I was thinking of using my Mavic Pro 1 as a steady cam and it occurred to me, if I am not flying do I need to do the RID thing with it?
Will it still let me film, even in NFZ
Will it still let me film, even in NFZ
The camera still works, but it won't have z-axis compensation, so to counter the bounce you get with forward movement, you'd have to adopt the 'ninja walk'.I was thinking of using my Mavic Pro 1 as a steady cam and it occurred to me, if I am not flying do I need to do the RID thing with it?
Will it still let me film, even in NFZ
Just great, I already have a "Silly Walk" (insert Monty Python image here.) from back surgery. Can a ninja walk with a limp?The camera still works, but it won't have z-axis compensation, so to counter the bounce you get with forward movement, you'd have to adopt the 'ninja walk'.
Now I see John Cleese's walk, thanks.Just great, I already have a "Silly Walk" (insert Monty Python image here.) from back surgery. Can a ninja walk with a limp?
The FAA has absolutely no jurisdiction or authority over any aircraft unless it flies.
I agree with you. I guess he should have said unless the aircraft is being operated.While I agree that there's no issue with what the OP proposes, I think that statement is just a bit too simplistic to be accurate.
Not even that. "And that 767 could never even get an airworthiness certificate without an ADS-B transponder."I agree with you. I guess he should have said unless the aircraft is being operated.
We're singing off the same hymn sheet regarding lumbar slice'n'dice, so best wishes for the best possible outcome.Just great, I already have a "Silly Walk" (insert Monty Python image here.) from back surgery. Can a ninja walk with a limp?
While I agree that there's no issue with what the OP proposes, I think that statement is just a bit too simplistic to be accurate. I can't agree that FAA regs apply to a 767 rolling down the runway at 135 kts only when the wheels lose contact with the runway. And that 767 could never even get an airworthiness certificate without an ADS-B transponder.
The 767 has nothing to do with the FAA regs governing a UAV under 107.While I agree that there's no issue with what the OP proposes, I think that statement is just a bit too simplistic to be accurate. I can't agree that FAA regs apply to a 767 rolling down the runway at 135 kts only when the wheels lose contact with the runway. And that 767 could never even get an airworthiness certificate without an ADS-B transponder.
As stated in post #8.To his question about RID, it would not apply, he is not flying. And since the motors are not running, nor will they start if in a controlled area, he has nothing to worry about. The camera will still operate.
The OP said he wanted to use it as a ground based steady cam. In your stated hypothetical 767 scenario, if you were using that B767 as a steady cam (because you fitted a camera and gimbal to it), then it would not even need an airworthiness certificate, would it? Therefore, you would not need to have an ADS-B transponder fitted which makes your comment pointless and irrelevant. As has been stated, if you have a flying machine that you no longer will be flying, wishing only to use it as a land based camera, and that includes a drone through to your mentioned 767 aircraft, if you were never again going to leave the ground with it, you would not need any FAA certifications and would not come under any FAA requirements either.While I agree that there's no issue with what the OP proposes, I think that statement is just a bit too simplistic to be accurate. I can't agree that FAA regs apply to a 767 rolling down the runway at 135 kts only when the wheels lose contact with the runway. And that 767 could never even get an airworthiness certificate without an ADS-B transponder.
Actually, it was already properly answered in post #6, simply and clearly, without any confusing reference to any 767 or irrelevant ADS-B to add confusion.As stated in post #8.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.