Construction Filming Rules

[sar104]

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

What kind of people do you fly over?

 

[itsneedtokno]

What kind of people do you fly over?

?

Moving ones, from an angle lol

 

[BigAl07]

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.

One last time? I was merely going from YOUR very question and additional statement (not about the person chasing you down mind you).... You stated:

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.

Then you asked:

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).

So ~

• A) You've been flying directly over people for 7 years assuming it was legal (it's very much NOT)
• B) You don't fully grasp the regulations. I would suggest taking some in-person training as the self study route has let you down for several years now.

 

[BigAl07]

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.

I think this is some of the best advice given in this thread. At some point we should respect those who we are trying to film. It's time we get back to being "Good Humans" in general. If they don't want you filming their work site then you probably shouldn't be.

It's clear this site isn't wanting to hire you so take ground pictures and/or aerials at a distance and respect their wishes. Flying Robotic Cameras do freak people out especially when you don't know WHO is flying, WHY they are filming, and WHAT they plan to do with the DATA collected.

 

[Gindra]

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.

I too find it surprising that 107 pilots keep showing up that don't seem to have a grasp on the basics. I tend to assume that this is a result of them cramming for the 107 test by themselves with no actual instruction involved.

The test itself is easy to pass with just a little online research and practice tests. I have always been a good test taker. I can cram for just about any test and do okay. But that doesn't mean I actually *know* the material! A couple weeks later the info is gone.

I enrolled in one of the online schools and felt that I actually learned something, not just so I could pass the test, but so I could retain and understand the info.

So, we see a lot of 107 pilots out there (I'm on a couple FB 107 sites too) who ask super remedial questions or who otherwise demonstrate their lack of basic understanding. Couple that with the sad fact that there is no competency test required that proves the pilot has the ability to actually fly the aircraft and it all adds up to a watered down 107 designation.

So there, got that off my chest

 

[BigAl07]

I too find it surprising that 107 pilots keep showing up that don't seem to have a grasp on the basics. I tend to assume that this is a result of them cramming for the 107 test by themselves with no actual instruction involved.

The test itself is easy to pass with just a little online research and practice tests. I have always been a good test taker. I can cram for just about any test and do okay. But that doesn't mean I actually *know* the material! A couple weeks later the info is gone.

I enrolled in one of the online schools and felt that I actually learned something, not just so I could pass the test, but so I could retain and understand the info.

So, we see a lot of 107 pilots out there (I'm on a couple FB 107 sites too) who ask super remedial questions or who otherwise demonstrate their lack of basic understanding. Couple that with the sad fact that there is no competency test required that proves the pilot has the ability to actually fly the aircraft and it all adds up to a watered down 107 designation.

So there, got that off my chest

BINGO! There is a WORLD of difference between "studying to pass a test" and "Learning the Subject Matter".

 

[SkyeHigh]

BINGO! There is a WORLD of difference between "studying to pass a test" and "Learning the Subject Matter".

How very true. Tests and exams benefit those with a good memory. I doesn’t mean they understand the subject. Practical tests show a persons ability to translate what they have learned from teaching into real life situations or actions.

I personally believe anyone that is going to be in control of an aircraft, be that a drone, model airplane, etc that is to be flown in non-controlled public airspace should have some form of compulsory practical training. In the case of commercial use that training should be considerably more advanced.

 

[BigAl07]

How very true. Tests and exams benefit those with a good memory. I doesn’t mean they understand the subject. Practical tests show a persons ability to translate what they have learned from teaching into real life situations or actions.

I personally believe anyone that is going to be in control of an aircraft, be that a drone, model airplane, etc that is to be flown in non-controlled public airspace should have some form of compulsory practical training. In the case of commercial use that training should be considerably more advanced.

I'm a huge advocate for Practical Testing. I've taught many Part 107 operators who had never even seen a sUAS let alone knew how to operate one SAFELY! It's one thing to SAY you know how to fly and it's a whole other creature to be able to SHOW you know how to fly. Without the Practical Test aspect, Part 107 carries very light real weight in the real world IMHO.

 

[cmj0929]

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.

if they are a participant in the video you can fly over them correct ?

 

[dawgpilot]

if they are a participant in the video you can fly over them correct ?

No, there's only an exception for flying over a participant of the operation of the drone, aka a crew member (for example Pilot in Command, or Visual Observer). You can't fly over someone just because they are the subject of your filming.

 

[mepilot]

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.

I, personally, would've started that conversation off BEFORE putting the bird in the air. Had you gone up to the site and explained to the super what it is you were doing, you would've found that his demeanor would be the exact opposite of what you explained above. At the very least, you could've explained that you were flying for the owner of the building and documenting progress for their own edification. He may have been obliged to allow you to do your flight, as both you and him were working for the owners of the building.

What you explained in your OP, sounds confrontational and also childish. Professionals (politicians excluded) don't argue with the "no you can't" "yes I can" challenge and replies.

 

[WildDoktor]

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)

Seems pretty simple to me: Get a contract with the Village for this specific job. Then the site will know that you've been requested to fly, and all will be right with the world.