Rumor of FAA restriction on use of drone photos

[BigAl07]

I agree with you on what the law currently states.
It is what it is.
But, I think it is wrong.
And, I don't think it is Constitutional for them to deny a so called "hobbyist" the right to profit from his hobby by requiring him to jump through bureaucratic hoops. The business side of this has nothing to do with safety.
The FAA should limit their concern to "safety in the air" and not "our right to do business".

It's not far (in principal) from the FAA trying to tell a neighborhood kid that he can't start a lawn mowing business without a license, "because his mower might throw out a rock and kill someone." As if having a license would make it any safer.

And they are not doing us a favor by denying us our rights. We must fight for them or lose them.

When you drive your car down the highway for fun do you have a license? When you drive a vehicle for commerce does it require an additional endorsement/license?

 

[zebojim]

sar104,
We may be in agreement and just have our wires crossed....

I'm ok with the FAA regulating the safety of the air space.

But, I'm not ok with them regulating anything to do with me making a business of it.

If a person lacks a part 107 license, it would limit where he can fly, but still allow him to profit from his photography.

In a nutshell:
- Rule my flying (to make it safer.)
- But stay out of my right to make it into a business.

Otherwise, we are in agreement.

 

[BigAl07]

sar104,
We may be in agreement and just have our wires crossed....

I'm ok with the FAA regulating the safety of the air space.

But, I'm not ok with them regulating anything to do with me making a business of it.

If a person lacks a part 107 license, it would limit where he can fly, but still allow him to profit from his photography.

In a nutshell:
- Rule my flying (to make it safer.)
- But stay out of my right to make it into a business.

Otherwise, we are in agreement.

That's not how the National Airspace System works and it's worked splendidly for many years. Just because everyone now has a sUAS at their disposal is no reason to re-create the wheel. You wanna play in the NAS you learn and play by the rules.

 

[sar104]

sar104,
We may be in agreement and just have our wires crossed....

I'm ok with the FAA regulating the safety of the air space.

But, I'm not ok with them regulating anything to do with me making a business of it.

If a person lacks a part 107 license, it would limit where he can fly, but still allow him to profit from his photography.

In a nutshell:
- Rule my flying (to make it safer.)
- But stay out of my right to make it into a business.

Otherwise, we are in agreement.

No - I think you are still missing the point. The FAA regulates the safety of sUAS operations. Congress required them to cut some slack for recreational users. The absence of that slack would not allow recreational users to conduct commercial operations - it would require all users, recreational and commercial, to have Part 107. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Meta4]

But, I'm not ok with them regulating anything to do with me making a business of it.
If a person lacks a part 107 license, it would limit where he can fly, but still allow him to profit from his photography.

The current system is way, way less restrictive than what wasa in force up till 2016.
If you'd tried to operate with a Section 333 exemption, you'd think part 107 was nothing to worry about.
As restrictions go, it's really not that much.

 

[BigAl07]

The current system is way, way less restrictive than what wasa in force up till 2016.
If you'd tried to operate with a Section 333 exemption, you'd think part 107 was nothing to worry about.
As restrictions go, it's really not that much.

^^^^ Nailed It!!

We operated long before Section 333 and when Part 107 came out we were like, "That's it? Where's the rest of it.... this can't be the whole thing!"

LOL!

 

[zebojim]

When you drive your car down the highway for fun do you have a license? When you drive a vehicle for commerce does it require an additional endorsement/license?

Those licenses have to do with safety on the road. An 18 wheeler should require a special license.
But, a person using his own car does not have to get a special license to do business. (or any other vehicle for which his license is valid.)

I'm not against regulating public safety issues. I am against licensing to be able to use your own car to do business.

Naturally one would be limited in how much stuff one could haul in a small car, but you should not have to get a trucker's license to have a business hauling whatever you can fit in say... a pickup truck.

Regulating Public safety is fine.
Just don't deny someone the right to do business within those safety limits.

 

[Gryphon962]

Those licenses have to do with safety on the road. An 18 wheeler should require a special license.
But, a person using his own car does not have to get a special license to do business. (or any other vehicle for which his license is valid.)

I'm not against regulating public safety issues. I am against licensing to be able to use your own car to do business.

Naturally one would be limited in how much stuff one could haul in a small car, but you should not have to get a trucker's license to have a business hauling whatever you can fit in say... a pickup truck.

Regulating Public safety is fine.
Just don't deny someone the right to do business within those safety limits.

Your opinion that the Federal Government should not be placing any restrictions on what you do if you fly is noted, but that has never been the way aviation (or Government) works and probably never will.

If you passed the test to be a private pilot you can go fly, with passengers, but not 'for hire or reward'. That requires a commercial license.

There seems to be a libertarian theme on this forum that if you can do it safely then what you do while doing it is no business of the government. The problem with that argument is that the libertarian principle - government should legislate only to protect others from your actions - is very relevant here. If you are doing something to make money, then the government is right to make you meet a standard (license) to reduce the risk to others associated by your wish to profit.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Regulating Public safety is fine.
Just don't deny someone the right to do business within those safety limits.

You're lucky that a Part 107 is the only thing you have to worry about. There are a lot of businesses where you'd be required to have various local permits as well as prove you have insurance and licensing.