Gut check time - what would you do?

[dgd3]

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?

Don't be registered and take the shots for cash.
If needed pay a fine and continue as though the fine were a flying fee. Those with money can fly, those without can't.
But most importantly keep flying safe.

 

[dirkclod]

You guys please tone this down or I will close it down .

 

[jayeverts]

If there's a job that needs to be done then do it. You're not flying unsafe and you're not going to do anything horrible, just take pictures. As a precaution edit the photos as normal but remove all EXIF data from them and that should be enough. There's far worse things going on in the world and this isn't one of them.

Go read a book called Three Felonies a Day to realize what a runaway government does to good people.

Until he has a flyaway, and it crashes on the runway. Hmmm. 10s of thousands in five es and a revocation of his certification (if he has one). Flight data on the recovered drone would show he took off and I irially flew in restricted airspace without authorization.

I have requested, and received, authorizations for all necessary airspace I might fly in to avoid these specific issues. I would have no problem flying the fence to shoot the property. I had owner request and permission as well as the proper authorization for airspace.

 

[Jim Roof]

Until he has a flyaway, and it crashes on the runway. Hmmm. 10s of thousands in five es and a revocation of his certification (if he has one). Flight data on the recovered drone would show he took off and I irially flew in restricted airspace without authorization.

I have requested, and received, authorizations for all necessary airspace I might fly in to avoid these specific issues. I would have no problem flying the fence to shoot the property. I had owner request and permission as well as the proper authorization for airspace.

Are you saying you have a blanket waiver and could take on an assignment tomorrow in Class B, C or D space?

Where did you make the request and how long did it take for your request to be processed?

 

[Jim Roof]

You guys please tone this down or I will close it down .
View attachment 81302

You have heard the term 'iron sharpens iron'? That cannot take place in the absence of the sound of metal on metal...

 

[dirkclod]

You have heard the term 'iron sharpens iron'? That cannot take place in the absence of the sound of metal on metal...

No I havnt a clue what your talking about but if you would like to explain it to me feel free to start a conversation with me.
Other than that let's stay On Topic here .

 

[nwairphotos]

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?

I think at a certain point common sense and the spirit of the law should prevail. If you are flying your drone 10 feet off the ground it's impossible for it to be a danger to any aircraft. I would "hop the fence" in that situation. You're using your drone essentially as a ground camera.

Let's take it further. Let's say you're in the area and all you wanted to do was test you motors and propellers and fly the drone 4 INCHES above the ground. Would that be illegal? Would the control tower really want to know about your 4 inch flight?

 

[gsreinke]

If there's a job that needs to be done then do it. You're not flying unsafe and you're not going to do anything horrible, just take pictures. As a precaution edit the photos as normal but remove all EXIF data from them and that should be enough. There's far worse things going on in the world and this isn't one of them.

Go read a book called Three Felonies a Day to realize what a runaway government does to good people.

I guess the rules are just for everyone else

 

[John Decker]

Jim, you could do the job, and yes you'd be safe 999/1000 times and yes, it's technically illegal.

I'm not interested in what is right or whether the rules are sensible, but this: people talk. Some people like to talk up big things they've done like getting someone to break the law on their behalf. Some people see the resulting video and squeal - especially competitors. Or maybe the clients would just expect you to do it again - you've done it once, so why not?

I did a favour for a friend who then expected me to 'bend the rules' (and take risks in windy weather) every time he wanted it. In the end I asked him if he'd pay the fine/pay for the drone to be recovered from a tree/pay for the loss of, or damage to, the drone. As soon as he said no, it became obvious that I was assuming all the risk with no insurance.

In the end, breaking the rules can only go bad for you, while the client looks on amused. And their expectations will be that you'll do it every time. After a while, if you don't want to, you're being awkward.

Best to stick to integrity and lose a few jobs - you might also lose those clients that put you at risk. You're better off.

 

[bluesgeek]

I don't know if it was made clear. Part 107 Certs need approval (waiver) through the portal (not by contacting ATC). It is not an easy get either. So yes, it can most often effectively shut down a job. Not easy to ask a client to plan 3 months ahead.

I had one request for a Class D denied after about 70 days. It looked like it was going through because ATC had signed off, but FAA subsequently denied it.

 

[Paul Dingman]

Well I am a practical person. The first thing I would do is check the proximity of the facility to the flight pathways, taking into consideration which way the wind was blowing. Next I would decide what altitude I needed and location. Next I would determine what the air traffic is at the time and research if it might be better at a different time. Then I would make an informed decision based on the risk involved. But don't count on your drone starting if you decide to do it. The no fly zones have gotten larger and you might not even be able to start your drone.
Recently, I was about 2 miles from an airport off to the side of the flight paths, but in a no fly and nothing would work. Here in my city, they have extended the no fly zones 20 kilometers off the end of runways and 10 kilometers off either side of the runways. It basically includes the entire city.
I am hunting for software that determines the boundaries of no fly zones.

 

[Capo]

In the same breath you say 6ft isn't a great danger and then immediately jump to caution.

Look I'm not advocating for them to fly directly in the glide path of a runway but **** we have to allow for some common sense otherwise we end up with Canadian rules which will suck in the extreme. I never understood this whipped-dog attitude that seems to pervade drone boards.

