Gut check time - what would you do?

[Jim Roof]

Study a bit more. There is only A, B, C, D, E, & G airspace. G is called "uncontrolled". The remainder have differing rules & requirements. For this discussion I will not mention other airspace designations such as Prohibited, Restricted, MOA's, TFR's, ADIZ, Airways, etc

I did study. I did not miss a single question relating to Air Spaces or reading sectional charts. Made a 97. Missed a question about where load factors become 'significant' and got public and civic confused on one definition. And, there WAS a question on the test that PUT ME INTO CLASS E space with the correct answer. Ie., the question was "What is the maximum altitude one can fly above..." and the point referenced was a tower that was 323 ft. AGL At that point on the chart, Class G extended to 700 AGL as I recall. The correct answer was 723 feet AGL... and that was into Class E Air Space.

Make a deal with you, though. I will study a little more for every time you don't jump to a conclusion based upon one statement someone made in an online forum. That way, in two years I will make a perfect score when I re-test and you can look less like a troll...

Deal?

 

[Crack The Sky]

lol...worthy. Never needed one and if I had one I'd still do it since this is just a 2-3 pound can't carry crap flying camera.

What I find laughable are the people that take this so **** seriously they act like you're planning a major heist. If you allow them to control you this easily over something so trivial then what?

You may find it

I did study. I did not miss a single question relating to Air Spaces or reading sectional charts. Made a 97. Missed a question about where load factors become 'significant' and got public and civic confused on one definition. And, there WAS a question on the test that PUT ME INTO CLASS E space with the correct answer. Ie., the question was "What is the maximum altitude one can fly above..." and the point referenced was a tower that was 323 ft. AGL At that point on the chart, Class G extended to 700 AGL as I recall. The correct answer was 723 feet AGL... and that was into Class E Air Space.

Make a deal with you, though. I will study a little more for every time you don't jump to a conclusion based upon one statement someone made in an online forum. That way, in two years I will make a perfect score when I re-test and you can look less like a troll...

Deal?

Here's a deal. Come down off your ego trip thinking your a real pilot when the ink is not even dry on your little toy Part 107 certificate. Those of us who have flown real airplanes commercially for a lifetime find ourselves cringing at the thought of sharing airspace with a lot of you. Many of you would be wise to hitch your wagons to real pilots who can help you in your quest to be taken seriously.

 

[Jim Roof]

You may find it

Here's a deal. Come down off your ego trip thinking your a real pilot when the ink is not even dry on your little toy Part 107 certificate. Those of us who have flown real airplanes commercially for a lifetime find ourselves cringing at the thought of sharing airspace with a lot of you. Many of you would be wise to hitch your wagons to real pilots who can help you in your quest to be taken seriously.

You are once again putting words in my mouth and/or head. I never said I was a real pilot. In fact, I think just a few posts back you were the one lecturing ME (on something I never stated, BTW). You may be a real pilot, but I frankly don't care because you are still doing the same thing - putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head.

Look, I did well on the test. I have also logged over 1200 hours flying with some of the best helicopter pilots in the southeast. I know the skills that they possess are so superior to anything that a drone pilot would ever need that my skills are nothing in comparison. Funny though, one pilot that was, IMHO, the best I have ever worked with told me candidly that he cannot fly an RC helicopter to save his life. I have had my hands on the controls of helicopters just long enough to understand and respect the skills of the pilots that fly them, while not quite long enough to get us into an unrecoverable state of flight.

I am not sure what crawled up the crack in your personal sky, but you have now twice tried to 'put me in my place' before even bothering to find out what place I am in to start with.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for what pilots do. Maybe not so much for what they post.

 

[SteelFlyer]

I think it all comes down to integrity. To me this means doing the right thing even when no one is looking. Fewer and fewer people demonstrate it these days and I prefer to choose vendors who display it. What would your client think??

 

[bstanton89]

A client has hired you to photograph an industrial building that is about 2 miles from a Class D airport. You know where you are in relationship to the airport and fully understand that the FAA prohibits you from flying in this area.

Since you have been shooting another location for another client that COULD use your drone, you have it with you.

