FAA investigates congressman's drone wedding video

[alp227]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Aviation Administration indicated Wednesday that it is investigating whether a video of a congressman's wedding last month violated the agency's ban on drone flights for commercial purposes.

The agency's carefully worded statement doesn't mention Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-N.Y., by name, but said it was looking into "a report of an unmanned aircraft operation in Cold Spring, New York, on June 21 to determine if there was any violation of federal regulations or airspace restrictions."

Maloney has acknowledged hiring a photographer to produce a video of his wedding using a camera mounted on a small drone. The wedding took place in Cold Spring on June 21. Maloney is a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's aviation subcommittee, which oversees the FAA.

Top agency officials have testified extensively before Congress about their concern that commercial drones could collide with manned aircraft or injure people on the ground. Congress has been pressing the FAA to move faster on creating regulations that will allow commercial drones access to U.S. The agency has been working on regulations for about a decade.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/congressman-hired-commercial-drone-wedding

[Stryst]

1. And

this will get spun, not as one a**hole breaking the rules, but about how Democrats can't be bothered to follow the same laws as "decent, god fearing americans (you know, anyone who votes Republican)".

[davidpdx]

2. Is that a drone at your wedding or are you happy to see me?

[mainer]

3. Drones for aerial photography are a legitimate use

Has anyone actually seen any of these little drones? Their propellers are plastic and the whole thing's not much bigger than a toaster oven. The camera they carry is usually a Go Pro (yeah, those tiny things you can mount on a cat or dog) and the images captured are immensely useful for realtors selling properties, event photography, and land surveys.

Unless this drone was actually operating in an airport zone, I can't see it as being a threat to aviation, as they tend to fly at about the same altitude as a kite.

This sounds like a political maneuver to attack Maloney.

[sendero]

4. I thought below 500 feet..

... was not regulated by the FAA. Otherwise every kid that ever shot off a model rocket (including me) is a criminal.

[Chan790]

6. ...commercial is the issue here.

You can buy the exact same drone, attach the exact same camera to it and fly it to your heart's content...the second you attempt to use it in a commercial venture it becomes purview of FAA, regardless of altitude, as an aerial vehicle for use in commerce.

Ironically, you can attach that same camera to a kite and it's perfectly legal to use for commerce as it's not considered an aerial vehicle...it's tethered to ground.

[sendero]

7. Thanks..

.... didn't get the distinction.

[groundloop]

5. It's the photographer that would be in hot water over this

And I TOTALLY agree that COMMERCIAL operations of drones need to be licensed and regulated. When there's money changing hands there's just too much temptation to do something stupid or in an unsafe manner. Requiring commercial operators of drones to be licensed at least provides an incentive for them to follow the rules and operate in a safe manner.

[mainer]

8. Yes, I think they should be licensed

but at the moment, commercial drone work is just plain forbidden, with or without a license.

[NickB79]

9. Blow up an Afghan wedding party with a drone, A-OK

Film your wedding with a drone, and the FAA is crawling up your ass.

Logical.

[mrdmk]

10. further reading the OP's article

Link from original poster's link:

""On their wedding day, Sean and Randy were focused on a ceremony 22 years in the making, not their wedding photographer's camera mounted on his remote control helicopter," Stephanie Formas, spokeswoman for Maloney, said in a statement."

Bullshit hysteria with bullshit label from AP