Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/10/2018 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Hi guys! Short film of an abandoned factory explore - used the drone inside for a few shots along with the train-yard stuff. Thanks for watching!
  2. 1 point
    I think this is all a really great discussion. For me, I assume every flight is a commercial flight even if it is for "recreational" purposes. I think this should be the case for every Part 107 pilot. What if I am flying recreationally and I end up taking an amazing photo or video? Now I go and sell that image (or enter it into a film festival, etc). Does the flight that occurred in the past now become a commercial flight? Was what I did "illegal" for a commercial pilot and flight? I think the rules should essentially be the same for Part 107 or hobbyist with Part 107 pilots given more freedom to fly in the rules. (ie, there are parts of Atlanta, GA where I am based that I can fly under Part 107 but a hobbyist - in theory - can't/shouldn't). As has been stated, unless the FAA cracks down or the drone manufacturers impose restrictions on the device whether you are Part 107 or not, there will continue to be individuals who will pick and choose whether their flight was Part 107 or hobbyist to suit the needs of that particular flight.
  3. 1 point
    Just because someone put a list of "rules" on a website does not make it so. Also, they can't be indemnified simply by paragraph 4. Will the operator be liable for damages? Sure, but so will BRC. They deserve credit for at least trying to accommodate UAV's but this is where the vagueness of the FAA policies screws things up.
  4. 1 point
    There’s a lot there to talk about. It’s not up to the operator to determine whether their activity is commercial or not. It costs more than $500 to attend and you have to pay to get credentialed to shoot there. So yes this is commercial. If everyone were permitted to pursue a passion for aerial photography then it might be considered non commercial but that’s not the case. Also he did a pickup shot for a foreign documentary how can anyone argue this was non commercial. One thing that cracks me up is that no matter how a bunch of millennial earth cookies want to spin Burning Man, it brings in more that $35M in revenue and some of the exhibits probably costs more than $1M. This is every bit as commercial as an NFL game. They want to claim that it’s art, that’s fine but apparently photography is not an acceptable art form. They are certainly entitled to make the rules, but to cliam this isn’t a commercial activity and that it has some sort of social redeeming value is kind of hypocritical. Obviously this guy does not have a 107 certificate. If he did he’d know that Burning Man doesn’t have the authority to restrict him from flying there unless the FAA issued a TFR. They can stop him from landing and taking off inside the area defined in the permit for the event but they don’t regulate airspace. They certainly don’t have the authority to grant him permission to fly at night or over people. The guy did a great job, this is a well produced video, but I it should be reported for what it is. No matter the intent, this video promotes a commercial venture which by the FAA’s definition makes it commercial.