The FAA is crying foul at a Major League Baseball team. The Washington Nationals used a drone to take pictures of the team during spring training. Problem is they didn’t get permission. And commercial drone use is banned.
“We didn’t get it cleared, but we don’t get our pop flies cleared either and those go higher than this thing did,” a team official told the Associated Press.
Comments
@ Project Nadar, what country are you referring to? 100ft is somewhat comical. Anything I do that has an altitude preset is no less than 120ft to begin with so that it clears trees with a margin of error + slopes and hills. If a commercial flight hits your UAV at 125ft, there is a way bigger problem than your UAV!!
I had a meeting with the local aviation authority here for a commercial use of remote controlled aerial platform. What the flight operation manager aid was that: "You can fly wherever you want as long as this isn't higher than 100 feet. If you do decide to operate higher then you can ask for permits. Please understand that I a not here to be the policeman but i am here to ensure no commercial flights will be affected. If you cause damage or injury probably another department will investigate and will charge you with other several accusations which might put you in big trouble but the department of civil aviation will not be part of them. To put it simply every bank robbery has a getaway car and it's driver has a driving license. It doesn't mean that the department that issues car licenses is affected by his actions".
So your FAA will need to decide if they want to be the policeman and run after every kid that wants to fly their toy which happens to be available in the free market or they can continue to work on the flight safety. When toy drones like ours become so many that there has to be a limit of how many can fly in the sky then they have to be there to regulate the situation.
The FAA is a government agency. They couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag. I'm not too worried.
It'll be legal in the eyes of the FAA when they have taxed the DIY'er out and big corporations like Aeroviral Inc. can own the skies without disgrace for what they will charge.
Edit:
Generally these Races place a NOTAM because of large dust clouds, and low flying aircraft. (Not always, however I have seen it in the past)
Speaking of this matter... I was at the Mint 400, a desert race just south of Vegas this last weekend. There were approximately 3-4 DJI Phantoms, and 4 DJI S800/S1000 category professional filming platforms.
When Travis Pastrana, Big Money Casino's, Red Bull, General Tire, BFG, And big name Oil GuRu's (many of the drivers are mult millionaires, driving million dollar vehicles) are utilizing their commercial properties, the FAA turns their back.
These UAV's were over the crowded Vegas Streets, specifically Freemont street. They were also in and around the race course. This was alarming as generally there are 10-12 full size Helo's per race. These heli's usually "chase" the race vehicles, relaying important information. This on top of usually a helicopter based professional camera or two.
Ted Van Slyck Hit the nail on the head!
It is NOT illegal in this sense at all. Even by the FAA's old argument, it still wouldn't be illegal. They clearly stated in a few different press releases that UAV's and drones in private use (they specifically referenced farming) is legal, so long as it is not a business (commercial) offering. A Baseball team shooting their own footage would fall under the same circumstances.
On that note, they aren't chasing professional aerial photography, which CAN and IS performed in experimental aircraft. Not only are Ultra lights often used in forestry and animal surveying scenarios, but experimental aircraft often take up photographers to picture other privately owned aircraft. (IE, an In air photo shoot.). This is contradictory, as the FAA claims that you can not provide commercial services in an experimental (not certified) aircraft, however an experimental UAV is entirely illegal?
You know James, I think you have a good point there. When they try to wave their meaningless stick at something the general population loves, and loves way more than the FAA, it makes them look bad, not drones.
This is crazy! A judge agrees that no laws exist covering UAVs, so the FAA says that since no laws exist, then its illegal (?)
What warped circular logic is this!
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next