FAA is blocking commercial use of quads?

[zinkracer]

OK, I'm brand new to all this. A person who is selling his rig posted this comment, This craft has been professionally built by me and has been flown for about total 1 hour time. Never crashed as I am a experienced RC freak and have been flying for over 30 years. I am selling because I purchased all this equipment for commercial reasons. FAA has put a damper on that so time to let it go and get on with other things"

What is he talking about?

Thanks for any information.

JG

 

[Carapau]

In short the FAA have not got to the point where they are allowing commercial use of drones although they are currently working on it. There are a few people out there testing the system so to speak and a lot of people working on the premiss of 'don't get caught'. There is quite a lot out there about the FAA and the fact that with regard to drones it is well behind the power curve.

 

[zinkracer]

Thanks, Carapau. Seems there are quite a few businesses out there openly advertising their drone/MR services. Any idea how they are insured?

 

[kloner]

you can buy insurance, best one going right now is Transport Risk Management. Tell em kloner sent ya

It is currently unlawful to fly, over 80 cease and desist letters have been sent and they have never succesfuly charged anybody or even gone past a cease and decist letter cause they don't have a law that your breaking to charge you with. America, love the place....

good luck in your ventures..... if you target filming the public, your rules are gonna come after 2015, if you do things that doesn't capture the public like movie sets, farming, your gonna be getting rules to follow sooner,,, a lot sooner. I flew 2 gigs in the last 6 months with permits and the faa's knowledge that it was happening, right down downtown newark and out in the Sedona national forrest. One was approved by homeland security and gov Christie, other approved by the usda.....

 

[seattle_helo]

Steve, be careful with TRM. We looked at those guys a while back but had to move on. Any coverage you think you have is invalidated by language in the TRM application concerning legal use. "COVERAGE WILL NOT APPLY TO LOSSES ASSOCIATED WITH UNLAWFUL USES AND OPERATIONS." If someone gets hurt on set the policy would never hold up in a court of law unless you have a SOC or COA, which by definition you can not have.

 

[kloner]

I have my medical and we are on track to a pilot program to fly with coa. were on the right track i hope, that or fast track to jail....

the biggest thing it offers is hull coverage, flying or not. my home owners doesn't cover it, no regular business coverage covers so much gear with no knowledge, the airlines don't cover such a high loss if it came up missing in transport. Good advice though to those not wanting to play by the rules. just like anything, get in a car without a license drunk and yea, your gonna get burned. Luckily these union 600 gigs are fully covered by the unions, if you can get that route, highly recomended to make sure your trully covered, have the attorney your taking to court with you to fight it look over any policy before purchasing.

The folks at transport risk have became good friends of ours and have always asked how high when we ask them to jump.

 

[SoCal Blur]

I have my medical and we are on track to a pilot program to fly with coa. were on the right track i hope, that or fast track to jail....

the biggest thing it offers is hull coverage, flying or not. my home owners doesn't cover it, no regular business coverage covers so much gear with no knowledge, the airlines don't cover such a high loss if it came up missing in transport. Good advice though to those not wanting to play by the rules. just like anything, get in a car without a license drunk and yea, your gonna get burned. Luckily these union 600 gigs are fully covered by the unions, if you can get that route, highly recomended to make sure your trully covered, have the attorney your taking to court with you to fight it look over any policy before purchasing.

The folks at transport risk have became good friends of ours and have always asked how high when we ask them to jump.

How would you classify their rate schedule? Is it reasonable to get Hull and say Liability coverage through them or does it make more sense just to put a bond in the bank?

 

[zinkracer]

Primarily intend to do real estate and tourism promotion. Should I worry?

 

[zinkracer]

Article in a trucking industry trade magazine- FAA puts kabosh on beer delivery!

Article appeared in Transport Topics today. "FAA Ices Drone Delivery".

Lakemaid Beer in MN. Was planning to deliver 12 packs to ice fishermen. The company owner posted his plans on Facebook and the FAA found it. they "told Supple his commercial use of an unmanned aircraft isn't permitted". I guess he's smaller than Amazon. :livid:

JG

 

[kloner]

zink, your the one that needs it most, imagine sending it into somebody, a street with cars driving and it starts a chain reaction accident.

that's up to the biz owner to decide. we have a 5million dollar liability, medical, hull coverage, etc. for 2 of em worth around $35k replacement is like 3000 a year, i think. i started wit hill and usher and all they offer is liability, it was alot less but zero hull coverage. We can get waivers from TRM for reds owned by others, etc. if nothing else it gets you in the door

 

[Motopreserve]

Steve, be careful with TRM. We looked at those guys a while back but had to move on. Any coverage you think you have is invalidated by language in the TRM application concerning legal use. "COVERAGE WILL NOT APPLY TO LOSSES ASSOCIATED WITH UNLAWFUL USES AND OPERATIONS." If someone gets hurt on set the policy would never hold up in a court of law unless you have a SOC or COA, which by definition you can not have.

