Legality of shots that possibly weren't legal

[Vic Moss]

IF SO, couldn't (in extreme cases as stated) the FAA make a request of the DOJ as technically anyone conducting pre-flight, in-flight or post-flight procedures with a drone appears to be considered a pilots regardless of their status? Thus such charges would be federal, no? This would also appear to apply to those abusing/assaulting drone pilots OR THERE DRONES in any of those 3 stages of flight.

Yes, the FAA investigates, and pass it along to DOJ, or DOT Inspector General. But the FAA’s main focus is education. They only sent it up the chain for investigation unless it’s egregious or if there is an attitude that needs adjusted.

Those being ***-hats, inept or are simply unaware, as I indicated previously, would likely not be on anyone's radar, this though I bet some sort of ticketing system will become an eventuality as DJI records most everything and you will be sent tickets/warnings like when a camera catches you speeding in your car.

The flight records stored aren’t available without a court order. And they’re not automatically uploaded anyway. The offending pilot would to do something so bad that it would elevate it to the level of full investigation.

the only one I know of was the Phantom/Blackhawk incident in NYC.

Add-note: The FAA has had Congressional approval since 2018 to regulate aviation safety and runs the NIJ in tandem WITH the DOJ wherein concerning such matters.

The FAA and DOJ have been working together for decades.

 

[CGWYl1]

Yes, the FAA investigates, and pass it along to DOJ, or DOT Inspector General. But the FAA’s main focus is education. They only sent it up the chain for investigation unless it’s egregious or if there is an attitude that needs adjusted.


The flight records stored aren’t available without a court order. And they’re not automatically uploaded anyway. The offending pilot would to do something so bad that it would elevate it to the level of full investigation.

the only one I know of was the Phantom/Blackhawk incident in NYC.



The FAA and DOJ have been working together for decades.

Yeah, a number of air traffic issues around airports with DJI's that have garnered such attention too & flight data would have undoubtedly been reviewed, along with that of previous flights. As for the DOJ and FAA having worked together for decades, a moot point as that isn't what we're talking about (how long have personal drones been around/considered by the DOJ/FAA/Congress?) but I am glad for your additional insight as it mostly just seems to enforce my initial statement.

 

[Meta4]

I stumbled across a Youtube video about a couple who had violated the rules. ... they would post random recreational drone videos on their monetized Youtube channel. This is a clear and unambiguous violation (they probably earned less than a dollar).

That's not "a clear and unambiguous violation" at all, despite what someone on Youtube or even an individual FAA employee might have said.
Youtube is a great source of misinformation and unfortunately so are some individual FAA personnel.

Here's an actual FAA policy document that's a better source:

FAA: Home

fsims.faa.gov

Pay attention to the last line of section C which says:

NOTE: Electronic media posted on a video website does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use.​

 

[s grenald]

That's not "a clear and unambiguous violation" at all, despite what someone on Youtube or even an individual FAA employee might have said.
Youtube is a great source of misinformation and unfortunately so are some individual FAA personnel.

Here's an actual FAA policy document that's a better source:

FAA: Home

fsims.faa.gov

Pay attention to the last line of section C which says:

NOTE: Electronic media posted on a video website does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use.​

They made money from the video. Even though it was a small amount. Wouldn't that make it a "non-hobby/non-recreational" use?

 

[Cobra193]

For me the General rule is simple : I will film any fire / Police / event taking place and will stop when there is Air Support or if someone asks me to stop recording.


As a safe guard , i keep myself out of the frame when recording when I post the videos.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly your Mavic in the Rain. and Land on the water.

Yikes. That’s a bit like saying if there are no police on the highway, it’s legal to speed. Flying near an emergency is illegal.

Part of why it’s illegal is for the safety of the air support. If you’re in the air when air support arrives, it’s already too late. If you wait for someone to ask you to stop flying, it’s already too late. its Illegal and VERY unsafe. Oupside of flying AT an airport, probably one of the most unsafe places to fly unless you have clearance.

Airspace Restrictions

www.faa.gov

 

[Cobra193]

Exactly. Well put. This is what people don't seem to understand.

The rules were put in place for safety for ALL drones. AMA and others went out and proved that the recreational community has a stellar safety record, and Congress had the FAA relax the rules for recreational operators.

We don't fly under more strict rules as 107 Pilots, recreational flyers operate under lessened rules. That's what people need to understand.

