Unmanned aerials; why the FAA is concerned

[Mike P.]

Yeah, that all makes sense. I wasn't so much referring to people operating their vehicles responsibly, so much as them not using the vehicles for something irresponsible (like intentionally doing harm). That said, just as someone doesn't want to crash their car, I'd imagine most people wouldn't want to crash their remote controlled helicopters/cameras. Also, people are allowed to drive (if it's on private property, you may not even require a licence), but I was under the impression the FAA is trying to restrict who can operate those remote controlled helicopters more actively/aggressively, implying they're more deadly than a car, bike, tractor, lawnmower, or any other vehicle (when really, they'd be less deadly, since no one is in them).

I dunno, the only scenario where I see UAVs being used for our purposes would be really low altitude (slightly above trees, over houses, and things) which could be achieved on private property (assuming it isn't downtown). Anything broader/higher than that, and it'd probably make more sense renting a helicopter anyway (assuming it's within budget).

[Tom Hamilton]

Horses for courses. Heli-shots are great, and a solid tool for many really high-end productions, but they are really expensive. Unfortunately, they can't get the super close-in stuff the RC guys have been excelling at.

Have a look at the Government of Mexico Tourism Authority's latest piece for a really good example of that. I was in Baja on a shoot recently, and the piece was playing on all the monitors throughout the airport, mesmerizing stuff, no way to get those shots other than RC.

I really hope for a solution here.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

That said, just as someone doesn't want to crash their car, I'd imagine most people wouldn't want to crash their remote controlled helicopters/cameras. Also, people are allowed to drive (if it's on private property, you may not even require a licence), but I was under the impression the FAA is trying to restrict who can operate those remote controlled helicopters more actively/aggressively, implying they're more deadly than a car, bike, tractor, lawnmower, or any other vehicle (when really, they'd be less deadly, since no one is in them).

I'm far more incentivized to not crash my car (since I'm in it) than to not crash a helicopter. Also we don't just let people drive cars we require dozens of hours of experience and a certification/testing process which means UAVs are treated the same as a car. Also piloting a UAV is far more difficult than driving a car. I've seen way more uav crashes than car crashes.

I think there should be some regulation. I think if you fly an aircraft more than 5lbs you should require a license of some form. And you should be limited to 100' or so. All similar to current RC aircraft regulations. I also think that you should be able to build, license and market aircraft which require no licensing if they are purely automated (GPS waypoint system only).

[Tom Hamilton]

I also think that you should be able to build, license and market aircraft which require no licensing if they are purely automated (GPS waypoint system only).

Gavin, can you expand on that? Not quite clear what you mean.

[Cliff Hokanson]

wow will that take a Epic Camera

[Tom Hamilton]

Yes, there are rigs out there with Epics on board, just make sure the operator knows what he is doing, and your insurance cover will pay for an Epic crash.