http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.292.pdf

They maybe looking but as it states
Inspectors have no authority to direct or suggest that electronic media posted on the Internet must be removed. Note: Electronic media posted on a video Web site does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use.

I can't say what I think about the FAA as it would violate the TOS.

Actually, I interpret that document *very* differently! I actually think it's a little move towards "sensible" enforcement when needed, and not at all that "they're trolling YT".

Firstly, it says this is to help them determine what action to take when notified of - They're not searching, but if someone complains about a vid that may be contrary to title 14 here's the action to take.....

Further, their personnel are expected to use critical thinking when addressing the issue - If it's below 400', not near an airport, is flying LOS etc, it sounds like we're in the clear, even if a "complaint" is received - Remarkable common sense it seems.

It then goes on to define the protocol to follow when receiving notification of videos with potentially noncompliant UAS operation. Again, they're not trolling, but defining what to do when someone bitches about one. It also lays out the "educational outreach" that is the initial follow up *if* they believe it's in contravention of CFR14. Only if the "bad boy" further pisses them off, and the evidence is strong, will they come after you - And even then only if the UAS operation resulted in a medium to high potential of *actual* endangerment to the NAS.

I have no idea what constitutes low, medium or high endangerment levels, but again guess below 400', LOS, etc is good to go.

It also says they  have no authority to direct or suggest that media must be removed. [Contrary to what the Army Corps of Engineers claimed in a letter published here a while back..... Seems to me those guys way overstepped their authority.]

It finally notes that media posted does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use as had been claimed by people being "warned" about ad's preceding their hobby videos.

I may be wrong, but I read it that you'd *really* have to piss them off, and be blatant about it before they want to get involved.

A step in the right direction it appears to me.

Cheers,
Ian

Ian,
I agree this is a step in the right direction. It is better than their original knee jerk reaction saying that video on Youtube were commercial use. What I don't like is I just think the FAA is approaching UAS' all wrong. It should make no difference if you are flying for fun of profit. As long as you fly safe the FAA should not care why you are flying. There should be a set of rules and those rules should apply the everyone.  It's not like the drones are carrying people.

It seems to me that their primary aim is to make sure the airspace is safe.  Airspace that any of us could be flying in whether it be in a small plane or large.  A drone could have a seriously bad impact with a motor, prop or even control surface and it could down a plane.  that's what they want to avoid.  The folks flying their drone up to 3,000 (but they KNOW there will not be an airplane there, though how would they know??) seems to be the focus.  If we keep them our flights 400 feet we have a 100 foot buffer before a good deal of restricted airspace begins if not more.  Even then, helicopters fly below 500 feet often where i live so we have to keep our eyes open.

i_anderson@iclo Posted at 2015-4-13 04:05
Actually, I interpret that document *very* differently! I actually think it's a little move towards  ...

Thanks Ian....That was a great interpretation.

JATO Posted at 2015-4-13 04:38
Ian,
I agree this is a step in the right direction. It is better than their original knee jerk react ...

Couldn't agree more!

Commercial or hobby use shouldn't make any difference as long as the rules/guidelines are obeyed.

I do think we're going to see more clarifications 'soon'. For example, with the owners permission, if I fly above a private estate at less than 400' and within said owners property lines, what the hell has it got to do with them whether I'm making money or not?

I'm also certain that many of these golf course 'fly overs' we see on TV are shot from a drone. (Some are computer models, but not all). Again, it's private land and the owners have commissioned the work. Nothing to do with the FAA or anyone else outside the club owners & the business doing the shooting.

The FAA may be a lead footed beurocracy, like all govt agencies of course, but in this case at least it does seem they're trying a little.
Cheers,
Ian

I can't stop thinking about this..... I said above, 'as long as I stay within the property lines'.  As long as I'm not 'invading privacy' or 'creating a nuisance', both of which terms are pretty well defined in 'the paparazzi laws', I again don't see what it's got to do with the FAA?

Cheers,
Ian

Because those owners can give you permission to be on their land.  The FAA controls the airspace above that land.  Where their control begins starts anywhere from ground level on up to 1500 feet AGL sometimes, maybe more in some remote locales, but they control the airspace by law.

HermosaDrones Posted at 2015-4-15 00:07
Because those owners can give you permission to be on their land.  The FAA controls the airspace abo ...

Understood.

But again, it seems to me that as long as I'm not "posing a medium or high threat to the NAS" (their words), they really don't want to get involved. Certainly not if I'm a hobbyist, but even if I'm 'commercial', what has it got to do with them? Mustn't 'spy' on people, mustn't invade privacy or cause a nuisance to others are all understood and accepted.

I'm not trying to argue, just understand......

Cheers,
Ian

It means that laws need to be changed.