Pulling up to the second location, you are shocked to see that the gate that was to be left OPEN for your photography is padlocked shut and you cannot contact anyone to give you access to the property even though you DO have permission to photograph the building from the owner.

Here is the question...

Do you fire up your Phantom 4 Pro and use it to 'hop the fence' that is 8 feet tall and, once over the fence, fly your bird at EYE LEVEL to get your shots? You fully realize that the only REAL world danger would be in the event that you had a fly-away situation. What do you do?

I ask this because I have had this situation occur before I ever had my Phantom and in an out of town situation to boot.

What do you do?

The FAA doesn't restrict you from operating in Class D airspace. It just requires that you get ATC clearance before doing so. "Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed with the required ATC permission." Every situation is different, that's why clearances are handled at the local level. Some airports may require you make your request a certain amount of time prior to flight. Its best to call the controlling agency you plan to operate in to get a better understanding of what they would require. I would imagine that they wouldn't have a problem with you operating two whole miles away from a Class D airport as long as you are abiding by all of the part 107 regulations, but authorization IS required. I haven't flown commercially under my newly obtained part 107 certificate yet, so I would be interested to hear about how it goes should you choose to pursue this. As far as the flying above the sketchy locked up property....smells fishy, I would try to get clarification from the owners. I don't know for sure about the law in that situation, but it seems like clearing it up is the right thing to do morally.

 

[Jim Roof]

"Operations in Class B, C, D and E airspace are allowed with the required ATC permission."

For nearly every practical situation, the process of getting a waiver or authorization through the FAA web portal effectively shuts the job down. Part 107 operators are instructed to NOT contact control towers. They are instead to file for authorization or waiver online... and the process takes up to 90 days.

90 days means it is an assignment that is simply not going to happen in 99% of real world situations.

 

[Jim Roof]

I think it all comes down to integrity. To me this means doing the right thing even when no one is looking. Fewer and fewer people demonstrate it these days and I prefer to choose vendors who display it. What would your client think??

My clients would likely understand, but I am not sure that their sympathy would be the equivalent of a feather in my cap. I can think of at least some who would probably call me a wuss... or worse.

I have not been faced with this yet. Hopefully will not be. I am admitting to having conflicting desires on this. I want to follow the rules. My wife is in real estate and 10 days ago she listed a house that was 3 miles from a Class D tower. I left my Phantom at home, and had to shoot the recreation areas through fences. Would have been a much better photo if I could have shot from a height of about 20 feet. But I did what I feel is the right thing.

Shooting eye level over a fence... it is a tough question for me and that is why I posed it here. I would sort this through NOW rather than be faced with it later.

 

[bstanton89]

For nearly every practical situation, the process of getting a waiver or authorization through the FAA web portal effectively shuts the job down. Part 107 operators are instructed to NOT contact control towers. They are instead to file for authorization or waiver online... and the process takes up to 90 days.

90 days means it is an assignment that is simply not going to happen in 99% of real world situations.

Part 107 Clearly states that the FAA does allow operatons in class B, C, D, and E airspace from 0-400 feet AGL. It says that you must obtain ATC clearance. It doesn't say to radio to the control tower. ATC is the bigger system, not just the Control Tower. They have a number for you to call. I promise. in fact it says you shouldn't radio the control tower as to not interfere with their job. They suggest you call by phone. It will be up to the Airport as of how they handle it. They may publish a NOTAM if they think it will be necessary, they may determine that they are too busy to allow you into your airspace at that time, or they may tell you "yeah sure, go ahead, just stay clear of certain areas." Under a Part 107 your airspace allowance is governed locally by ATC, not FAA as long as you stay within the Part 107 parameters. When you want to do something outside Part 107 parameters is when you need a COA. Unless you are really pushing your altitude limits, I find it hard to believe that a Class D airspace ATC would have issues with this particular flight. I could be wrong, but it would shock me. It can't hurt to call and ask.

 

[KevMo Photog]

You may find it

Here's a deal. Come down off your ego trip thinking your a real pilot when the ink is not even dry on your little toy Part 107 certificate. Those of us who have flown real airplanes commercially for a lifetime find ourselves cringing at the thought of sharing airspace with a lot of you. Many of you would be wise to hitch your wagons to real pilots who can help you in your quest to be taken seriously.

