Can I fly indoors commercially without 107?

[Drestin Black]

Far as I know, the FAA doesn't control indoor flight. Far as I know, no one does. If you can fly inside a building (yours or someone who gives you explicit permission) it's your flight, do as you will.

So, can I fly inside, commercially without license?
(Simple question, not a challenge)

 

[MacMan3409]

Good question! Can't wait to watch this play out...[emoji4][emoji897][emoji860][emoji860][emoji860]

Persimmon granted from owner of building to fly, safe environment & defined perimeters. No ability for FAA manned aircraft to be able to enter "airspace" I.e the roof of the building.
I like this one[emoji1360]


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Drestin Black]

From Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Frequently Asked Questions/Help:

If I'm just flying my UAS inside a building, or in my own yard, do I have to register it?
If you're flying indoors, you do not need to register your unmanned aircraft as the FAA does not regulate indoor UAS use.

Those last 8 words seem to answer the question.

 

[y2keable]

Below the roof is "property" and above the roof is "airspace"

What happens below the roof does not happen in airspace and therefore nothing you do can be considered a "flight"

 

[N017RW]

Below the roof is "property" and above the roof is "airspace"

What happens below the roof does not happen in airspace and therefore nothing you do can be considered a "flight"

Please link to this (folklore?).

(IIRC the Wright Bros. first flight was at about 3 meters altitude.)

 

[y2keable]

Please link to this (folklore?).

(IIRC the Wright Bros. first flight was at about 3 meters altitude.)

I'm talking about how the law defines "flight" with respect to model aircraft and how the FAA/CAA have no jurisdiction inside a building with a roof.

 

[N017RW]

I agree but you seemed to complicate the issue at first pass by saying 'below the roof' when just 'indoors' would have sufficed.

My interpretive mistake.

 

[y2keable]

I agree but you seemed to complicate the issue at first pass by saying 'below the roof' when just 'indoors' would have sufficed.

My interpretive mistake.

Some buildings don't have a roof and so are defined as a "manmade structure", in which case the FAA has jurisdiction within the boundaries of such a structure.

 

[mikej]

Check part 107. FAA does not regulate inside a bldg. Also, you are required to register you UAS if it weights more than 55 ozs; even as a hobbyist. FAA website has more info on this.

Sent from my SM-N920R7 using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[N017RW]

No question here.

My confusion was that the poster was insinuating that outdoors (as well) below a roof is not 'airspace'.

Again, my interpretive mistake.

 

[Richard R]

Check part 107. FAA does not regulate inside a bldg. Also, you are required to register you UAS if it weights more than 55 ozs; even as a hobbyist. FAA website has more info on this.

Sent from my SM-N920R7 using PhantomPilots mobile app

Oops, I believe that is for a UAS that weighs more than 0.55 lbs. As a hobbiest, we register the pilot, commercially, we register the bird and license the pilot. Still only applies to over 0.55 lbs.

 

[mikej]

My mistake. It is 0.55 lbs. It is a good thing I have not taken the remote pilot certification exam yet to legally fly commercially.


Sent from my SM-N920R7 using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[Richard R]

Oops, I believe that is for a UAS that weighs more than 0.55 lbs. As a hobbiest, we register the pilot, commercially, we register the bird and license the pilot. Still only applies to over 0.55 lbs.

Correction, it's less than 55 lbs for commercial and more than 0.55 lbs and less than 55lbs for hobby.

 

[kennedye]

I've been wondering for a while if there's a way to coordinate between the FAA and DJI to allow flying indoors within the DC SFRA. Maybe I'll try and apply for a waiver/authorization one day.

 

[Drestin Black]

Ok, I think we've solved/settled this one. Now I'm going back to up the warehouse I'll be flying in and try to resolve the mystery of the automatic max altitude "feature" - I don't think people believe it so I'll be recording it with separate video.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[GMack]

I'd wager that since the FAA considers drones as aircraft, even if you crash one inside a building they might investigate if damages suffice, much as they do for normal aircraft inside a hanger that hit each other, people who are struck by a spinning prop (I know one guy who got a metal plate on his skull for doing that trick!), or on ground collisions. Doesn't have to be in the air, just something to do with aircraft and some injury. I don't think the local aircraft mechanic calls the police should he forget to chock the wheels and accidentally starts it and flies into the shop wall.

Since the feds put the FAA in charge of these things, no doubt their involvement is greater, or will become greater, than we think. Local level is still pretty much still "Duh!" and they may call them anyway. Flying one inside a church that goes out of control and slices up a few people may be a FAA call under their reckless endangerment call or rule for flying over people inside or not.

 

[Drestin Black]

Actually, I do Not believe the FAA gets called for inside the hanger accidents.
And, you know, it IS possible to fly over people legally.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[y2keable]

I'd wager that since the FAA considers drones as aircraft, even if you crash one inside a building they might investigate if damages suffice, much as they do for normal aircraft inside a hanger that hit each other, people who are struck by a spinning prop (I know one guy who got a metal plate on his skull for doing that trick!), or on ground collisions. Doesn't have to be in the air, just something to do with aircraft and some injury. I don't think the local aircraft mechanic calls the police should he forget to chock the wheels and accidentally starts it and flies into the shop wall.

Since the feds put the FAA in charge of these things, no doubt their involvement is greater, or will become greater, than we think. Local level is still pretty much still "Duh!" and they may call them anyway. Flying one inside a church that goes out of control and slices up a few people may be a FAA call under their reckless endangerment call or rule for flying over people inside or not.

FAA and CAA consider a drone as a "multi rotor model aircraft equipped with a camera". Definitely not the same as a fixed wing manned aircraft.

 

[GMack]

FAA and CAA consider a drone as a "multi rotor model aircraft equipped with a camera". Definitely not the same as a fixed wing manned aircraft.

If you had watched the FAA webinar yesterday, they call it an aircraft - period - which is subject to any rules regarding same (e.g. Drunk pilots.) and also applies to the shooters of drones (aircraft) as well (If the FBI pursues the shooters, while the FAA pursues the pilot violations.). Drone is the media and public definition.

Also, when someone mentioned about "Flying over actors" two from the FAA people said "No. Flights must be at arms length to the side; if overhead, then some sort of shelter to protect anyone beneath them." They do have a waiver for flights over people and/or night flight, but supposedly the sidebar mentioned only CNN has one and it's on a case by case basis. There may be more. The FAA spokesperson said "The FAA was all about safety" which has some bearing to their stringent rules. Flying over "sparsely" populated areas is undefined by them also.

An interesting part of the FAA webinar was when Kevin explained something, he then posted a poll to see how people responded to some topics. Generally, no poll scored 100% correct so there is s lot of confusion still even once explained. How this all works out in whatever other versions or changes to 107 will be interesting.

 

[BigAl07]

DiB when is it "legal" to fly over people (waiver doesn't count)? The ONLY people you can "legally" fly over are those in direct association with the actual flight (flight crew) and people inside a structure or enclosed motor vehicle that provides sufficient protection from a sUAS impact. That's it without a waiver in hand.

Be very careful with "proximity" to/over people. It's a bit more complex than at arm's length as that's a no-technical term. Technically you have to operate in a manner in which a system failure can not allow the aircraft to fly over or into people. Fortunately our aircraft fall mostly down with a major system failure but sometimes not exactly straight down.

If there is an incident it will be FAA and NTSB who investigate and their terms/definitions are all that matters.