Got a call from the local FAA - someone 'reported' me

[DRR]

No, but the pilot can be fined. It is not the responsibility of the client, but of the pilot to ensure they are following the rules. Just like when you buy a plane ticket. It isn't up to you to check the pilots credili tials or aircraft maintenance logs .

I dont believe that. If you build a house you have to make sure you hire licensed plumber and electricians etc. If you hire a drone pilot its up to the client to make sure they are licensed. I carry my license and insurance with me all times. If I know of anyone that is not licensed I report them. So far I have seen videos online rejection g the rules and I have reported 15 of them. CASA have called me back 4 times so i know they do something. I have also been reported by 2 households but burst their bubble when they found out I was licensed and shooting a tv commercial.

 

[sar104]

I dont believe that. If you build a house you have to make sure you hire licensed plumber and electricians etc. If you hire a drone pilot its up to the client to make sure they are licensed. I carry my license and insurance with me all times. If I know of anyone that is not licensed I report them. So far I have seen videos online rejection g the rules and I have reported 15 of them. CASA have called me back 4 times so i know they do something. I have also been reported by 2 households but burst their bubble when they found out I was licensed and shooting a tv commercial.

I think that's probably correct. There is a difference between hiring services and buying an airline ticket, for example, in terms of liability. If an airline makes a mistake, such as employing an unlicensed pilot, its passengers are not jointly liable - that's on the pilot and the airline. This situation is closer to the pilot and the airline than the pilot/airline and the passengers. That's also why companies hiring pilots for aerial work will often require themselves to be named as co-insured - they have de facto liability.

 

[DRR]

I think that's probably correct. There is a difference between hiring services and buying an airline ticket, for example, in terms of liability. If an airline makes a mistake, such as employing an unlicensed pilot, its passengers are not jointly liable - that's on the pilot and the airline. This situation is closer to the pilot and the airline than the pilot/airline and the passengers. That's also why companies hiring pilots for aerial work will often require themselves to be named as co-insured - they have de facto liability.

If a company hires me for aerial work then I have to have insurances in place for sure. 20 million. I learnt that the only way they can stop companies hiring unlicensed pilots is to put the company responsible. So they should, They should be checking a pilot is licensed and carrying public liability insurance. The truth is, A pilot cant get insurance without a license. I also found out my insurance doesn't cover me for a commercial job if I dont have a flight clearance.

 

[Phil H]

No, but the pilot can be fined. It is not the responsibility of the client, but of the pilot to ensure they are following the rules. Just like when you buy a plane ticket. It isn't up to you to check the pilots credili tials or aircraft maintenance logs .

That I understand and knew. Back when the FAA began looking at drones, they warned that they would fine companies. The reason I know this is I was working for Coldwell Banker and our attorneys told us that they would not financially participate in defending us or paying any fines if we flew our drone. I just wondered if they had taken this into the new world.

 

[GadgetGuy]

A WORD TO THE WISE.
NEVER discuss anything with the FAA.
As a retired commercial pilot, I've had my share of encounters with the FAA. The one that come to mind is after a very serious discussion the FAA inspector said, You haven't admitted anything. When I asked what he meant, his reply was, people will deny doing one thing while admitting to doing something else. We then charge that person with the violation they admitted too.

You are not required to answer any questions asked by the FAA. Politely decline.

The burden of proof is on the FAA.

BE VERY CAREFUL, THE FAA IS NOT YOUR FRIEND.

Indeed! Ask Captain Sully! The FAA tried to railroad him after landing on the Hudson, claiming he could have made it back to two nearby airport runways in their computer simulations! However, they did not account for the human reaction time to first react to the circumstances and verify that no other alternative would work. They finally factored in a 35 second delay to allow for human processing and reacting to the situation. With that delay, the flight simulations all resulted in catastrophic crashes short of both alternative airports! They also claimed their computer analysis showed the second engine was still operational after the bird strike. Not until the second engine was recovered and found to be mechanically ruined by the bird strike was Sully finally fully vindicated! Don't trust the FAA!

 

[GadgetGuy]

Technically, the simple fact that you have been asked to do that means that it is not recreational in the eyes of the FAA. In reality, unless your friend uses the imagery in a way that identifies you as the source or you get caught/reported in the act, it's unlikely to be a problem.

