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

[Just Mark]

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.

The article says that the judge of the original case ruled that a 5-pound foam drone is not an "aircraft", but that ruling was overturned on appeal:

FAA Can Make All Drone Flights Illegal, Federal Court Rules

And anyway, this was BEFORE Part 107 was created, so it is irrelevant to today's situation.

And, I wouldn't call it a "win" for the drone pilot considering he still had to fork over $1,100 in fines AND had to pay (probably a lot more) to his lawyers in fees.

If a 3lb drone is not dangerous. does that mean you are ok with one flying top speed into the face of your child??? Or dropping out of the sky on to someone? or flying in the path of a a water tanker trying to drop water on a forest fire?

 

[tcope]

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.

I actually know a lot about the case. For example, a lower judge ruled that drones were not aircraft. It was appealed and the FAA won that appeal. A year normally is not a long time for a case. A year for a trial that involved an appeal is next to no time at all. The time frame has _nothing_ to do with who has a better case... absolutely nothing at all.

So, not civil and time frames don't indicate who has a better case.

 

[Harleydude]

If a 3lb drone is not dangerous. does that mean you are ok with one flying top speed into the face of your child??? Or dropping out of the sky on to someone? or flying in the path of a a water tanker trying to drop water on a forest fire?

Why do "you people" always cite situations that have happened < 10 times in the entire WORLD history of the Radio Control flying?? (Which has been around since the '70s!).. ANYBODY can play the "what if" game. Let's say you and I man up and play the "actual data" game? I like that game much better. I'll start.

Q1: How many RC vehicles have been sold/built world wide?
Q2: How many babies faces have been flown into world wide?
Q3: How many drones have landed on people's heads world wide?
Q4: How many $$$ in damage (which you may notate in millions) have accumulated due to full scale aviation accidents?
Q5: How many lives (which you may notate in THOUSANDS) have been lost due to full scale aviation accidents?

What say we make drone regulation proportionate to the damage, carnage and death they cause??? We can use full scale aviation as a benchmark.

Let's up the ante.

Here's a list of UNREGULATED items that have killed more people than drones have:

Hammers
Bathtubs
Kitchen knives
Stairs
Garden Hoes

Shall I go on? Because I can. The list is very long.

What say we make drone regulation on par with bathtubs? Bath tubs kill 10x more people annually than drones. So, to be fair, drone regulation should be 1/10th that of bath tubs.

How come nobody talks about the POTENTIAL mortality rates for bathtubs? "Look how slippery they are! People could die!!"

How come nobody makes "what if" arguments against bath tubs? How come - based on high mortality rates, carnage, and property damage - are airplanes and helicopters allowed to fly at all? Boggles the mind, doesn't it???

Hopefully, you get my point. If drone regulations were distributed proportionately based on damage, death and carnage (on par with garden hoes, bathtubs and full scale aviation), there would be ZERO drone regulation.

Bottom line: Of everything I've listed here today, drones are BY FAR the safest item on that list....BY FAR.

Conclusion: Drone regulation is based on the damage they MIGHT cause. NOT the damage they DO cause.

Good day, sir. And happy Memorial Day.

D

 

[Javiejav]

Why do "you people" always cite situations that have happened < 10 times in the entire WORLD history of the Radio Control flying?? (Which has been around since the '70s!).. ANYBODY can play the "what if" game. Let's say you and I man up and play the "actual data" game? I like that game much better. I'll start.

Q1: How many RC vehicles have been sold/built world wide?
Q2: How many babies faces have been flown into world wide?
Q3: How many drones have landed on people's heads world wide?
Q4: How many $$$ in damage (which you may notate in millions) have accumulated due to full scale aviation accidents?
Q5: How many lives (which you may notate in THOUSANDS) have been lost due to full scale aviation accidents?

What say we make drone regulation proportionate to the damage, carnage and death they cause??? We can use full scale aviation as a benchmark.

Let's up the ante.

Here's a list of UNREGULATED items that have killed more people than drones have:

Hammers
Bathtubs
Kitchen knives
Stairs
Garden Hoes

Shall I go on? Because I can. The list is very long.

What say we make drone regulation on par with bathtubs? Bath tubs kill 10x more people annually than drones. So, to be fair, drone regulation should be 1/10th that of bath tubs.

How come nobody talks about the POTENTIAL mortality rates for bathtubs? "Look how slippery they are! People could die!!"

How come nobody makes "what if" arguments against bath tubs? How come - based on high mortality rates, carnage, and property damage - are airplanes and helicopters allowed to fly at all? Boggles the mind, doesn't it???

Hopefully, you get my point. If drone regulations were distributed proportionately based on damage, death and carnage (on par with garden hoes, bathtubs and full scale aviation), there would be ZERO drone regulation.

Bottom line: Of everything I've listed here today, drones are BY FAR the safest item on that list....BY FAR.

Conclusion: Drone regulation is based on the damage they MIGHT cause. NOT the damage they DO cause.

Good day, sir. And happy Memorial Day.