Wow dude! You are one serious guy! Hope I don't share your airspace like ever! Hate to get in your way! Headwinds or Tailwinds!

 

[Jim Roof]

Part 107 Clearly states that the FAA does allow operatons in class B, C, D, and E airspace from 0-400 feet AGL. It says that you must obtain ATC clearance. It doesn't say to radio to the control tower. ATC is the bigger system, not just the Control Tower. They have a number for you to call. I promise. in fact it says you shouldn't radio the control tower as to not interfere with their job. They suggest you call by phone. It will be up to the Airport as of how they handle it. They may publish a NOTAM if they think it will be necessary, they may determine that they are too busy to allow you into your airspace at that time, or they may tell you "yeah sure, go ahead, just stay clear of certain areas." Under a Part 107 your airspace allowance is governed locally by ATC, not FAA as long as you stay within the Part 107 parameters. When you want to do something outside Part 107 parameters is when you need a COA. Unless you are really pushing your altitude limits, I find it hard to believe that a Class D airspace ATC would have issues with this particular flight. I could be wrong, but it would shock me. It can't hurt to call and ask.

Here is where a commercial Part 107 operator is told to go to request permission to enter controlled air space.

Request a Waiver/Airspace Authorization – Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS)

A hobbyist can pick up the phone and give notice, apparently. A commercial operator is told to use this web portal to gain access to controlled air spaces. In that process it is stated that this takes up to 90 days before authorization can be made. I think the heading at the top of the page makes it pretty clear.

Request a Waiver/Airspace Authorization
Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS)

This is not a waiver of a rule, but authorization to enter controlled air spaces.

This too comes up with a search...

How do I request permission from Air Traffic Control to operate in Class B, C, D, or E airspace? Is there a way to request permission electronically?
You can request airspace authorization through an online web portal available at www.faa.gov/uas/request_waiver.

 

[JarrodF]

I think we've exhausted this discussion. Most of us care about staying in compliance with FAA regs and some don't. I don't think we're changing any minds here.

 

[bstanton89]

sUAS operators who want to fly outside the requirements of the Small UAS Rule (Part 107) may request a waiver and/or airspace authorization using the form below. First sentence of the link you posted. Stay within the rules=no FAA waiver required.

This is an excerpt from FAA.gov: While some UAS activity will still utilize a COA, operating under part 107 regulations will not require a COA where ATC permission is specified. The FAA is working concurrently on several other documents, including an advisory circular, and training and direction to ATC facilities that will provide guidance to users and ATC 332 personnel as to procedures and responsibilities. This guidance will ensure consistent application of ATC permission and processes, to the extent practicable. The FAA notes that some discrepancies may arise due to the unique nature of different airspace.

If The controlling Airport tells you that you must get a COA, then you have to get a COA. If you are doing something outside of Part 107 restrictions, then you need a COA. If you plan on doing lots of work in a certian airspace it may be beneficial for you to apply for a COA so that you don't need to coordinate with ATC every single time you fly.

 

[andy_k]

Well when fxxcksticks keep crying all the time about people flying their drones safely and with common sense but not quite in the right spot soon there will be no right spot. Then the hobby will be dead because you allowed it to be killed slowly instead of standing up for yourself. Just look at Canada, all I ever have to say is look at Canada and there you will see how limited it can become simply allowing hysteria to drive the agenda with no push back.

So in your dialect - Fly Safe, use your head, or stay home with your shiny toy that never goes anywhere.

sadly your logic is 100% skewed.

I've been flying model planes, helis and drones for nearly 30 years and in that time individuals and clubs have worked in accordance with the aviation authorities to develop a set of rules that everyone was happy with and willing to respect. The Pilots were happy because they could fly pretty much where they wanted as long as they stuck to a few guidelines, the aviation authorities were happy because the skies were safe and local authorities were happy because they didn't have to waste time intervening.

