So this just came out, a selfie style autonomous drone. Looks like a toy but technically wouldn't it fall under the same drone rules as DJI drones? How many "infuencers" on YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat going to be posting pic without realizing they need a part 107 license? Will the FAA just look the other way?
New Pixy Drone...No License Required?
- Thread starter Skyryder
- Start date
It is just a toy
and ...
You don't need Part 107 to post pics or videos online anyway.
You don't need a 107 to legally post videos on YouTube and Instagram. If your in the US all you need is a trust certificate. Also if the aircraft is below the weight limit it may not even need to be registered.
It's not a toy though, those are not 5 year old kids in the add. In the US even if it's just for recreation you have to take a very simple safety test from the FAA called TRUST.
You do if if the site is monetized. Influences, people who have YouTube channels with lots of followers are allowed to get paid money for the number of clicks they get. Anyone who gets more than 1,000 followers is allowed to flip that switch and start receiving money from YouTube. That's why so many of them have a "thank you"video when they reach that number. What they don't usually mention is they can start making money at that point. And 1,000 fallowers in a drop in the bucket in that world.
According to the FAA anyone making money that way is supposed to have a part 107 license. They have already gone after several people on YouTube just for posting drone videos.
And how many of the folks that buy that little toy are in that league?
Almost none?
Almost none? The average age of most of those famous "influencers" is 25. TikTok is 16. There are millions of young teens all wanting to get rich that way. It's your "intent" to make money is kind of how the FAA looks at it.
9 Year old boy named highest earning You Tuber 2020
9-Year-Old Boy Is Named Highest-Earning YouTube Star Of 2020
So nearly everyone that buys one of those toys is a Youtube millionaire or will be?
You would have a hard time flying this dopey little toy anywhere that would get you into trouble with the FAA.
It's an almost useless, toy, flying selfie camera.
It has no controller and you can't do much to control it.
It weighs 100 grams, a flight time of about two minutes and a range of about 30 feet and height limit of around 15 feet.
Last edited:
Right but it's not about hurting someone. That's not how the FAA structures their drone rules. They claim it's all about your intent to profit using a drone, then you are required to have a license. They have no exemption for "toy" size drones.
Think about it, what if someone came up with a drone that was somewhere between this Pixy and a Mini 2. Where is the line that you say OK, it's now a real drone and subject to FAA regulations?
I can't tell why you are so worked up about this inconsequential little toy.
First you asked: Will the FAA turn a blind eye?
Then you got all excited about how many influencers would use it without a 107
Now you are asking where I draw some imaginary line.
Answer .. I don't.
It's a dopey little toy that got no real range or altitude limit.
If anyone manages to get it into some dangerous situation, that comes to the attention of the FAA, they probably won't turn a blind eye.
I just think it's next to impossible to get to that stage with this toy and can't see any point getting so worked up about improbably hypothetical scenarios.
I am not worked up about the drone. What I am getting at is how the FAA has a blanket regulation about forcing everyone who posts a video on YouTube with the intent of making money is subject to a fine. You dont have to be an influencer, I was just using that as an example. Even if you only post one clip from a Mini on YouTube and it's linked to a stock video site, technically, the FAA requires you to get a part 107 license. I am pointing out that I bet they will not enforce the law equally.
Has anyone been seriously hurt from a Mini? Maybe every drone under 250g should be exempt from having to get a part 107. Again, it's not about the danger according the the FAA it's about you having the intent to make a profit even from a single picture that the regulation applies.
Last edited:
You are taking things a lot more seriously that the FAA does.
They have fined very few for the offences you are excited about, no matter how big the drone they've used.
And in a very limited case, you don't even need the TRUST certificate.
If it's flown exclusively inside, the FAA has no jurisdiction...
;-)
Digital Air
Member
Most of the shots are not inside though. Even the CEO of the product is outside doing his demo. I think it's made by SnapChat.
EpicFlight
Well-Known Member
Sort-of-rant follows, but you're gonna want to read it and comment
When was the scourge of injuries from drone idiots that prompted and justified many of the restrictions in the US? The far more restrictive EU regs?
About half the rules in the US make sense, the other half are overbearing nannyism rooted in ignorance and power mongering (true of a lot of law and regulation). In the EU the recreational regs are about 3/4 overweening nonsense.
It's informative to have been in this hobby for over 8 years, watch the pilot community experience explosive growth, including a bunch of reckless jaboneys, and at the same time the serious incident occurrence explosion... not happen.
The FACT is widespread ownership and operation of recreational drones has not resulted in an epidemic of injuries, property damage (other than drones
), manned aircraft falling from the sky, anonymous drones everywhere harassing the public constantly.Nope. Rather, I still get curious people from time to time that have heard of, but never actually seen a drone.
The open skies are a big place. Very big. There are many necessary, sensible regulations. There are also a bunch of unnecessary, nanny-state regs that serve no necessary purpose, serving only to harass Free people, which in the US have a constitutional right not to be harassed in anticipation of what might happen in theory.
Easy example: Requiring a TRUST cert to fly a $30 nano quad in your backyard. Such a toy should be no more regulated than a golf ball. Seriously, I've seen and heard about golf ball injuries far more than anything from drones.
Last edited:
One saying in full-sized aviation is that VFR isn't really based on "see and avoid". It's really based on the "Big Sky, Small Airplane" theory!
And even the FPV is a very great deal smaller than a C-172!
EpicFlight
Well-Known Member
Yuppers! something coming at you from 5 o'clock when you're flying VFR in a 152 is gonna hit you. That's when you'll be aware of them.
Flew VFR a bunch in the late 80s and 90s. Was working on my instrument rating when it just got too expensive to rent wet, so I gave up that dream, and moved on to hangliding! Then, after a few years of that I got married, lost my trim, Adonis figure to 10 extra pounds and Hangliding was kaput.
Thank the engineering gods for RC quads. I'm 60 now, with physical deteriorating, well, EVERYTHING, and I can sit in a chair and have more fun flying than I ever did behind the controls of an actual airplane.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
DJI Air 2S Fly More Combo (w/ 4th Battery) FOR SALE $650- Started by Dan AISCF
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Forum statistics