Agree totally. I am one of the Canadians affected by our stupid law. I live in the boonies, 5kms out on a dirt road and to fly on my own property would break multiple laws... less than 8 km's from a farmer's dirt strip that gets used twice a year, and flying within 75 meters of buildings, vehicles and animals (on my own 4 acre property). I will continue to fly in and around my area... no one will complain. If I see the flying farmer, I will bring it down. But I'm not going to ground my drone because of silly laws that make no sense.

 

[freshzombiekiller]

[emoji1360]

 

[nwairphotos]

I think at a certain point common sense and the spirit of the law should prevail. If you are flying your drone 10 feet off the ground it's impossible for it to be a danger to any aircraft. I would "hop the fence" in that situation. You're using your drone essentially as a ground camera.

Let's take it further. Let's say you're in the area and all you wanted to do was test you motors and propellers and fly the drone 4 INCHES above the ground. Would that be illegal? Would the control tower really want to know about your 4 inch flight?

After speaking with an air traffic controller and getting a better sense of the rules and how serious the FAA is about them, I retract what I said above.

I think it's ridiculous that there are no minimum altitudes that are already allowed in the controlled air spaces. Nothing is going to happen under 100 feet (as I see it), so I don't see why there can't be huge areas already authorized for some kind of minimum altitude. I wouldn't judge the fellow or blame him for "hopping the fence" to do his job and I wouldn't be a jerk and report him if I saw him doing it. How is flying at 20 feet unsafe to any other aircraft? But I'm not going to risk doing it myself, because if I get reported, nobody knows or has to believe what my intentions were, and I could be up the creek.

 

[bluesgeek]

After speaking with an air traffic controller and getting a better sense of the rules and how serious the FAA is about them, I retract what I said above.

I think it's ridiculous that there are no minimum altitudes that are already allowed in the controlled air spaces. Nothing is going to happen under 100 feet (as I see it), so I don't see why there can't be huge areas already authorized for some kind of minimum altitude. I wouldn't judge the fellow or blame him for "hopping the fence" to do his job and I wouldn't be a jerk and report him if I saw him doing it. How is flying at 20 feet unsafe to any other aircraft? But I'm not going to risk doing it myself, because if I get reported, nobody knows or has to believe what my intentions were, and I could be up the creek.

I just want the waivers process for airspace approvals to be faster... days rather than months.

 

[John Decker]

After speaking with an air traffic controller and getting a better sense of the rules and how serious the FAA is about them, I retract what I said above.

I think it's ridiculous that there are no minimum altitudes that are already allowed in the controlled air spaces. Nothing is going to happen under 100 feet (as I see it), so I don't see why there can't be huge areas already authorized for some kind of minimum altitude. I wouldn't judge the fellow or blame him for "hopping the fence" to do his job and I wouldn't be a jerk and report him if I saw him doing it. How is flying at 20 feet unsafe to any other aircraft? But I'm not going to risk doing it myself, because if I get reported, nobody knows or has to believe what my intentions were, and I could be up the creek.

My point exactly. You can argue the rights and wrongs of legislation, but you're stuck with what it is, not what it should be.
Here in NZ, in restricted airspace (excluding military zones etc) you can fly what they call a 'shielded operation' in which you can fly up to the height of the tallest object within a distance of 300 feet.

They figure if a plane is that low, it's screwed anyway. Personally I wish they'd allow flights up to 100' everywhere - if anything, military or civil, is at that height, the least of its worries are drones. But hey..

 

[Capo]

Sometimes civil disobedience is required when laws are draconian. This is not much different than prohibition (especially in Canada right now). I don't advocate doing irresponsible flying, as that can only hurt the sport, but following the letter of laws that are unreasonable, simply based on fear and ignorance, is just being sheep. Government will always overstep if people simply allow it. Drones are going to be huge over the next decade. If government doesn't put more reasonable laws in place, it will make everyone a law breaker. Most cops I've dealt with are reasonable and will "warn" you if you are breaking the law, but being responsible about it. An example would be flying below the tree line. There is no risk to any aircraft at this level. Unless the noise was bothering neighbours most cops would not bother you about it. I should note: I am a former commercial pilot and instructor.

 

[John Decker]

Agreed - the Canadian law (proposed law?) is indeed draconian, making virtually every flight illegal.
Other than requiring the permission of every property holder and every person we wish to overfly, I think the shielded operation component of our law is a nice common sense touch.
The only way to beat the Canadian one would seem to be too ignore it, responsibly (ie fly responsibly even though you're breaking the law). However it might have the opposite effect of alarming people over the huge number of illegal flying being done, and in any event, until the courts got clogged up with the endless prosecutions it wouldn't work. And I wouldn't want to be at the front of that queue.

 

[Capo]

This whole law in Canada smells of lobbying by pilots that are more concerned about how drones will affect their employment, than the perceived safety issues. As usual, fear is being used as a motivation. No coincidence that Marc Garneau is also a pilot. I am a former commercial pilot and much of my past work could now be done by drones including aerial photography and survey, air enforcement, search and rescue, and mail drops. Almost sounds like the cabbies trying to stop Uber.

 

[Crack The Sky]

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 damned 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.

Good. Long overdue.