Please see this warning from the Los Angeles Police Department, sent to the California Association of Realtors. Discussion on helifreak here. More background and discussion here. I'll be talking to the NYT about this tomorrow.
Short form: Amateur UAV use within the usual FAA guidelines (under 400ft, within visual line-of-sight, away from built-up-areas) is allowed, as always. But commercial use requires a COA, which you're not going to get. So there's nothing new here, but it's a reminder that the guidelines will be enforced.
LAPD Warning Against Hiring Unmanned Aircraft Operators for Aerial Photos
Los Angeles authorities have asked C.A.R. to communicate this warning to REALTORS® who hire unmanned aircraft operators to take aerial photographs for marketing high-end properties. Using these devices (also known as drones) for flight in the air with no onboard pilot may violate, among other things, the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) policy on unmanned aircrafts, and Los Angeles's local ordinance requiring permits for filming commercial motion pictures and still photographs.
The Los Angeles Police Department's (LAPD) investigation has apparently revealed that aerial photos where unmanned aircraft were observed have appeared on certain real estate sales websites. According to FilmL.A., the LAPD Air Division has issued this warning as it intends to prosecute violators in the near future. FilmL.A. is a public benefit company created by the City and County of Los Angeles to manage film permit activity and related issues.
Under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)'s current policy, no one can operate an unmanned aircraft in the National Airspace System without specific authority. Operators who wish to fly an unmanned aircraft for civil use must obtain an FAA experimental airworthiness certificate, which will not be issued to an unmanned aircraft used for compensation or hire. Although the FAA allows hobbyists to fly model airplanes for recreational purposes under specific guidelines, that authority does not extend to operators flying unmanned aircraft for business purposes. More information is available from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Notice on Unmanned Aircraft Operations and the FAA's policy.
Comments
I don't buy the story of the tethered manned helicopter not being considered as flying. A hot air baloon designed to carry passengers/pilot still requires a rated and current pilot onboard when tethered.
I have been researching and discussing this issue with a local FAA representative and its not an easy avenue to go down. I reccomend you research the existing regulations before complaining about your interpretation of them. The regulations exist and they are going to chang. All we can do is lobby, vote, obey, (wash, rinse) and repeat. It's our right and obligation.
It may be the Real Estate industry the forces the laws to change to accommodate the used of UAVs commercially. They have a lot of clout, and the savings they get from using UAVs instead of expensive airplanes and helicopters goes right into their bottom lines.
"According to FilmL.A., the LAPD Air Division has issued this warning as it intends to prosecute violators in the near future. "
That does absolutely SCREAM sour grapes. The FAA made us stop, so now were on some sort of mission to make everyone else stop too. C'mon......LAPD, I would expect more then that kind of pettiness out of an accredited law enforcment agency. Don't you have better things to do?
Whether the FAA or LAPD likes it, I don't forsee realtors shunning use of Aerial photography and video companies just because the FAA has labeled it as some sort of airspace violation. A small remote control helicopter flying at around 100 feet taking snapshots of someones home or video of someones property being declared a threat to airspace: so absurd it's intellectually insulting.
I think the trouble has been stirred up by lame Cessna operators who have lost business to UAV start-ups. In the UK the CAA make a lot of money farting about with paperwork. They have a form for everything and a fee to go with it. The AOC used to cost me about 20 K per year just to take photography yet I could tow banners with just a ops. manual. Simply because they were not enough banner towers around for them to make money out of it.
I think it is time to start making proposals to the legislators to define a difference between small quad copters that have full rotor protection and have a degree of safety built into the design and are below say 3 kilo AUW.and will stay below say 300 feet. As against these stupidly overweight and generally unreliable Oktokopters that try to lift payloads that could be potentially harmful.
PS: Then don't start a non-profit, simply only take donations for flying like the weed clinics in LA do. That's fire with fire and 100% legal. Plus, I would never film someone's property unless the owner, not some real estate clown paid me. My pet peeves in the world are lawyers, politicians & real estate agents. I see a common disingenuity pervasive to those trades!
What's the real reason for this (constitution aside, a law has never been made to protect the people THE LAW by Bastiat)?
#1, because the MOB run LA unions want the exclusive on filming always
#2, because the police state knows personal drones can be used to film their illegal activities and molestation of the constitution and civil rights.
I honestly do not believe safety is a concern, nor that they are worried about drones crashing in to peoples houses...
I was at a protest taking video. All of the sudden the paramilitary riot squad showed up where they, "kettled" myself and other media in to the protest (*as we were on the outside watching) telling us that it's ok and that they would walk us out. After about a half hour and the police closing in, people began to not trust the police. I saw an opportunity to sneak through the riot line with a cameraman and did so. All other media and outside spectators were arrested with the protestors. Not only were they arrested, but they all got at least a 2000 dollar bail and DNA swabbed by homeland security and added to their terrorist watch lists...
My point and why I am wide awake and more than a little suspect lately, is that my personal experience is the police will lie to you these days... Sad state of things, I grew up thinking police followed the golden rule, not anymore, they work for the machine and don't care about anything but their paycheck or they would resist too!
Big difference between a blimp and a drone is that one has a tendency to stay up in the air, and the other has a tendency to fall to the ground. You guess which one it is. ;-)
And the FAA has specific rules for tethered balloons, which is what I would assume the blimp would be considered.
So if a tethered blimp is a legal platform for commercial aerial photography, would a tethered quad be legal as well?
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
of 12 Next