Another FAA Incident

3689582228?profile=originalThe 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.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • 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?

  • Let me be the first to say that I am VERY thankful for the work the FFA does and has done, to make our skies safe. 

    But the more they get hung up on these silly things, the more the public will begin to view them as your typical federal, bloated, non common sense seeking beauracracy . I think the general public will look at your average DJI phantom or Blade as expensive toys, their teenage nephew might get on Christmas morning and to think that the big bad feds will come down on someone making videos with this "toy"in a baseball stadium, is just one more story they will file in their minds as "Washington has no common sense". I can't help but think this is ultimately not good for the FAA, the job they have accomplished over the past 80 or so years has by and large been of upmost importance, to cloud that reputation with this type of nonsense is sad.

  • Idiots that fly UAVs in the middle of congested cities like New York give others a bad name. Those are places where an operator should need a permit. And, those are assigned by the city, not the feds.

  • 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.  

  • That federal judge that blasted the FAA a couple weeks ago said that the FAA didn't have the authority to regulate these things BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION.

    I am gonna keep flying regardless.

  •  But hey, they have a point, the airspace inside most major league stadiums can be congested places.

    The more the FAA pulls crap like this, the more marginal they will make themselves when they do try to define some regulations.

  • Hold on, Bob. The umpire has stopped the game.

    Here comes the manager out of the dugout.

    It's a face to face shouting match out there on the field.

    Oh, who's this coming out now? It's some guy in a black jacket. What's that written on his back?

    Jim, I believe it says FAA.

    Wait a minute. What's he doing? He's motioning for the manager to be thrown out of the game.

    I thought only umpires were allowed to do that.

    Jim, I suppose that last popup was not cleared by the feds.

    Somebody is going to pay a heavy fine for that, Bob.

  • Private Land?

    Private vehicle?

    Private use? to photograph one's self at play?

    Who do they, the FAA, charge? The guy paying for the pictures? OR The guy receiving for taking the pictures?

    Or was the flyer directly associated with the team?

    Can I take pictures of my party?  OR is it because the ball team is HIGH Profile they (FAA) think they can make a spectacle of it?  This is getting confusing on the silly.

  • T3
    The team could fly their players to games on a 737 under part 91 and it would not be considered commercial use. So how does shooting a picture qualify as such. FAR part 1 defines commercial use and this does not qualify. The Faa is out of line.
This reply was deleted.