Anyone ever been busted.... (107 question)

[STUFF2C]

Anyone ever heard of anyone getting fined for flying for compensation with out a 107?

I see roofers flying inspections and have asked several and they have no idea it even exists

 

[Weazel]

Good question. I’ve been flying for a couple years and never heard if anyone. I just recently got my 107 so I shall see in time. Nobody is out in the streets there policing it so unless someone catches you in the act or scans YouTube, it probably rarely happens

 

[STUFF2C]

I did have someone tell me some of the insurance adjusters are now using drones and they are 107's and have been known to report non licensed folks to the FAA... no way to confirm that though.

 

[vindibona1]

Anyone ever heard of anyone getting fined for flying for compensation with out a 107?

I see roofers flying inspections and have asked several and they have no idea it even exists

An interesting question, but there is a logical answer. For most of us, the problem with flying unlicensed while being compensated isn't really getting busted by the FAA. It's about liability protection. It's about your liability should you crash your drone and damage someone's property or injure someone. I would presume that roofers, in particular, would already carry massive liability insurance which in most cases would cover them. For the most part they don't have the same worries as someone who is an amateur pilot/photographer who wouldn't be eligible for any type of commercial insurance while flying their drone for business.

In terms of "getting busted", I think a few years down the road things will become dicier for us when drones will be required to have unique tranmitting ID's so that the authorities or anyone with the proper equipment can identify where both you and your drone are. I think when we get to that point where manufactures will no longer produce drones without the locators I'll probably buy the last drone on the market that doesn't come equipped as such. And it's not because I don't want to adhere to the rules.

 

[STUFF2C]

"BUSTED" was for the "huh, better look at that" factor.

when it comes to tracking, think "terminator" and "skynet" it's here! everything you own that has a wifi or mobile connection tracks your every move.

and the next 20 years...

 

[vindibona1]

"BUSTED" was for the "huh, better look at that" factor.

when it comes to tracking, think "terminator" and "skynet" it's here! everything you own that has a wifi or mobile connection tracks your every move.

and the next 20 years...

Hey... I just saw the latest Terminator movie two nights ago! But you're right. We're already being tracked in so many ways. Even now, auto insurance companies are promising "safe driver discounts" for those willing the plug black box devices into their vehicles.

My objection isn't based on legitimate tracking by legitimate authorities for safety, but because we know that the concept is ripe for open abuse by both government, drone-hating miscreants looking to create trouble and havoc and criminals. Even today, there are scores of videos documenting people LEGALLY filming, yet are accosted by some "authority" improperly challenging, harassing, intimidating and even arresting those acting within the law... and they aren't even flying drones.

 

[Vic Moss]

I know of two separate investigations.

But the FAA is all about education first. There have been fines. We pulled a FOIA request about 2 years ago before I left Drone U, and there were three there if my memory serves me. But they're all fines only.

 

[BigAl07]

There are a few reasons why you don't hear of people getting busted "Busted" flying illegally very often...

• 1) Very few come on the forums to brag about it and unless there is an incident it isn't "News Worthy".
• 2) Often times it's just an "Educational Moment". The FAA uses the Educate but Document method unless there is an incident or the offense is grossly negligent.
• 3) Even when someone is "Reported" (and every viable report is investigated if possible) there may not be enough information to locate/identify the operator.
• 4) Even in situations where there is gross negligence there are "options" other than just fines etc.

We had a 16 y/o interfere with a Police Helicopter in 2019 here in my region (Charlotte NC FAA). He was located easily (they just followed the US to where he landed and had a ground unit meet him) and after the investigation he was issued a FINE or he could do some Community Service promoting SAFE UAS Operations in the community. Guess which route he, his father, and his attorney chose? He's going to schools and other functions speaking to them about SAFE UAS Operations and what could happen is you do something outside of the Regulations.

 

[maelstrom]

My objection isn't based on legitimate tracking by legitimate authorities for safety, but because we know that the concept is ripe for open abuse by both government, drone-hating miscreants looking to create trouble and havoc and criminals. Even today, there are scores of videos documenting people LEGALLY filming, yet are accosted by some "authority" improperly challenging, harassing, intimidating and even arresting those acting within the law... and they aren't even flying drones.

If you're not doing anything illegal, it won't matter what the status of the person viewing your remote ID is. In fact, you'll be better off as the data will prove that you were doing nothing wrong.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

You’re a lot more likely to get busted for speeding Or dui.

 

[hiflyer201]

Most likely the FAA would come calling if a licensed pilot complained. That's a distinct possibility I would say. ..as in..drone pilot comes asking for advice..the next time you see him he's flying for your customer...or some such scenario

 

[offtheback]

Most likely the FAA would come calling if a licensed pilot complained. That's a distinct possibility I would say. ..as in..drone pilot comes asking for advice..the next time you see him he's flying for your customer...or some such scenario

True,a competitor has more motive+opportunity to report you than the FAA has to find you.

