Aerial Photography Legalities

[FLYBOYJ]

These days the only way the FAA is really going to come after you is by a chance encounter with an ops or airworthiness inspector (who has the desire or energy to violate you), operating in a high visibility location that might spur complaints from people in the local area or finally if you bring a ton of attention to yourself by doing something incredibly stupid.

 

[anotherlab]

...so many Ariel pics on the net of basically everything you can think off, how will the FAA come across this certain school?

So many Ariel pics

sorry, couldn't resist....

 

[Melvoid]

As bad as I hate to say it, I would at minimum ask for a request to do the shoot from the school.

A wiser man might go to the school boards web site and look for rules about anything special. If there is no specific rule or mention of UAS policy, then maybe really look around, plan your shot for safety and give the kids a photo!

Want to make sure? Get a written release from the school and / or school board.

And the lawyers licked their lips while Satan danced a jig...

I fear that the more people you ask, the more chance of getting "no" votes from people who have no idea. I tried to get some footage of the construction of an addition to the building where I work. All sorts of questions. The best was, "What if you'd hit one of the cranes?" I told him it's about 5 pounds of plastic. At worst, I'd knock some dirt off the crane.

In the end, nobody could say "Sure, that'd be great." So it never happened.

 

[iSilentP]

I believe that FAA can no longer legally regulate recreational flights.

The 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA 'may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft’

 

[sar104]

I believe that FAA can no longer legally regulate recreational flights.

The 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA 'may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft’

That's not strictly what the Act means. The FAA may not make any new rules that regulate model aircraft. Existing aviation law applies, especially in regard to endangering the NAS.

 

[Newt59]

The reason for lawyers is the debate and arguments over nuances and interpretation of the laws as they are written.

And people do challenge their governments, local, state, federal. And it is not uncommon for them to have some measure of success from time to time.

But for me the bottom line is that the government has all the lawyers they need on a speed dial. And I'm just one little old fat man out here trying to get by.

So there is nothing involving a model aircraft used for recreation that is going to justify me getting into a pissing contest with the Feds.

 

[Kcgunesq]

About the same as would be required if you stood on the ground and used a regular camera.
Don't over-think it.

This. As long as you are comfortable you aren't breaking any laws, don't cause a fits by asking (generally. I understand that in this case, the school is requesting the service.) Generally speaking, no one ever wants to give you permission, even if they don't really care. And that's reasonable.

 

[Kcgunesq]

And therein lies your potential problem, as @BigAl07 explained. That simple statement means that the intent of the flight is not purely recreational, which is the condition that the law imposes for the flight not to fall under Part 107.

Of course it's recreational. Deriving pleasure from sharing photos you've taken doesn't transmogrify it into commercial work.

The recreational act is taking and sharing photos. That a uas is part of the equation doesn't change anything IMHO.

 

[Kcgunesq]

See, that sounds like the Craigslist ad I read for pics. "I'm not charging for the drone work, just the pictures...".

Guys, it sucks. I sometimes wonder why I have spent so much on equipment I can use at fewer and fewer places. But this type of justification only sounds ok till the law shows up, trust an old man on this. And this kind of stuff is where the rules get tougher trying to shut it down.

That having been said, for a quick pic of your kids class, maybe shoot and run works.

But if your kid isn't in the picture and/or you're making a dollar on it, you should be turned in. Being 107 certified is not cheap or easy. And I will drop a dime on cheaters in a New York minute.

Clearly commercial. But assuming OP isn't charging anything, not commercial.

 

[sar104]

Of course it's recreational. Deriving pleasure from sharing photos you've taken doesn't transmogrify it into commercial work.

The recreational act is taking and sharing photos. That a uas is part of the equation doesn't change anything IMHO.

You are both late to the discussion, and wrong in your conclusion. I did not mention the term "commercial", which is not the defining criterion for Part 107. And whether or not one derives pleasure from something does not define whether it is recreational.

 

[Kcgunesq]

That's not strictly what the Act means. The FAA may not make any new rules that regulate model aircraft. Existing aviation law applies, especially in regard to endangering the NAS.

Except, it isn't so clean. The FAA argued that registration wasn't a new rule, just applying an old rule to UAS. The court disagreed.

 

[Kcgunesq]

Except, it isn't so clean. The FAA argued that registration wasn't a new rule, just applying an old rule to UAS. The court disagreed.

Also, see goo.gl/WXbQPG

 

[BigAl07]

Clearly commercial. But assuming OP isn't charging anything, not commercial.

Why must you always stir the pot with bad or half information?

Even though the FAA has incorrectly used the term "Commercial" they have clearly stated (for many years now long before drones were even "a Thing") that you don't have to exchange $$ for an endeavor to be commercial.

As far as UAS flying goes, you are either operating 100% within the Part 101 guidelines or you are, by default, operating as a Civil Operation which is law and regulated by Part 107.

 

[sar104]

Also, see goo.gl/WXbQPG

It's not clean, but it's also not confusing in the way that you are making it out to be. The issue over registration was that it was a rule, and the question was only whether it was new. The FAA lost that argument, probably appropriately. The definition of recreational is not a rule, and so the parallel is flawed.

 

[Kcgunesq]

It's not clean, but it's also not confusing in the way that you are making it out to be. The issue over registration was that it was a rule, and the question was only whether it was new. The FAA lost that argument, probably appropriately. The definition of recreational is not a rule, and so the parallel is flawed.

Why must you always stir the pot with bad or half information?

Even though the FAA has incorrectly used the term "Commercial" they have clearly stated (for many years now long before drones were even "a Thing") that you don't have to exchange $$ for an endeavor to be commercial.

As far as UAS flying goes, you are either operating 100% within the Part 101 guidelines or you are, by default, operating as a Civil Operation which is law and regulated by Part 107.

I am willing to agree with you if you can convince me. But so far, all I see is you taking the position that the agency tried unsuccessfuly in Taylor.

Additionally, you need to explain how flights at, e.g. 100 feet in most situations impacts the NAS. Because if it doesn't, the agency is likely acting ultra vires.

Finally, you need to address the first amendment issues and explain how such "regulations" (assuming arguendo no APA issues) are narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means, assuming that the government (specifically FAA) has a compelling interest in regulating, e.g. surface to 100ft a agl.

 

[BigAl07]

I am willing to agree with you if you can convince me. But so far, all I see is you taking the position that the agency tried unsuccessfuly in Taylor.

Additionally, you need to explain how flights at, e.g. 100 feet in most situations impacts the NAS. Because if it doesn't, the agency is likely acting ultra vires.

Finally, you need to address the first amendment issues and explain how such "regulations" (assuming arguendo no APA issues) are narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means, assuming that the government (specifically FAA) has a compelling interest in regulating, e.g. surface to 100ft a agl.

No honestly I don't need to convince you in the least. The National Airspace System does include 100'AGL until the time that it is stipulated otherwise. Simply stating "I'm down here and you don't need to worry about me" does not release you from the rules and regulations associated with that space. Just like driving down a one lane road does not mean you don't have to follow all the laws of that road simply because it "should be" more safe for you to be there.

The Taylor case was lost because the FAA created a new rule specifically for Model Aircraft. That's part of the problem. Also they rushed it through without the proper processes (I still don't know why) and those 2 facts pretty much sealed the deal.

Rules for SAFETY in the NAS that apply to all aircraft also apply to MODEL aircraft. If a new law comes out tomorrow for ALL aircraft it will apply to model aircraft as well it just can't be written JUST for model aircraft.