Drone News & Drone Directory

Drone Laws Blog

Antonelli Law Cinematography Client Hover Effect Receives Section 333 Exemption Approval

Drone Laws Blog by Antonelli Law

Antonelli Law UAS client Hover Effect received Section 333 exemption approval from the FAA on October 27th to operate the DJI Phantom 1, DJI Spreading Wings S800, Freefly Cinestar 8, and Freefly Cinestar 8 HL for closed-set motion picture and television production, and real estate. The FAA approved the petition in 122 days.

Many have observed the FAA docket and Section 333 exemption process became log-jammed during the summer. This approval is the first of 20 Antonelli Law Section 333 petitions to finally break out of that log-jam.

A copy of the FAA Grant of Exemption under Section 333 can be viewed here:Hover Effect LLC – 13366

If your company would like assistance filing its own Section 333 petition to fly UAS commercially, contact firm principal Jeffrey Antonelli at 312-201-8310 or fill out the contact form below and we will contact you.

[contact-form-7]

The post Antonelli Law Cinematography Client Hover Effect Receives Section 333 Exemption Approval appeared first on Drone Laws Blog by Antonelli Law.

Read Full Story

FAA Releases New UAS Policy Document

Drone Laws Blog by Antonelli Law

On October 27 2015 the FAA released a new UAS policy document:

N_JO_7210.889_Unmanned_Aircraft_Operations_in_the_NAS

logoFAA

We will be analyzing this released document and its likely effects and commenting soon.

[contact-form-7]

The post FAA Releases New UAS Policy Document appeared first on Drone Laws Blog by Antonelli Law.

Read Full Story

Another Section 333 Copy/Paste Bites The Dust

Drone Laws Blog by Antonelli Law

Another Section 333 Copy/Paste Bites The Dust

We’ve written before about the hazards of bad Section 333 copy and paste jobs. Number one, they can void your insurance coverage when an accident occurs. Number two they can be rescinded by FAA. If you are not going to hire an attorney to file your Section 333 petition for exemption, please take the time to tailor it to your actual intended operations.

Yesterday, the FAA rescinded the Section 333 approval of a Mr. Thomas Johan Walter. Thomas-Johann-Walter-Rescission

From the FAA public document:

“On June 2, 2015, Mr. Walter submitted a petition for exemption to allow commercial operations of unmanned aircraft, on behalf of Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc. Mr. Walter was identified in the petition as the CEO of Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc., and as well as the point of contact; however, the email and mailing addresses provided for Mr. Simon Nielson. On September 2, 2015 the FAA granted the exemption to Mr. Walter and emailed its decision to Mr. Nielson at the email address provided in the contact information section of the petition. On September 2, 2015, Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc. notified the FAA, stating that Mr. Thomas Walter is not and has not been affiliated with Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc.

A review of Mr. Walter’s petition shows that Mr. Walter submitted, verbatim, the petition submitted by Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc. on October 3, 2014,  including the point of contact information on Page 14. Mr. Walter substituted his name for Drone Fleet & Aerospace Management, Inc. in only a few places.”

***

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that Exemption No. 12719 was issued based on erroneous information submitted by petitioner and was therefore granted in error. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Exemption No. 12719 is rescinded effective immediately.”

For another Section 333 rescission example, see this one from August:  Kramer-Rescission-11629

If you would like experienced attorneys to file your Section 333 petition, please contact us through the contact form below or directly at 312-201-8310.

And if you do it yourself, please do not forget to copy, paste, and edit!

[contact-form-7]

The post Another Section 333 Copy/Paste Bites The Dust appeared first on Drone Laws Blog by Antonelli Law.

Read Full Story

FAA Announces Impending Rule: All Drones And Model Aircraft to be Registered

Drone Laws Blog by Antonelli Law

FAA Announces Impending Rule: All Drones And Model Aircraft to be Registered
Today, the FAA announced that it intends to create a rule effective mid-December 2015 requiring model aircraft and small “drones” to be registered with the agency. Drones are included in the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ which means an unmanned aircraft that is flown within line of sight and for hobby or recreational purposes.
When the Congress gave FAA’s its marching orders in the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act it stated in Section 336 that ” the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft” if it was used for hobby or recreational use. But that is exactly what the FAA seems to have announced today that it would be doing – imposing a regulatory requirement on the operators of model aircraft used for hobby or recreational use by requiring them to be registered.
Therefore, any plan to require registration of model aircraft must foresee congressional support in the form of emergency legislation to be implemented prior to the imposition of this new rule.
If there is no emergency legislation from Congress, we expect the registration rule to be challenged in court.

 

Attorney Jeffrey Antonelli is available for questions regarding this registration requirement by contacting him at 312-201-8310 or by using the contact form below

[contact-form-7]

 

The post FAA Announces Impending Rule: All Drones And Model Aircraft to be Registered appeared first on Drone Laws Blog by Antonelli Law.

Read Full Story

The FAA’s Proposed $1.9 Million Fine for SkyPan– Harbinger or Outlier?

Drone Laws Blog by Antonelli Law

The FAA’s Proposed $1.9 Million Fine for SkyPan– Harbinger or Outlier?

While we were in Las Vegas exhibiting at the Commercial UAV Expo, the FAA announced on October 6, 2015 that it is proposing to fine SkyPan International, a Chicago-based drone operator, $1.9 million for repeatedly violating FAA regulations and flying in restricted airspace. The FAA notice states that the company conducted 65 unauthorized flights in the skies over Chicago and New York and alleges that SkyPan operated the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger lives or property. The fine is the largest the FAA has ever proposed against a drone operator — by about $1.9 million.

The facts of the SkyPan case are unique. SkyPan is relatively open about that fact that it has been using drones in its commercial operations, and according to published reports it received a subpoena from the FAA as early as 2013. (http://www.itechsum.com/mashable/item/91128-faa-has-clamped-down-on-realtors-using-drones-for-months). Presumably, the FAA’s detailed information about the 65 unauthorized flights came from SkyPan’s subpoena responses. In 2014, along with several business plaintiffs, SkyPan sued the FAA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging the FAA’s regulation of commercial drone operations.

Inquiring minds in the commercial drone world want to know if the FAA’s action is the beginning of a campaign against the many businesses that have been engaged in commercial operation of drones without FAA authorization, or just a one-off enforcement action against a company that has publicly flaunted the FAA’s authority and probably gotten under the agency’s skin. It’s too early to tell, but it may not be too long before we find out. Stay tuned.

For more information or to contact us call us at 312-201-8310 or use the contact form below

[contact-form-7]

 

The post The FAA’s Proposed $1.9 Million Fine for SkyPan– Harbinger or Outlier? appeared first on Drone Laws Blog by Antonelli Law.

Read Full Story

Page 10 of 17« First...89101112...Last »