The Realtor Can Be Fined for Non Part 107 Pilot???

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: O6-Hammerhead
So 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
Your occupation ( Realtor, in this case) has nothing to do with it. The regul
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.
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.

Also, (re: "....can be fined for shooting images of real estate for a realtor or realty company."), this thread seems to be specific to Real Estate activities. It should apply to all business types - not just Real Estate.

FWIW.... a local outfit that advertised boldly and confidently for drone services sent me a copy of his $5 drone registration receipt as proof he was "licensed". True story...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
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
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
"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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Just Mark
"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.

I'm not convinced by his argument. His case law example (the only one?) is the owner of an aircraft who allowed someone else to fly it recklessly and then declined to identify the pilot to the FAA. The wording in 49 USC 46306(b)(8) is more intriguing, but it depends on the FAA regarding sUAS operations as falling under that code. In fact they have indicated that only Public sUAS operations fall into that category.
 
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.

Indeed. But as was implied in the statement "Also, you are not required to know how to fly a drone to get the license," the PIC technically wouldn't (as far as I know) actually have to know how to control the sticks or the app necessarily. They would have to be present and maintain VLOS and do the crew management and all other aspects of being the PIC, but I am not certain that they actually would have to know how to "fly" the drone.

Of course, I have been wrong many times before :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

Exactly. I think the defining line is whether the realty company had knowledge of the pilot's lack of 107 certificate and hired them anyway. Probably the most obvious company violation would be if the real estate agent bought a drone and flew it to take photos of their property up for sale. As stated above, companies get fined at a rate significantly higher than a solo pilot.
 
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.

It's a little tough for us RE photographers out there now. So many new people getting into the business, and I often get realtors who say, "Oh, my nephew has a drone, I will just have them take photos."

Yeah, you can't really chastise your clients too much. I do like to emphasize that I am licenses and INSURED and that the only way to get liability insurance is with a license. I also mention that sometimes drones fall out of the sky for no reason.
 
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

Yes, they can be fined by their boss or franchise. That's the nature of private enterprise.
 
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

I realize the article is a couple years old, but "flying around a house taking photos" is no more "illegal" now than it was then.

Last year I was shooting a commercial property. One of the peripheral private property owners thought I was filming his house or something. He threatened to call the police and shoot my drone down. I saved him a call. Guess who the police sided with? The 107 didn't even come up. If "flying without a 107 is against the law," someone might want to inform local law enforcement agencies...LOL....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JJErrico
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.
 
Searching the internet for cases that have been prosecuted and am not finding any that are related to the "flying for pay" aspect of the licensing requirement. For example, a recent New York Post article... https://nypost.com/2018/02/08/the-faa-isnt-really-doing-much-about-illegal-drone-pilots/.

It seems that the FAA, when it is choosing to prosecute at all, is focused on safety violations as its priority...and rightly so. There must have been some political reason in Congress that flying for payment even got tied into the regulation. Safety should be the only issue and licensing would be the key to that, addressing airspace knowledge requirements. The notion that someone got $125 for taking some drone shots and didn't have a Part 107 license seems inconsequential and the FAA seems to be ignoring that part of the regulation.

Putting this all into perspective, IMO, it's doubtful that the FAA will pursue violations of "flying for pay" by unlicensed drone operators, let alone going after Real Estate agents who hire them, which was the question posed by the original post.
 
Last edited:
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.

I guess you didn't read the article. The giant behemoth we call "the FAA," with unlimited resource, after a year, couldn't defeat little Raphael Pirker. Why do you suppose that is? I'm no lawyer, but I'm going to guess because the FAA didn't have a case.

In the face of monthly aviation catastrophes with countless loss of life and property damage well into 7 figures PER INCIDENT, I can only laugh when someone calls a 3-5 lb. drone "dangerous." And when the FAA makes those accusations, you can add "ironic" to the mix. Funny.
 
Last edited:

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers