PRESS RELEASE - FAA TO CONSIDER EXEMPTIONS FOR COMMERCIAL UAS MOVIE AND TV PRODUCTION WASHINGTON The U.S. Department of Transportations Federal Aviation Administration today announced that seven aerial photo and video production companies have asked for regulatory exemptions that would allow the film and television industry to use unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) with FAA approval for the first time. If the exemption requests are granted, there could be tangible economic benefits as the agency begins to address the demand for commercial UAS operations. However, all the associated safety issues must be carefully considered to make sure any hazards are appropriately mitigated. The petitioner must still obtain operational approval from the FAA. The Motion Picture Association of America facilitated the exemption requests on behalf of their membership. The firms that filed the petitions are all independent aerial cinematography professionals who collectively developed the exemption requests as a requirement to satisfy the safety and public interest concerns of the FAA, MPAA and the public at large. The FAA has been working for several months to implement the provisions of Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and move forward with UAS integration before proposing a small UAS rule. Companies from three industries besides film production have approached the FAA and are also considering filing exemption requests. These industries include precision agriculture, power line and pipeline inspection, and oil and gas flare stack inspection. The firms are asking the agency to grant exemptions from regulations that address general flight rules, pilot certificate requirements, manuals, maintenance and equipment mandates. They are also asking for relief from airworthiness certification requirements as allowed under Section 333. Under that section of the law, certain airworthiness requirements can be waived to let specific UAS fly safely in narrowly-defined, controlled, low-risk situations. To receive the exemptions, the firms must show that their UAS operations will not adversely affect safety, or provide at least an equal level of safety to the rules from which they seek the exemption. They would also need to show why granting the exemption would be in the public interest. Currently, Certificates of Waiver or Authorization are available to public entities that want to fly a UAS in civil airspace. Common uses today include law enforcement, firefighting, border patrol, disaster relief, search and rescue, military training, and other government operational missions. Commercial operations are authorized on a case-by-case basis. A commercial flight requires a certified aircraft, a licensed pilot and operating approval. The exemption process under Section 333 provides an additional avenue for commercial UAS operations. You can view the film & TV production company petitions at www.regulations.gov For more information on the FAA and UAS, go to http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/ Reported elsewhere here are the seven companies: Aerial MOB LLC, Astraeus Aerial, Flying-Cam Inc., HeliVideo Productions, Pictorvision Inc., Vortex Aerial and Snaproll Media LLC.
Gary: The www.regulations.gov link is just to the home page. If you search for "FAA petitions" or variations I've not been able to find the peitions. For example, searching for MPAA (one of the petitioners) also fails to find any relevant hits. There is this at the FAA site: http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=16294&cid=TW217 but it too has a link (at the end) to www.regulations.gov. I've done some Google searches for: FAA MPAA petition and various other combinations, but I've not been able to locate the actual petition -- just other web sites talking about it. Andy.
Andy I also noticed that they weren't on the site yet. So no actual document. Just the announcements that I posted.
Some interesting nuggets from the Aerial MOB application. 5. Minimum crew for each operation will consist of the sUAS Pilot, the Visual Observer, and the Camera Operator. 6. sUAS pilot will be an FAA licensed airman with at least a private pilot’s certificate and third class medical. The observer will hold at least a third class medical. 10. The operator will file a FAA Form 7711-1, or its equivalent, as modified in light of the requested exemption, with the appropriate Flight Standards District Office 12. The operator will submit a written Plan of Activities to the FSDO three days before the proposed shoot as required in Section K of the Manual. I looked at several of the PDF files. All are the same with the same legal and agents representing all of the applicants.
Interesting to see that the Observer will have a third class medical. That implies it's likely the Observer will also have a pilot's license as why else would he/she have an aviation medical? The three days' notice could also get interesting if the weather grounds them...that would suggest the need to file for a several day shoot= just in case. Andy.
FAA needs to operate like Transport Canada https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/general-recavi-brochures-uav-2270.htm
Andy many aviation jobs require a 3rd class medical. There may still be a requirement for a certified weather observer to have a 3rd class as an example. If the FAA 'regulates' the job then they gets to call the rules
Are you guys getting any indications that the FAA might make us purchase a company approved already made drone? Anyone thing that DIY copters like we have will not be legal to fly? I know its all unknown at this time, I just wanted to get your thoughts. I was talking to a few other guys and one claims to be friends with someone in the FAA and he heard that's the way they were leaning. If that's the case all of our equipment and investments would be worthless.
The companies I recognized in the list all build their own equipment. Nothing in the exemption talks about commercial built stuff.
True. But as I read the ASTM standards, and these petitions, the only requirement for the observer is that they have a Class III medical -- no requirement for any other formal training -- although the implication is that they must be able to communicate effectively with the pilot in command of the (s)UAV. "Watch out Gary, there is a big thing over there on your left -- no that's aircraft right -- and it looks quite high up!" Andy.
Dave just means that they will do the opposite in the final outcome, taking the pessimistic governmental approach....
Indeed. It was pioneered by Windows: "There has been an error. See if you can guess what it is." Andy.
This has now made it to the Federal Register and comment period is open. Fed Reg site https://www.federalregister.gov/art...on-for-exemption-summary-of-petition-received
Does this mean there is a chance they might remove the "Private pilot certificate" part if we make a stink about it??
Yes the comment period is closed. They have granted exemptions to a number of Movie/TV operators. You can read the exemptions at: http://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/. For your specific question this is what the exemptions say: The Pilot In Command (PIC) must possess at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current third-class medical certificate. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his/her pilot certificate. 11. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of motion picture filming (or similar operations), the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51 (b), a minimum of 200 flight cycles and 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot and at least ten hours logged as a UAS pilot with a similar UAS type (single blade or multirotor). Prior documented flight experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable regulations may satisfy this requirement. Training, proficiency, and experience-building flights can also be conducted under this grant of exemption to accomplish the required flight cycles and flight time. During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for flight operations are considered non-participants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from non-participants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119. 12. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of motion picture filming (or similar operations), the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51 (b), a minimum of five hours as UAS pilot operating the make and model of UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption and three take-offs and three landings in the preceding 90 days. Training, proficiency, experience-building, and take-off and landing currency flights can be conducted under this grant of exemption to accomplish the required flight time and 90 day currency. During training, proficiency, experience-building, and take-off and landing currency flights all persons not essential for flight operations are considered non-participants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from non-participants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.
Ok, So let me get this straight... We need to have a Private Pilots license, actually learn to fly and land an aircraft (spend $10-14K to get it) Is that rule final or is there a chance it can be changed at this point? And the logging of hours mentionws above is for our Multirotors not a full sized aircraft correct?