Re: Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
 

Can you give a single example of anybody on this forum saying that? The closest I've heard is a view that commercial use should be subject to some form of regulation - but that's a million miles from "wanting the entire industry shut down".

Unfortunately, at least in the US, the battle lines seem to be either (from the FAA) "no commercial use for the foreseeable future", and from the other side "we want to do whatever we like without regulation".

Re: Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
 

Is it? The ruling specifically talks about "model aircraft" which a different article mentions as fixed foam wings. Does this apply to the quad copters and such that people have been using? Or do those get classified as something else, like 'Drones.'?

Re: Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
 

I read the court decision, and a big part of the ruling was that the FAA could not, without re-wording their regulations, discriminate against craft that they had historically exempted. This historical precedent established by the FAA includes rotor-propelled craft like model helicopters, even though the case example was a fixed-wing.

You may have hit upon a point of distinction that the FAA will draw up in their new regulations (i.e., multi-rotor), but as of yet, the regulations do not exist, this decision determines.

Furthermore, if the FAA does draw this multi-rotor distinction, it's going to have a limited effect on the industry other than angering people, I predict, since traditional model helicopters are also perfectly capable of carrying a camera/gimbal payload, they're just harder to fly. And therefore, ironically, probably even more unsafe in the hands of untrained individuals than multi-rotors are! The main thing that seems to be classifying these things as "drones," a stupid word in my opinion and I wish we could stop using it, is the advanced programming that they contain that actually makes them safer and more stable to operate than an old-fashioned model aircraft.

This whole thing is certainly popcorn-worthy.

Re: Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
 

Actually the way the FAA was trying to enforce "nonexistent" regulations DID shut down the entire industry. If by industry your mean commercial AP.

As you said in your comment to Wendell, "we want to do whatever we like without regulation" is a million miles away from what anyone has said about this issue on this site as well.

This was never about regulation versus non regulation, it is about the fact that we, US citizens, have the right to create whatever small business we like and if the Government finds it necessary to regulate that activity there is a process they must follow to create the laws that govern it. The FAA did not follow the law, there was no law for them to enforce and they did not follow the NPRM process.

This is a great day for anyone serious about building an AP business, however this issue is far from over.

Re: Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
 

Off topic, but...
Does anyone shooting RC for business have liability insurance as of now? For example, if I wanted to shoot a wedding at a hotel in Honolulu with just a camera and tripod, I'm currently required to give them a certificate of insurance that includes a 2 million dollar coverage with the hotel listed as an additional insured. This is only for stepping on their property with a camera on a tripod.

If I told them I had a quad rotor with a DSLR that I want to fly over their property, I wonder what their response would be?

Re: Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
 

Whatever the commerical drone operators equivalent of the Experimental Aircraft Association should be getting in touch with the FAA to ensure whatever regulations that are put in place are well drafted and balance the commerical needs of operators and safety requirements for the public.

In the meantime, it could come down to the insurers putting demands on operators before they'll give public liability cover for commerical operations.


.

Re: Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
 

Warren,

We have $5 million in liability and full equipment coverage. This is possible because of our very comprehensive standard operating procedures and a perfect safety record over the last 10 years. Our safety manual has been audited and approved by the legal/safety departments of some of the world's largest corporations. We perform a risk assessment prior to every flight. If you have as much time and money invested in this endeavor as we do, you won't survive financially any other way.

Re: Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
 

Resorts and hotels have been some of the most flagrant abusers of the non law. There is insurance available for commercial AP with RC's. Sorry I don't have the names of any companies but I know its available.

Re: Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
 

Warren
I have 2 mil coverage for accidents while filming in the air. It doesnt cover my equipment ( I didnt want to pay that much) . Its called Aerilpak by Hill and Usher. I spent 1440 for one years coverage. It will be based on your projected income.
Of course my income on this is a wild guess. I just have all my ducks in a row so to speak.
Now, if I needed to make a claim would it cover me? I dont know. But I do know these guys have been underwriting these policies sense 2007

http://aerialpak.com/

Re: Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
 

sorry, delete