I don't allow my friends to post my tail number online because of internet losers who report flights only to hurt the poster, even when they do nothing wrong. (similar to "swatting").
I want to extend my appreciation to the FAA for creating informative videos like this. They help pilots like me understand what we can and cannot do when it comes to social media posts. Learning from past experiences, I realize the significance of being careful with what we share. I believe more organizations, such as the FAA or AOPA, should produce similar videos to educate pilots on what to post and what to avoid. This knowledge would greatly benefit us. While I wish this initiative had started earlier in the 2010s when I began my aviation career, I'm still grateful for it now. I applaud your efforts and look forward to more videos on how to be smart with social media postings in aviation. Thank you for letting me share my perspective
Many drone pilots have been told that posting videos to social media represents non-recreational activities and therefore they do not qualify for the recreational exemption and must obtain Part 107 (commercial) certification. Surely this must also apply to manned aviation. If a pilot is posting videos of his flying to a monetized RU-vid channel then he should also be required to hold a commercial license. If this is not the case I would like to know why recreational drone flyers are unfairly treated compared to recreational GA pilots.
@@v1rotation "Skin in the game" is the biggeste POS statement I've heard in my 70+ years. If skin in the game was a thing then we wouldn't see manned aviators making bad/irresponsible decisions that cost lives would we? Your suggestion that most of the YT content involving model aircraft and drones shows that "rules are routinely broken for click counts" is also hogwash. In closing... and to totally destroy your specious arguments, let me say one thing: Trevor Jacob Skin in the game *and* rules broken.
Hard to understand that the posting of a video would automatically be deemed a commercial purpose versus a mere expression or freedom of personal speech. After all, not all speech is for a commercial purpose.
Exactly this. If a pilot is paying for their own flight via ownership costs, how in the world are they being compensated in flight time? They are paying for everything themselves. It’s no different than if they flew on a Tuesday afternoon to get a 100 dollar hamburger.
I've had people (non-aviators) ask me how much I would charge to fly them to this or that destination. Instead of going into a tiresome and infuriating discussion of the insanely convoluted and self-contradictory regs, I just tell them (truthfully) that I'll fly them for free.
I still have a bit of a hard time fully understanding this. For example what if my wife suggests we fly somewhere and I agree. There is compensation because I accrue flying time (which doesn't have any real benefit to me as I don't need it for any rating or career goal, but nevertheless it is considered "compensation"). Does this constitute a common purpose? Because the pilot (me) didn't suggest the destination. What about if a friend tells me about some awesome show I'd like to visit and I fly us there? I never ask for expense sharing but again, I get flight time. Is it better for me to tell my friend to drive and I fly there alone?
Youre doing a crappy job with the public's perception of the FAA. The RC Model aircraft community has become the only authority on Remote ID since this started. They are the ones answering peoples questions, always willing and available while the FAA is shrouded in secrecy and wont give a straight answer to the question "why?". We are left to speculate and then the question "why" becomes "who", cause when things are safe as can be and Over-Regulate and strong-arm a whole industry then the FAA cant be trusted and we know Congress is being payed (lobbyed, whatever) so much that a company or person can buy our government and military for their own use. Of course you do answer questions from Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk and You did send Kevin to talk with the Canadian RU-vidr. Why not have him talk with New Zealand's xjet@RU-vid? He is the trusted authority to things that the FAA and AMA should be trusted with. Goodluck with youre over-regulating
Thanks for the information and we'll be sharing this video. These remarks are mostly with the Drone Regulations since a lot of us UAS pilots are creators. I've got my private ( not currently certified) and UAS. Was in the Air Force etc. I do have some gripes though. #1. The FAA needs to make Drone Manufacturers print the registration and testing requirements on the outside of the box. #2 Why can I fly over people and vehicles in a Skyhawk, but not in a little drone that couldn't kill you? Seems like the FAA loses it's reasoning in Safety, specially when the FAA fails to make it regulations known before you buy the drone and after. Oh, waiver are almost impossible to get by the way.
@@v1rotation I disagree. There's a lot of people out there that don't have a clue you need a license or need to take a test to legally fly a drone. The FDA requires a warning on cigarettes so the FAA should require drone manufacturers to make them place a notice on the box of the requirements.
I'll add my thoughts on #2 (I'm a commercial pilot with a part 107 cert): In an airplane, with the exception of a catastrophe inflight breakup which is extremely rare, you have control of the aircraft all the way to the ground to choose a landing point which would minimize damage to yourself and others. With drones, if you lose signal the drone may go down right there (except for more expensive drones which can return to home automatically). Additionally, since drone integrity is not regulated anywhere close to the degree of aircraft and they are also operated at lower heights where they may accidentally hit power lines, trees, etc, the likelihood of an inflight breakup with parts raining down on whatever is below is dramatically increased
@@thebenberman I disagree, but thats okay. You have good thoughts. Reality if a plane loses power during take off, crashes into another plane, breaks up from airframe failure etc. It's got to come down somewhere in a neighborhood near you. Or downtown Chicago. A drone with a one-four foot footprint would have a hard time falling on somebody.
