Verve has release this update about proposed regulations.  http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/11/10969762/commercial-micro-drone-exemption-congress-faa
Hope it happens sooner than later.

Ok Cool

Sounds reasonable.  I've read similar regs are in the works for Canada.

But bad news for the professional aerial photography industry; lots of unqualified, uninsured, inexperienced new pilots setting up business. Their actions and behaviors influencing public perception of commercial drone operations.

In the UK you don't have to have a pilots license but you do have to have passed a commercial course, be insured and create a professional operations manual that details how you'll operate safely. The CAA (equivalent of FAA) then give you permission for aerial work. Maintains a high standard for everyone and the public are a little safer.

Be interesting to see how this bill goes.

That would be awesome. I have no one in my area doing aerial photography and I would need with the current legislation. However, no with this new amendment being put forward it would allow me to start my business!

Anderjon Posted at 2016-2-17 12:05
But bad news for the professional aerial photography industry; lots of unqualified, uninsured, inexp ...

"But bad news for the professional aerial photography industry; lots of unqualified, uninsured, inexperienced new pilots setting up business. Their actions and behaviors influencing public perception of commercial drone operations.

In the UK you don't have to have a pilots license but you do have to have passed a commercial course, be insured and create a professional operations manual that details how you'll operate safely. The CAA (equivalent of FAA) then give you permission for aerial work. Maintains a high standard for everyone and the public are a little safer."

When it's completely legal to fly and photograph but for some weird reason it's  illegal to sell the photos, the whole idea of aviation safety regulators restricting who can sell photos is so wrong.
And then licensed pros get the  idea that it's about protecting their business interests and suggest that unlicensed commercial operators will somehow be dangerous and safe flying only comes through an expensive licence.
Commercial operators whether licensed or not are much more likely to be safe flyers as their income depends on flying safely.

In the UK, sorry there are a load of companies ripping off customers who want to passed a commercial course and be a better pilot but may not even want to go flying for commercial work. £1400 for two days, a glossy printed manual that is mainly a reprint CAA manual, and most information you can get elsewhere. Oh, and to fill in your flight records. It rather like Adobe use to their pricing: if you are going to use it commercially then we can rip you off with the cost of software. Many who fly commercially are photographers were it's only a small part of their business.

So taking a commercial course does not make operators any safer flying, as this comes with experience, just means they have to pay for insurance, CAA permissions, and a course.

I've always argued for a distance course and a practical test at a lower price, say £200 could give a pilot the same CAA permissions. Keeping the price high is just a bit of protectionism.  

labroides@yahoo Posted at 2016-2-17 12:41
"But bad news for the professional aerial photography industry; lots of unqualified, uninsured, in ...

It's the difference between hobbyists (of which I am a passionate member for a lot of activities) and professional.

Would you say the same of commercial operators of manned aviation? And what of the general public? They maybe wan to know the difference between a kid who got his drone for Christmas and a pro who's invested in their business to a professional standard.

CFM01 Posted at 2016-2-17 13:45
In the UK, sorry there are a load of companies ripping off customers who want to passed a commercial ...

Your perception of the commercial courses is a little off friend. I can only speak for the UK but there's around 40 to 60 hours of distance learning before you even attend the 2 day residential course. Then you have to pass a written exam covering a whole host of subjects including air law, principles of flight and UAV operations to name just a few. Oh, and then there's the flight planning exam to ensure you know how to account for local airspace regulations, local bi-laws, site specific considerations, weather, privacy issues...... I spent 2 years studying for my commercial manned pilot exams and even I learned more than a few things during the course.

And not forgetting the 90 minute flight test to make sure you're competent. It then takes around a month to prepare your own operations manual from scratch (mine's 16,000 words long and describes in detail how I'll conduct my work). No standard glossy version provided to you. Then you need aviation-specific insurance so that the public are protected.

Then, and only then, will the CAA believe a person is competent to operate commercially.

It's all about setting a standard so that safety is the number one priority. Sorry, but any Joe with a Phantom who hasn't gone through all that, no matter how good they think they are with the sticks, won't come anywhere close to a professional.

Lowering standards doesnt maintain or improve on safety.

Anderjon Posted at 2016-2-18 08:41
It's the difference between hobbyists (of which I am a passionate member for a lot of activities)  ...

"Would you say the same of commercial operators of manned aviation? And what of the general public? They maybe wan to know the difference between a kid who got his drone for Christmas and a pro who's invested in their business to a professional standard."

A good photographer is a good photographer regardless of their investment in expensive equipment.
The same applies to drone flyers.  You can't tell how good or safe someone is by the price of their equipment or "training".

The problem is that aviation safety authorities can only view small drones as airplanes and try to apply the same rules.  
They rightly demand a higher standard for commercial aviation but it makes no sense to use this approach for drone photography when it's  perfectly legal to fly and photograph recreationally.
They also imagine that the major safety risk is interaction with real aircraft and the majority of professional training is directed at this when the majority of commercial work is done at much lower levels (under 200 feet) and it's recreational flyers that are overwhelmingly more likely to be in a position to have interactions with real aircraft.

Somehow this has all turned into a bizarre focus on selling photos becoming a crime rather than unsafe flying which is what it is all about.

labroides@yahoo Posted at 2016-2-17 22:08
"Would you say the same of commercial operators of manned aviation? And what of the general public ...

As I mentioned before. It's the considerable gulf between hobbyists and professionals. An individual's inability or unwillingness to procure the proper professional training and expertise isn't grounds for that required training and expertise to be removed.
I'm not knocking the hobby side of drones, it's fantastic and it's how I originally got into it. I'm an amateur at lots of other things too.

But like with most professions, those outside it often mistake competence for simplicity. It often breeds a false sense of entitlement.

Anderjon Posted at 2016-2-18 09:43
As I mentioned before. It's the considerable gulf between hobbyists and professionals. An individua ...

And equally, buying expensive equipment and paying exhorbitant prices for "training" also breeds a false sense of entitlement.

All sounds good to me

This seems ok, but sounds like it would set in stone these restrictive rules:  "no flights over 400 feet, no flights at night, no flights within 5 miles of an airport, and no flights beyond the pilot’s line of sight. "

Dr. Acula Posted at 2016-2-20 05:31
This seems ok, but sounds like it would set in stone these restrictive rules:  "no flights over 400  ...

It's not related to hobby or recreational use.
It's a proposal to replace the ridiculous 333 exemptions and real plane pilot's licence requirement for commercial use of Phantoms and other small quadcopters.

labroides@yahoo Posted at 2016-2-19 17:19
It's not related to hobby or recreational use.
It's a proposal to replace the ridiculous 333 exemp ...

Yeah that's better, but right now they are just "guidelines."  Or did the commercial fliers already have more restrictive rules?

Anderjon Posted at 2016-2-16 21:05
But bad news for the professional aerial photography industry; lots of unqualified, uninsured, inexp ...

That just means that the aerial photography will be like most of the other types of photography now.  How many Mom's with Drones are out there?