As a 107 holder, would you accept this drone job contract?

[AMann]

Shoot it during your 30 minute window after sunset. All you'll need is night time lights, no waiver, airport is not a factor. You'll get the same look, 'virtual night' with better shots before it actually gets dark.

Is the airport on the LAANC list? If not I’d contact the airport ASAP.

Yup, good points both of you.

I do like the twilight window and golden hour best for photography, but in my proposal, I want to only fly after the airport and local store business hours to lessen the possibility of impacting aircraft and people.

The airport is not on LAANC, and E airspace starts at 700’ AGL above the site. I do plan on contacting the airport and local hospital heliport if and when I get the contract.

 

[Endeavor]

This is similar to some of the work I have done for the city and police. Price is right as most of the time no real editing is require except for a title screen. It's a good gig and requires minimal effort and time.

 

[ReadyKilowatt]

Shoot it during your 30 minute window after sunset. All you'll need is night time lights, no waiver, airport is not a factor. You'll get the same look, 'virtual night' with better shots before it actually gets dark.

Last weekend I was testing out a new camera on my 3DR Solo. It took a little longer than planned for charging up batteries so I was flying during civil twilight. Pretty surprised by just how dark the ground was even though the sky was still pretty bright. Of course as others have mentioned, experimenting with exposure will change the effect.

 

[Drbobk]

My only suggestion is to make sure you record the setting you use in the before shots, and use the same settings for the after. Otherwise, you risk letting autoexposure make the shots (and the lights) look the same before and after.

 

[ajkm]

.you can legally fly 500' AGL

Only outside built up areas - and it’s 500ft above any obstacle within a 500ft radius. If it’s a built up area, it’s 1000ft above any obstacle within a 2000ft radius.

 

[ajkm]

If you don't have ~107.29 apply for it (today) and worse case find someone with it and pay them a "Fee" to utilize it for this shoot.

I presume this is either suggesting you pay someone else to do the shoot or is a joke?

 

[Donnie Frank]

​

Description: Night time video and photos of parking lot lights. Commercial lighting upgrade. Before and after video and photos of parking lot lighting project. First set (before video/pics) must be done before 10/31 Second set (after video/pics) completed in December 2019 Service: Other Budget: $600.00 Specific Date: Not Specified Pilots Need: One Job Type: One Off

​

Here’s the sectional for the job location. There’s a few issues related to the job, besides it being 2 miles south of French Valley Airport:

View attachment 81558

​

I know what I would do, what do you think? (I am bidding on it, but I’ll post what I am proposing to them after some had a chance to discuss it here).

Not only WOULD I, I actually DID.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The invoice was considerably more than $600. This was shot on the outer edge of Class C.

D

 

[BigAl07]

I presume this is either suggesting you pay someone else to do the shoot or is a joke?

Joke? what part of my comment could in ANY way be misconstrued into it being a joke.

You have THREE options on a shoot like this:

• A - Have your ~107.29 Daylight Waiver
• B - Find someone local who DOES have their ~107.29 and see if they will allow you to fly under their waiver... most likely for a small fee.
• C - Don't do the shoot

Anything else is in violation of FAA Regulations. @ajkm being from Canada you may not be totally up to speed on US/FAA regulations but the above scenarios are the only legal way to do this type of shoot and still be legal under Part 107.

 

[ajkm]

As far as I'm aware, your option B would be strictly illegal. The PIC is the person who has to apply for and hold the waiver. The only possible alternative I can see is that the waiver is held by a company and the PIC is an employee of that company and thus covered. I personnel such a scenario would be specifically described in the waiver application.

As for the joke option, given the level of unprofessional commentary we all have to read on this forum, it's virtually impossible these days to determine if someone is being serious about a suggestion they make. Since paying to use someone else's waiver would, imho, be illegal, it didn't seem to me like a serious/genuine option.

 

[ajkm]

Joke? what part of my comment could in ANY way be misconstrued into it being a joke.

You have THREE options on a shoot like this:

• A - Have your ~107.29 Daylight Waiver
• B - Find someone local who DOES have their ~107.29 and see if they will allow you to fly under their waiver... most likely for a small fee.
• C - Don't do the shoot

Anything else is in violation of FAA Regulations. @ajkm being from Canada you may not be totally up to speed on US/FAA regulations but the above scenarios are the only legal way to do this type of shoot and still be legal under Part 107.

I note that the FAA's own instructions for the application for a waiver define clearly the Responsible Party (ie the applicant). If the Part 107 PIC is not the Responsible Party, the PIC's flight certificate number must be included on the application.

The waiver is also for a specific operation, (ie not held for general use). Therefore option B would only be available by prior specific arrangement and application based on that arrangement.