Then along come boneheaded drone pilots who thought that because they could buy a drone anywhere, they could fly a drone anywhere. Due to what can only be described as crass stupidity by a small percentage of owners who decided that none of the rules applied to them the vast majority are now suffering and 'hobby' flyers are starting to see more and more legislation stopping them flying in places where previously there was never a problem - the reason that people's 'shiny new toys' will be staying at home isn't because responsible flyers have played by the rules (which they were instrumental in creating) it's because of the authorities reacting to idiots.

But, just to humour you, let's look at Canada - they've banned flying over cities and near airports - maybe dickheads flying their drones into the CNN Tower affected their judgment or the 118 investigations Transport Canada had to process in 2016 - the whole 'knee jerk reaction' people are complaining about was strange because most of the new 'rules' existed before as guidelines that people chose to ignore (you see a common thread here?)

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-...igations-into-illegal-use-of-drones-18-in-b-c

 

[Mier]

Did you actually read the article or just grab the headline and paste the link?
Seems to me that of the incidents listed only 1 was worthy of investigation.

Regardless, it's a big *** sky we can all share. Otherwise the opposite argument could also be made and all private pilots should be grounded because they cannot be trusted to fly properly. Too many accidents and even a few intentional crashes. On top of that all privately owned automobiles should be banned because of all the incidents that happen.

Why Private Planes Are Nearly as Deadly as Cars

If we're going to runaround acting on what could happen or may happen then we're all going to hate life. Let's just remeber this entire hair pulling horsecrap thread started because a guy wanted to take pictures of a place that happen to be 2 miles from a small airport. He stated his intentions and then the god **** lawyers jumped out and wailed that he would be in violation in their opinion. Let's not mention the fact that DJI has NFZs built into the drone so it won't take off if it's in one. If he was flying a hand built drone he can do anything anywhere but this phantompilots.com so he must have a Phantom. So again all this bull****crying over nothing.

So stay in the air flyboy and make sure to stay over 400 feet until you get really close to the airport. I would hate for your desire to buzz a cow to have you hit a drone.

 

[Charliepapa]

sUAS operators who want to fly outside the requirements of the Small UAS Rule (Part 107) may request a waiver and/or airspace authorization using the form below. First sentence of the link you posted. Stay within the rules=no FAA waiver required.

This is an excerpt from FAA.gov: While some UAS activity will still utilize a COA, operating under part 107 regulations will not require a COA where ATC permission is specified. The FAA is working concurrently on several other documents, including an advisory circular, and training and direction to ATC facilities that will provide guidance to users and ATC 332 personnel as to procedures and responsibilities. This guidance will ensure consistent application of ATC permission and processes, to the extent practicable. The FAA notes that some discrepancies may arise due to the unique nature of different airspace.

If The controlling Airport tells you that you must get a COA, then you have to get a COA. If you are doing something outside of Part 107 restrictions, then you need a COA. If you plan on doing lots of work in a certian airspace it may be beneficial for you to apply for a COA so that you don't need to coordinate with ATC every single time you fly.

If I read this correctly, operating in Class B,C,D, or E airspace is outside of part 107 and requires a COA. As a pilot, former Air Traffic Controller and part 107 certified operator I need to jump through the COA hoops but Joe Schmoe who just purchased his drone at the hobby shop can fly in the same area with just a phone call to the tower. I guess as a commercial operator I'm not considered as safe. Or maybe I'm missing something.

 

[andy_k]

Did you actually read the article or just grab the headline and paste the link?
Seems to me that of the incidents listed only 1 was worthy of investigation.

yet Transport Canada who clearly nowhere near as smart as you decided that over 100 were worthy of investigation

On top of that all privately owned automobiles should be banned because of all the incidents that happen.

Another ridiculous analogy - you can't just go out buy a car and drive it at maximum speed anywhere you like - you need lessons, a licence and insurance - how does that stack up against an idiot with a drone who can't be bothered to read the rules let alone abide by them?

If we're going to runaround acting on what could happen or may happen then we're all going to hate life

When it comes to flying, we have to act on 'what ifs'. When it comes to doing something that could directly affect other people a degree of risk assessment is vital. I'd hate my life more if it was my drone that caused any type of accident

So stay in the air flyboy and make sure to stay over 400 feet until you get really close to the airport. I would hate for your desire to buzz a cow to have you hit a drone.

