Got a call from the FAA today

[Stevenas]

What risk?

Flying without sight of your bird and to mention, that distance is a little risky wouldn't you say?

"Last week I flew out to 4.8km (15,700 feet) I was on a slight hill with line of sight (no obstacles between me and the drone but of course I couldn't see it)."

 

[dirkclod]

BLOS ..Ya know what was under ya when it was BLOS ?
Just saying Simon !

Whoops Sorry TJ

 

[SimonCB]

Hey, I'm new to this hobby and still learning. Yeah, I make mistakes, I guess you didn't starting out, right?
But my original post was concerning how the FAA contacted me and also I was asking if anyone had a similar experience.

Thats fair enough, we make mistakes so sorry I shouldn't have called you stupid. I was actually more concerned with how many people thought flying over people is ok.

As for the FAA contacting you at work I'm guessing they are connected to some pretty powerful databases since 9/11 and all that followed. Makes you wonder it was even via your IP address to get your name then a name search to get your work via social sec number?

 

[SimonCB]

Flying without sight of your bird and to mention, that distance is a little risky wouldn't you say?

"Last week I flew out to 4.8km (15,700 feet) I was on a slight hill with line of sight (no obstacles between me and the drone but of course I couldn't see it)."

It was over forrest, no people, no crowds. No risk.

 

[Stevenas]

Thats fair enough, we make mistakes so sorry I shouldn't have called you stupid. I was actually more concerned with how many people thought flying over people is ok.

As for the FAA contacting you at work I'm guessing they are connected to some pretty powerful databases since 9/11 and all that followed. Makes you wonder it was even via your IP address to get your name then a name search to get your work via social sec number?

Exactly, one of my points. If they could get my work phone # why not call my cellphone or send an e-mail?
Or hell, even snail mail. Why ambush me at work? Not cool.

 

[SimonCB]

Exactly, one of my points. If they could get my work phone # why not call my cellphone or send an e-mail?
Or hell, even snail mail. Why ambush me at work? Not cool.

Did FAA tell anyone at your work when they were being put through or was it direct? Interesting if they made a point of mentioning they were FAA to anyone before speaking to you?

 

[Stevenas]

Did FAA tell anyone at your work when they were being put through or was it direct? Interesting if they made a point of mentioning they were FAA to anyone before speaking to you?

I work at a large institution, approximately 11-12,000 employees, maybe more. The department I work in has a direct phone line in but it is not published nor are records easily reached on who works where. It would take some digging to find me but I'm sure it's a routine thing for the federal government.
And I'm not sure if they told anyone before they talked to me that they were with the FAA.

 

[SimonCB]

I work at a large institution, approximately 11-12,000 employees, maybe more. The department I work in has a direct phone line in but it is not published nor are records easily reached on who works where. It would take some digging to find me but I'm sure it's a routine thing for the federal government.
And I'm not sure if they told anyone before they talked to me that they were with the FAA.

They probably didn't as they would be dicks if they did and the fact that you haven't been charged would suggest they aren't dicks. Despite calling you at work.

 

[Meta4]

Here's why. Because they aren't going to bother tracking down the experimental aircraft pilots and issue any warnings to them. The FAA could give a rat's *** if any experimental aircraft owner posts a video of his or her flight on youtube. They don't consider that a commercial operation.

But regs say what they say, so if they're going to decide that any amateur posting a video shot from a drone on youtube is a commercial operation of said drone,

When you post your videos (or i post my videos) on You Tube for free, how is that considered at a commercial level. It's FREE, I'm not at the pay level with in You Tube, I don't make any money.

Because the FAA has established that the pilot does not have to make any money in order for the flight in question to be considered a commercial operation. Youtube makes money from it. Youtube is a company. You post on youtube, its a commercial operation. Or so they're trying to say.

And the FAA doesn't consider posting drone videos on Youtube to be commercial use either.
One FAA inspector overstepped FAA guidelines back in early March and started the Youtube videos = commercial use nonsense. In early April the FAA corrected this.
Check N8900.292 https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.292.pdf
It says .. Electronic media posted on a video Web site does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use.

The FAA may investigate Youtube videos for breaches of safety rules, but they aren't suggesting that putting a video on Youtube is commercial use.

 

[LordEvil]

Forgot to say Simon says

 

[dirkclod]

Simon says

Simon says

Forgot to say Simon says

LordEvel Now that's just to funny

 

[Clipper707]

I don't have time to read all 8 pages but the pages I read nobody seems to have a problem with what you did.

When you fly over crowds, when you fly above 500, when you fly at night, you make us all look bad. The more people that fly over crowds the more people will get hurt and the more the laws will crack down.

Its stupid.

If you flew it over crowds and at night then you presented a hazard to public safety. This forum is full of posts about fly-aways and crashes. You are not immune to these mishaps, and should act responsibly or we will all suffer- but not as much as the people (including kids) who you crash your 4 spinning blades into. Wise up, dude.