[See https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_...ers/media/waiver_application_instructions.pdf]

 

[BigAl07]

As far as I'm aware, your option B would be strictly illegal. The PIC is the person who has to apply for and hold the waiver. The only possible alternative I can see is that the waiver is held by a company and the PIC is an employee of that company and thus covered. I personnel such a scenario would be specifically described in the waiver application.

As for the joke option, given the level of unprofessional commentary we all have to read on this forum, it's virtually impossible these days to determine if someone is being serious about a suggestion they make. Since paying to use someone else's waiver would, imho, be illegal, it didn't seem to me like a serious/genuine option.

That's simply NOT true in the USA!! The person NAMED on the waiver is ultimately responsible but others can fly "under" it. Much like Airspace Waivers/Authorizations.... the named person/entity is responsible but others can fly "under it" and be perfectly legal in every respect. This might NOT be the case in Canada but it is the case in the US/FAA territories etc.

 

[ajkm]

That's simply NOT true in the USA!! The person NAMED on the waiver is ultimately responsible but others can fly "under" it. Much like Airspace Waivers/Authorizations.... the named person/entity is responsible but others can fly "under it" and be perfectly legal in every respect. This might NOT be the case in Canada but it is the case in the US/FAA territories etc.

In that case, my reading (as an aviation lawyer) of the FAA rules would 1. require the waiver holder to be present if someone else is flying under the waiver, unless 2. the waiver document itself specifically states that this is not required.

Whatever the answer, a conversation with the local FISDO would seem to be the best way to ascertain the correct application of the FAA rules.

·TC Advanced Ops RPAS Pilot
& Flight Reviewer

 

[brett8883]

In that case, my reading (as an aviation lawyer) of the FAA rules would 1. require the waiver holder to be present if someone else is flying under the waiver, unless 2. the waiver document itself specifically states that this is not required.

Whatever the answer, a conversation with the local FISDO would seem to be the best way to ascertain the correct application of the FAA rules.

·TC Advanced Ops RPAS Pilot
& Flight Reviewer

Yes the waiver holder, PIC, would have to be present. Maybe that’s the part you misunderstood. They’d need to be able to take control of the aircraft if there was an emergency. The PIC just doesn’t have to be the one actually AT the controls.

 

[BigAl07]

In that case, my reading (as an aviation lawyer) of the FAA rules would 1. require the waiver holder to be present if someone else is flying under the waiver, unless 2. the waiver document itself specifically states that this is not required.

Whatever the answer, a conversation with the local FISDO would seem to be the best way to ascertain the correct application of the FAA rules.

·TC Advanced Ops RPAS Pilot
& Flight Reviewer

BINGO!

I don't need to call the FSDO to get the ruling... this is what I do sir.

 

[ajkm]

BINGO!

I don't need to call the FSDO to get the ruling... this is what I do sir.

And the specific waiver? Or are the FAA now providing standing waivers for 107.29? How are the specific Risks and Mitigation questions required in the waiver application answered if the waiver is not applicable to a particular specified UAS operation?


·TC Advanced Ops RPAS Pilot
& Flight Reviewer

 

[BigAl07]

And the specific waiver? Or are the FAA now providing standing waivers for 107.29? How are the specific Risks and Mitigation questions required in the waiver application answered if the waiver is not applicable to a particular specified UAS operation?


·TC Advanced Ops RPAS Pilot
& Flight Reviewer

It's a general Daylight Waiver that is for all Class G airspace for a period of 3 years. The mitigation techniques are not site specific and it's up to the Waiver Holder to ensure that the RPIC follows the waiver to the "T" because it is his/her waiver that would be revoked if the terms are not followed.

 

[AMann]

It's a general Daylight Waiver that is for all Class G airspace for a period of 3 years. The mitigation techniques are not site specific and it's up to the Waiver Holder to ensure that the RPIC follows the waiver to the "T" because it is his/her waiver that would be revoked if the terms are not followed.

The examples given by FAA and the questions they ask seem to make it site specific. In my application I tried to make it job-type specific, which would be the case for my needs of the waiver. I did not see a way to make it non-specific. We’ll see though, my application is submitted and is waiting to be evaluated.

 

[Donnie Frank]

To put things into perspective, a non-certified pilot can legally fly under the 107 of a certified pilot. And, yes, the 107 must be present AND must supervise the flight.

D

 

[ajkm]

It's a general Daylight Waiver that is for all Class G airspace for a period of 3 years. The mitigation techniques are not site specific and it's up to the Waiver Holder to ensure that the RPIC follows the waiver to the "T" because it is his/her waiver that would be revoked if the terms are not followed.

This is useful info, though I note the other response. It would be very helpful if AMann could report back to this thread any further understanding he receives by way of response to his application.

 

[AMann]

This is useful info, though I note the other response. It would be very helpful if AMann could report back to this thread any further understanding he receives by way of response to his application.

Shall do!