware of)
Could you produce that in writing?

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 08:39 PM  8 years agoPost 48
totu

rrApprentice

Colorado

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

". A lot of what we do is exempted under part 119.
It only APPEARS that way if you omit the part of that particular statement relating to "operating under parts 121....", as you have done. Parts 61 and part 91 capture and handcuff what you think is exempt.

I'm not arguing or selling for the FAA. It's just that I've always felt that to get anywhere we don't want to argue or bargain with ignorant and therefore useless perspectives.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 08:45 PM  8 years agoPost 49
totu

rrApprentice

Colorado

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

"Could you produce that in writing?"

Re Death, I'd have to spend time searching that particular enormous thread in RCG where it relates to AMA lawsuits. The AMA is probably a better source.

Re Injury, same as above but I've also seen a photograph where someone was smacked in the chest by a heli rotor blade that came lose.

Re Collision with manned aircraft. I could only write-up what was voiced to me.

I'm certainly not, and apparently nobody else except the AMA seems to keep a careful catalog of incidents (but only for which insurance claims have been filed).

So I guess you can feel comfortable that I wouldn't be walking in a courtroom with FAA lawyers with acceptable documentation of the incidents I'm aware of. But this shortcoming won't influence the FAA's direction as some would like.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 08:49 PM  8 years agoPost 50
patrickegan

rrKey Veteran

Sacramento, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Okay, then how about the definition in part FAR 1.1? That definition does not capture what I do as I don't carry persons or property for hire. Furthermore, the AP part of my business is incidental to my other business which includes consulting and the RC AP part is not in of itself a major enterprise for profit. I don't think any business grossing under $50,000 could be deemed (by any fair minded person) a major enterprise for profit.

Not saying business isn't for compensation or hire, but this definition (as is) will need a rewrite.

Even with 4 or 5 deaths in 75 years, that record far outstrips the safety numbers for manned aviation.On the subject I had asked that the FAA produce the incidents (and reports), pertaining to collisions with manned aircraft. I've been waiting since October.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 09:05 PM  8 years agoPost 51
oakley

rrApprentice

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

pertaining to collisions with manned aircraft. I've been waiting since October
Even if there were not any collisions or incidents,the laws would be put in place to prevent such collisions/incidents.Especially since the topic of such an event, has been brought to the forefront.
If something was to happen and the FAA wasnt doing something (or had already done something) then the FAA could be held liable.
Especially since it takes so much time to get any law put into place (especially with FAA).

Admit nothing, deny everything and make counteraccusations

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 09:14 PM  8 years agoPost 52
trunkmunki

rrApprentice

Bangor

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I can see the "carrying persons or property for compensation or hire" being the main contention. The big gray area will be this and the fact that because you are taking pictures with a model but it is not the primary business and you do other photography blah...blah...blah. It will be really interesting to see how this shakes out. Also, since you cannot use an aircraft with an experimental airworthiness cert. for compensation or hire, unless it is "incidental" to the business, and furthermore, none of these have any airworthiness certificates anyway, that throws a whole nother monkey into the machinery.

FAR 1.1 states that "where it is doubtful that an operation is for "compensation or hire", the test applied is whether the carriage by air is merely incidental to the person's other business or is, in itself, a major enterprise for profit" (I guess someone paraphrased that earlier). Also, you can't argue it is an ultralight, as they are capable of over 55mph, and they are not being used for recreation or sport only.

This will be very interesting to watch shake out. I personally think it is kind of asinine that the FAA is this concerned about it. If you become "employed" by the customer, it could be considered incidental. If you are a realtor, and you take pictures of property, it is incidental. If you are a photographer, and sometimes use it for pictures, is it incidental, or part of your major enterprise?

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 09:29 PM  8 years agoPost 53
totu

rrApprentice

Colorado

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Okay, then how about the definition in part FAR 1.1? That definition does not capture what I do as I don't carry persons or property for hire.
I would agree. If the new regs don't require a pilot' certificate then 61.113 (which would otherwise capture you) also doesn't apply. If the new regs require one of the existing pilot certificates, then 61.113 ("nor may that person, for compensation-or-hire, act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft" and other parts of 61 for lesser certificates say you need a commercial pilot certificate.
Furthermore, the AP part of my business is incidental to my other business which includes consulting and the RC AP part is not in of itself a major enterprise for profit.
So you have an AP part of business. I'll bet my money the FAA won't care what else it's incidental to. It may be incidental to you being able to pay your cable tv bill but that's irrelevant.
I don't think any business grossing under $50,000 could be deemed (by any fair minded person) a major enterprise for profit.
I'd set the bar higher than that but what does it matter?
Not saying business isn't for compensation or hire, but this definition (as is) will need a rewrite.
The FAA would agree but till then their job still gets done via other FAR parts.
Even with 4 or 5 deaths in 75 years, that record far outstrips the safety numbers for manned aviation.On the subject I had asked that the FAA to produce the incidents (and reports), pertaining to collisions with manned aircraft. I've been waiting since October..
Yeah I know, you say:

1)what happened at designated fields in the past can't be projected to tomorrows RCAP-everywhere environment. Good luck with that argument.

2)"Your honor, they have no documented evidence". 'They have no body' works in court, not so much when trying to prevent new regs. They can just roll their eyes and proceed.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 10:15 PM  8 years agoPost 54
patrickegan

rrKey Veteran

Sacramento, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Tell that to Drew Peterson. Reread that, Drew already knows I still disagree and so do some inside the FAA. The definition is going to need a rewrite.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-22-2009 10:39 PM  8 years agoPost 55
totu

rrApprentice

Colorado

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Again I agree about the written definition in FAR 1.1 for 'commercial operations' needing to be rewritten to reflect what other regs say. But keep this in mind, as you read official stuff take note whether it says 'commercial operations' or 'for compensation or hire'.

As I think of all the relevant regs I'm aware of (without actually searching and re-reading them), I believe they use the term 'for compensation or hire' and not 'commercial operations'. Given that, they're not limited to being about 'carrying persons or property'.

Those who use the term 'commercial operations' may be unaware of how the definition in FAR 1.1 is not consistent with the more general 'for compensation or hire'.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
03-23-2009 12:44 AM  8 years agoPost 56
patrickegan

rrKey Veteran

Sacramento, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Comp and hire is mired! If they are going to hang us with it then there’s a lot of other folks going down too.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
03-23-2009 04:44 AM  8 years agoPost 57
Soundwave

rrNovice

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

i am still flying. still making money. and frankly still don't care.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
03-23-2009 01:15 PM  8 years agoPost 58
oakley

rrApprentice

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Whats your company name and address?

(lets see how much you dont care) LOL

Admit nothing, deny everything and make counteraccusations

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
03-23-2009 06:15 PM  8 years agoPost 59
wxyz

rrApprentice

calif*, U know where

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Too many people were spending their money on flying instead of houses, so the flying business had to go. That's the truth behind the law. The next law will ban basketweaving without a COA.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR  Quote
03-24-2009 03:04 AM  8 years agoPost 60
xfc3dcd

rrApprentice

West Carrollton,​Ohio usa

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

So, now that everyone has had the chance to express their views on the subject, the real question is:

How many of you would be willing to put your money where your mouth is and contribute funds (directly to a legal team) for a class action lawsuit against unjustifiable regulation of line-of-site AP?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 5 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )     4      5     NEXT    >> ] 5686 views
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterAerial Photography and Video › Flying Cam Shut Down????
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 31  Topic Subscribe

Thursday, November 23 - 3:54 am - Copyright © 2000-2017 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online