Drone Photography and the FAA

[wyogirl]

I was sent a link to this article from the attorney I work for: Drones Used for Real Estate Photos Could Be Grounded | Realtor Magazine

It basically says that photographers using model aircraft to take photos meant for sale or used in the marketing of a property are subject to FAA regulations.

I just thought it was interesting.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I'm going to be honest, I only clicked this topic because I read "drone" and thought "Borg." But this is interesting indeed.

 

[runnah]

What a shock, government agency regulating and restricting.

 

[tecboy]

Amazon is using drones to deliver packages.
Drones are the future.
http://www.amazon.com/b?node=8037720011

 

[Braineack]

What a shock, government agency regulating and restricting.

amazon must have a bigger lobby...

 

[snerd]

Amazon is using drones to deliver packages.
Drones are the future.
Amazon Prime Air

I thought they had scrapped that idea? This is new territory, and I'm sure we'll see plenty of corporate and government lawyers vying for their piece of the pie.

 

[robbins.photo]

I'm going to be honest, I only clicked this topic because I read "drone" and thought "Borg." But this is interesting indeed.

Oh, see I thought this was about taking pictures of drones - not taking pictures with drones. Whacky.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I'm going to be honest, I only clicked this topic because I read "drone" and thought "Borg." But this is interesting indeed.

Oh, see I thought this was about taking pictures of drones - not taking pictures with drones. Whacky.

Exactly.. I'd love to get 7 of 9 in front of my camera.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I've been reading about this - they're designing and testing in my area.

They are not toys, or like the model radio operated devices that hobbyists have used. They are UAVs, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, considered to be unmanned aircraft, and the FAA is developing regulations - it may require training and/or obtaining a license to operate.

They are currently permissible as a hobby but you must keep it in sight at all times. It is currently not legal to operate for commercial purposes (although it's been done and doesn't seem to have been pursued much yet). They are not allowed at one of the national parks because of the buzzing noise and disruption to wildlife.

So far I've read about one over a marathon dropping and hitting a runner causing head injuries. There was one that almost landed in the middle of a busy interstate but luckily didn't - and since it's recording video and uses GPS it was tracked right to the guy's front door (a student who'd lost control of it).

There was a story of one over the scene of an accident that hindered the airflight chopper from being able to land to be able to airlift someone injured at the scene. There was a report of one possibly (unconfirmed) alongside an airplane (so apparently they have the capability of getting to that height).

Of course they've been used for example when the tsunami in Japan damaged a nuclear plant to fly over and inspect the damage. Seems like they need to be operated by people trained to know how to operate them properly.

 

[runnah]

I've been reading about this - they're designing and testing in my area.

They are not toys, or like the model radio operated devices that hobbyists have used. They are UAVs, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, considered to be unmanned aircraft, and the FAA is developing regulations - it may require training and/or obtaining a license to operate.

They are currently permissible as a hobby but you must keep it in sight at all times. It is currently not legal to operate for commercial purposes (although it's been done and doesn't seem to have been pursued much yet). They are not allowed at one of the national parks because of the buzzing noise and disruption to wildlife.

So far I've read about one over a marathon dropping and hitting a runner causing head injuries. There was one that almost landed in the middle of a busy interstate but luckily didn't - and since it's recording video and uses GPS it was tracked right to the guy's front door (a student who'd lost control of it).

There was a story of one over the scene of an accident that hindered the airflight chopper from being able to land to be able to airlift someone injured at the scene. There was a report of one possibly (unconfirmed) alongside an airplane (so apparently they have the capability of getting to that height).

Of course they've been used for example when the tsunami in Japan damaged a nuclear plant to fly over and inspect the damage. Seems like they need to be operated by people trained to know how to operate them properly.

Oh hush, of course a film user would fear new technology.

 

[ChrisKostner]

Amazon is using drones to deliver packages.
Drones are the future.
Amazon Prime Air

I thought they had scrapped that idea? This is new territory, and I'm sure we'll see plenty of corporate and government lawyers vying for their piece of the pie.

That will never come true within the next couple of decades. The idea is just ridiculous. Amazon delivering packages via drones....

 

[The_Traveler]

Since current quad and orthocopters have a ceiling of >1000 feet, the FAA wants to regulate how they can be flown to protect dangerous interaction with passenger and commercial managed flights because:

[h=2]FAA definition[/h] In the United States in particular, the Federal Aviation Administration calls this concept the Minimum Safe Altitude (MSA), and specifically defines it as follows in § 119 of Part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR):

1. Anywhere: an altitude allowing a safe emergency landing without undue hazard to person or property on the ground;
2. Over Congested Areas: an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of less than 2,000 feet;
3. Over Populated Areas: an altitude of 500 feet AGL;
4. Over Open Water or Sparsely Populated Areas: an altitude allowing for a linear distance greater than 500 feet from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure;
5. Helicopters: If without hazard to persons or property on the surface, an altitude lower than in definitions 2, 3, and 4 above, provided in compliance with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA.

 

[ronlane]

So Sparky better not be trying to sell those video's he's been taking with his new Toy.

 

[DrewPR]

I can go either way on this issue. At first I was pretty annoyed with the Realtor example because they are clearly doing no harm to others. In that case they are really just extreme versions of tri-pods or ladders. However, the examples of the drones crashing into people, traffic, private property etc. changes things. As a pilot myself I can understand where the FAA is coming from with the Part 91 FAR regs that Lew pointed out earlier.

I think it would be totally fine for realtors etc. to utilize for "commercial" use as long as they keep a safe distance from people. If you want to use these things to film or shoot where they could cause harm in the case of an emergency, you should probably have some sort of training/certification. Not just from a safety perspective but from a liability/legal perspective.

The problem I see is that these drones are much more difficult to track then a standard aircraft which will make the airspace rules laid out in Part 91 very difficult to enforce. Violations of these airspace rules would most likely only be discovered during an investigation following an accident.

On the whole I think drones are pretty great and it's really only a matter of time before they are ubiquitous in society. Just like any new tech, it just takes some adjusting to.

 

[bobandcar]

There are photogrammetry drones in the land survey world. There are a few companies making them and are very soffisticated. 1 problem, In the US they are illegal to own. Similar reasons. As soon as it's used for any business then it has huge regulations which make it not worth anyone trying to purchase