Real estate for rookies

[sergekouper]

I can comment on the US. It wouldn't help in the slightest. Like I've said earlier, I'm all for people doing things the right way, being a safety manager is part of what I currently do at work so doing things the right way every time is usually my default stance on any given topic.

But I've gotten to the point where I weigh the requirements of what the FAA is currently asking which is huge if you're not already a certified pilot of some sort. Then I look at the benefits of jumping through the hoops and there are very few if your only expectation is shooting some real estate or doing some aerial survey or B-roll footage here and there to help offset the cost of your equipment. And then I look at what will happen if the FAA finds out you're doing commercial ops without a 333, which is basically not even a wrist slap at this point and I just fail to see how the risk/reward scale tips toward getting a 333 for most people at this point.

I realize many people will disagree with me on that assessment at this point and they're entitled to that. I still feel how I feel about it.

You may "feel" safe, but operating your drone for money without a 333 exemption voids any insurance you may have you know that. So if you crash in that little girl in her garden, and you cut one of her eyes with a propeller (That could happen right?), Who pays? the answer is simple, it's gonna be you! How much cost an eye? $500 000? more? What about your own life after that? You must think it's quite innocent to try to make a few bucks to lighter the cost of the bird, but that could turn to be a real bad idea.

 

[Lofty Visions]

Exactly. You show me a drone that is shooting a house for a realtor and makes contact with an airplane while doing it, and I'll show you an airplane that was seconds from making contact with something hard regardless of whether that drone was in the air or not.

To be fair the reason this discussion got on to drones making contact with planes was that it was mentioned earlier about flying at 1500ft. I see this thread has been moderated somewhat and the original post has been deleted hence this thread now reads a little confusing. I agree with the moderator that people doing house shoots probably won't come into contact with planes. Back to real estate.....

 

[unclejas]

The OP is still there. He's asking for advice.

 

[johan]

You may "feel" safe, but operating your drone for money without a 333 exemption voids any insurance you may have you know that. So if you crash in that little girl in her garden, and you cut one of her eyes with a propeller (That could happen right?), Who pays? the answer is simple, it's gonna be you! How much cost an eye? $500 000? more? What about your own life after that? You must think it's quite innocent to try to make a few bucks to lighter the cost of the bird, but that could turn to be a real bad idea.

Oh Jiminy Cricket. First of all, I did not say anything having to do with drones was safe. Everything carries risk. Everything.

It is up to each of us to access what we're doing and make our own risk/reward judgement. So lets look at your hypothetical and make a judgement. I could pick it apart bit by bit but what's the point? Instead I'll simply ask you a few questions.
1. There are lots of drones currently flying in the world. How many little girls have lost eyes in gardens due to them?
2. Considering the vast majority of drone owners are people who have never owned or flown any other RC aircraft and therefore have never heard of the AMA nor have any idea insurance is available through them, how many recreational drone owners really have any kind of insurance that would cover them when they turn our little garden girl into a pirate look alike?
3. If your point about flying commercially without a 333 is valid because some little brat girl and her drone magnet of an eyeball could end up putting you in the poor house, then how exactly is it a good idea for any of the other millions of current drone owners who do not carry any sort of insurance to ever power up their drone under any circumstances?
4. If your answer to the previous question is that there is no real difference between someone flying for money without a 333 and the millions of other uninsured drone owners in terms of real world risk exposure, then shouldn't you be spending every waking moment trolling every thread where any drone owner might be hanging out and warning all who will listen about the incredible level of risk they're exposing themselves to instead of just picking on the few who want to fly for money without a 333?

 

[Bryce]

And no coverage whatsoever, ever, unless you comply with ALL of the AMA Rules for Flying--no handcatching, no FPV, visual line of sight only, no one within 25 feet of the craft other than the pilot....might as well be flying a $55 Syma X5C!

Yep... the minute it goes crazy and hits somebody that was 26 feet away... ALL coverage lost. Insurance companies are in the business of NOT paying... they will find some way out. I'd like to see a successful retrieval of funds from this outfit doing business for them based on a drone "incident".