Don't be a cretin

 

[HillCountryFlyer]

Wow...this topic has brought me to a realization. We can never have flying cars. People can barely follow simple traffic laws, heaven for bid they should have to follow FAA rules and regs, and have enough situational awareness to plan for the what ifs. I have spent over 20 years in the aviation world and this has always been an issue. There is a saying that was derived from this very issue...."There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots". That rule applies (somewhat) here. Rules are created for a reason. Usually a good reason. They are not created to satisfy your opinion, but are made due to statistics, science and to keep pilots out of bad situations that pilots before them did something (usually stupid) that helped create the rule in the first place.

I get it....you aint gunna let the man keep you down blah blah blah. All I know is this....If you don't follow the rules that are established by both the FAA and Mother Nature, you may be flying the rest of your life and you may not, but you will always be a liability to yourself, and the people around you.

 

[Mier]

yet Transport Canada who clearly nowhere near as smart as you decided that over 100 were worthy of investigation

Again you didn't read anything in the article, when one looks at the details listed in the article shows the UAV (Note - not Phantom specifically so we can't be sure of how much intelligence is built in the drone) Anyone with an axe to grind will use any excuse to take action. You are a perfect example of that - Joe Fighterpilot thinks no one should be in the air when he's within 10 miles.

Another ridiculous analogy - you can't just go out buy a car and drive it at maximum speed anywhere you like - you need lessons, a licence and insurance - how does that stack up against an idiot with a drone who can't be bothered to read the rules let alone abide by them?

Really? You are so ignorant as to not understand that there is nothing, NOTHING, controlling that vehicle save for the operator in question. I can go as fast as I **** well wish without exception and nothing on this earth can stop me. Nothing can stop you from buzzing sheep in some pasture if that is what you want to do. If these rules were so paramount, so equal to "safe", then the vehicles would be designed to stay within them. Cars would not be able to exceed some arbitrary limit and or everyone would be forced to use public transport near cities. Private planes would be in the same vein if not eliminated utterly.

When it comes to flying, we have to act on 'what ifs'. When it comes to doing something that could directly affect other people a degree of risk assessment is vital. I'd hate my life more if it was my drone that caused any type of accident

Ahhh....Risk Assessment you say. So the rules are not paramount but guidelines and outlined punishments? There is some modicum of room in your world view that would allow for someone to do something if the Risk is minimal or acceptable to them? Say flying a drone over a fence to do a job that just happens to be 2 miles from an airport perhaps? So some freewill is acceptable?

 

[Mier]

I've come to notice that the only time these types of threads become contentious is when the "real pilots" get involved. I've seen all sorts of youtube vloggers and their ilk fly drones all over the place be they in the city or near crowds. People like Casey Neistat or Julien Solomita go out and shoot videos using drones to come back with amazing footage that makes for good viewing. Likes far outweigh the dislikes and the only moaning is from these same "real pilots" in the comments which go ignored. No one was hurt, no one was even bothered but ****** if the reaction isn't as if Satan himself was there personified in the drone trying to steal someone's soul. Always with the "what if" and that just isn't how the rest of the world operates.

I refuse to live my life in fear of "what if" and if you choose to live it as one collection of tedious moments then that is on you. I'm going to check the weather forecast to go fly my drone, I'm going to survey my surroundings to do a Risk Assessment (right andy_k?) then the bird will be in the sky for an hour or more (I only have 5 batteries to get through)

You stay there, play with your charts or checklists and be a keyboard warrior because someone's wrong on the internet. I'm done with this place.

 

[andy_k]

Did you actually read the article or just grab the headline and paste the link?
Seems to me that of the incidents listed only 1 was worthy of investigation.

As I said, Transport Canada are nowhere near as smart as you - yes, I did read the article (I'm guessing you didn't) and I saw the bit where 16 fines were handed out (so that's 15 incidents that you thought weren't worthy of investigation that 'stupid' Transport Canada took to court, prosecuted and won - Wow, it must be great being a smart as you!!

Again you didn't read anything in the article,

Yes - and unlike you I managed to understand it