Got a call from the FAA today

[LSU Drone]

Lots of people use their real name and give an e-mail address on YouTube. There didn't necessarily have to be a warrant issued.

This guy clearly stated that it was nearly impossible to get his work number, thus, I highly doubt it was posted on his YouTube account.

 

[johan]

Part 91 commercial operations, seriously? (oxymoron) There is no such thing as part 91 commercial operations.

There most certainly are commercial operations flown under part 91 each and every day. Crop dusting? Pipeline patrol? Wildlife surveys? Sightseeing flights? Skydiving? Banner towing? Traffic watch? Ferry flights? All of those are commercial operations. And all of those are conducted under part 91 regulations. And I'm sure I'm leaving some others out. I seem to recall someone earlier in the thread recommending that those who do not have a working knowledge of the CFR's ought not give out false information. Yeah, maybe you should consider taking that advice.

Not false before 2010?? ok, I am not going to even go there... Enjoy

Go there or don't. No skin off my teeth. Here's the link. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2010/perry - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf
Read it if you like. Or don't. Again, I could care less.

 

[Stevenas]

This guy clearly stated that it was nearly impossible to get his work number, thus, I highly doubt it was posted on his YouTube account.

Thanks, and....Geaux Tigers!!!

 

[johan]

I was right, I was leaving some out. Glider towing? Part 91. Fish spotting? Part 91. Pilot services (i.e. I fly you where you want to go when you want to go there in an aircraft that you own and you pay me a handsome salary for it)? You guessed it champ, part 91.

I know its rude and lacking in character to rub it in, but you were kinda asking for it.

 

[YolevonALLin]

Finally someone with good advice...

Im not sure, but... should an attorney be stating he's an attorney on a board OFFICIALLY stating "as an attorney" and providing pretty specific advice? To me, that highly irresponsible as I've had a friend have his bar license suspended for a year because he listed "attorney" as his profession on a website in a manner that wasnt approved by the state.. and he never gave advice. I might be wrong, just a thought

 

[YolevonALLin]

Let me offer some advice as an attorney who has represented pilots charged with violations of various Federal Aviation Regulations, or FARs. Please don't make the investigator's case for him or her if/when you get a phone call. Admit NOTHING. In order to prove a violation, they have to prove that YOU are the person who committed the act that they allege is a violation. If you say, "Yes, I was flying a drone at XX location at XX time, but it wasn't over people and it was below 400'", you have just given away an element of the case that they might have been otherwise unable to prove absent that admission. My advice to pilots is always to LISTEN, not talk if the FAA is on the line.

Yeah, I just confirmed my suspicion that in most states, what you literally just said is a bigtime no-no, if you are in fact an attorney... And the fact that you used the words, "let me offer some advice AS AN ATTORNEY" is very very sketchy and never advisable in a "social media" setting with thousands of people reading it. I would say delete your comment, but I'm pretty sure that's just as bad. I don't even know what to think or say here, but WOW you have more issues with this post than the OP and some might say you just really risked your license.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[LSU Drone]

Im not sure, but... should an attorney be stating he's an attorney on a board OFFICIALLY stating "as an attorney" and providing pretty specific advice? To me, that highly irresponsible as I've had a friend have his bar license suspended for a year because he listed "attorney" as his profession on a website in a manner that wasnt approved by the state.. and he never gave advice. I might be wrong, just a thought

An attorney isn't bound by any laws to not give out free advice, officially. He is free to do any pro bono work he wants in any capacity. What do you think the public defenders office is?

 

[Bubba]

But the ******* called me at work, that surprised me and pissed me off.

******* may also be a member here. My .02

 

[750r]

Im not sure, but... should an attorney be stating he's an attorney on a board OFFICIALLY stating "as an attorney" and providing pretty specific advice? To me, that highly irresponsible as I've had a friend have his bar license suspended for a year because he listed "attorney" as his profession on a website in a manner that wasnt approved by the state.. and he never gave advice. I might be wrong, just a thought

I am not a attorney and what he said is what I would tell any & everyone . You know LEO's are aloud by law to lie & twist words to get you to talk then use your words to build a case ? Loose lips sink ships

 

[GoodnNuff]

Yeah, I just confirmed my suspicion that in most states, what you literally just said is a bigtime no-no, if you are in fact an attorney... And the fact that you used the words, "let me offer some advice AS AN ATTORNEY" is very very sketchy and never advisable in a "social media" setting with thousands of people reading it. I would say delete your comment, but I'm pretty sure that's just as bad. I don't even know what to think or say here, but WOW you have more issues with this post than the OP and some might say you just really risked your license.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

You are right, my friend nearly had her license suspended for a year after identifying herself as an attorney giving legal advice on a pet forum.

 

[Stevenas]

******* may also be a member here. My .02

There are assholes members here??

