Construction Filming Rules

[Jim Daniels]

I started out 7 years ago with a 333 exemption, am now a Part 107
I fly construction projects and try to get contracts with the Builders, the Tenants, the Developers, selling "progress report" videos and pics. Getting 1 of them to sign up is the goal.
If none will sign, then I have all the tradesmen. I will pitch a nice video for their Websites & Social Media pages, Excavators, Steel workers, framers, roofers, etc.
I always introduce myself beforehand, tell them my intentions, and typically do very well the last 7 years.

So I'm filming a start to an addition on our local Public Library
(I have been under contract with this Village previously to film their Water park, golf course, etc., so my hopes are high)

A week later I'm flying and Job Superintendent comes up to me and says, "you can fly that here". I am courteous and obliged, inform him that I don't need his permission, but "I am not here to piss anyone off"

3 trips later he's walking across the street telling for a 3rd time to stop. This time I tell him that I don't need his, or his bosses permission to fly. I asked him to call the local police and they will set him straight. (he refused). I gave him my contact info and asked him to have his boss call me.

He did, the next afternoon, while I was filming a golf course.
He apparently educated himself, and told the Job Super that I could indeed fly without their permission.

My question is ....
he told me that I had to "orbit" outside the fence line, that they "control" the site.
I told him I CAN fly over the site, as long as I'm not closer than 50 meters to any workers or activity.
(everyone else has greeted me with open arms, this is my first job superintendent hassling me.)

I also carry on my person a million dollar liability policy and typically name any " paying client" as "additional insured", (everyone has been comfortable with my professionalism ....
up until now)

So what are the rules about these construction projects?
Do I need to tie a camera to a bunch of helium balloons for the overhead shots?

 

[Starz]

You followed the rule.
You asked him to call L.E.

 

[dawgpilot]

I started out 7 years ago with a 333 exemption, am now a Part 107
I fly construction projects and try to get contracts with the Builders, the Tenants, the Developers, selling "progress report" videos and pics. Getting 1 of them to sign up is the goal.
If none will sign, then I have all the tradesmen. I will pitch a nice video for their Websites & Social Media pages, Excavators, Steel workers, framers, roofers, etc.
I always introduce myself beforehand, tell them my intentions, and typically do very well the last 7 years.

So I'm filming a start to an addition on our local Public Library
(I have been under contract with this Village previously to film their Water park, golf course, etc., so my hopes are high)

A week later I'm flying and Job Superintendent comes up to me and says, "you can fly that here". I am courteous and obliged, inform him that I don't need his permission, but "I am not here to piss anyone off"

3 trips later he's walking across the street telling for a 3rd time to stop. This time I tell him that I don't need his, or his bosses permission to fly. I asked him to call the local police and they will set him straight. (he refused). I gave him my contact info and asked him to have his boss call me.

He did, the next afternoon, while I was filming a golf course.
He apparently educated himself, and told the Job Super that I could indeed fly without their permission.

My question is ....
he told me that I had to "orbit" outside the fence line, that they "control" the site.
I told him I CAN fly over the site, as long as I'm not closer than 50 meters to any workers or activity.
(everyone else has greeted me with open arms, this is my first job superintendent hassling me.)

I also carry on my person a million dollar liability policy and typically name any " paying client" as "additional insured", (everyone has been comfortable with my professionalism ....
up until now)

So what are the rules about these construction projects?
Do I need to tie a camera to a bunch of helium balloons for the overhead shots?

I'm not sure where you got the 50 meters rule. The relevant section of Part 107 just prohibits you from flying directly overhead of any unshielded persons or moving vehicles. Otherwise there are no relevant prohibitions relating to flying over construction sites in Part 107.

 

[Jim Daniels]

I'm not sure where you got the 50 meters rule. The relevant section of Part 107 just prohibits you from flying directly overhead of any unshielded persons or moving vehicles. Otherwise there are no relevant prohibitions relating to flying over construction sites in Part 107.

50m - It's what I was told.
(that is why I started this thread, for the "real"rules", (not misinterpretations)
All the workers are required to wear overhead protection, (hard hats). Anytime the drone is present, it's has had workers scrambling for their harnesses, hard hats, etc, (a good thing, the drone promotes safety). My "regular" clients love this feature.

