From Poynter.org:
Last Wednesday, The (Spokane, Wash.) Spokesman-Review published a minute-long, aerial video of a local event [screenshot shown above].
On Thursday, Jesse Tinsley, the photographer who used an unmanned camera ship to record the video from 30 feet off the ground, said it was “not illegal, but currently in a gray area.”
Au contraire, said the Federal Aviation Administration on Monday.
“There is no gray area,” said FAA spokesperson Les Dorr.
Hobbyists are allowed to use small, radio-controlled crafts under specific guidelines, but “if you’re using it for any sort of commercial purposes, including journalism, that’s not allowed,” he added.
The FAA generally contacts transgressors and requests them to cease their activities, rather than penalizing them (unless they’re operating aerial vehicles in a reckless manner, in which case sanctions could be meted out).“Our main goal is to get them to stop,” Dorr said. “Most of the time people are cooperative.”
(Two drone journalism programs received cease-and-desist letters from the FAA in July.)
Acknowledging the confusion about the operation of unmanned aircraft systems, Dorr said that soon-to-be-released FAA guidelines about small crafts should make it “much clearer…what you can do and what you can’t do.”
He also acknowledged the appeal for journalists in using drones to report some stories.
“It’s an attractive technology for journalists, and people would like to be able to use it,” Dorr said. “That said, the FAA is responsible for the safety of the air space. And as much as we’d like to encourage them, we can’t let them do it as long as there are no rules in place.”
Comments
The AMA and FAA are announcing right about now, I have a copy but its embargoed until 1200 PST. I think the FAA should accept the Canadian, Australian or British system to get started with and modify them. I only say those because they are written in English.
Hi Monroe, I agree with you that it would really be to our best interests to preemptively attempt to come up with some appropriate operational and safety standards.
Failing to do so will see that the large commercial enterprises get all the concessions and the public or hobbyist get the leftovers.
But even there, I don't think the FAA can afford to just ignore us.
The presence and adoption of these in the rest of the world is undoubtedly going to be a bit more open, but if the FAA establishes Draconian and Restrictive rules for the US that other countries benefit from not having, that is going to be painfully obvious to everybody and in the long run is unlikely to stand.
In the US we tout individual liberty as one of our founding principles and it looks bad to everybody if in the end we do exactly the opposite.
Clearly the FAA is going to be the primary legislative body in this whole business and the AMA is actively trying to work with them to arrive at reasonable compromises and in the end everything will have to be a compromise.
In reality, right here at DIYDrones should be the primary group interacting with the FAA in our own interests, but among other things, so far the FAA has (from what I have seen) shown absolutely no interest in hearing from us.
That is probably the most worrying part of the equation.
Sorry for OT just want to citate something (to ease it) I read on twitter a few days ago from my mind: "..FAA tyrany starts at an inch off the ground..."
The FAA frequently ignores is own definition of commercial operator, straight out of FAR Definitions:
Emphasis mine. It is common for business to operate aircraft that are not considered "commercial". I would say operating the helicopter is merely incidental to his journalism endeavors and therefore he is not considered a commercial operator.
Portuguese News station footage
I am from Portugal and i see a lot of video shot using some type of multicopter, yesterday on the night news i saw footage right next to the hospital, the camera clear the top of a building by 1m at most, and no problems with that. The FAA is creating problems where they don't need to exist
These BBC reporters definitely could use some drones.
He has flown an aircraft for reward at low level over a crowd. The fact that it has taken images is in some ways by the by. It is of course why he was there flying. The chap shot himself in the foot by saying it was a grey area and another journo went off to check. Best not to poke the bear.
This is the point where the cyclical argument of, its just a foamie or how much harm can a quad do starts up. The fact of the matter is all sizes from micro to full size of flying objects that can sustain flight and be controlled in three axis are now aircraft. Some operate under AMA rules, some under COA or military authorization.
So that chap was outside of AMA rules flying over people and outside of FAA jurisdiction as a member of the public he cannot hold a COA.
Prohibit all that is unclear ? O_o
And if he just threw the camera up or raised on a pole, it too would call it a federal crime? =)
And who make hystеria...
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next