However, if you previously shot the footage for recreational purposes, and he later uses it to sell or rent his property, even if he pays you for it, your intent at the time you shot the footage controls!

 

[sar104]

However, if you previously shot the footage for recreational purposes, and he later uses it to sell or rent his property, even if he pays you for it, your intent at the time you shot the footage controls!

Agreed - if that were the case.

 

[sar104]

Indeed! Ask Captain Sully! The FAA tried to railroad him after landing on the Hudson, claiming he could have made it back to two nearby airport runways in their computer simulations! However, they did not account for the human reaction time to first react to the circumstances and verify that no other alternative would work. They finally factored in a 35 second delay to allow for human processing and reacting to the situation. With that delay, the flight simulations all resulted in catastrophic crashes short of both alternative airports! They also claimed their computer analysis showed the second engine was still operational after the bird strike. Not until the second engine was recovered and found to be mechanically ruined by the bird strike was Sully finally fully vindicated! Don't trust the FAA!

That sounds suspiciously like the story line from the movie, which was significantly altered to make the investigation seem far more dramatic than it actually was. Even Sully himself made it clear that the investigation was not like that at all.

 

[GadgetGuy]

That sounds suspiciously like the story line from the movie, which was significantly altered to make the investigation seem far more dramatic than it actually was. Even Sully himself made it clear that the investigation was not like that at all.

Thanks for clarifying that. I just happened to watch the movie last night! Even so, most FAA prosecutions are based solely upon self incriminating statements made by the pilot after to the FAA. Don't convict yourself!

 

[Peter Weinberger]

I was at work on Thursday when I got a call from an unknown number. Let it go to voicemail and then listened to find that a local FAA rep (can't recall the term he used) was calling to inform me that I had been reported to them for my use of a UAV.

The guy was very nice and said the call was more to explain use of the UAV and current rules/regulations. Said the report was for flying over a 'crowded' downtown area and flying at night. I argued the first point as I flew over our local town (4.4 square miles and population of 20,000) this past Winter when the streets were literally lined with snow. The night thing was valid and done shortly after I bought the P4P and before learning about/sitting for the 107 exam. I am now a certified pilot.

Have to admit to being livid after the call about whomever had the gall to 'report me'. I am a landscape photographer in town and have built up a strong reputation for my work here. I've noticed a few people sharing their footage from UAVs and have to believe one of them was behind this.

Still not sure I agree with the part about not flying over our downtown. Does anyone here fly 100-200' over residential/businesses early in AM to capture images?

Anyone know if the reports to the FAA are anonymous? Would be nice to get the name of the person who reported me.

Anyone else get 'the call'?

E

I got the call for parts of a video that I shot over 4 years ago. Like you, I'm licensed now and have a couple of waivers, but really stick to the guidelines except for line of sight. I fly in most situations including over downtown areas. If there are groups of people, I'll avoid them or stay away just far enough to fly safely. With over 1000 flights, I've run into quite a lot, but nothing too dramatic except the guy who came up to me with a baseball bat. Fortunately, I was on top of a small hill. The FAA really just wants to give feedback to pilots like us. The people they go after usually have made a mockery of the rules and fly at 10,000 feet, or in NFZs, etc. I would just use common sense and be careful. Most people are just curious about what you are doing. But a few are not so nice. If there's something you are going to be doing on a regular basis, like fly over people, I would encourage you to get a waiver. Good luck.

 

[BigAl07]

I am glad to hear the FAA is fair-minded when approaching drone pilots. I am a Commercially rated pilot and just passed the part 107 test. My question to anyone who knows is this. Is the any fine or charge placed against a person or company who hires a non-licensed UAV operator flying for commercial purposes? Those of us who have taken the time to become legal to fly for hire have to compete with non-licensed operators. For example if a real estate company hires a photographer to shoot a property and a UAV is part of that photo package, the photographer or his sub, should be Part 107 compliant. If there is such a provision in place that holds the client responsible to assure the operator is operating within the law, then great. I have not been able to find this regulation. About two years ago when the FAA was trying to get its arms around the whole drone thing, they did have fines in place to charge those who hired drone operators for commercial purposes. None of these stuck since the law was not approved by congress, if I recall. Anyone, know if such a rule exists?

The email response below (from the FAA) sums up this question to a "T"....