 

[Bryce]

Not sure if he meant flying OUT 1,500 feet as opposed to 1,500 feet above ground. At 1,500 feet above ground, it's pretty hard to follow a golfer with a 20mm equivalent lens, let alone a golf ball. You make good points about knowing about all potential aircraft flying in or nearby the airspace you intend to occupy. However, anyone who seriously thinks that one of our 2.5 pound P3P's is going to take out another aircraft is being overly dramatic. Birds and ice chunks dropping off other aircraft are just as unlikely to do major damage, but no one is banning birds from flying through their airspace, or limiting their altitude. It takes a whole flock of birds to take down an aircraft, and even that is a very rare occurence. The most likely scenario of drone v. airplane is drone is obliterated, just like a bird would be, and aiplane paint might be scratched. Anything else would be a freak accident requiring a perfect storm. There has never been one yet, despite all the hysteria created over this scenario. Avoid all occupied airspace, but if it happens, it will be like a mosquito being swatted. The flyswatter won't need replacing! It would be like a bicyclist taking out a bus. In any collision between a bicyclist and a bus, the bus is always going to win. Crunch! Later, "Oh look, the paint is scratched."

Careful... you might make some tin-foil people here question their faiths.... You cannot, and must not use reason here.

 

[Bryce]

Not everyone else, just you, which is not difficult at all... Please do not hesitate to ask questions about flying safely and responsibly.

I'm thinking that I fly more responsibly than you... unless you are one of those 1%'ers.... which then.. you are perfect in most every way... and then... well... you outclass everyone on this forum with your skills and respect for others around you. I admire you for that.

 

[Bryce]

A neighbor's house just went up for sale, under duress (lost job & impending divorce). I am considering taking some photos and vids for him to put up on his listing, just as a favor... No charge. I would offer mostly for selfish reasons: I love flying & areal photography, and I want him to get maximum possible price since his home's resale price impacts my home's value.

Would I be breaking the law if I did a shoot, put the images & videos on a thumb drive?

why would you be asking this??? of course you are fine doing it. You are fine having him buy beers for you doing it... in fact, if he converted the beers to money before giving it to you... you would be fine doing it.

Please.... don't let these forums scare you off. These things have a lot of potential. You helping your buddy out... and him helping you will not take down airplanes or put children's lives in risk.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Yep... the minute it goes crazy and hits somebody that was 26 feet away... ALL coverage lost. Insurance companies are in the business of NOT paying... they will find some way out. I'd like to see a successful retrieval of funds from this outfit doing business for them based on a drone "incident".

Yup! I challenge anyone to prove they ever collected a single dime, or had a dime paid on their bahalf for liability, under an AMA insurance policy, included in their $59/year AMA membership!

 

[GadgetGuy]

why would you be asking this??? of course you are fine doing it. You are fine having him buy beers for you doing it... in fact, if he converted the beers to money before giving it to you... you would be fine doing it.

Please.... don't let these forums scare you off. These things have a lot of potential. You helping your buddy out... and him helping you will not take down airplanes or put children's lives in risk.

But it might contribute to Global Warming, or promote good old capitalism! God forbid!

 

[GadgetGuy]

Did the "British drone hobbyist" at least get decent footage?
Just goes to prove that all the laws in the world won't stop the determined outlaws! He is a repeat offender! It's an addiction. He can't help himself! Send him to a 12 Step Program for Drone Addicts and get the poor guy some real help. Imprisoning the mentally ill is cruel and unusual punishment!

 

[GadgetGuy]

Careful... you might make some tin-foil people here question their faiths.... You cannot, and must not use reason here.

We need a cult deprogrammer and an intervention!
They have been indoctrinated with paranoia!
Too much Koolaide, and not enough logic and reason.
Where is the hard evidence to prove their paranoia isn't an irrational fear?

 

[sergekouper]

Oh Jiminy Cricket. First of all, I did not say anything having to do with drones was safe. Everything carries risk. Everything.

