Gongrats to Aerial MOB and Mr. Kloner......well done

[ChrisViperM]

Just found this on the net....not even sure if Kloner read it alredy....nevertheless:

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics...considers-approving-drones-for-filming-movies

Well done dude....


Chris

 

[jes1111]

From that article:

To receive the exemptions, the companies must show their drone operations won't harm safety, and would be in the public interest.

Plenty of other uses meet would/could meet those criteria, perhaps even more so than film production - agriculture, search & rescue, etc.

I cannot understand why the FAA is dragging their heels on this - it doesn't make any sense, considering the pressure they're under. In fact, the only rational explanation, to my mind, is that they doing so deliberately. Perhaps they've been told to - but by whom and why?

 

[ChrisViperM]

I guess the FAA is doing this in order to put them a bit more away from being "losers" and pretending being pro-active. Fact is: They screwed the whole thing up big time, and I guess it won't help them to avoid being draged to court by Tim, Tom and Harry....they still don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Still happy for Kloner and his crew.....I just like him a lot

Chris

 

[Motopreserve]

Very cool Kloner. I hope they turn it from "considering" to approved quickly.

At this point I wonder if the feet-dragging is simply saving face. They've made it out to be something that takes YEARS of study and research to determine whether/how it's safe. If they now just flip-flopped and said it's fine to fly, they would look incredibly foolish, and like just another re-tape laden bureaucratic agency.

Theres no question that there are plenty of uses that could benefit society - and making sure it's safe (and not interfering with manned aircraft) should be paramount. But in order to remain relevant in the debate - it seems the FAA has made a mountain out of a molehill...

 

[kloner]

:tears_of_joy:

if it goes through it'll open the door

 

[jfro]

I view this with a mixed opinion. FAA needs to do something and this will certainly open the door a crack. However, I'm not sure I like the idea of a handful of companies getting a first license to the exclusion of others. I'd much rather them come up with an application process for anyone.

I've no direct knowledge if there are other companies that fly for Hollywood or have done TV Commercials around the country that aren't on the list, but I'll bet my friggin car there are a whole bunch of people/companies who have experience and are qualified to be licensed that aren't on the list. I believe in open competition in a capitalistic society and this doesn't seem to be the best way of accomplishing equal competition.

Like I said, view this with mixed emotions. If I were qualified and lived out there, I'd certainly be a proud and happy dude if I were on the list. Good luck to all on the list. At least it's a start.

 

[kloner]

anybody in the world can apply like we did any day of the week. can't say anything right now other than it's not some priveleged thing.....it will set precedence either way it finishes

 

[jes1111]

...they would look incredibly foolish, and like just another re-tape laden bureaucratic agency.

More foolish and red-tape laden than they already look?

Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the ****-up theory.
—Bernard Ingham

 

[Motopreserve]

More foolish and red-tape laden than they already look?

Mo guess I imagine that if the FAA makes it look like this is an overly complicated, complex task, it will appear to those who have no understanding of this technology that the time it has taken will have been well spent. Unless congress informs themselves on what they've tasked the FAA to do - they could easily accept the FAA's assessment and procedure.

It's all relative, right? To my mother-in-law I look like a super-genius when I sit at her computer and actually get it to print.

 

[...guest...]

The FAA is making more of a fool of themselves than solidifying any political foothold they *think* they might be able to garner by dragging this thing out. I mean cmon guys, you got whipped in FEDERAL COURT by SOME KID with a glider and a camera. Take your losses and move on already.

 

[tstrike]

anybody in the world can apply like we did any day of the week. can't say anything right now other than it's not some priveleged thing.....it will set precedence either way it finishes

I'd seen another article that just said 7 companies had applied but didn't list any names. I knew you guys were gonna be one of'em, ya tenacious bas$$rd. Good luck dude!

 

[{}{steve}{}]

New guy here so please forgive my ignorance...I thought a federal judge ruled that the FAA had no jurisdiction over the commercial use of drones until they came up with drone specific regulations?

