I've taken both aerial photos and in-flight videos. The videos get posted to YouTube before I put them here. I've posted aerial photos on Facebook.
Both YouTube and Facebook have ads. I don't see any of the money from them.
One would think that neither activity on my part would be a commercial one, in that I'm not getting paid.
But if a drone driver posts video on YouTube, now the FAA thinks that's a commercial use of the drone?
How nuts is that?
And even if one films something and the images can later be sold, unless one set out on the flight with the intent of making money from it, it's a hard stretch to argue that the flight was a commercial one.
Q Toon: That Old-Time Religion
17 minutes ago
5 comments:
The defining phrase always used to be "carrying passengers for hire". Never said anything about doing work for money in the course of aviating.
LRod
ZJX, ORD, ZAU retired
So, a private pilot can cropdust?
So, a private pilot can cropdust?
Somebody better tell Jim Fallows...
The FAA, when contacted about this story, basically said "Huh? That's crazy, we actually did that?" The speculation is that the Florida branch office checked the wrong boxes on the form letter generator and meant to check the "irresponsible flight" box instead of the "commercial flight" box.
Never ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence. Especially when talking about the FAA. SIGH.
Post a Comment