It is up to each of us to access what we're doing and make our own risk/reward judgement. So lets look at your hypothetical and make a judgement. I could pick it apart bit by bit but what's the point? Instead I'll simply ask you a few questions.
1. There are lots of drones currently flying in the world. How many little girls have lost eyes in gardens due to them?
2. Considering the vast majority of drone owners are people who have never owned or flown any other RC aircraft and therefore have never heard of the AMA nor have any idea insurance is available through them, how many recreational drone owners really have any kind of insurance that would cover them when they turn our little garden girl into a pirate look alike?
3. If your point about flying commercially without a 333 is valid because some little brat girl and her drone magnet of an eyeball could end up putting you in the poor house, then how exactly is it a good idea for any of the other millions of current drone owners who do not carry any sort of insurance to ever power up their drone under any circumstances?
4. If your answer to the previous question is that there is no real difference between someone flying for money without a 333 and the millions of other uninsured drone owners in terms of real world risk exposure, then shouldn't you be spending every waking moment trolling every thread where any drone owner might be hanging out and warning all who will listen about the incredible level of risk they're exposing themselves to instead of just picking on the few who want to fly for money without a 333?

1. you don't have any report in hand, no data, you improvise and think it has some value. I don't buy it. get some figures first, your analyse is laughable.
2. Ignorance is not an excuse, you have to know what you're doing.
3. It is not allowed to do business with a drone unless you have a 333 exemption. Doing so you expose yourself to more trouble. for the ignorants that didn't have a clue they could hurt somebody, refer to answer 2.
4. There is no real difference indeed in terms of risk. Recreational users are not my target but illegal professionals. Why? because to be authorized to fly commercially you have to receive full tuition about many sides of aviation requirements, that make a serious difference at all levels with people like you who just consider their own little person. You learn to technically fly safely and are rewarded by getting a license from a government body. This is not nothing. So when you read about not being a big deal to make cash on the side with no insurance, clipping a roof, braking a window, or denting a car, it is quite shocking and my first reaction is to inform, and certainly not let go because the ignorants are more numerous.
I believe actually that you and at least another one here are not representing in anyway the majority, but feel for some reason they have the mission to free the world from the contraints to be conscious and responsible, and held accountable for their actions. Doesn't work this way, I don't wish you to see it for yourself, but at the end of the day I don't care, I am on the right side of the fence, you're not. This is your choice.

 

[GadgetGuy]

1. you don't have any report in hand, no data, you improvise and think it has some value. I don't buy it. get some figures first, your analyse is laughable.
2. Ignorance is not an excuse, you have to know what you're doing.
3. It is not allowed to do business with a drone unless you have a 333 exemption. Doing so you expose yourself to more trouble. for the ignorants that didn't have a clue they could hurt somebody, refer to answer 2.
4. There is no real difference indeed in terms of risk. Recreational users are not my target but illegal professionals. Why? because to be authorized to fly commercially you have to receive full tuition about many sides of aviation requirements, that make a serious difference at all levels with people like you who just consider their own little person. You learn to technically fly safely and are rewarded by getting a license from a government body. This is not nothing. So when you read about not being a big deal to make cash on the side with no insurance, clipping a roof, braking a window, or denting a car, it is quite shocking and my first reaction is to inform, and certainly not let go because the ignorants are more numerous.
I believe actually that you and at least another one here are not representing in anyway the majority, but feel for some reason they have the mission to free the world from the contraints to be conscious and responsible, and held accountable for their actions. Doesn't work this way, I don't wish you to see it for yourself, but at the end of the day I don't care, I am on the right side of the fence, you're not. This is your choice.

Correct me if I am wrong, but johan never said he wouldn't be held accountable for his actions. He merely said he would take his chances, and self insure any risk, including getting caught, if that were to happen. That isn't irresponsible. It's a conscious choice. Buying insurance and getting licensed doesn't protect anyone from crashes or being stupid. Most insurance won't pay claims anyway, even if you think they should. The certifications don't stop anyone without one from flying any more than requiring a license to drive stops people from driving a car without a license. Heck, half the drivers on the road here are illegal aliens without a driver's license or insurance! Cops refuse to pull them over because they don't want to spend their entire shift towing cars and arresting illegal aliens! No one is encouraging reckless flying, but getting a license doesn't prevent reckless flying, and you can learn to fly safely through practice and experience. We all started out somewhere along that continuum.

 

[sergekouper]

I'm thinking that I fly more responsibly than you... unless you are one of those 1%'ers.... which then.. you are perfect in most every way... and then... well... you outclass everyone on this forum with your skills and respect for others around you. I admire you for that.