 

[Motopreserve]

New guy here so please forgive my ignorance...I thought a federal judge ruled that the FAA had no jurisdiction over the commercial use of drones until they came up with drone specific regulations?

a judge threw out the Trappy case, but the FAA immediately appealed. There is still too much that is vague and awaiting these regulations for many to feel totally comfortable moving forward with commercial use.

 

[SamaraMedia]

Congrats Kloner, Treggon, JCMonty and the whole crew at AerialMOB, leaders in technological genius. Good luck with the process guys. I'm looking at this as a positive move for those in the industry that hope to someday make a living from this. Regardless of what the courts have ruled and what the FAA thinks, having true pros, like the seven parties that applied, in the forefront of what may very well become SOP for future FAA regulations is all good from where I'm sitting.

 

[Av8Chuck]

a judge threw out the Trappy case, but the FAA immediately appealed. There is still too much that is vague and awaiting these regulations for many to feel totally comfortable moving forward with commercial use.

I totally agree, unfortunately I'm not sure this will ever be resolved in a manner that would prevent some administrative pinhead from putting us all out of business with the stroke of a pen.

I also have nothing against those that are trying to gain clarification and wish them luck -- BUT -- [FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO USE UAV FOR COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. So there is no need for this petition. The administrative judge dismissed the case with prejudice, which means the FAA could not re-submit on a technicality. So the FAA said that it would appeal the case with the full NTSB board, however, the NTSB does not actually have to take up the case in part because the initial "federal" judge said that the FAA didn't have jurisdiction over RC aircraft which means they don't have standing. The only way they can get standing for the appeal is if they actually do what they were supposed to do in the first place and that is to go through the NPRM process. As far as I know the NTSB has not agreed to hear the appeal.

Also the FAA's claim that while under appeal the rules go back to the way it was prior to the ruling, THERE WERE NO RULES PRIOR TO THE RULING WHICH IS WHY TJEY LOST THE CASE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The problem I have with people asking for exemptions, especially with an organization like the MPAA is that it will politicize the NPRM process. Why should the FAA grant exceptions to anyone? Because it puts[/FONT] the FAA in the business of choosing which of us can make money and those that can't.[FONT=verdana, geneva, lucida, lucida grande, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]

This whole thing is totally f&$%ed up and its the FAA's fault. [/FONT]

 

[SamaraMedia]

Well said.

 

[{}{steve}{}]

The whole situation is just so confusing to me. I've been thinking about shooting real estate videos for a local realtor , who has asked me if I would be interested in providing tem with aerials for all their listings, but I want to do it right if I do it (get insured and be hired as a subcontractor). Are the laws so gray that I should be concerned about doing this as a part-time gig?

 

[Motopreserve]

I'd be curious to know if the FAA has been ballsy enough to send out fine/cease and desist letters since the Trappy case was ruled on.

Steve, I think at this point some people are "risking it" and dealing with the potential consequences if/when they come - and some choose to wait out the officials dragging their feet (which seems like it could take forever). Some of the pros here would know better than I.

Also, there have been laws passed in certain states (for instance: Texas seems to have an exemption for real estate photography of I read the law correctly). I think the AMA has a map that lists all the specifics on a state by state basis.

Go go ahead a slap your location in your profile - it will help people help you in the future.

 

[{}{steve}{}]

I'd be curious to know if the FAA has been ballsy enough to send out fine/cease and desist letters since the Trappy case was ruled on.

Steve, I think at this point some people are "risking it" and dealing with the potential consequences if/when they come - and some choose to wait out the officials dragging their feet (which seems like it could take forever). Some of the pros here would know better than I.

Also, there have been laws passed in certain states (for instance: Texas seems to have an exemption for real estate photography of I read the law correctly). I think the AMA has a map that lists all the specifics on a state by state basis.

Go go ahead a slap your location in your profile - it will help people help you in the future.

Thanks, Moto, I'll get my profile updated now, and I'll take a look at the AMA website. I totally forgot they were working on keeping track of all of the laws in each state.

 

[Motopreserve]

Here is a link to the map: LEGISLATION.