FAA Contacted Me

[jephoto]

I occasionally fly for a Drone service that has pilots around the country to subcontract out the piloting. They have their 333 Exemption. And because of it they can contact an ATC directly where we need to fly and get approval within 2-3 days. As Part 107 holder we have to take the long way around.
So if you fly commercially enough to make it worth getting the 333- then that's the way.
Last September they hired me to shoot 6 sites literally ringing the DuPage Regional Airport in Illinois. I had permission to fly 100-150' max height within a block of the airfield.
I'd do it myself if I had enough paying jobs of my own.

 

[BigAl07]

I occasionally fly for a Drone service that has pilots around the country to subcontract out the piloting. They have their 333 Exemption. And because of it they can contact an ATC directly where we need to fly and get approval within 2-3 days. As Part 107 holder we have to take the long way around.
So if you fly commercially enough to make it worth getting the 333- then that's the way.
Last September they hired me to shoot 6 sites literally ringing the DuPage Regional Airport in Illinois. I had permission to fly 100-150' max height within a block of the airfield.
I'd do it myself if I had enough paying jobs of my own.

Check your 333's as they are probably about due to expire pretty soon if they haven't already been renewed. They aren't renewing them except in very specific circumstances (mostly dealing with Motion Picture Set type of work). I was talking with my FAA liaison about mine last month and he told me, "Your work falls squarely within Part 107 so there's no need to renew your 333. The 333 is to exempt you from flights that can not be covered under a Waiver. That's why we created Part 107 and the Waiver system to begin with. If you can't prove the NEED for the 333, provide the risk mitigation proof and documentation, and if it can be done under 107 we aren't even considering renewing your 333. Part 107 covers 99,99% of all sUAS flights which is exactly how it was intended."

While we've fully benefited from having the 333 I'm not going to attempt to renew it as I'm confident it will not get approved. YMMV though.

 

[Consultant]

There are rules for a reason. IF drone pilots all go out and break the rules, then it will only come back to hurt us.

I disagree, for the most part. Part 107 is a JOKE.

- You need authorization to fly 25ft off the ground 4 miles from an airport.

- You don't need authorization to fly 25ft above a helipad at any of the busiest hospitals in the country (that aren't in controlled airspace)

Gee, which scenario do you think an accident is most likely to happen?

- It is currently taking over 3 months for the FAA to process authorization requests for flights within the Facilities Map below the max altitudes. Yes, I know LAANC is being rolled out, but can someone please explain to me why, logically, any Part 107 pilot can't just fly within the altitude restrictions within the Facilities Map without authorization? What is even the purpose of the LAANC? A double check for possible pilots that don't know how to read the facilities map?

Can someone else explain to me why it should be easier for someone to fly as a hobbyist in controlled airspace than someone operating under Part 107? If anything the "commercial" Part 107 pilot would be more likely to be more knowledgeable and careful than someone just flying for fun (on average). I guess it wouldn't make sense for the government to put in place rules that truly address specific significant safety issues with well-tailored rules while allowing small businesses to thrive instead of being stifled.

I realize someone can always come up with some scenario to justify some convoluted rules that don't make sense in the other 95% of the real world scenarios. But let's get real here.

 

[macoman]

I realize someone can always come up with some scenario to justify some convoluted rules that don't make sense in the other ,75% of the real world scenarios. But let's get real here.

Welcome to the world of the politicians of Washington DC. Making rules and laws that in the majority of cases don't make sense.

 

[Ron34238]

Once you get your authorization, you aren't supposed to contact the tower unless is specifically says to do that in your authorization.

Thanks for the clarification. That certainly makes sense and makes things much easier during the period covered under my authorization.

 

[sar104]

Can someone else explain to me why it should be easier for someone to fly as a hobbyist in controlled airspace than someone operating under Part 107? If anything the "commercial" Part 107 pilot would be more likely to be more knowledgeable and careful than someone just flying for fun (on average).

Because Congress tied the FAA’s hands with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, in which they specifically exempted model aircraft flying from any regulation.

Had they not done so then I’m sure that Part 107 would have applied to everyone.

 

[BigAl07]

Can someone else explain to me why it should be easier for someone to fly as a hobbyist in controlled airspace than someone operating under Part 107? If anything the "commercial" Part 107 pilot would be more likely to be more knowledgeable and careful than someone just flying for fun (on average). I guess it wouldn't make sense for the government to put in place rules that truly address specific significant safety issues with well-tailored rules while allowing small businesses to thrive instead of being stifled.

