BUSINESS AND MARKETING: Business and Marketing Forum Business and Marketing Articles

An article on UAV's that brings logic to the current US situation

COW Forums : Business & Marketing

<< PREVIOUS   •   FAQ   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Rich RubaschAn article on UAV's that brings logic to the current US situation
by on Aug 27, 2014 at 4:41:57 pm

http://markeemagazine.com/wp/filming-model-helicopter-legal/

Great read.

Rich

Rich Rubasch
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production, Post, Studio Sound Stage
Founder/President/Editor/Designer/Animator
http://www.tiltmedia.com


Return to posts index

Todd TerryRe: An article on UAV's that brings logic to the current US situation
by on Aug 27, 2014 at 5:13:44 pm

It will certainly be interesting to see what happens with this.

We happen to own one, the DJI Phantom Vision2+ and it does shoot unbelievably good video, especially for the price (I think it was about $1600). It has a 3-axis stabilized gimbal and a 16 megapixel camera which is absolutely rock solid. When hovering at altitude I sometimes have been known to double check the monitor to make sure it isn't stuck on a still frame because it is so rock solid in the air.

That being said, we have not used it on a single "real" project, and I'm still fuzzy on the legalities of doing so.

We were recently visited by a friend and his biz partner who have started an aerial photography company, and they have three DJI helicopters (the really big ones, not the little one I have)... they've even flown a RED Epic with one of theirs with great success on some Nashville music videos.

This guy claims to have researched it extensively. When I asked him if it was legal, he claimed that the more important distinction was that is was not illegal... that although the FAA does not allow unmanned aerial vehicles for commercial use, nor do they really have anything on the books that specifically prohibit them either, nor laws with any teeth to quash such efforts (as evidenced by the fine that was overturned).

I asked him though, "But do you have insurance?" which would definitely be a prerequisite for us ever hiring them to sub any aerial work. He basically said "We're working on that," and that so far for existing jobs they've considered themselves a subcontractor under the insurance of their vendor. I told him that wouldn't fly (so to speak) with us, that I know for a fact that our insurance company would never extend coverage to them if there were a claim, that they would jump all over the gray-area legality of it all.

If we ever do use our helicopter on a "real" shoot, I'll work around it. It's actually not a company toy, I bought it with my own money and technically own it myself. I personally don't see any problem with me shooting, as a private individual hobbyist, and giving the footage free to my company to use. Of course that probably is not what the FAA would consider in the "spirit of the law," but the law is still very undefined.

The Phantom certainly is fun and easy to fly. I might help some that I am also a pilot (fixed-wing) and went into it at least semi knowing what I was doing, but when the thing locks into eight different GPS satellites, I honestly think a kid could do it. On the downside that's probably going to make for a huge proliferation of these things.

We shall see...

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com



Return to posts index

Rich RubaschRe: An article on UAV's that brings logic to the current US situation
by on Aug 27, 2014 at 6:24:22 pm

Exactly where I sit...Thanks Terry....

Rich Rubasch
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production, Post, Studio Sound Stage
Founder/President/Editor/Designer/Animator
http://www.tiltmedia.com


Return to posts index


Mark SuszkoRe: An article on UAV's that brings logic to the current US situation
by on Aug 30, 2014 at 4:59:13 am

At the very least, commercial, for-profit drones of any type should be required to run a Mode S transponder, which would allow full scale aircraft to see (detect is a better word) and avoid them. It would also identify the guy or gal using one when they screw up and cause an incident.

Just as vital, any commercial flying camera system should be required to have a safety pilot responsible only for controlling the craft and keeping it safe at all times, while a second person operates the camera system.

Third, the on board electronic "brains" of these devices can and should have hard limits programmed for altitude and distance from the transmitter with a fail safe mode of immediately soft-landing if it loses link to the control pilot or breaks thru an invisible virtual "box" of the operational zone.

Hobby flyers, flying from official and recognized model flying fields, would not be required to follow those rules, as long as they limited their flying to the range of the field and 200 feet.

Flying a non-commercial hobby type drone in a public area that is NOT a registered club field should require proof of insurance, at the very least. The size of the craft could be used as a benchmark for making a pro/amateur distinction, to limit the amount of damage it could do.

I like quadcopters. I own one. I also own RC planes. We already have enough problems with uneducated people buying cheap RC "toys" and crashing them in local parks and neighborhood streets, making it tougher every year for the rule-abiding hobbyists to enjoy their sport. It would be nice if commercial users would self-police like most of the hobbyists routinely do. But the commercial users typically don't have any heritage of self-policed flying under safety rules and regs like the hobby community does. RC Model flyers have worked with the FAA and FCC since the 1920's in a great example of civilian/government cooperation and partnership. I get a little upset when someone who, on a sudden impulse, wants to become a flying cameraman just grabs a DJ Phantom system off the shelf and runs out to a public place to start learning to fly it, without any training, advanced study, or supervision. When they screw up, and that's almost inevitable, it winds up hurting legit flying clubs. That bothers me.

You can't just go joyriding the streets anywhere with a truck-mounted 20-foot jib to shoot live chases, without having to do at least a *little* paperwork. Why should there be an expectation of a non-regulated environment for commercial flying camera systems? Especially ones that operate so low and close to people and property?




















http://nofilmschool.com/2013/10/dji-phantom-quadcopter-crashes-manhattan/

http://www.personal-drones.net/tag/crash/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/06/14/video-shows-kings-fans...


These took five seconds to find online, and this is what the general public, and state and local government, is going to take away from the situation of unregulated usage.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]