Let's keep this thread ON TOPIC and not let it digress into Politics, Govt, etc or (like so many others) it will get shut down completely. There is a time and place for those topics and Phantom Pilots is neither.
Your occupation ( Realtor, in this case) has nothing to do with it. The regulSo question... as a realtor, and a drone pilot, am I required to have a 107 to take my own photos for a listing?? I don’t think that angle was covered in this discussion. I’ve been told in the past that it wasn’t required and it would be required if I were charging an extra percentage on my commission for aerial photos and videos
I've spoken to a guy who firmly believed he didn't need a Part 107 because he was doing it to earn a little spending cash on the side. The FAA has no provisions for "on the side". If you make more than $0.00 for your activities, whether for cash or in-kind payment, you need a Part 107. As harsh as it sounds, sob stories that imply exempt status for the Little Sisters of The Poor or a Children's Hospital are not exempt.Any flight that is outside of Hobby/Recreational requires Part 107. Even if you take a picture "for" your church/school/(insert any company name here) it's not for HOBBY/Recreation. You can not "HOBBY" for another person or business (yours or anyone elses's ) plain and simple.
The exchange of money is only one issue that would void your hobby status. Even the National Association for Realtors (NAR) has long noted that any Realtor use of a drone requires the Federally mandated licensing (was Section 333 but now is Part 107). It's also worth noting that more and more MLS services are requiring pilot credentials to be on file with them before they will accept Aerial images. With our state MLS they require my FAA RPIC license to be on file and when I submit the "Photographer's Agreement" with my submission they require the RPIC# to be included if it has aerial images.
And before someone sends you down the wrong path.... you can't "Fly for Free and charge for editing... or charge for the thumb drive.... or charge for consulting....or....." If the INTENT of the flight is to acquire data that is NOT 100% hobby it requires Part 107. There is really no grey area and your NAR Code of Ethics will also bring this into play as well.
No additional doc to contribute as what the FAA told is my understanding as well. Some Realtors I know fly their own drones in their business thinking that they are legal because they registered the drone and "put the numbers on it and everything." Explaining that they need a Pt 107 to operate a drone for ANY commercial activity - at least that's my understanding. Explaining as well that the registration is like getting plates/tags for your car but without a license you can't legally drive - It may prove helpful/educational.I've read in these very pages that the drone pilot who does not have a Part 107 can be fined for shooting images of real estate for a realtor or realty company. I have also read that the realtor who hires the pilot can be fined significantly more.
I am giving a presentation to a group of realtors this coming week. I called the FAA to ask about these fines and was told that IF someone would be fined for any breach of the Part 107 compensation rules when not appropriately licensed, it would be the pilot, not any business who hires the pilot.
If anyone has actual documentation to show other than what I was told by the FAA FSDO directly, I would very much appreciate seeing it. Otherwise, seems just another set of incorrect data, which I can now blame on the internet.
Cheers and happy flying.
Dave
The FAA is not in the forgiveness business.Better to ask for forgiveness than permission go out and make money!
I applaud your efforts for laying it out there in the light of day, in an informative way, as opposed to force-feeding with implied threats. If they're license agents, you've got to assume they're big boys and girls and understand that regulations exist. From that point, they're on their own.Here is my .02 on the issue of Realtors flying without the 107. As a RE photographer, I certainly bring up the topic when I am in meetings with my clients. I cannot make a big issue out of it because it will get me blackballed. My clients are too hard to acquire to alienate them by making a big deal of them flying their drones without the 107. If you have a differing opinion, please elaborate.
Creating awareness amongst every industry that might use your services is crucial. God help us all if we have to live in fear of creating regulatory awareness within our own industry.Thank you Kristina. While I cannot stop unlicensed realtors from flying and taking their own images, I can continue to take BETTER images. If they choose to use inferior images to attempt to sell a property, that's on them.
If you want to take real estate pictures, do some study work and take the 60 question test. You are allowed to miss 18 of the questions and still become a 'commercial drone pilot', fully qualified to take some pictures. Also, you are not required to know how to fly a drone to get the license. Therefore, the real estate agent can get the license, use his nephew to take the pictures, and be perfectly legal since the agent was "pilot in command".
"The answer is a qualified yes, and it’s a federal crime punishable by a fine of up to $250,000.00 or 3 years in prison, or both." This is according to Peter Sachs, an attorney, in his article "Hiring a hobbyist? You might be committing a federal crime." "It is a crime if a person 'knowingly and willingly employs for service or uses in any capacity as an airman an individual who does not have an airman’s certificate authorizing the individual to serve in that capacity.' See: 49 U.S. Code § 46306(b)(8), entitled, “Registration violations involving aircraft not providing air transportation.”" Read the article for the details.
If you want to take real estate pictures, do some study work and take the 60 question test. You are allowed to miss 18 of the questions and still become a 'commercial drone pilot', fully qualified to take some pictures. Also, you are not required to know how to fly a drone to get the license. Therefore, the real estate agent can get the license, use his nephew to take the pictures, and be perfectly legal since the agent was "pilot in command".
To be a pilot in command the realtor would have to be physically at the scene overseeing his nephew.
I'm curious your FSDO took such a strong stance stating a "Business" isn't liable. I have a screen print from the FAA's email where they stated something entirely different. Granted of course someone could have "Photo shopped" this image I have reason to believe that it at least WAS valid as of last year.
Thank you Kristina. While I cannot stop unlicensed realtors from flying and taking their own images, I can continue to take BETTER images. If they choose to use inferior images to attempt to sell a property, that's on them.
I've read in these very pages that the drone pilot who does not have a Part 107 can be fined for shooting images of real estate for a realtor or realty company. I have also read that the realtor who hires the pilot can be fined significantly more.
I am giving a presentation to a group of realtors this coming week. I called the FAA to ask about these fines and was told that IF someone would be fined for any breach of the Part 107 compensation rules when not appropriately licensed, it would be the pilot, not any business who hires the pilot.
If anyone has actual documentation to show other than what I was told by the FAA FSDO directly, I would very much appreciate seeing it. Otherwise, seems just another set of incorrect data, which I can now blame on the internet.
Cheers and happy flying.
Dave
Insurance does not cover criminal acts, period. It addresses civil acts. Violation of part 107 would be criminal.
Criminal? Under which law? Cite the statute.
The Commercial Drone Pilot Who Ruined the FAA's 2014 Has Settled His Case
"Schulman told me, however, that had the pair decided to continue fighting the case, the court would have eventually decided that flying a foam, five-pound drone isn't reckless at all."
Read: Unprosecutable
So you think the FAA charged Pirker with a civil suit? The entire case was a _criminal_ trial, not a civil trial.
You really want me to use Google for 10 seconds and find the charges? Ok... careless operation provision of FAR Part 91.3. This is part of the US Code (read, "law").
It was so unprosecutable that it was not simply dismissed and was on ongoing case. Parties settle cases all of the time... this does not mean that they were unprosecutable. There is a _lot_ more to cases like this then win and loose. In this case the FAA partially won a "side case" in that now it is a ruling that drones are aircraft in that they fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA. They also won because we all now know that the FAA may very well take you to court and cost you tens of thousands of dollars if you violate Part 91.3. They got in the news.
I really don't feel like breaking down Part 107 and why it is law as well, I think the above explains why it is as well.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.