Interesting these folks are able to obtain permission to use a drone for a commercial endeavour, or did they?
This appears to be filmed in the US, so the FAA rules, should be applying to them too, right?
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
The FAA calls any flying aircraft without a pilot an Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV). Just because a person calls their aircraft a drone or anything else doesn't avoid the applicable laws. And no farmer has airspace jurisdiction over his fields.
I spoke the FAA reps from the UAV program office last week at the ALEA conference in Reno. They stated that they are investigating several alledged illegal UAV operations and plan on taking at least one entity to court. They are hoping it results in prison time for the offender. And trust me, the offender is someone that we all know about. You can thumb your nose at FAA but they will do what they will if they hear about any illegal activity.
The UAV flying in the video would only be illegal if it was being flown for compensation. I doubt the show host (who was likely being paid) was actually flying it so it is hard to tell by the video if there were any laws being broken.
I personally have flown a multicopter for National Geographic and the video footage was used in the final production. But I was not compensated for that flying and I followed all existing FAA rules, therefore it was legit.
Yes, I am flying with FLIR too, and unlike those amateurs, I have real zoom and other controls over the core (the video glitches and zoom in this video is so faked)
It wasn't until well after my post that I searched and found FLIR products. Of course the trademark for FLIR is that double caret-looking mark seen in the fake video drop out and in some of the video sequences.. I suspect they trade product placement ads for use of the gear or a substantial discount.
FLIR products on ebay are very expensive. :-o
Heh, I was just about to change channel, when they started filming with the drone. It wasn't the content of the show that kept me watching a little longer.
I like that they didnt use a quad. I also like civil disobedience of big bro.
@Flying Monkey
Agreed, those shows are terrible. The "experts" are couple of actors pretending to look for ghosts.
At 0:10 sec the dude says "..send a drone up with a FLIR attached.."
At 0:21 the tricopter image shows the battery and what may be the IR cam looking left to right. Forward Looking InfraRed is really an out of place term on a muticopter - orginally termed from fixed wing aircraft. Not clear is any video transmitter from the camera so.. I suspect if it is authentic IR recording from the tricopter, it was added during post processing.
The images indicated 'FLIR' could actually be just a boom mounted IR cam with professional lenses. The audio of the 'drone' shots is overdubbed for effect. The 'zoom' sequence is obviously post processing and the 'FLIR' tag in some shots is also added post processing.
I am skeptical but totally convinced of the skill sets of TV technology to make you think it is the real thing.
Not that it matters, but they did call it a Drone in the video. His sentence at 0:07 to 0:12 is
"I honestly think the best way to do it would be to send the Drone up with the flare attached."
What authorities? That may be against the letter of the law but the FAA has better things to do than fine a guy for flying a tricopter looking for ghosts. The way I see it this is the jaywalking of aviation laws, at least for now.
Wyatt, they will have a hard time convincing the authorities, as in the show, where they are flying is not a farm, and clearly not flying for fun.
Anands, they did not call it a drone. I'm calling it that. It's not flying autonomous, but even RC models cannot be flown commercially without FAA authorization.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next