I realize someone can always come up with some scenario to justify some convoluted rules that don't make sense in the other ,75% of the real world scenarios. But let's get real here.

In reality you simply don't understand the "back story". Believe it or not this isn't the "Fault" of the FAA. I can assure you that if it weren't for the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 you'd see fairly similar codified regulations against hobby flights as you do for Civil flights (All flights are Civil and hobby is a subset carved out of Civil flights).

In direct response to your question above: There is no justification. Fact of the matter is that leading up to 2012 some heavy hitters (lobbyists for Hobby operators) went to Congress and convinced them to "save" hobby operations from the FAA regulations. Congress was uneducated and very short sighted about how technology was advancing the sUAS industry and they merely greased the squeaky wheel. The Hobby "carve out" was to keep the FAA from making new rules against those people flying following AMA guidelines and in parks/flying fields around the country. Congress had no idea that the new micro Gyros and GPS guidance systems were opening sUAS operations up to the masses and allow them to fly basically anywhere, anytime, and with ZERO training in flight or regulations. The "Act" was meant to protect flying sites across the country from rules and regulations what really were (and still are) very Unnecessary.

Unfortunately the new Stabilized/Automated Flight Control sUAS craze has opened the wonderful world of R/C aircraft up to anyone who has a credit card and who can open a box and follow a couple of Quick Start pictures. Prior to this we spent months building and tweaking our aircraft and then went to a flying field or sought out help from an experienced pilot/operator. Also the hobby was "self correcting" in that if you didn't invest the time to Learn To Fly you simply crashed and had to start all over again. This "forced" a lot of the lazy/instant gratification crowd out from the very start.

So @Consultant it's not that the FAA wanted such a mixed and confusing set of rules/guidelines to come about. Believe it or not this created just as much head ache, back log, and problems for the FAA as it has those of us on this side of the coin. They were mandated by Congress to NOT create any new laws for Hobby operations because hobbyists had been "doing this" for decades. We had an incredible safety record because of training, simple aircraft (they couldn't fly on their own), and location being far away from people and AIRCRAFT.

For the record, many of us expect (and hope) for a complete repeal of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and when this happens hobbyists will be able to experience the full fun and benefit of FAA Rules & Regulations. The Hobby Registration is just days (maybe weeks) away from coming back and I expect that's just the first step to repealing Part 101. Bring it on

*sar104 beat me to it but I typed a bunch so I'm leaving it LOL

 

[Consultant]

I would say the fact hobbyist have more flexibility was the lesser of the points I was trying to make. Although it's the easier one to address based on the clear legislative history as you have pointed out so well. (Thank you.)

Some of the rules make sense like not flying over people, especially large groups of people, or over cars driving down the freeway, etc. Wow, I wonder how many meetings it took for the FAA to come up with those genius rules? Must have took a lot of brain power.

The fact of the matter is that probably 99.9% of all airspace a commercial pilot might be flying in, there aren't going to be manned aircraft flying below 400 ft, period. That 0.1% accounts for the mile or so at each end of the runway at airports, helipads at hospitals, and take-off/landing areas for seaplanes, and maybe some crop dusting. Oh ya, not only can I fly next to a helipad at the busiest hospital in the county, I can also fly anywhere I want at one of the busiest seaplane takeoff and landing places in the country in a major city. Those guys come in at a steep angle from almost nowhere. I find it ironic, laughable and sad, that probably the most likely situations where an "incident" might occur with another aircraft, those situations do NOT require FAA authorization. Nor does the FAA even require the pilot to notify the hospital or news station with the helipad, nor the Seaplane company. I guess the Part 107 Think Tank didn't spend THAT much time thinking about things. At least not the things that matter most in my opinion.

REALISTICALLY, the drone 90% of you all are flying (Phantoms) are going to do squat to another aircraft and if a jet airplane is flying low enough to ingest your drone, then I'd say the FAA has way bigger problems in that situation than the drone. LOL. Make sure you file that flight plan though so that 737 pilot can make sure he avoids you, you "pilot" you.

The issue, in reality, that is going to be one hundred times more important to the public is PRIVACY/NUISANCE, NOT SAFETY. Most people do not realize (a) the airspace above the ground on their property is not part of their property and is controlled by the FAA, and (b) people have already lost much of their privacy due to the huge increase in the number of security, traffic, and other surveillance devices that are scattered about the community that most people don't notice - including the camera of the phone everyone is carrying! But they WILL notice, and complain about a drone. Note that Los Angeles has strict local privacy laws regarding drones of course, otherwise they would be a FANTASTIC tool for the Paparazzi.