How is flying at night a hazard to public safety?

 

[johan]

And the FAA doesn't consider posting drone videos on Youtube to be commercial use either.
One FAA inspector overstepped FAA guidelines back in early March and started the Youtube videos = commercial use nonsense. In early April the FAA corrected this.
Check N8900.292 https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.292.pdf
It says .. Electronic media posted on a video Web site does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use.

The FAA may investigate Youtube videos for breaches of safety rules, but they aren't suggesting that putting a video on Youtube is commercial use.

I had not seen that PDF posted or mentioned before. I will be filing it away for future use and everyone else should do the same. Its not the same as an official letter of interpretation and I'm not sure it carries the same weight, but it certainly carries some weight. Thanks for posting it.

 

[shipdriver]

How is flying at night a hazard to public safety?

Because of the flashing lights, you can see it from a much greater distance than you can during the day, so it can cause a UFO panic. Actually, obstacles like trees and power lines are harder to spot at night making low-altitude flying more dangerous, whether LOS or FPV, or manned aircraft for that matter.

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Because of the flashing lights, you can see it from a much greater distance than you can during the day, so it can cause a UFO panic. Actually, obstacles like trees and power lines are harder to spot at night making low-altitude flying more dangerous, whether LOS or FPV, or manned aircraft for that matter.

There is a post from a long time ago here where a guy flew at night adjacent to a highway and cars started to slow down and some even stopped causing a traffic hazard. Not cool.

PS - it won't be long now...

 

[GoodnNuff]

Headers are easily spoofed. Scam marketers do it all the time.

Even if it was from an FAA official, it would have been contrary to policy.

From Bloomberg Business, 4/14/2015:

Federal regulators will stop sending scary letters to drone hobbyists who post evidence of airspace infractions on YouTube

YouTube is blanketed with crimes against American airspace committed by private owners of unmanned aerial vehicles, which hasn't escaped the notice of officials at the Federal Aviation Administration. In recent years, the agency has sent letters to scores of drone hobbyists who published videos in which federal flight rules have clearly been violated. Panicked recipients often pull down the proof of their infractions.

That cat-and-mouse game has come to an end. As part of its kinder, gentler stance toward civilian drones, the FAA has set a new policy against involvement in most cases involving drone hobbyists with YouTube hits. John Duncan, director of the FAA’s Flight Standard Service, told inspectors last week that they have no authority to order or suggest that drone videos posted online be removed. A video “is ordinarily not sufficient evidence alone to determine” that a drone flight violated federal rules, he wrote in a memo.​

Not sure Bloomberg is where I'd look to quote FAA policy...

 

[GoodnNuff]

How is flying at night a hazard to public safety?

Can't see power lines. That is how the Inspire got hung up on high voltage power lines over Lake Union in Seattle a few weeks ago. The drone was stuck 150 ft (if ?I remeber the distance correctly, maybe it was 100 feet) over open water, glowing and causing power lags to customers. It cost the utility company $35,000 to remove the drone and repair the damage.
I recall reading this is why the FAA wants to ban night flying because of no clear LOS and the risk of hitting a tree, radio tower, power lines poles, etc., could place the public at risk.

 

[redmoe]

I still don't understand why folks think night flying is a significant increase in risk. The markers on the quad and manned aircraft make them much more visible at night. Perception of altitude is arguable at any hour once you get several hundred feet out. Regardless of the time of day you should not be in a densly populated area. Obsticals may not be as visible but if you know the area that can be easily mitigated. It really comes down to the operator flying responsibly in any condition.

 

[redmoe]

Can't see power lines. That is how the Inspire got hung up on high voltage power lines over Lake Union in Seattle a few weeks ago. The drone was stuck 150 ft (if ?I remeber the distance correctly, maybe it was 100 feet) over open water, glowing and causing power lags to customers. It cost the utility company $35,000 to remove the drone and repair the damage.
I recall reading this is why the FAA wants to ban night flying because of no clear LOS and the risk of hitting a tree, radio tower, power lines poles, etc., could place the public at risk.

I think the real issue in this case is flying that close to large obstructions in the first place.

 

[GoodnNuff]

There is a post from a long time ago here where a guy flew at night adjacent to a highway and cars started to slow down and some even stopped causing a traffic hazard. Not cool.

PS - it won't be long now...

I was rushing down highway 18 (for any Puget Sounder reading this) a few weeks ago, between Covington and Auburn, headed to Federal Way to pick up a 3DR Solo. It was about 7pm, this is a 6 lane highway, and I looked up and there was a Phantom V 1,2,or3 flying against traffic, about 15 feet above our heads. Traffic started to slow due to the distraction. Looked up as I approached an overpass, and there was a 20'ish looking kid standing there piloting his drone over traffic. The overpass was actually higher than the altitude the kid was flying at. Stupid and dangerous with the potential to cause a serous accident.