Tricky Question

[GoodnNuff]

But I don't think they were charged with that.

Maybe you can find what you "think" they were charged with?

I think it is pretty clear that they were charged for making 65 unauthorized commercial flights, 43 of those in highly restricted airspace.

Now back to the OP, I don't think a flight 20 feet above a roof is going to cost you any fines. In fact I could pretty much guarantee it won't. But it only takes one complaint to put you on the FAA's radar. You can google warning letters from the FAA - some have been discussed on this forum - there have been enough sent to people to cease and desist their flights to make me believe the FAA does have a mechanism to "watch" us, whether through YouTube or filed complaints.

 

[jlummel]

[...] the largest civil penalty the FAA has proposed against a UAS operator for endangering the safety of our airspace. [...]

Did you bother to read ALL the press release, or did you just skim to the part that interested you? While the FAA talks about commercial flights, they CLEARLY state up front that the penalty was for endangerment (which would be 91.13 violations, as Steve pointed out)!

In the Pirker complaint the judge couldn't figure out why the FAA even brought up the commercial aspect of the flight as it had no bearing on a reckless endangerment complaint., which is pretty much the same thing going on here, and is a very instructive on how the FAA operates in these situations.

I'm sure the FAA would LOVE for everyone to believe SkyPan was fined for flying commercially without an exemption, as that's the only method they have to enforce their guidelines which have NO teeth what-so-ever. It's a shame that there are useful idiots that continually parrot their spin in the press and on the Internet...

 

[John N Kronyak]

The FAA feels any commercial use is a no-no. What you're describing is definitely commercial.

For Christ's sake. Some of us construction workers use binoculars to assess damage. I'm sure there's a regulation about that too.

If i am asked to estimate work to redo a roof, for instance strip 3 layers & plywood out & redo from scratch, & i use the drone to merely take pictures in order to see the total extent of the job, is that really much different then me climbing on the roof, & taking pictures? Would this be a no-no to the FAA? Thanks in advance for any input.

The way i see it, i am not selling the pictures or video i take, i am merely using them as a tool to see what needs to be done.

Just take the pics. Better than takin' the risk of fallin' off a roof. I'd ignore all these ridiculous "Letter of the Law" conformists who don't see safety as an issue. Would it be different if you took zoom photos from a nearby scaffold. Jeez.

I appreciate the input. So its really a matter of "getting caught in the act" thank you! I really, really would not think snapping a few pictures & using them for evaluation purposes, not selling the pictures would be okay.

Just do what you think is right.And if ya' get paid keep it "Under the Table".

OP, you are fine using your drone for this; it's a free estimate. Please do it and don't listen to the doomsayers.

In fact, doing it for $50 bucks won't kill you. There are no FAA resources available to bag you for a $50 dollar job. They have no way of knowing that you did it for money anyways. It will simply be a you tube video online of a "roof", or better yet, supplied to your client on a thumb drive.

There is no algorithmic function that can discern between a video for money and a video for hobby.

I (we) fly over neighborhoods all the time... there are thousands of roofs. Theoretically I could be charging $100's per person... but how would the FAA ever know. More importantly, how would they enforce 'it".... whatever "it" is... they don't even know. And they don't have a 22 year old FAA employee, looking at Youtube's 16+ exabytes of yearly video uploads; and you probably would have provided it on an SSD or thumbdrive anyways.

And don't post on You Tube.

Yes, if the person is herding sheep to make money. Now, if they are just pets or wild sheep, then it won't be an issue.

Please give us a break. I can't listen to this bull**** any more.

 

[BillG]

Anyone who takes bad advice from anonymous internet strangers without doing their own research probably deserves what they get.

 

[John N Kronyak]

Anyone who takes bad advice from anonymous internet strangers without doing their own research probably deserves what they get.

Some of us refuse to be"Robots of Regulations". Sorry.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Some of us refuse to be"Robots of Regulations". Sorry.

Exercise your freedom! Refuse to cooperate! Be a rebel! I admire your spunk!

Now for the rest of us...choose carefully the advice you take and know the consequences of that choice. That's all.

 

[John N Kronyak]

Exercise your freedom! Refuse to cooperate! Be a rebel! I admire your spunk!

Now for the rest of us...choose carefully the advice you take and know the consequences of that choice. That's all.

I just wonder what happened to the land of the free. We have so many regulations on everything that a person spends 4 years or more in Law School to specialize in just one of a thousand areas of law. It's insane if ya' ask me. And most of the regulations are "Taxes in Disguise". Personally I had enough of it a long time ago.Before ya' know it, there will be regulations for rubber band powered Balsa planes, or maybe there already is.

Anyone who takes bad advice from anonymous internet strangers without doing their own research probably deserves what they get.

We're not anonymous. Didn't we have to register and log in?

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Let keep it a little more civil in here than it's been lately. This is turning into another fighting thread. Lets end that now.

As far as flying commercially without the proper credentials, be prepared to pay the piper if you get caught. They do catch people, and they do fine them.
@Jeriami you would be in violation of the commercial use law unless you have a 333 exemption and the person flying the UAV has at least a sports pilot license. If a UAV is used as part of the process it is commercial use plain & simple. Do so at your own risk.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Did you bother to read ALL the press release, or did you just skim to the part that interested you? While the FAA talks about commercial flights, they CLEARLY state up front that the penalty was for endangerment (which would be 91.13 violations, as Steve pointed out)!

Hey Sorry I am a month past replying to your post.
Yes, entirely aware that this is what they were charged with - the 65 unauthorized flights, more than half in restricted airspace - resulted in 65 charges of reckless endangerment. I didn't make that at all clear in my post - so I understand your correction. But as I've always pointed out - the only thing that came out of the Pirker case, the only precedent, is that you can be charged for "reckless endangerment" a catchall for flying too high, too close, too fast, to low, to near, over this, over that, without permission, where you shouldn't, etc.