How often do you see a drone flying around in your city that's not yours? I bet very seldom, if ever. I mean actually being out and about in a city and seeing one, not seeing a news clip on TV that you can tell was shot by a drone. But how many of you when flying your drone have been approached by the police either due to curiosity or due to a complaint, or attracted attention good and bad from bystanders? I wouldn't be surprised if it's close to 50% of the time for many people.

Now imagine commercial UAS is becoming more common, at least as common if not more common than Land Surveying services or Roof cleaning and repair services. You start to see drones every day, everywhere. How do you think the public will feel about that? How will local jurisdictions handle it? This may be the more important issue regarding the future of the industry than something like LAANC.

 

[Consultant]

I would say the fact hobbyist have more flexibility was the lesser of the points I was trying to make. Although it's the easier one to address based on the clear legislative history as you have pointed out so well. (Thank you.)

Some of the rules make sense like not flying over people, especially large groups of people, or over cars driving down the freeway, etc. Wow, I wonder how many meetings it took for the FAA to come up with those genius rules? Must have took a lot of brain power.

The fact of the matter is that probably 99.9% of all airspace a commercial pilot might be flying in, there aren't going to be manned aircraft flying below 400 ft, period. That 0.1% accounts for the mile or so at each end of the runway at airports, helipads at hospitals, and take-off/landing areas for seaplanes, and maybe some crop dusting. Oh ya, not only can I fly next to a helipad at the busiest hospital in the county, I can also fly anywhere I want at one of the busiest seaplane takeoff and landing places in the country in a major city. Those guys come in at a steep angle from almost nowhere. I find it ironic, laughable and sad, that probably the most likely situations where an "incident" might occur with another aircraft, those situations do NOT require FAA authorization. Nor does the FAA even require the pilot to notify the hospital or news station with the helipad, nor the Seaplane company. I guess the Part 107 Think Tank didn't spend THAT much time thinking about things. At least not the things that matter most in my opinion.

REALISTICALLY, the drone 90% of you all are flying (Phantoms) are going to do squat to another aircraft and if a jet airplane is flying low enough to ingest your drone, then I'd say the FAA has way bigger problems in that situation than the drone. LOL. Make sure you file that flight plan though so that 737 pilot can make sure he avoids you, you "pilot" you.

The issue, in reality, that is going to be one hundred times more important to the public is PRIVACY/NUISANCE, NOT SAFETY. Most people do not realize (a) the airspace above the ground on their property is not part of their property and is controlled by the FAA, and (b) people have already lost much of their privacy due to the huge increase in the number of security, traffic, and other surveillance devices that are scattered about the community that most people don't notice - including the camera of the phone everyone is carrying! But they WILL notice, and complain about a drone. Note that Los Angeles has strict local privacy laws regarding drones of course, otherwise they would be a FANTASTIC tool for the Paparazzi.

How often do you see a drone flying around in your city that's not yours? I bet very seldom, if ever. I mean actually being out and about in a city and seeing one, not seeing a news clip on TV that you can tell was shot by a drone. But how many of you when flying your drone have been approached by the police either due to curiosity or due to a complaint, or attracted attention good and bad from bystanders? I wouldn't be surprised if it's close to 50% of the time for many people.

Now imagine commercial UAS is becoming more common, at least as common if not more common than Land Surveying services or Roof cleaning and repair services. You start to see drones every day, everywhere. How do you think the public will feel about that? How will local jurisdictions handle it? This may be the more important issue regarding the future of the industry than something like LAANC.

 

[sar104]

I would say the fact hobbyist have more flexibility was the lesser of the points I was trying to make. Although it's the easier one to address based on the clear legislative history as you have pointed out so well. (Thank you.)

Some of the rules make sense like not flying over people, especially large groups of people, or over cars driving down the freeway, etc. Wow, I wonder how many meetings it took for the FAA to come up with those genius rules? Must have took a lot of brain power.

The fact of the matter is that probably 99.9% of all airspace a commercial pilot might be flying in, there aren't going to be manned aircraft flying below 400 ft, period. That 0.1% accounts for the mile or so at each end of the runway at airports, helipads at hospitals, and take-off/landing areas for seaplanes, and maybe some crop dusting. Oh ya, not only can I fly next to a helipad at the busiest hospital in the county, I can also fly anywhere I want at one of the busiest seaplane takeoff and landing places in the country in a major city. Those guys come in at a steep angle from almost nowhere. I find it ironic, laughable and sad, that probably the most likely situations where an "incident" might occur with another aircraft, those situations do NOT require FAA authorization. Nor does the FAA even require the pilot to notify the hospital or news station with the helipad, nor the Seaplane company. I guess the Part 107 Think Tank didn't spend THAT much time thinking about things. At least not the things that matter most in my opinion.

