Quadcopters anyone?

Whaaaa....?
EDIT: Wow. You're right.

 

I see you guys are big on the quad-rotor craft - I haven't seen mention of the consumer entry level Parrot AR 2.0 .. any opinions on that, for those of us perhaps considering one to dip a foot in without getting totally soaking wet in the finance department?

Had an idea to get one for viewing traffic conditions over the highway wall bordering my condo development, as well as deploying for airsoft (yeah, i'm an old fart who plays that!) as well as just general messing about..

Not sure if i would like to take this up as a hobby or not - so not really willing to spend stupid amounts on what may not be for me..

Comments welcome - or even suggestions of similar alternatives in the $300.00 Cdn range.

 

Lets not get started. This debate can go on for years until a law is in effect. In the meantime, there will be those making a ton of money, and those too scared to.

 

Just don't advertise And fly under the radar...

 

lol its a fine line. Just keep anything illegal off TW so the thread doesn't get shut down. Take the convo to PM's if y'all want to continue any further

 

Any suggestions on a quadcopter in the range of 300-350 that supports a go pro very well? I was looking at the 3d iris and may pull the trigger on it if anyoe. Has any opinions

 

mike was saying those are still in the developmental stages are would stay away from them for a while.

add about $100 to your budget and get the DJI phantom.

 

Iris is still very developmental... I'd wait. A friend of mine works at 3DR and has given me the scoop.

 

So the Parrot is ok for what it is, but they get trampled by light breezes fairly easily. To get your feet wet, you can always grab a V-Cam 1SQ for $100 and play with it indoors or outdoors on little to no wind days. It has a camera built in so you can get that "eye in the sky" picture. Plus, it's so cheap if you don't like it you haven't made a huge investment.

 

Fixed it for you

Again, this is what I believe to be accurate. I have been working with the FAA since 2006 on unmanned flight and COAs and EACs, well... you get the picture. The same NPRM, clarification has been used since well before quads were popular machines and were more applicable to true UAS manufacturers flying at RC fields and "commercial" rc operators making a buck with aerial photography.

I know a lot of guys that do AP work with multis... I give them all the same warning - it's just a matter of time. I also think there is a direct correlation with the amount of advertising you do and the resulting letter for the FAA.

 

If you work with the faa, then im assuming you know about yonderbluefilms.com - they seem to be doing very well and dont hide the fact that they do it commercially. Im sure they've recieved something in the mail besides the fat checks from the list of companies they've worked for.

 

Wow, Yonder Blue Films has an excellent and very helpful blog about all of their gear. Very curious if they rationalize a $10k fine on every shoot (because networks aren't paying nearly that much for the footage), or if they simply donate the footage to the network. Curious to look further into their infractions and punishment.

 

I'm an independent UAS consultant, so I don't "work" (read consult) for the FAA. I do however help with coordinating COAs, EACs, TFRs (well, in the old days at least), etc. with the FAA on behalf of my clients.

I have zero desire or business case to point out those who currently in violation and report them... that's just silly. I imagine (this is an assumption) Yonder blue has not received any such notice from the FAA otherwise their ops would be shut down. Once you get put on notice, the FAA keeps track of your ops.

Check out Altitude Filmworks... they also provide a commercial aerial RC service and do nice work, which if you speak with any FAA official in the UAPO, will say is in violation of the commercial ban.

Also, check out the Civilian Drones movie here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vowfpS--rj0

It can give you some insight as to how the FAA figures out what you're doing.

So... I can imagine you're in support of Trappy?

 

Read up on this for info on a current pending case in which the FAA has imposed a 10k fine on a guy flying an RC flying wing with camera onboard in Virginia and then selling the footage to a marketing company.

http://www.suasnews.com/2013/10/25471/the-faas-complaint-against-trappy/

 

Jeez! Someone definitely filed a complaint after the fact and only needed the proof! It looks like he wasn't fined because of flying the copter and getting paid, but rather for the "reckless" manner in which he was flying.

11. By reason of the above, you operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. By reason of the foregoing, you violated the following section(s) of the Federal Aviation Regulations: Section 91.13(a), which states that no person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

All bunk if you ask me, but someone complained nonetheless. I went up to the HOLLYWOOD sign the other day, where there are a lot of tourists, and I can't tell you how many times I was asked about my "drone" and how many times I heard "those things should be illegal," "it invades my privacy," "awful," etc.Amazing!

EDIT: I've written Yonder Blue Films and asked how they fly under the FAA radar, so am curious to see what they say.

 

Indeed, the fine is under 91.13, careless and reckless operation... There are many more layers to this than what is presented in the link. You should be able to find the a few responses from the accused's legal team and the FAA as well to get the whole picture.

If he didn't get paid for it, I almost guarantee that he never would have been fined. Bottom line is that he flew like an idiot and got paid for it - both of which are in violation... the FAA is using 91.13 as a catch all for airborne stupidity including commercial operations.

 

I don't doubt there's much more behind it. What sucks is that it appears to be a young kid and not a large company that could afford it. That video he shot wasn't very good, though....

I get it if they need to establish safety for these now that anyone can get into it. That Amazon delivery would be close to idiotic if it happened. Can you imagine the fingers lost, the copters shot down and stolen and crashed into crowds, etc? Not to mention the safety issues in getting close to buildings, etc, which change wind patterns... Jeez. FAA has a helluva job ahead of them. lol

They probably made up that commercialism law because it speaks to the large copters and not the smaller "kids' toys." Filming entails more "dangerous" maneuvars and situations than would be asked of the smaller copters. Just my opinion, I don't know.

 

maybe it's been covered already (I haven't been on here much recently), but don't most companies get around the selling footage rule by charging for the "video editing", and then they just "give" the footage itself away to whoever paid them for the editing?

i'll have to do a little writeup on my progress with the vcam. been playing with some of the parts, including making new carbon arms for it. much stronger than stock, and it flies a hell of a lot better. i'll get pictures and write about it when I have some more time. still on vacation at the moment

 

This says it all....

 

are you allowed to be on vacation?

With reference to the charging for editing, etc. I've heard of folks doing this before - none I know of have had issues with the FAA so I can't say if this works or not. However, I believe the argument from the FAA would continue to reflect their current regulatory policy saying that your "product" is still a 'product' of flying a vehicle commercially, which under current policy is not authorized.