 

[Floater]

Interesting case with the roofer using a drone to inspect their work. I would assume that if questioned, the use of the drone would be claimed to be "incidental". They are not selling images (I assume). The drone use was to ensure that the work, unrelated to the drone was completed correctly, reducing the chance of damage or injury. The operator was being paid to complete the job, not fly a drone. If the FAA were to be persnikety, the operator would have to pay for the electricity used (the "fuel"). As a private pilot, I can travel with folks to go places and do things* and share direct operating expenses. It would be interesting if such a case were investigated either administratively or in court.

* Things could include flying over a passenger's property or some other point of interest to snap some pictures or just sightsee. Could also include going to a conference, even one work related as long as the use of the plane was "incidental".

 

[spsphotos]

Interesting case with the roofer using a drone to inspect their work. I would assume that if questioned, the use of the drone would be claimed to be "incidental". They are not selling images (I assume). The drone use was to ensure that the work, unrelated to the drone was completed correctly, reducing the chance of damage or injury. The operator was being paid to complete the job, not fly a drone. If the FAA were to be persnikety, the operator would have to pay for the electricity used (the "fuel"). As a private pilot, I can travel with folks to go places and do things* and share direct operating expenses. It would be interesting if such a case were investigated either administratively or in court.

* Things could include flying over a passenger's property or some other point of interest to snap some pictures or just sightsee. Could also include going to a conference, even one work related as long as the use of the plane was "incidental".

Nope. You are wrong. Regardless of why the contractor is using the UAV, it is still being used for COMMERCIAL purposes. There are no "incidental" usages. You either are using the drone in a commercial manner or you are not. Since the operator works for a company that is performing commercial work and inspecting the roof is part of the commercial endeavor then the operator would be required to have a Part107 license. Period. As defined by the FAA, commercial drone use is any use of a drone (quadcopter or otherwise) “in connection with a business.” In essence, this means that commercial drone use applies to any use of a drone from which you hope to profit. So since the contractor expects to profit from his work and part of the work is using the drone to do inspections then it's considered commercial usages. FAA is pretty clear on that point. Now if the home owner comes out and send his/her drone up for a look and tell the contractor what needs to be fixed then there is no problem because the homeowner does not have an expectation of profiting from the drone usage.

 

[sharkeyb]

I have part 107 and had a real estate office call me and asked if I would fly a property for them . He told me he had a drone and had posted pictures he had done on a site . He said he was called by the Local FAA and asked if he had part 107 and if not this was his warning not to continue without it. He believes another agent from another company turned him in. He had me fly for him because they said the next call would be up to a $10,000 cost to him .

 

[Sandwich]

Hey... I just saw the latest Terminator movie two nights ago! But you're right. We're already being tracked in so many ways. Even now, auto insurance companies are promising "safe driver discounts" for those willing the plug black box devices into their vehicles.

My objection isn't based on legitimate tracking by legitimate authorities for safety, but because we know that the concept is ripe for open abuse by both government, drone-hating miscreants looking to create trouble and havoc and criminals. Even today, there are scores of videos documenting people LEGALLY filming, yet are accosted by some "authority" improperly challenging, harassing, intimidating and even arresting those acting within the law... and they aren't even flying drones.

Here‘s an interesting piece of info...My Son, who was in Iraq at a Command Operation Center said they used facial recognition from 40k feet.

 

[Weazel]

I have part 107 and had a real estate office call me and asked if I would fly a property for them . He told me he had a drone and had posted pictures he had done on a site . He said he was called by the Local FAA and asked if he had part 107 and if not this was his warning not to continue without it. He believes another agent from another company turned him in. He had me fly for him because they said the next call would be up to a $10,000 cost to him .

Wow!!! They don’t mess around

 

[Cobra193]

I know of at least 2 people in my arra were fined $10,000 by FAA. It happens more than you think.

I know directly of another person who had his drone confiscated by the police and after consulting with a lawyer, ther wasn't a thing he could so to get it back,.

And to the person that said the roofers probably have insurance that would cover any damage done should they crash... wrong, insurance will NOT pay a claim if operating machinery legally.

 

[vindibona1]

I have part 107 and had a real estate office call me and asked if I would fly a property for them . He told me he had a drone and had posted pictures he had done on a site . He said he was called by the Local FAA and asked if he had part 107 and if not this was his warning not to continue without it. He believes another agent from another company turned him in. He had me fly for him because they said the next call would be up to a $10,000 cost to him .

I guess if your competitor or enemy wants to be (deleted by moderator) and turn you in to the FAA at least they tend to be informative first before being punitive.

 

[Cobra193]

I guess if your competitor or enemy wants to be an ahole and turn you in to the FAA at least they tend to be informative first before being punitive.

How is the 'enemy' being an ahole for reporting illegal activity? They (and more people) should be reporting illegally flying drones.