D

Hahaaaa mic drop!!!

 

[Melvoid]

Insurance does not cover criminal acts, period. It addresses civil acts. Violation of part 107 would be criminal.

I flew over a house and took a picture... now it's a criminal act.
This is sad and unfortunate.

 

[sar104]

I flew over a house and took a picture... now it's a criminal act.
This is sad and unfortunate.

If you mean that you operated your UAV for commercial purposes without a license to do so then that would be breaking the law. You don't like the law, or you simply don't want it to apply to you?

 

[Javiejav]

If you mean that you operated your UAV for commercial purposes without a license to do so then that would be breaking the law. You don't like the law, or you simply don't want it to apply to you?

Hahahaaa i think we would all like for it not to apply to us duh

 

[sar104]

Hahahaaa i think we would all like for it not to apply to us duh

You may be slightly over-generalizing there.

 

[Javiejav]

You may be slightly over-generalizing there.

t’s great to have rules... it’s great to have a set code, a SOG, SOP for flying drones. It’s beneficial to have a set of regulations to keep us in check from what we can or can not do. That’s a civilized society, but I’m pretty sure it would be nice if they didn’t apply to us... not saying I don’t like laws, just sayin it would be nice if they didn’t apply

 

[lonewolf41]

I have a related question...what about if I video my own house to sell? Does it matter if I sell it by owner or with a realtor if I video it myself if I do not have a 107 license?

TIA.

 

[on-high]

With regard to the FAA's stance on 'recreational use'
This is taken directly from the FAQs on FAA.gov:

What is the definition of recreational or hobby use of a UAS?
Recreational or hobby UAS use is flying for enjoyment and not for work, business purposes, or for compensation or hire. In the FAA's Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, the FAA relied on the ordinary, dictionary definition of these terms. UAS use for hobby is a "pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation." UAS use for recreation is "refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or diversion."

That being said, at the FAA UAS Symposium this past March, the folks at the highest levels of leadership within the FAA said that the difference is mostly around compensation. If a pilot is compensated in ANY way (even down to getting a sandwich for their time & effort), the flight is NOT recreational.

In Flockshot's example of the farmer, if the farmer is taking photos of his/her farm/crops to use as computer wallpaper, etc. there's no issue. If; however, he/she uses even that same image to show off or market those crops, or uses it in a way that promotes higher profits from, or in the operation of those crops (i.e. Flockshot's example of crop health management), they are required by law to be 14.CFR Part 107 certified to avoid violation.

To answer your question, @lonewolf41 - the purpose of your flight would be to result in a sale/transaction of your property, so regardless of who the pilot is (you or a realtor) it is NOT recreational and does require the pilot be P107 certified.

At the Symposium, there was unresolved discrepancy with situations like BigAl's example of taking an aerial photo/video for one's church (that exact scenario was the basis of a question asked.) The answer at the time was if there was no compensation exchanged and the images are displayed for free/open viewing for enjoyment only, that flight could potentially still fall under the definition of recreational.
Even the FAA guys were twisted on that scenario. But they were very clear that if said church ever used the image(s) for promotional, marketing, or any other purpose that is intended to realize any form of gain for the organization, the flight's intent changes and the regulations ARE retroactive. It all comes down to intended use of the resultant data, which as stated can change over time from a legal/regulatory perspective - based on actual use, regardless of the flight's original intent/purpose.

To be realistic... Who's going to police/enforce such, or even uncover it?
But then again, it's usually those who say "it won't happen to me" that it happens to first.

At the end of the day, the regulations are there for good reason and it's not really that hard to be in compliance. And... who's to say that (existing) technology won't soon be used to automatically serve as a reporting engine for any/all flights - making enforcement much easier than it is today.
Besides, the FAA are being pretty doggone nimble and intelligent about creating usable policy that ensures safe-for-all operation in Federal airspace, especially considering their size and scope.

Now, since I'm writing a tome...
As for the real estate agent/agency's accountability in a non-P107 piloted mission; I too have seen/gotten/heard widely conflicting information.
So, this thread was my 'last straw' and caused me to reach out to the (get ready for it - these folks have crazy titles) Deputy Vice President of Air Traffic Organization and Program Management Organization within the FAA (Jay Merkle) in an effort to get the most accurate answer. As per my experience at the Symposium, I got a very quick response from him (19 min!) stating that he's going to put me in touch with THE resource who can give us the definitive answer as it stands today, and I'll post the result once I've gotten it.

The last thing we need to do is spread misinformation, or worse use unfounded scare tactics (that will come back to bite us) with our clientele - if for no other reason than to enjoy lasting trusted relationships with our customers.

 

[sar104]

With regard to the FAA's stance on 'recreational use'
This is taken directly from the FAQs on FAA.gov:

What is the definition of recreational or hobby use of a UAS?
Recreational or hobby UAS use is flying for enjoyment and not for work, business purposes, or for compensation or hire. In the FAA's Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, the FAA relied on the ordinary, dictionary definition of these terms. UAS use for hobby is a "pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation." UAS use for recreation is "refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or diversion."

