14
Search AOL Mail
AOL Mail
Video
Video
AOL Favorites
Favorites
Menu

Drones used to capture birds-eye views of wedding ceremonies

Vows | Here Comes the Drone


One of the major decisions during wedding planning is who to trust with the camera. Lately, couples are choosing to trust drones.

With the remote-controlled devices, couples are able to get a birds-eye view of their wedding.

Recently, headlines have been highlighting the use of a drone to tape New York Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney's wedding, which many claim to be a violation of the Federal Aviation Administration rules.

The FFA makes it clear that unless you're flying for recreational purposes or as a hobby, you need FFA approval. They even provide "dos" and "don'ts." One of the restrictions being,

"Don't fly model aircraft for payment or commercial purposes."

And since Congressman Maloney is a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's aviation subcommittee, which has some area of authority over the FAA - some think there is no excuse.

Especially his Republican challenger in the upcoming election, Nan Hayworth who lost to Maloney in 2012.

According to Lohud, Hayworth issued a statement Tuesday calling on Maloney to step down as a member of the subcommittee.

But according to The New York Times, Maloney was unaware of the aviation restrictions on drones at the time.

"Like most people who are about to get married, I wasn't up-to-date on the lack of regulations around the emerging technology of a wedding photographer mounting a camera on a remote control helicopter."

ABC brings to light where some of the confusion may have stemmed – it actually wasn't the congressman who requested the drone, it was all the videographer's idea.

The photographer who captured the aerial footage, Parker Gyokeres, gave his source material to the videographer while uploading the B-roll footage online - which then caused the chaos. He told ABC:

"This video, I feel horrible about, because it's not the congressman's video."​

Gyokeres apparently got permission from the local sheriffs department to shoot the video, and he hasn't been contacted by the FAA yet.

NBC reports, "The FAA has been dragging their feet on this, and the longer they wait, the more and more folks are going out there and flying without any rules." ​

And Gyokeres tells The New York Times that those rules aren't even going to cut it.

"There's an explosion of this technology, and it's not going to go away if they just tell us we can't use it. We want the FFA to tell us how to operate as safely as possible, and not flying is not the answer."

The New York Times says Mr. Gyokeres has been an Air Force photojournalist since 2006. When he retires in a month he wants to use the drone he built himself to make aerial videography his profession.

He understands the safety hazards of flying near people and uses a thirty point safety checklist to make sure things don't end poorly.

The FAA continues to emphasize safety as their main priority. Hayworth will face Maloney again in the November election.
Drone Used For Congressman's Wedding Sparks Debate

Related:
Wedding Dresses
Wedding Photographers
Wedding Registry Finder
Best Wedding Gifts

Join the discussion

1000|Characters 1000  Characters
soccoached August 06 2014 at 7:51 AM

What does the FFA (Future Farmers of America) have to do with aviation. Doesn't anyone proof read anymore

Flag Reply +22 rate up
7 replies
ram4131 August 06 2014 at 12:46 PM

Deer ALO: Eye just grajewated collige with a prufe reeding dagree and wuz wundering if ewe had any opunings.

Flag Reply +15 rate up
jeslkvl August 06 2014 at 7:22 AM

Nice Proofreading!! Hilarious. . ."He understands the safety hazards of flying near people and uses a thirty point safety checklist to make sure things end poorly."

Flag Reply +12 rate up
3 replies
Susan August 06 2014 at 6:24 AM

Drones are a rapidly growing danger. And who better to propagate danger than a selfish, self-centered bridezilla and her groom. Today's over-the-top weddings are laughable anyway, since the majority end in divorce sooner rather than later.

Flag Reply +12 rate up
8 replies
jennyboka August 06 2014 at 8:48 AM

please proofread before posting. counted at least three misprints of "FFA" in place of "FAA". come on, it's not that tough.

Flag Reply +7 rate up
Mike August 06 2014 at 6:40 AM

Why are people so intent on taking pictures of something that will never last anyway.

Flag Reply +5 rate up
4 replies
cdrewparks889 August 06 2014 at 6:33 AM

"My photography service includes an additional free service: drone pictures." Problem solved, yes?

Flag Reply +4 rate up
Todd Lally August 06 2014 at 10:08 PM

Drone operators are not called pilots for a reason. It is because they have no training or oversite. I saw one in the park the other day and he told me he flies for commercial reasons all the time at numerous locations. I asked him how does he know if the airspace is clear of aircraft? He said it has never been a problem before. It will be a problem when 2 F-16's on a training low level are at 300 feet out over the countryside and a drone is taking pictures for a realtor trying to sell a farm. At 420 knots the
F-16 pilots don't have a chance. A mid-air collision will happen in the next few years. Take that to the bank!

Flag Reply +2 rate up
1 reply
slackwarerobert Todd Lally August 12 2014 at 1:12 PM

so what. f-16's can be replaced. Maybe they should be flying over FEDERAL training grounds.
You should be more concerned with the drone, it is going to LOOSE in that fight. Especially if they are supersonic, those pressure waves will toss it out of the sky.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
R August 06 2014 at 2:36 PM

Drones are nothing but an invasion of privacy - they should be outlawed period! They should be restricted to Government use in war/conflict zones. Maybe if one of these drones captured birds-eye views of Obama's daughters peeing than they'd be outlawed for personal use.

Flag Reply +2 rate up
2 replies
kwikrdrvr R August 06 2014 at 4:47 PM

Get a life, liberal! We don't need more government interference in our lives.

Flag Reply 0 rate up
2 replies
d1anaw kwikrdrvr August 06 2014 at 9:22 PM

Really? Then why don't you baggers stay out of my uterus and out of other people's marriages? I can't think of anything more personal and private that you want to interfere in.

Flag +1 rate up
slackwarerobert kwikrdrvr August 13 2014 at 2:46 PM

d1anaw: obamacare is the only one in your uterus, and liberals are the only ones forcing gay marriage on people. maddcow lies through omission, you not being able to force your boss to pay for YOUR elective surgery is not banning anything. and if you can't love someone without a piece of paper from the government, then you didn't love them anyways.

Flag 0 rate up
exoray R August 06 2014 at 5:12 PM

The courts have upheld over and over that aerial photography is protected by the 1st Amendment... The courts have also upheld over and over again that you have NO legal expectation of privacy if you are out in the open or in a public space, so it's not an invasion of privacy...

Flag Reply 0 rate up
R August 06 2014 at 2:37 PM

Oops, sorry typo, meant to say:
Maybe if one of these drones captured birds-eye views of Obama's daughters peeing THEN they'd be outlawed for personal use.

Flag Reply +2 rate up
3 replies
aol~~ 1209600

Voting...

More From Our Partners