 

[dawgpilot]

50m - It's what I was told.
(that is why I started this thread, for the "real"rules", (not misinterpretations)
All the workers are required to wear overhead protection, (hard hats). Anytime the drone is present, it's has had workers scrambling for their harnesses, hard hats, etc, (a good thing, the drone promotes safety). My "regular" clients love this feature.

I suggest you read through the entirety of Part 107 again, since it covers all these topics and is the definitive source for the rules.

For example, you can't fly over a construction worker simply because they are wearing a hard hat. 107.39 prohibits flying over a human being unless they are located under a covered structure, or inside a stationary vehicle.

 

[Jim Daniels]

I suggest you read through the entirety of Part 107 again, since it covers all these topics and is the definitive source for the rules.

For example, you can't fly over a construction worker simply because they are wearing a hard hat. 107.39 prohibits flying over a human being unless they are located under a covered structure, or inside a stationary vehicle.

What if I'm flying at 390ft and I don't see a worker under me, or I can't determine if he is directly under me, or 20 yards to the left, or right ??

What if a worker walks out of a door, (he wasn't there before), but literally walks out and under the drone at 390 feet?

again, i'm not trying to piss anyone off, or start a fight, I'm just trying to get footage of the build.

"usually" ... (the last 7 years) I get hired right away and the workers ARE all involved in what is going on, (and know I'm filming a video for their company).

 

[dawgpilot]

What if I'm flying at 390ft and I don't see a worker under me, or I can't determine if he is directly under me, or 20 yards to the left, or right ??

What if a worker walks out of a door, (he wasn't there before), but literally walks out and under the drone at 390 feet?

again, i'm not trying to piss anyone off, or start a fight, I'm just trying to get footage of the build.

"usually" ... (the last 7 years) I get hired right away and the workers ARE all involved in what is going on, (and know I'm filming a video for their company).

As the pilot in command, you are required to operate your drone in a way such that you comply with the rules published by the FAA. If you are flying at such an altitude in that you can't tell if you might be violating the rules regarding flying over people at a construction site, then that's not a legal excuse to bust that rule. The FAA drafted this rule to protect people below from the hazards of a drone suffering a sudden loss of power plummeting to the ground. (also, the FAA does sometimes grant waivers to 107.39, but those are rare and usually require that you show significant safety precautions, for example parachute systems that auto deploy upon loss of power.

Also, it doesn't matter legally if the workers "consent" to you flying over them. Part 107 prohibits flying over anyone not directly involved in flying the drone. Directly involved is limited to you (the Pilot in Command), and a Visual Observer, if your flight uses one.

Any reason why you can't film these builds on a weekend day when there aren't workers on the site?

 

[itsneedtokno]

As the pilot in command, you are required to operate your drone in a way such that you comply with the rules published by the FAA. If you are flying at such an altitude in that you can't tell if you might be violating the rules regarding flying over people at a construction site, then that's not a legal excuse to bust that rule. The FAA drafted this rule to protect people below from the hazards of a drone suffering a sudden loss of power plummeting to the ground. (also, the FAA does sometimes grant waivers to 107.39, but those are rare and usually require that you show significant safety precautions, for example parachute systems that auto deploy upon loss of power.

Also, it doesn't matter legally if the workers "consent" to you flying over them. Part 107 prohibits flying over anyone not directly involved in flying the drone. Directly involved is limited to you (the Pilot in Command), and a Visual Observer, if your flight uses one.

Any reason why you can't film these builds on a weekend day when there aren't workers on the site?

I'm assuming he wants the action of the people doing work. I filmed a Timelapse of a crane getting set up today, but I was at a gimbal tilt of about 60°, flying over water, at an altitude of 121ft, hovering, no consent, VLOS from 1000 feet away.

Pissed me off though... As soon as I get the low battery warning, and for once decide not to push it, return home only to drive by the boom in the air... I waited 20 minutes, watching for birds, for him to ALMOST erect the boom... ?