 

[N017RW]

Stevenas,

It's really hard to read your posts without projecting the 'Dude's' persona onto it.

(The Dude abides)

 

[johan]

HELLOOOO this is not part 91 it falls under the provisions of 119.1

I have already said that I fully acknowledge my mistake when I'm wrong. I believe its a measure of character to admit mistakes and own up to them so its something I always try to do. So I humbly apologize for my mistake in not citing that 119.1 applies to commercial operators.

But while we're on the subject and since you obviously have an expert level understanding of the FAR's, perhaps you'll be so kind as to help me understand exactly what the following section of 119.1 means. I've taken the liberty of bolding some of the parts that I'm struggling to comprehend.

(e) Except for operations when common carriage is not involved conducted with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, this part does not apply to -
(1) Student instruction;
[(2) Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted after September 11, 2007, in an airplane or helicopter having a standard airworthiness certificate and passenger-seat configuration of 30 seats or fewer and a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less that begin and end at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport, in compliance with the Letter of Authorization issued under Sec. 91.147 of this chapter. For nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted in accordance with part 136, subpart B of this chapter, National Parks Air Tour Management, the requirements of part 119 of
this chapter apply unless excepted in Sec. 136.37(g)(2). For Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, the requirements of SFAR 50-2, part 93, subpart U, and part 119 of this chapter, as applicable, apply.]
(3) Ferry or training flights;
(4) Aerial work operations, including -
(i) Crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and bird chasing;
(ii) Banner towing;
(iii) Aerial photography or survey;
(iv) Fire fighting;
(v) Helicopter operations in construction or repair work (but it does apply to transportation to and from the site of operations); and
(vi) Powerline or pipeline patrol;
(5) Sightseeing flights conducted in hot air balloons;
(6) Nonstop flights conducted within a 25-statute-mile radius of the airport of takeoff carrying persons or objects for the purpose of conducting intentional parachute operations;
(7) Helicopter flights conducted within a 25 statute mile radius of the airport of takeoff if -
(i) Not more than two passengers are carried in the helicopter in addition to the required flightcrew;
(ii) Each flight is made under day VFR conditions;
(iii) The helicopter used is certificated in the standard category and complies with the 100-hour inspection requirements of part 91 of this chapter;
(iv) The operator notifies the FAA Flight Standards District Office responsible for the geographic area concerned at least 72 hours before each flight and furnishes any essential information that the office requests;
(v) The number of flights does not exceed a total of six in any calendar year;
(vi) Each flight has been approved by the Administrator; and
(vii) Cargo is not carried in or on the helicopter;
(8) Operations conducted under part 133 of this chapter or 375 of this title;
(9) Emergency mail service conducted under 49 U.S.C. 41906; or
(10) Operations conducted under the provisions of Sec. 91.321 of this chapter.

I look forward to hearing your wisdom on the subject.

 

[johan]

This interpretation if you read it says nothing about permitting commercial operations by a private pilot prior to 2010. My position still stands, the key word here is "incidental" to business... This speaks about incidental work only

Your statement "Also student pilot solo flights are fair game. Private pilots are allowed to use certified aircraft for commercial photography."

Oops you're right. I posted the wrong link. Here you go.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/1995/white - (1995) legal interpretation.pdf
That's a letter of interpretation from 1995. I'll quote the relevant part in case you don't want to read the whole thing.

One further point requires clarification. You have not
indicated what type of pilot certificate you hold, i.e.,
private pilot certificate, or a commercial pilot certificate,
or higher.
To the extent that your operation would be in furtherance of
your own business of aerial photography or survey, and you are
not carrying persons or property for compensation or hire, then
you may do so holding a private pilot certificate.

That letter of interpretation was issued in 1995 and thus made it perfectly legal for a private pilot to do aerial photography for hire. And that interpretation stood until 2010 when it was redacted by the letter of interpretation I posted earlier. So yeah, like I said, it was legal at one time.

Does that sting? Cause it looks like it stings. You might want to put some ointment on that. Wouldn't want it to get infected.

 

[YolevonALLin]

Oops you're right. I posted the wrong link. Here you go.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/1995/white - (1995) legal interpretation.pdf
That's a letter of interpretation from 1995. I'll quote the relevant part in case you don't want to read the whole thing.

That letter of interpretation was issued in 1995 and thus made it perfectly legal for a private pilot to do aerial photography for hire. And that interpretation stood until 2010 when it was redacted by the letter of interpretation I posted earlier. So yeah, like I said, it was legal at one time.

Does that sting? Cause it looks like it stings. You might want to put some ointment on that. Wouldn't want it to get infected.

#UgotGeekedUP

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[johan]

I'm done

That's good to know. Trust me on the ointment thing. You really don't want that to scar up on you.

 

[penguinmaster]

please send me the name of the book and whereyou got it [email protected]