Thank you for that. (even if I don't know what you mean 1%'ers...) That said, I'm not perfect in many ways and definitely don't outclass everyone on this forum with my skills and respect for the others around me...
However, you think you represent the majority of users, you definitely don't. Most people here are not anarchists thinking they can do whatever they want. You cannot talk in their name. Actually you're quite on your own when people read your opinions about legal business, insurance, damage to persons and property, in this very thread, not mentioning the posts (yours and mine) that have been moderated.
I can't speak for the majority either, but I have chosen to be licensed, to work legally with my drones (since this is the discussion here) and received valuable tuition to do so, as well as a government approved license and permission to operate commercially. As Lofty said, you only know once you have taken the courses. Try it, you will definitely change your mind.

 

[sergekouper]

Correct me if I am wrong, but johan never said he wouldn't be held accountable for his actions. He merely said he would take his chances, and self insure any risk, including getting caught, if that were to happen. That isn't irresponsible. It's a conscious choice. Buying insurance and getting licensed doesn't protect anyone from crashes or being stupid. Most insurance won't pay claims anyway, even if you think they should. The certifications don't stop anyone without one from flying any more than requiring a license to drive stops people from driving a car without a license. Heck, half the drivers on the road here are illegal aliens without a driver's license or insurance! Cops refuse to pull them over because they don't want to spend their entire shift towing cars and arresting illegal aliens! No one is encouraging reckless flying, but getting a license doesn't prevent reckless flying, and you can learn to fly safely through practice and experience. We all started out somewhere along that continuum.

Self insure? excuse me, up to what figure? This is all what I am talking about. Things can quickly go way beyond what you can cover... Is it not obvious?
Police don't stop illegal aliens driving without a license is (maybe) one thing, but if this driver injures or kill someone, the government will squeeze the rest of his future income to compensate the victims and their families.
Insurances don't like to pay, but if you did the right thing, in the frame of their cover, and an accident happen, they will be there for you.
Doesn't it make more sense ?

 

[GadgetGuy]

Self insure? excuse me, up to what figure? This is all what I am talking about. Things can quickly go way beyond what you can cover... Is it not obvious?
Police don't stop illegal aliens driving without a license is (maybe) one thing, but if this driver injures or kill someone, the government will squeeze the rest of his future income to compensate the victims and their families.
Insurances don't like to pay, but if you did the right thing, in the frame of their cover, and an accident happen, they will be there for you.
Doesn't it make more sense ?

Having insurance coverage only encourages litigation, assuming the insurance actually will cover the incident. Not having insurance discourages it. Lawyers only sue when there is liability they can prove, and an ability to collect. 90% of all small claims judgements are never collected upon. Lawyers research assets and insurance for deep pockets before accepting cases with clear liabilty. We no longer have debtor's prisons. If you are judgement proof, they won't bother to sue. It's a personal choice to go bare. Even attorneys are not required to carry legal malpractice insurance. Why should drone owners be required to get insurance? You keep horriblizing the liability. A 2.5 pound drone with soft plastic props is hardly an instrument of death and destruction in the hands of a capable pilot. Even if insurance is made mandatory, the coverage reqired is so minimal that a waiver is easily obtained if you post a bond. Underinsurance and lack of insurance is so common with car accudents that a separate policy is sold for coverage through your own insurance company for coverage for you when you are not at fault! Insurance is not the answer, nor the panacea you think it is. Paying for any damage you cause incidentally is just good business. If it's catastrophic, odds are any insurance obtained won't cover it anyway.

 

[johan]

1. you don't have any report in hand, no data, you improvise and think it has some value. I don't buy it. get some figures first, your analyse is laughable.

I suggest you do some googling on the term 'burden of proof' because you don't seem to understand the concept. I made no claim, YOU did. You are the one who suggest there was a real and measurable risk of disfiguring a little girl while doing real estate photography. You made that claim. You did. The burden of proof is on you to produce the data to support it. I simply asked you to do just that.

2. Ignorance is not an excuse, you have to know what you're doing.

Agreed. It doesn't change the fact that the parks of the world are likely loaded with individuals flying their drones around in parks without insurance.