 

[Jim Daniels]

I see drones on TV commercials flying over peeps all the time. They are clearly actors, (but certainly NOT involved with flying the drone)

Any reason why you can't film these builds on a weekend day when there aren't workers on the site?

Because ....
A - the companies want to see the workers in action.

B - this afternoon I intentionally went and filmed when everyone was gone, and a different guy searched me down, and [Language removed by Admin] at me again, (I have him on film, searching me out, so he can confront me).

I have NEVER had this happen before.
If it wasn't MY local Library, I would just move on, (but I have other work that is all over the Village's website and Facebook, and want this one too).

 

[dawgpilot]

I see drones on TV commercials flying over peeps all the time. They are clearly actors, (but certainly NOT involved with flying the drone)

Either those pilots have obtained FAA waivers or they are flying illegally.

Because ....
A - the companies want to see the workers in action.

B - this afternoon I intentionally went and filmed when everyone was gone, and a different guy searched me down, and [Language removed by Admin] at me again, (I have him on film, searching me out, so he can confront me).

I have NEVER had this happen before.
If it wasn't MY local Library, I would just move on, (but I have other work that is all over the Village's website and Facebook, and want this one too).

All I can suggest is that you maybe modify your filming technique to not directly fly over people if you want to stay legal. I suggest filming from an angle if you can.

 

[itsneedtokno]

Either those pilots have obtained FAA waivers or they are flying illegally.



All I can suggest is that you maybe modify your filming technique to not directly fly over people if you want to stay legal. I suggest filming from an angle if you can.

1080p version. No edit.

 

[BigAl07]

I see drones on TV commercials flying over peeps all the time. They are clearly actors, (but certainly NOT involved with flying the drone)

It's highly likely they are either operating under a ~107.39 Waiver or they could also be operating under a Section 33 Exemption. While most people believe this is no longer VALID a Section 333 Exemption is still valid if the operation can not be completed under Part 107 regulations and waivers.

50m - It's what I was told.
(that is why I started this thread, for the "real"rules", (not misinterpretations)
All the workers are required to wear overhead protection, (hard hats). Anytime the drone is present, it's has had workers scrambling for their harnesses, hard hats, etc, (a good thing, the drone promotes safety). My "regular" clients love this feature.

50m? Who told you this? Did you see anything in your Part 107 training or testing about 50m? Negative. The requirement is Over People not a setback distance.

Hard Hats may provide some degree of protection they do NOT allow you to violate ~107.39
Here's the meatof ~107.39

14 CFR § 107.39 - Operation over human beings.

www.law.cornell.edu

Here is where you go to learn about what Waivers are possible and how to get started:

Part 107 Waiver

www.faa.gov

FWIW no need to try and get one for what you're doing. It won't happen.

What if I'm flying at 390ft and I don't see a worker under me, or I can't determine if he is directly under me, or 20 yards to the left, or right ??

What if a worker walks out of a door, (he wasn't there before), but literally walks out and under the drone at 390 feet?

again, i'm not trying to piss anyone off, or start a fight, I'm just trying to get footage of the build.

"usually" ... (the last 7 years) I get hired right away and the workers ARE all involved in what is going on, (and know I'm filming a video for their company).

If you're going to be a professional you have to Control the Sight... hence why the LEO mentioned you can't fly over the work site. If you don't have control of the site you don't need to be flying over it.

"Workers Involved & knowing" does not remove the requirement of ~107.39. If your clients knew that they were participating in you violating a Federal Regulation I highly doubt you'd be getting any more work in this field.

 

[BigAl07]

Either those pilots have obtained FAA waivers or they are flying illegally.

BINGO!! I can assure you the film crews go above and beyond to ensure everything they are doing is in compliance to regulations as their work is broadcast and under extreme scrutiny. A film crew in South Carolina posted a video flying along the middle of a busy highway and the wrong people (or was it the RIGHT people) saw it. It was an intense "Educational Moment" to say the least.

All I can suggest is that you maybe modify your filming technique to not directly fly over people if you want to stay legal. I suggest filming from an angle if you can.