Wouldn't this wording only let the insurance company off the hook if there was actually such a law on the books?

 

[zinkracer]

Thanks again, Kloner.

 

[gtranquilla]

Yes..... we hear a lot of that sort of negativity in the MR world right now with respect to FAA rules, regulations, insurance etc.
But once you get to the other side of the fence with the paperwork, insurance etc. you will begin to see it all differently assuming you are still able to make a profit.

Tell us more about your MR system..... are you starting out small and working your way up?

OK, I'm brand new to all this. A person who is selling his rig posted this comment, This craft has been professionally built by me and has been flown for about total 1 hour time. Never crashed as I am a experienced RC freak and have been flying for over 30 years. I am selling because I purchased all this equipment for commercial reasons. FAA has put a damper on that so time to let it go and get on with other things"

What is he talking about?

Thanks for any information.

JG

 

[kloner]

that is ours and our attorneys stand on the entire thing. to us anything illegal would be flying recklessly or inebriated.... get the medical is the main thing inside the actual policy and states something like get coa when applicable. There not dumb, there in this to help make an industry. it is uav insurance. i haven't filed a claim so can't say for absolute certain but you can't suck blood from a turnip so there isn't a lot at stake, yet.

 

[Motopreserve]

that is ours and our attorneys stand on the entire thing. to us anything illegal would be flying recklessly or inebriated.... get the medical is the main thing inside the actual policy and states something like get coa when applicable. There not dumb, there in this to help make an industry. it is uav insurance. i haven't filed a claim so can't say for absolute certain but you can't suck blood from a turnip so there isn't a lot at stake, yet.

Sorry, should have clarified. Yes, I believe any time you are being reckless or negligent there can be a case - whether you're acting reckless or negligent with a multirotor or a car etc.

But in terms of claiming that using the MR commercially is illegal I believe would require a law/legislation to be passed through state/fed congress, before an insurance company could use such language to wriggle out of a policy.

 

[ghaynes]

Kloner there is a current case with a pending $10,000 fine in front of the NTSB Administrative Law Judge for Raphael Pirker. A company in California also faced a $10,000 fine for operating at Alcatraz. Not an MR, it was an SR, so there are folks that have gone past the cease and desist. Watching the Pirker case closely. He was not charged with operating commercially. He was charged with reckless operation.

 

[Motopreserve]

The Trappy case is fascinating. I've been following it as well. There is definitely a distinction between 'cease and desist commercial activity' and the reckless operation charge. For some situations, it seems obvious that the reckless charge is an end run until they can get laws on the books to catch up with the technology (which is looking like 2015 or later).

The sad thing is that even if the CaD letter is not legitimate/legal - many will acquiesce due to potential legal fees. Fighting any federal case, whether you win or lose, can be very expensive.

 

[seattle_helo]

The whole reason any of this is happening is money.

The Parker case is interesting but only scratches the surface. It's when someone gets hurt that a true precedent will be set.

Just be real careful with any sUAS liability coverage as most of the known carriers have this kind of weasel language that indemnifies them.

nick

 

[zinkracer]

Tell us more about your MR system..... are you starting out small and working your way up?

Yes, I am practicing with the small inexpensive stuff & trying to decide what is the best next logical platform. I'd rather avoid 3 steps up to a decent aerial photo/video rig, but this is a confusing marketplace for a newbie. Appreciate any recommendations. My business aim is for the local resort real estate and attractions properties around here - what we locally call the High Country of western NC. I suppose that terminology has new meaning in CO.

JG

 

[kloner]

Kloner there is a current case with a pending $10,000 fine in front of the NTSB Administrative Law Judge for Raphael Pirker. A company in California also faced a $10,000 fine for operating at Alcatraz. Not an MR, it was an SR, so there are folks that have gone past the cease and desist. Watching the Pirker case closely. He was not charged with operating commercially. He was charged with reckless operation.

I work with Trappy often...... know all about it

They only send cease and desist cause the federal DA has no law you broke to charge you with. Look into it, 83 letters, not one person brought to court. I'm working with the faa now, so my renegade days of filming for hire is over and i've commited to going above the table and only working what and when they want me too. Like a monshiner going legal..... There is 6 companies like mine that have raised our hands and begun working with them.


Without insurance none of that is possible so if they protect my llc or if it gets eaten up, either way i'll still be doing what i'm doing. Thats why we create all the layers...... The faa is being extremely receptive to getting a few associations off there back, namely movies and farming. The rest of you looks like will have to wait for the whole privacy issue, but for closed sets and private property like a farm, there looking like there gonna start passing it through. Both have been putting alot of pressure on the senate to push the faa into submission. Besides us is automated car systems that use cameras and want in too. Theres alot of privacy issues coming up across many new techs so there will be an answer pretty soon i feel to accept it. A clearing house where all your film goes to get anti faced and dissapears after so long... something is gonna happen, not sure exactly what but something


10k aint bad,,,, even if it came to that