Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'legal'.
Greetings, My name is Silvio Facchin, I am a UAV alumni, a Certified Remote Pilot and a Certified Legal Video Specialist. The company I work for, TSG Reporting, Inc. is in the process of adding aerial inspections to our line of legal video services. Because we are a national company, we need to be able to provide all our services in all States. It is because of this requirement that I need to create a roster of Certified Remote Pilots and the locations they cover. If you are interested, please send me an email with your company information, areas you cover and prices to email@example.com Please, understand that this is the first phase of this process; it is intended to gather information and include you on our roster for possible work in the future. Thank you so much for your time!
On Oct 3, almost 4 months ago, I sent an email to the ATL FSDO as follows. " I currently hold a Part 107 remote pilot certificate (temporary). Obviously, if I am operating a sUAV commercially I must abide by the Part 107 regulations. However, if I am operating recreationally am I bound by the hobbyist guidelines or must I always operate under the Part 107 regulations?" I never got a reply and had given up. Today I got an email saying they have been having email problems and to call if I still needed assistance. At first I thought why bother since I will most likely get a recording or no human. Man, was I wrong. Got a guy who really knows his UAV stuff and while some may feel that the answer was obvious, I wanted to be certain. Yes, I can have the best of both worlds is the bottom line. However, as an inspector he suggested that a copy of those community based guidelines be included in the manual that I keep handy in case of an inspection. So for those that are AMA members (I need to re-join) for example, have all that info handy if operating non-commercially in controlled airspace and after proper notification has been provided to Airport management and local tower, if there is one. He also emphasized that you do not need permission, you simply must notify. The good news is that I can now fly from my front lawn!
For those who have not seen this yet. The fine was negotiated but bear in mind it was sort of a barter deal. They traded off making PSA's. Folks don't realize that the NYC area is HIGHLY controlled airspace and FAA has a very large staff in the area as well. Know your airspace! For Immediate Release January 17, 2017 Contact: Laura Brown (firstname.lastname@example.org) / Les Dorr (email@example.com) Phone: 202-359-3680 or 202-267-3461 WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration today announced a comprehensive settlement agreement with SkyPan International, Inc., of Chicago. The agreement resolves enforcement cases that alleged the company operated unmanned aircraft (UAS) in congested airspace over New York City and Chicago, and violated airspace regulations and aircraft operating rules. Under the terms of the agreement, SkyPan will pay a $200,000 civil penalty. The company also agrees to pay an additional $150,000 if it violates Federal Aviation Regulations in the next year, and $150,000 more if it fails to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. SkyPan also agrees to work with the FAA to release three public service announcements in the next 12 months to support the FAA’s public outreach campaigns that encourage drone operators to learn and comply with UAS regulations. The agreement settles enforcement cases involving a $1.9 million civil penalty that the FAA proposed against SkyPan International, Inc. of Chicago in October 2015. It is the largest civil penalty the agency has proposed against a UAS operator. SkyPan Press Release
Lead paragraph from the Pop Sci article this week, with link at the end: http://www.popsci.com/it-is-federal-crime-to-shoot-down-drone-says-faa They need to be more precise--is the crime the act of shooting, or only if you are successful at shooting it down?? They say the latter but it I'm quite certain it's the former, regardless of success or not. Same law that they use to file charges against people using lasers against aircraft, I believe.