Great advice Speaking from first hand experience this is EXACTLY how we handle it. It's legal and SAFE. We do over a dozen different construction sites a month and if we can't make sure the site is safe and we won't fly over people we reschedule during OFF HOURS. Anything less isn't an option.

 

[sar104]

It's highly likely they are either operating under a ~107.39 Waiver or they could also be operating under a Section 33 Exemption. While most people believe this is no longer VALID a Section 333 Exemption is still valid if the operation can not be completed under Part 107 regulations and waivers.



50m? Who told you this? Did you see anything in your Part 107 training or testing about 50m? Negative. The requirement is Over People not a setback distance.

Hard Hats may provide some degree of protection they do NOT allow you to violate ~107.39
Here's the meatof ~107.39

14 CFR § 107.39 - Operation over human beings.

www.law.cornell.edu

Here is where you go to learn about what Waivers are possible and how to get started:

Part 107 Waiver

www.faa.gov

FWIW no need to try and get one for what you're doing. It won't happen.



If you're going to be a professional you have to Control the Sight... hence why the LEO mentioned you can't fly over the work site. If you don't have control of the site you don't need to be flying over it.

"Workers Involved & knowing" does not remove the requirement of ~107.39. If your clients knew that they were participating in you violating a Federal Regulation I highly doubt you'd be getting any more work in this field.

I'm afraid that I find myself very skeptical of these kinds of threads, where people claiming to have Part 107 certification clearly have no familiarity at all with the regulations.

 

[BigAl07]

I'm afraid that I find myself very skeptical of these kinds of threads, where people claiming to have Part 107 certification clearly have no familiarity at all with the regulations.

It happens way too often and not only on the Online Forums. I see it almost weekly out in the field. Almost every single "report" shows how lacking the training and testing system we have in place really is.

 

[Jim Daniels]

dawgpilot said:
All I can suggest is that you maybe modify your filming technique to not directly fly over people if you want to stay legal. I suggest filming from an angle if you can.

Great advice Speaking from first hand experience this is EXACTLY how we handle it. It's legal and SAFE. We do over a dozen different construction sites a month and if we can't make sure the site is safe and we won't fly over people we reschedule during OFF HOURS. Anything less isn't an option.

I can assure you, 1 last time, I was NOT flying directly above anyone. This guy who ran out of the building late afternoon yesterday said I did, he also claimed that I was flying bvlos with the building blocking my view. I have video evidence that I was never above him, and that I always had vlos. There was nobody there, and he was on his way to his car. I was several hundred yards from him, very far away, he stopped, he looked, he then decided to chase me down and give me the business. Vigilante style. I'm amazed that the Library Director chased me down, then blatantly lied to my face. I have the video footage of his antics.
I am going to call the library at 9am and ask to speak with him.
I want to come in and show him the video footage.

 

[SkyeHigh]

dawgpilot said:
All I can suggest is that you maybe modify your filming technique to not directly fly over people if you want to stay legal. I suggest filming from an angle if you can.





I can assure you, 1 last time, I was NOT flying directly above anyone. This guy who ran out of the building late afternoon yesterday said I did, he also claimed that I was flying bvlos with the building blocking my view. I have video evidence that I was never above him, and that I always had vlos. There was nobody there, and he was on his way to his car. I was several hundred yards from him, very far away, he stopped, he looked, he then decided to chase me down and give me the business. Vigilante style. I'm amazed that the Library Director chased me down, then blatantly lied to my face. I have the video footage of his antics.
I am going to call the library at 9am and ask to speak with him.
I want to come in and show him the video footage.

If I were you I would give up right now. It’s not worth the aggravation whether you were within your permitted rights or not. Clearly these people do not want to be filmed while carrying out their work. You have to respect that and move on.

 

[itsneedtokno]

Assuming you actually have a 107, why not apply for a waiver if it's that big of a deal.

 

[sar104]

Assuming you actually have a 107, why not apply for a waiver if it's that big of a deal.

Actually a waiver for 107.39 is a big deal - it's very difficult to get.

 

[itsneedtokno]

Actually a waiver for 107.39 is a big deal - it's very difficult to get.

Poop. I don't fly over people like that, so I wouldn't know.