Hacker News Reader

Comment by coder543 | Hacker News Reader

What about changing the rules around commercial use of drone photography / videography?

I don't understand why it's fine to use drones to take photos and videos for personal use, and why it's perfectly fine to use the smartphone in your hand for commercially-usable photos and videos, but combine the two and you suddenly have to get an FAA license?

That requirement feels very arbitrary, and it feels like a requirement that will eventually go away.

View on HN

As a pilot, the dynamics of flying for money are very different than flying for fun or personal reasons. The pressure to make the flight in marginal conditions, or push separation to get the shot, or otherwise just generally fly closer to the limits is real and significant. Adding money (and presumably third parties) totally changes the nature of the operation.

Good point!

Yeah, when you put it that way, it makes more sense.

I still hope they’ll make the rules more permissive at some point, especially as drones are integrating more and more flight automation and collision avoidance technology. Maybe certify certain drones with specific features and restrictions as being suitable for commercial usage without a license? Accidents can still happen, but... accidents can also happen with any kind of commercial activity, even without drones involved at all.

My impression is that it's pretty easy to get a Part 107 Remote Pilot license; I think it's essentially just a knowledge test. Even if all you learn getting it is how the airspace system works and how to coordinate your use of it, that's a significant base of knowledge that is essential to flying responsibly in the US. There are serious civil and criminal penalties in the Federal Aviation Regulations for lots of complex rules that really do matter, so it makes sense that they at least just want commercial operators to understand what they are on the hook for.

I asked a flight school instructor about a part 107 license a while back and his response was "you want one? say the word and you'll have it by lunch." The only requirement is passing a written exam which he said was very easy compared to the private pilot exam.

The hardest thing about getting the part 107 license might actually be getting the identification form signed, since it needs to be done by an official. If you take the exam at a flight school they'll probably offer to have a CFI do it for you (for a fee I'm sure), but if you take the exam at a non-flight-specific testing center you might have to make a trip to a FSDO or call a CFI and see if they'll do it. It would help with the accessibility of the 107 license if they got rid of the somewhat arcane proof of identity rules inherited from other pilot's licenses.

Hence even pilots need a commercial license to do paid aerial photography.

The thing that bothers me about that is the scenario where pictures are taken for fun, but later what if someone were to offer money for them?

In such cases it’s normally intent that matters. A lot of laws are based around intent, which might seem like a huge issue but that’s why terms like ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ are used.

If you’re regularly selling photos from your regular drone flights then that’s hard to argue about. But a once off because you happen to take a news worthy photo is another story.

You can fly for fun while putting the video on your monetized youtube channel = commercial flight.

You may feel it's arbitrary, but it's consistent with other FAA certificates: i.e. you need a commercial pilot certificate to be paid to fly.

What if you keep it demonetized and only youtube is making money off it?

Like NW says, the FAA heavily regulates commercial activity. You can get a private license in as little as 40-ish hours. But you need an absolute minimum of 250 total hours to even qualify for a commercial license (and there are a bunch of hour requirements in subcategories such that if you're not explicitly working toward it, you're unlikely to meet minimums), and there's another written and practical exam.

And not for nothing but if you have a private pilot's license already, you can get a commercial drone license with nothing more than a CFI endorsement and a quick online written test. Most PPL holders I know (myself included) added it as an after-thought.

You can get a part 107 license in a day. It’s proportionate. If you’re making money from drones, I think a written exam is a reasonable pre-qualification.

drones represent a potential hazard to other aircraft as well as people on the ground, which, like it or not, gives the FAA an interest in regulating their use. I agree it seems arbitrary at first glance, but I think it's better to look at it the other way around: the FAA is essentially cutting hobbyists a break from what they would normally require of a drone operator.

Because you can get drone photos from locations you would not have access to unless you were trespassing

I hope buildings in future can implement some sort of electromagnetic area denial system for drones sort of like a robots.txt that drones have to respect (or active denial) and they can't cross some boundary like a airspace around the building so you can't have drones flying up to your windows in your 30th floor apartment and peering in

yeah because all the bad actors totally follow robots.txt and they definitely don't use robots.txt to discover where hidden secrets might be

ಥ_ಥ

> That requirement feels very arbitrary, and it feels like a requirement that will eventually go away.

Because it's the only way they found to regulate the behavior. They would prefer to regulate all of the drone flying, but they have limitations in power in a variety of ways, and they don't want to bother Congress about it.

Why not get a license? It’s really easy and will take you half a day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com