REALISTICALLY, the drone 90% of you all are flying (Phantoms) are going to do squat to another aircraft and if a jet airplane is flying low enough to ingest your drone, then I'd say the FAA has way bigger problems in that situation than the drone. LOL. Make sure you file that flight plan though so that 737 pilot can make sure he avoids you, you "pilot" you.

The issue, in reality, that is going to be one hundred times more important to the public is PRIVACY/NUISANCE, NOT SAFETY. Most people do not realize (a) the airspace above the ground on their property is not part of their property and is controlled by the FAA, and (b) people have already lost much of their privacy due to the huge increase in the number of security, traffic, and other surveillance devices that are scattered about the community that most people don't notice - including the camera of the phone everyone is carrying! But they WILL notice, and complain about a drone. Note that Los Angeles has strict local privacy laws regarding drones of course, otherwise they would be a FANTASTIC tool for the Paparazzi.

How often do you see a drone flying around in your city that's not yours? I bet very seldom, if ever. I mean actually being out and about in a city and seeing one, not seeing a news clip on TV that you can tell was shot by a drone. But how many of you when flying your drone have been approached by the police either due to curiosity or due to a complaint, or attracted attention good and bad from bystanders? I wouldn't be surprised if it's close to 50% of the time for many people.

Now imagine commercial UAS is becoming more common, at least as common if not more common than Land Surveying services or Roof cleaning and repair services. You start to see drones every day, everywhere. How do you think the public will feel about that? How will local jurisdictions handle it? This may be the more important issue regarding the future of the industry than something like LAANC.

I don't understand where you are going with much of that argument. So the source of the unusual privileges afforded recreational pilots under Part 101 has been explained - that's understood I assume. But now you appear to start by criticizing the FAA for implementing rules simply because they are obvious - what are you saying - that those shouldn't be rules?

As for where authorization is and is not required - that is simply determined by class of airspace, which is how all aviation traffic is regulated. Part 107 pilots are trained and certified in order that they are knowledgeable enough to abide by airspace rules and make intelligent safety decisions when flying around uncontrolled airports etc., just as manned aircraft pilots are expected to do. What is inconsistent about that, and why would they have chosen to do it any differently?

 

[klepper]

Hello,

someone saw a video I did

FS

I would be tempted to file an FOIA request and get that guys name/contract info. Ask him WTF was he doing dropping the dime on you.

 

[rvrrat14]

Interesting enough there’s a drone company near me (Texas) that advertises they’ll turn unsafe drone pilot in to the FAA, as well as seeking them out.

It is against the rules to fly as pilot described. If you studied and took the 107 test you know this. There are even hazard attitude question regarding this.

I would consider a coffee and donut question to be mild on the Administrations part and count my blessings.

Just my .02

 

[mark2457]

Hello,

I have enjoyed this site for a while now and I have gotten lots of answers without needing to create an account. I joined today to say that the FAA contacted me recently about flying in a restricted area. I am a part 107 pilot and I fly commercially. They contacted me because I was flying in class B airspace about 2 miles away from an airport. I did not submit a flight plan on the FAA site because my client urgently needed footage done and there was no time. Figuring that plenty of commercial pilots do this, I went ahead and did the flight. The FAA contacted me because someone saw a video I did and tried to fly in the same area. The submitted a flight plan and got rejected so they reported me. I am dealing with the "slap on the hand" from them at the moment, but I was curious. Is there anyone here who actually makes a living flying commercially and submits every single flight plan to the FAA before flying? Sometimes it is completely unreasonable time-wise. The FAA suggests allowing up to SIX MONTHS to get approved for a flight. That is way too long a time. Is there any way I can streamline this process to a couple of days?

I would love it if anyone could help me.

Thank you,

FS

Dude, that's one of the questions on pretty much every practice exam out there:

You have been hired as a remote pilot by a local TV news station to film breaking news with a small UA. You expressed a safety concern and the station manager has instructed you to “fly first, ask questions later.” What type of attitude does this attitude represent?

- Machismo.
- Impulsivity.
- Invulnerability.