We had a chance to help out on a short film recently, shooting aerial video with our multirotors.
The location was Glamorgan Castle in Alliance, Ohio.
The film is called "The Invitation", written by Matt Roseti and Directed by Ryan Galbraith.
Jeremy Davis helped direct Chad as they both watched the FPV view from the multirotor.
Chad was flying his AnyCopter setup in a Hex configuration.
You can find out more details about this short film HERE.
We'd like to thank Jeremy Davis and everyone on the crew for giving us the chance to help out and be involved in this project! We look forward to seeing the final release!
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Specifically pertaining to did you obtain a commercial unmanned aerial system license from the faa?
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/#Qn4
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/#Qn7
Also since the use of Amateur television (fpv) is covered by fcc part 97 for individual use, what license(s) are you using for your commercial application ?
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf
"The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57.
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of 6AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes"
Log In to reply
When individuals use their multi-rotors for commercial applications, like making a movie, the footage itself is "donated" because they enjoy the hobby. The only time you pay for is the time they spent editing the footage.
Least that is what I heard.
Log In to reply
IANAL but trying to say that they just happened to be recreationally flying at the movie set, and just happened to be flying the exact way the movie directors wanted, to get the perfect shot to donate, so their flight falls under AC 91-57 sound like a pretty weak defense...
Log In to reply
It has EVERYTHING to do with if you are paid or not. if you run around fixing peoples cars for free you are not a business, if you take funds for your work THEN its a business...
Log In to reply
If you neighbor had a lawn mowing business, and he had a large project that he needed help with. And you took your lawn mower and helped with that project for free, would the work that you did be business related? Yes, because the reason you are there and the work you are doing is because of your neighbor's business. It has nothing to do with if you are being paid because the work you are doing is for a business project, and all of your examples are ignoring that aspect to this.
If you go to a garage, and work on some cars for free, you did commercial work, because again the reason you are at the garage doing the work is for business reasons, the garage is getting paid for the work that you did (just like in the video, where they are selling/sold copies of the movie)
The situation here is doing work for a business project, and the faa regulation is very plainly worded "specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes". Why do you think they specifically mentioned "persons"? It covers your situation of a person volunteering their time for a business purpose (shooting a movie)
Log In to reply
Instead of being annoying and up their grill about it, how about we continue to enjoy this fine place on the internet they have created?
Log In to reply
Given your loose definition of business purposes, the FAA should file an injunction against Google. After all, they are the ones providing a platform for the footage AND profiting from it via ad revenue.
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
Plus this is the SECOND time I've seen Flitetest get into trouble from a bad battery and/or setting the lowV alarm dangerously low.
You would think they would learn from their mistakes.
They are stellar RC hobbyists at times, and others I just shake my head.
Log In to reply
The footage looks really good...
NH789
Log In to reply
Log In to reply
The battery was fully charged and only lasted about 25% of a normal battery. The low voltage alarm was set to 10.6V and "normally" gives me about 90 seconds to land. In this case it was less than 10 seconds. It was a bad battery that got thrown in the mix... I blame David ;)
Fortunately we were choosing flight paths that allowed us to bail without putting anyone in danger.
Log In to reply