B4UFLY "Good to go!" vs FAA rule 14 C.F.R. § 107.41

BigAl07

Administrator
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
7,023
Reaction score
5,855
Age
50
Location
Western North Carolina
He said the people in the boats were his friends, so if they agreed to being part of the operation then that would put him in the clear.

Negative! Even if they sign waivers, releases, IOU’s they can’t “allow Fed Regs to be violated.

As stated above only members (who are trained and briefed) of the flight crew are allowed to be flown over.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
125
Reaction score
43
Age
43
Based on the description of the guy flying over boats with friends onboard, it sounds like more recreational flights vs. commercial. Did he attempt to monetize the flights? How does the FAA distinguish just by viewing YouTube videos whether to invoke Part 107 vs. recreational rules? Not sure these days there's much difference, but there was a huge difference prior to May 2019. You state the flights were more than a year old, so that could have some play here. As I understand it, even a Part 107 certified pilot can still fly under recreational rules.
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
778
Reaction score
618
Location
Miami-Dade
Based on the description of the guy flying over boats with friends onboard, it sounds like more recreational flights vs. commercial. Did he attempt to monetize the flights? How does the FAA distinguish just by viewing YouTube videos whether to invoke Part 107 vs. recreational rules? Not sure these days there's much difference, but there was a huge difference prior to May 2019. You state the flights were more than a year old, so that could have some play here. As I understand it, even a Part 107 certified pilot can still fly under recreational rules.

IMG_9815.jpg
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
125
Reaction score
43
Age
43
I was more addressing the alleged airspace violations, even though the FAA seems flawed here. Prior to the rule changes, recreational flyers had vastly different protocols than Part 107 pilots. Back in those days, any time I called a tower it was pretty informal, and I doubt much documentation was made that I had indeed talked to them. Regardless, I'd be interested to know how the FAA decided 107 applies here.
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
778
Reaction score
618
Location
Miami-Dade
I was more addressing the alleged airspace violations, even though the FAA seems flawed here. Prior to the rule changes, recreational flyers had vastly different protocols than Part 107 pilots. Back in those days, any time I called a tower it was pretty informal, and I doubt much documentation was made that I had indeed talked to them. Regardless, I'd be interested to know how the FAA decided 107 applies here.

I don’t know how the FAA determined 107 vs hobbyists, but the AMA rules were here long before part 107 and the FAA is the controlling agency in the NAS.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
125
Reaction score
43
Age
43
As the OP stated in another post "Well, the FAA has been caring about finding and fining folks around here. For flights that are over a year ago." Let's face it, FAA has stepped up its public awareness around drone safety and regulation enforcement greatly over the past year, and that's a good thing. I'm not aware of many $17,000 fines being slapped on recreational flyers from around 2018 for flying over a group at a picnic - the incidents that got publicity back then were for flying over a stadium full of people or some other truly egregious violation. Today is of course different, and the awareness campaigns the FAA has launched should have people convinced that they can't fly over people.

It's the part about ferreting out historic flights that worries me. Here's an example: shortly after I got my drone, I wanted to undertake a flight well within the 5-mile radius of an airport (remember, recreational flyers back then were regulated not by airspace, but by distance from airport). I called the tower as required, and the guy I talked to seemed confused as to why I was calling, and gave me the OK for the flight. It's highly doubtful he entered my request into any database, and today, with LAANC, I see that area is in a 0' grid - I'd never be approved for a flight there now. An FAA inspector viewing my video would rightfully be concerned about such a flight, but I only hope they would take into account the standards of the day vs. current standards. At the time I undertook the flight, I was following all regulations. By today's standards, I would have made a serious violation.
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
778
Reaction score
618
Location
Miami-Dade
The op’s friend also got fined for flying in controlled airspace although from point on map of flight area he was not in controlled airspace. And even if he was in controlled airspace how can FAA prove he didn’t get authorization from ATC if calls were not recorded.
Those who fly over people and vehicles (automobiles, boats, trains, etc) and post on line are giving FAA all the evidence they need to fine them and encouraging others to do the same.
 

dronesky

Premium Pilot
Joined
Feb 4, 2017
Messages
741
Reaction score
690
Location
Indiana
As the OP stated in another post "Well, the FAA has been caring about finding and fining folks around here. For flights that are over a year ago." Let's face it, FAA has stepped up its public awareness around drone safety and regulation enforcement greatly over the past year, and that's a good thing. I'm not aware of many $17,000 fines being slapped on recreational flyers from around 2018 for flying over a group at a picnic - the incidents that got publicity back then were for flying over a stadium full of people or some other truly egregious violation. Today is of course different, and the awareness campaigns the FAA has launched should have people convinced that they can't fly over people.

It's the part about ferreting out historic flights that worries me. Here's an example: shortly after I got my drone, I wanted to undertake a flight well within the 5-mile radius of an airport (remember, recreational flyers back then were regulated not by airspace, but by distance from airport). I called the tower as required, and the guy I talked to seemed confused as to why I was calling, and gave me the OK for the flight. It's highly doubtful he entered my request into any database, and today, with LAANC, I see that area is in a 0' grid - I'd never be approved for a flight there now. An FAA inspector viewing my video would rightfully be concerned about such a flight, but I only hope they would take into account the standards of the day vs. current standards. At the time I undertook the flight, I was following all regulations. By today's standards, I would have made a serious violation.
Phone records showing you called the tower is the only proof you would have most likely
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
140,483
Messages
1,448,086
Members
102,276
Latest member
Ashes phantom 4pro