INTENT...
Any publicly documented cases where
"intent" was challenged-disputed by FAA...?
EVER???
Any publicly documented cases where
"intent" was challenged-disputed by FAA...?
EVER???
is this legit loophole for hobbyist offering aerials??
- Thread starter ribjig
- Start date
N017RW
Premium Pilot
What do want here?
It’s been made clear regarding the spirit of the reg.
Do what u want.
But don’t expect accolades for hypothetically devising situations in your grey area that allows you to skirt the reg.
Move along and stop looking for condoning opinions.
@ribjig
You're looking for someone to show you how to get around FAA regulations or to hand feed you saying, "Listen it's wrong but everyone is doing so it's ok."
That's not how Aviation Safety works and we aren't going to help convince you it's ok to get around FEDERAL Regulations... not now not ever. Anyone who says differently is doing you an injustice and should help pay for your legal defenses should something go wrong.
You've been given excellent advice, fact backed responses, and very knowledgeable first hand experiences to help guide you down the correct and LEGAL path to take. How you use (or not) this information is up to you but please quit looking for someone to tell you it's OK to go ahead and do it how you're wanting to.
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,355
- Reaction score
- 9,298
Unlikely would be a better word for this hypothetical.
1st. You are based in Australia but discussing US rules.
In Australia, you don't need licensing to be able to use your Phantom commercially
Read about it here: Commercial unmanned flight - remotely piloted aircraft under 2kg | Civil Aviation Safety Authority
2nd. Look in your local real estate agent's window or website.
You'll find it's already got lots of aerial photos
If it's a property that would benefit from aerial pix, the agent has probably already taken care of that.
And given the ease of photographing with a Phantom, he may have even done it himself or his usual interior pix guy has now got a Phantom as well.
The F in FAA stands for FEDERAL, which sounds somewhat tame. But when you hear it as "The FEDs" it should send chills down your spine. And for the most part, the rules are reasonable and common-sensical.
The exception is the STUPID requirement that a Part 107 commercial flyer has to get an FAA waiver to fly within 5 miles of an airport (takes months), but a hobbyist just has to notify them. Hopefully the LAANC rollout will be effective soon and fix this particularly sad situation.
The exception is the STUPID requirement that a Part 107 commercial flyer has to get an FAA waiver to fly within 5 miles of an airport (takes months), but a hobbyist just has to notify them. Hopefully the LAANC rollout will be effective soon and fix this particularly sad situation.
Keep in mind WHY/HOW this crazy scenario came about. It's not the fault of the FAA. If they had their way we would ALL be taking the Part 107 tests and much more. When Congress mandated that the FAA "Carve Out" a safe place for hobbyists to operate under this create the fiasco. It was intended to protect those of us flying AT a desginated flying field not the masses that can fly GPS/Gyro enabled UAS from the Whitehouse Lawn or from the end of an active runway.
Also the 5 mile rule has NOTHING to do with Part 107 operations. You get airspace authorization/waiver depending on the physical airspace you wish to fly in regardless of distance from the airport. No part of Part 107 mentions a 5 mile rule what so ever.
This discussion reminds me a lot of the mental gymnastics that holders of "Curio and Relic" Federal Firearms Licenses go through. There is a restriction on what sort of firearms you can purchase for your personal collection and, while you're allowed to sell the guns from your collection, you are not allowed to "be in the business" of selling them. Being in the business is not strictly defined, but the ATF has certainly successfully prosecuted people for it. And, just like here, there are folks who come up with all sorts of what seem like creative ways to mask their actual activity...and pay some stout fines for it.
The issue goes both to intent and to the motivation of the particular government agent that you're dealing with. You control your intent, but you're at the mercy of the agent. Now, you may be completely in the right, and you may even prove that in court (at the cost of whatever your attorney charges). The question comes down to this: how much risk are you willing to accept? Going the 107 route is under a couple of hundred bucks, plus your time and eliminates the risk, so, in a risk versus reward scenario, it seems like the cost for 100% risk avoidance is pretty low. It may be the cheapest insurance policy you'll ever buy.
The issue goes both to intent and to the motivation of the particular government agent that you're dealing with. You control your intent, but you're at the mercy of the agent. Now, you may be completely in the right, and you may even prove that in court (at the cost of whatever your attorney charges). The question comes down to this: how much risk are you willing to accept? Going the 107 route is under a couple of hundred bucks, plus your time and eliminates the risk, so, in a risk versus reward scenario, it seems like the cost for 100% risk avoidance is pretty low. It may be the cheapest insurance policy you'll ever buy.
Of course you're correct Big A on the 5 mile thing. Forgive me, but I have passed the 107 test but not yet received my certification (due to the inherent slothfulness of the FAA and the TSA). Therefore, when determining the rules where I have been flying, the various apps have been giving me hobbyist information. HOWEVER...the point is not to diss the FAA. It's to diss the politicians who thought they had a reasonable solution. Somebody protected the modelers, but ignored the serious situation of valid commercial use.
When flying commercial in controlled airport airspace, the only legal way to do it is to acquire an FAA waiver. This is THE POINT. I am certain that the LAANC program will not be perfect, but the sooner it is implemented the better. Legitimate commercial use is being stifled, and that is an affront to my ability to conduct my business. I understand and enthusiastically and empathetically support all of the safety issues. Bottom line: the rules as written are discriminatory to people who obey the rules. Like every effing government approach from free speech to the 2nd amendment and beyond.
While I'm on a roll: Let's take AIRMAP as an example. There are two general aviation airports and several heliports in a primary service area of mine. As a hobbyist (since my certification is still in the ether somewhere), for a location that interests me Airmap indicates that both airports accept digital notice. But if you change the mission to Part 107, you must obtain authorization from the FAA. My fear is that when the LAANC beta rolls, for a time it won't be useful for commercial purposes.
If you have already received your Temporary Certificate, then you can go ahead and apply for waivers and authorizations. No need to wait until you physically receive your card. Just follow the instructions and put "Pending" where is asks for your certificate number.
Thanks, but I don't even have it. It's now been 9 weeks. Called the Registry, they're just now processing certifications for the time period when I submitted the application.
You missed his point. You don't have to have it. Your TEMPORARY allows you to start flying (and applying for waivers) immediately. You should be able to print it off on your computer the same day you passed and entered it into the system.
So, when you log in to IACRA, it doesn't show that your Temporary Certificate has been issued? You should have gotten that after about a week from submitting your application.
