ABC News Australia has a thorough piece on the state of "drone journalism", which gives some good examples and cuts through the sort of silliness that characterized some earlier reports, such as those featuring Occupy Wall Street types flying a Parrot AR.Drone inside.
It includes an important quote from Matt Waite, who runs the Drone Journalism Lab at the University of Nebraska
Despite America's love affair with new technology, Professor Waite says the rate of take-up of drone journalism is still very slow - for one single reason.
"Here in the US the law doesn't allow it - plain and simple," he said.
"The rules right now in the US are basically this: nothing over 400 feet, nothing out of sight, nothing near people and no commercial purposes.
"If it were (just) the first three, drone journalism would have a fighting chance. The commercial restrictions are the hardest to overcome."
Sounds like Professor Waite, at least, is taking a realistic and responsible approach.
[Thanks to Gary Mortimer/sUAS News for the link]
Comments
Wow, that looks reasonable.
I wonder if the 20kg "without fuel" limit would be the same for electric propulsion "without batteries"?
The whole "terrorists will get it banned" thing is pretty stupid.
Are white vans illegal since a few were used for car-bombs? No. You can't outlaw delivery devices. You have to outlaw the explosives, which they already have done.
It kind of reminds me... I like medieval stuff (had a medieval themed wedding, etc.) and on a business trip to Austria, I picked up a real morning-star. Just in case, I declared it when I came back. Turns out it's a prohibited weapon in Canada?! I can go to the hardware store and buy a hammer, or an axe, or a chainsaw, and even a bow and arrow. I already have a sword. But a morning-star? "Oh, now that's dangerous!" How silly. I can even get a gun legally, with a small amount of effort.
The worst part is that not only the weapon is banned, but "or any components thereof". So a stick, a chain, and a chunk of iron are illegal to posses. Really?
Perhaps I should go into sales... :)
Ellison posted the link twice a few comment pages back.
@Stephen, you make it all sound great. I assumed that the SFOC thing was basically set up to prevent anybody from doing anything, just stonewalling. Sounds like it's a real process to make this safe yet still making it doable.
Do you have a link to the SFOC documents that you mention?
I would agree with regards to not applying until an SFOC is necessary for your application. I still think preparing and following your own SOPs etc. and doing your homework prior to application would definitely go a long ways towards successful commercial use later. In addition, it may reduce any mishaps or accidents you have doing things recreationally.
I would discourage applying for an SFOC, when it's for recreational purposes. They probably don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to be applying for one, generating paper work for them unnecessarily. I've worked around government bureaucrats for a few years, if there's one thing they don't like is unnecessary work. If you apply for the SFOC, when you have a good case for having one, they would probably take you more seriously, and will be more than likely to issue one.
I suspect, as Stephen mentioned, just like getting a drivers license, they are more interested about the safety of your drone and what you are proposing to do with the SFOC.
@Robert, if you still fall under recreational rules, I would stick with that out of convenience. If you want to move towards other uses, I would first start by putting together and documenting things like operating procedures, emergency procedures, maybe exploring a bit of risk assessment. In my opinion nothing really intense, but at least the exercise is good and could be used to show you have mitigated risk in an application. Then, once you actually need an SFOC for something, try to go through the application process, but don't get discouraged with rejection (we got rejected once, but a few quick changes and it was approved). As you mentioned, it might not be a bad idea to start with something simple, maybe not actually getting paid, but say getting an SFOC to practice and further develop SOPs and practice emergency recoveries or something. The online guidelines are pretty good at explaining what you need to show, and are used by TC as well. Starting a dialog with officials in the area around usage and steps might be good. As you mentioned, there is definitely some judgement used in the applications, and depending on the experience of the officials, this may vary a bit. Hopefully they are friendly in your area!
Remember, the rules are there to keep people safe, not to prevent progress. Also, I am by no means an expert! Just my thoughts on the subject.
That's just to start. One of the reasons I got involved in this was to get into aerial filming of different outdoor and motorized sports. Whitewater kayaking, off-road motorcycle racing, etc. As well as capturing low-altitude photographs of remote areas in Canada.
I'm involved in "Overlanding", and one disappointment is always that when you're in the Canadian Boreal forests, you "can't see the forest for the trees". It's hard to get spectacular panoramas like in the SW US, Nevada, etc. I want to get a camera above the trees to get a better perspective.
For fun, OR for profit, if I can.
Robert, why do you need an SFOC if you're just flying at an RC Airfield? Sounds like recreational to me, unless they're going to pay you to fly there.
@Stephen, ok, that sounds interested. So there is some judgement used, as opposed to the government using a form with checkboxes and rigid "what you want to do doesn't fit the parameters of this program"?
Is it easy to get started? Say, flights at my local RC Airfield?
I'm not sure if land access control would be an issue where I want to go. I'm talking, far, far away from civilization.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next