This situation is interesting in my view. While I agree it needs to be part 107 to use the footage on YouTube or in a portfolio or any reason like that. But I wonder if you could consider the fact that OP was asked by officials to fly and provide footage of The scene ‘in the public interest’ not requiring a 107.

For instance, in an emergency situation such as a rescue or hostage situation, say you were standing there with your drone and a police officer ordered you to get airborne so THEY could survey the situation? You would be legally compelled to comply.

 

[Meta4]

While I agree it needs to be part 107 to use the footage on YouTube or in a portfolio or any reason like that.

It doesn't at all.
This is a myth that contradicts the FAA's own policy on the matter.
See post #43 above.

 

[sar104]

This situation is interesting in my view. While I agree it needs to be part 107 to use the footage on YouTube or in a portfolio or any reason like that. But I wonder if you could consider the fact that OP was asked by officials to fly and provide footage of The scene ‘in the public interest’ not requiring a 107.

For instance, in an emergency situation such as a rescue or hostage situation, say you were standing there with your drone and a police officer ordered you to get airborne so THEY could survey the situation? You would be legally compelled to comply.

Would you feel obliged to fly a light aircraft without a pilot license if a police officer asked you to?

 

[sar104]

It doesn't at all.
This is a myth that contradicts the FAA's own policy on the matter.
See post #43 above.

Yes, but there is more subtlety to that:

NOTE: Electronic media posted on a video website does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use.​

The point of that clause is to exempt certain kinds of social media participation that doesn't negate the recreational nature of the flight - hence the statement that it is not automatically a commercial (i.e. non-recreational) purpose. But if, for example, you fly to make a promotional video for a company and post it then the flight was not recreational. Similarly, the FAA has stated that if you fly to make videos to post to a monetized YouTube channel (i.e. with the intent to profit from the flight) then that does not constitute recreational flight either.

 

[Meta4]

Yes, but there is more subtlety to that:

I was commenting on the false idea that posting imagery online automatically means your flying was not recreational.
That myth keeps creeping in no matter how often the facts get pointed out.

 

[sar104]

I was commenting on the false idea that posting imagery online automatically means your flying was not recreational.
That myth keeps creeping in no matter how often the facts get pointed out.

Agreed. But to combat that confusion I think it is important also to point out when it crosses the line to non-recreational, otherwise we run the risk of appearing to suggest that it is always allowed.

The comment that you replied to in post #43 was actually about a monetized YT channel. The FAA does (quite reasonably) regard flying to generate content for those as non-recreational, and has gone after pilots for doing that without a Part 107 certification.

 

[Cobra193]

It doesn't at all.
This is a myth that contradicts the FAA's own policy on the matter.
See post #43 above

I never said the act of posting to YT makes it commercial. A flight NOT for recreational purposes is a commercial flight. If you broke the law making the video, then the video on Yt is illegal.

 

[Pawpaw Woody]

So a year or so ago I was invited by a Fireman's association to tour a California burn area. It was long since put out, so this was a tour for them to review the aftermath. I was helping out a friend who was shooting some of it as footage for their internal usage. I wasn't paid. In the process, I flew my Mavic Air over a burn area within full view of the local police and fire team (who thought it was cool).

I realize now I probably broke a bunch of rules. It was my first outing with the drone and I was just excited. But now I worry about showing the footage even on my demo reel or social media. What is my exposure here?

Thanks for your thoughts.

John

Just remove the statement “I was helping out a buddy” from your story. Then you were just recreational flying over an interesting area. There I fixed it

 

[dirkclod]

Would you feel obliged to fly a light aircraft without a pilot license if a police officer asked you to?

Depends if he had a gun pointed at me ?
Sorry had to bro ?

 

[Vic Moss]

This situation is interesting in my view. While I agree it needs to be part 107 to use the footage on YouTube or in a portfolio or any reason like that. But I wonder if you could consider the fact that OP was asked by officials to fly and provide footage of The scene ‘in the public interest’ not requiring a 107.

The intent of the flight is the determining factor. "In the public interest" is still not a recreational flight. And in order for a drone flight to be exempt from 107, it must be 100% recreational.

For instance, in an emergency situation such as a rescue or hostage situation, say you were standing there with your drone and a police officer ordered you to get airborne so THEY could survey the situation? You would be legally compelled to comply.

No. Local officials cannot compel (order) anyone to break federal law. No matter the circumstances.

A better question would be whether or not the FAA would purse an investigation. And I would hazard to guess that they would not. Or at least if they did (they have to investigate all reports), they'd close the case with no further action.