That being said, at the FAA UAS Symposium this past March, the folks at the highest levels of leadership within the FAA said that the difference is mostly around compensation. If a pilot is compensated in ANY way (even down to getting a sandwich for their time & effort), the flight is NOT recreational.

In Flockshot's example of the farmer, if the farmer is taking photos of his/her farm/crops to use as computer wallpaper, etc. there's no issue. If; however, he/she uses even that same image to show off or market those crops, or uses it in a way that promotes higher profits from, or in the operation of those crops (i.e. Flockshot's example of crop health management), they are required by law to be 14.CFR Part 107 certified to avoid violation.

To answer your question, @lonewolf41 - the purpose of your flight would be to result in a sale/transaction of your property, so regardless of who the pilot is (you or a realtor) it is NOT recreational and does require the pilot be P107 certified.

At the Symposium, there was unresolved discrepancy with situations like BigAl's example of taking an aerial photo/video for one's church (that exact scenario was the basis of a question asked.) The answer at the time was if there was no compensation exchanged and the images are displayed for free/open viewing for enjoyment only, that flight could potentially still fall under the definition of recreational.
Even the FAA guys were twisted on that scenario. But they were very clear that if said church ever used the image(s) for promotional, marketing, or any other purpose that is intended to realize any form of gain for the organization, the flight's intent changes and the regulations ARE retroactive. It all comes down to intended use of the resultant data, which as stated can change over time from a legal/regulatory perspective - based on actual use, regardless of the flight's original intent/purpose.

To be realistic... Who's going to police/enforce such, or even uncover it?
But then again, it's usually those who say "it won't happen to me" that it happens to first.

At the end of the day, the regulations are there for good reason and it's not really that hard to be in compliance. And... who's to say that (existing) technology won't soon be used to automatically serve as a reporting engine for any/all flights - making enforcement much easier than it is today.
Besides, the FAA are being pretty doggone nimble and intelligent about creating usable policy that ensures safe-for-all operation in Federal airspace, especially considering their size and scope.

Now, since I'm writing a tome...
As for the real estate agent/agency's accountability in a non-P107 piloted mission; I too have seen/gotten/heard widely conflicting information.
So, this thread was my 'last straw' and caused me to reach out to the (get ready for it - these folks have crazy titles) Deputy Vice President of Air Traffic Organization and Program Management Organization within the FAA (Jay Merkle) in an effort to get the most accurate answer. As per my experience at the Symposium, I got a very quick response from him (19 min!) stating that he's going to put me in touch with THE resource who can give us the definitive answer as it stands today, and I'll post the result once I've gotten it.

The last thing we need to do is spread misinformation, or worse use unfounded scare tactics (that will come back to bite us) with our clientele - if for no other reason than to enjoy lasting trusted relationships with our customers.

I'd agree that's mostly consistent with the written law and most FAA interpretations. The one point that I think is incorrect relates to retroactive judgement of intent. Whatever may have been discussed at the symposium, the FAA is on record as stating, multiple times, that it is the intent at the time of the flight that counts. And anything else would be untenable, since if a third party subsequently uses material acquired on a recreational flight, such as in your example, the pilot may not even be aware of it.

In fact the FAA has gone further than that, and stated that material acquired on a recreational flight may even be sold later provided that was not the intent at the time of the flight. That looks to many people like a loophole, but Congress enabled it.

 

[on-high]

... The one point that I think is incorrect relates to retroactive judgement of intent. Whatever may have been discussed at the symposium, the FAA is on record as stating, multiple times, that it is the intent at the time of the flight that counts. And anything else would be untenable, since if a third party subsequently uses material acquired on a recreational flight, such as in your example, the pilot may not even be aware of it.

In fact the FAA has gone further than that, and stated that material acquired on a recreational flight may even be sold later provided that was not the intent at the time of the flight. That looks to many people like a loophole, but Congress enabled it.

Good to know SAR104, thanks for that clarification. I suppose one of the things that can be expected at a conference held by a government agency is they are most likely to present the most conservative stance when making public statements about regulatory interpretation.

And very good point about the pilot may not even know of a change of intent after the fact by the customer for a prior hired job. That makes total sense.

 

[Enrico Schaefer]

The customer's bigger risk is liability. If there is an incident where there is an injury, damage to property, nuisance, privacy or other claim, the company hiring the drone pilot will also be sued. If there are not flying under Part 107, it will be negligence per se, or negligence as a mater of law. And as noted, may end up being an event which is outside the insurance coverage.

 

[Harleydude]

The customer's bigger risk is liability. If there is an incident where there is an injury, damage to property, nuisance, privacy or other claim, the company hiring the drone pilot will also be sued. If there are not flying under Part 107, it will be negligence per se, or negligence as a mater of law. And as noted, may end up being an event which is outside the insurance coverage.

Are you a lawyer? Or do you play one on T.V.?