3. It is not allowed to do business with a drone unless you have a 333 exemption. Doing so you expose yourself to more trouble. for the ignorants that didn't have a clue they could hurt somebody, refer to answer 2.

What more trouble? I mean that is really the point of this entire conversation. The belief is if you fly for money without a 333 you'll somehow be on the hook for more damages than you would if you had a 333. So far, I'm not seeing that. The FAA? They're not really policing this all that aggressively at this point. And when they do? They send threatening letters and that's about it. Liability? Its EXACTLY what it would be if you were flying your drone in a park without insurance which is what TONS of people do right now.

4. There is no real difference indeed in terms of risk. Recreational users are not my target but illegal professionals. Why? because to be authorized to fly commercially you have to receive full tuition about many sides of aviation requirements, that make a serious difference at all levels with people like you who just consider their own little person. You learn to technically fly safely and are rewarded by getting a license from a government body. This is not nothing.

Getting each of my several pilot certificates taught me a bunch. Using them to make a living taught me even more. But none of that taught me any amount of common sense, I had plenty that to begin with. None of my pilot certs nor my flight experience taught me anything about liability exposure either. Again, you learn that elsewhere.

And having been on both sides of the fence, I would argue that an individual with common sense and a healthy knowledge of liability risk is going to way safer than someone with an sport pilot cert and no common sense nor any idea how liability works. That is my opinion only and you are completely entitled to disagree and I'm sure you will.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I suggest you do some googling on the term 'burden of proof' because you don't seem to understand the concept. I made no claim, YOU did. You are the one who suggest there was a real and measurable risk of disfiguring a little girl while doing real estate photography. You made that claim. You did. The burden of proof is on you to produce the data to support it. I simply asked you to do just that.



Agreed. It doesn't change the fact that the parks of the world are likely loaded with individuals flying their drones around in parks without insurance.



What more trouble? I mean that is really the point of this entire conversation. The belief is if you fly for money without a 333 you'll somehow be on the hook for more damages than you would if you had a 333. So far, I'm not seeing that. The FAA? They're not really policing this all that aggressively at this point. And when they do? They send threatening letters and that's about it. Liability? Its EXACTLY what it would be if you were flying your drone in a park without insurance which is what TONS of people do right now.



Getting each of my several pilot certificates taught me a bunch. Using them to make a living taught me even more. But none of that taught me any amount of common sense, I had plenty that to begin with. None of my pilot certs nor my flight experience taught me anything about liability exposure either. Again, you learn that elsewhere.

And having been on both sides of the fence, I would argue that an individual with common sense and a healthy knowledge of liability risk is going to way safer than someone with an sport pilot cert and no common sense nor any idea how liability works. That is my opinion only and you are completely entitled to disagree and I'm sure you will.

Well said! +1

 

[sergekouper]

Having insurance coverage only encourages litigation, assuming the insurance actually will cover the incident. Not having insurance discourages it. Lawyers only sue when there is liability they can prove, and an ability to collect. 90% of all small claims judgements are never collected upon. Lawyers research assets and insurance for deep pockets before accepting cases with clear liabilty. We no longer have debtor's prisons. If you are judgement proof, they won't bother to sue. It's a personal choice to go bare. Even attorneys are not required to carry legal malpractice insurance. Why should drone owners be required to get insurance? You keep horriblizing the liability. A 2.5 pound drone with soft plastic props is hardly an instrument of death and destruction in the hands of a capable pilot. Even if insurance is made mandatory, the coverage reqired is so minimal that a waiver is easily obtained if you post a bond. Underinsurance and lack of insurance is so common with car accudents that a separate policy is sold for coverage through your own insurance company for coverage for you when you are not at fault! Insurance is not the answer, nor the panacea you think it is. Paying for any damage you cause incidentally is just good business. If it's catastrophic, odds are any insurance obtained won't cover it anyway.

I think I should frame this statement and put it on display in my office.
You just made a great picture of your country, of your fellows Americans, your laws and your means to enforce them.
Sorry, I don't think this is the way it works. In Somalia maybe...
I can't carry on arguing with someone like you. I should have stopped at your first answer.