Let's see how many FAA (and other) rules Ken broke

[Zbip57]

I'm still completely befuddled and hung up on this clause. You're not allowed to fly a drone...

§ 107.25 (b) From a moving land or water-borne vehicle unless the small unmanned aircraft is flown over a sparsely populated area and is not transporting another person's property for compensation or hire.

The first part of the "unless" kind of makes sense. You can ride a bicycle while simultaneously operating your drone, only if you're doing that in a "sparsely populated area", i.e. not in a crowded downtown situation. Okay. Got that.

You can ride your bicycle while simultaneously operating your drone in a sparsely populated area, and even have the drone carry someone else's property, as long as it's just for fun and not for compensation or hire.

But you cannot ride your bicycle while operating your drone, not even in a sparsely populated area, if the drone is carrying someone else's property for compensation or hire.

Why? What's the difference? Why is the FAA always so alarmed by compensation or hire? If it's "safe" enough to be allowed to do this stuff for fun, why is it suddenly so much more dangerous and strictly forbidden if you're getting paid?

That's the bit I don't understand. I'm baffled. I thought the whole point of getting the Part 107 certification is you're allowed to use your drone for compensation or hire.

Apparently the FAA permits you to fly your drone while riding as a passenger in (or even operating??) a car or bicycle or boat in a sparsely populated area, and the drone can be carrying your own camera or even someone else's camera if you're not being paid. Just not for compensation or hire.

Why?

 

[landmark orbiter]

What is CBO?

 

[mavic3usa]

I think it is fair to say the code is vague which leaves it largely unenforceable. This is probably why no one has been prosecuted under the code. It's written for administrative purpose and for that reason, it works. For example, is a horse a vehicle? I can see it going both ways but it's vague and on top of that, it hard to determine what was actually intended. We are not the only ones confused about the law, thousands across the country are confused. For anyone to claim it's crystal clear in a court of law is disingenuous. That's my personal opinion, not legal advice. Personally I would prefer to omit this clause altogether and rely on the careless/reckless clause to determine if an operation is safe. We don't need it for the hobby, it's useless.

 

[mavic3usa]

What is CBO?

Sorry, a CBO is a United States thing.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreationalfliers/faa-recognized-community-based-organizations

As a recreational pilot, I pledge my allegiance to the AMA for now (that may change in the future) so I will follow the policies and guidelines they set forth for drone pilots.

 

[mavic3usa]

He got reported because he joked that he was flying the plane and the drone at the same time, which would have been illegal if true. But in his video he explains a friend was operating the drone.

He got reported because of hate and jealously and vitriol, not because he joked. Would love the see the FAA [incoming] complaint.

 

[Firejay27]

Everyone here is talking about his flight from the moving vehicle and they're also forgetting the fact that he's trespassing on someone's property after being told by police that he was doing so and needed to leave. Flying directly into the property (not overhead) and then flying into the building should have gotten him arrested however I don't believe the officer saw the drone. Hopefully the FAA will clip this guys wings and set an example of what not to do.

By the way.. the horse drawn carriage is a moving vehicle by definition since in most states those have to be licensed to provide tourist attractions on the street. Part 107.25 states that you can not operate a UAS from a vehicle unless it's flown over a sparsely populated area although you can apply for a waver... which I'm sure Ken did not. (Federal Register :: Request Access)

On a side note, he makes fun of the "Karen App" all the time then turns around and uses it to stick his nose into someone else's flying and makes a video out of it like he's a good guy going to help someone learn to fly.

 

[Zbip57]

Another question.

§ 107.25 (b) From a moving land or water-borne vehicle unless the small unmanned aircraft is flown over a sparsely populated area and is not transporting another person's property for compensation or hire.

Transporting is the act of moving something from one location to another location.

Does that mean you can fly your drone from a moving vehicle, over a sparsely populated area, and be allowed to carry another person's property for compensation or hire, as long as you takeoff, carry it around for a while, as long as you return it right back to its original takeoff location?

I would prefer to omit this clause altogether and rely on the careless/reckless clause to determine if an operation is safe. We don't need it for the hobby, it's useless.

As it was originally. "Reckless and negligent" very effectively covers a broad territory of liability.

If you're acting responsibly in good faith and have taken the time to assess potential risks of your actions, accidents incurring liability can still happen. But if you are wilfully reckless and negligent the consequences imposed on you should be more severe.

The FAA keeps coming up with these obscure regulations that leave people scratching their heads trying to figure out what exactly they're intended to address.

Transport Canada isn't immune to that either. One of our current regulations (CARS901.43) prohibits transporting certain types of payloads. That sounds reasonable enough. There are certain things that probably shouldn't really be carried by drones.

Payloads
901.43 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system if the aircraft is transporting a payload that
(a) includes explosive, corrosive, flammable, or bio-hazardous material;
(b) includes weapons, ammunition or other equipment designed for use in war;
(c) [...]
(d) [...]
(2) [Unless in accordance with a Special Flight Operations Certificate...]

A remotely piloted aircraft is allowed to carry flammable fuel for its own power, but not as a cargo payload.

Transport Canada recently published proposed revisions to allow BVLOS flight under certain conditions. One of the proposed revisions would revoke clause (a) above, meaning it would then become legal to transport explosive or flammable material as a cargo payload! Huh?? Why?

It turns out one of the factors driving these proposed BVLOS revisions is the potential use of drones to transport supplies to remote communities, including delivering fuel supplies which are flammable or explosive.

So we'll just delete that restriction... Brilliant, eh?

 

[AMann]

View attachment 169149

That photo is misleading. The Chinook is a lot closer than the people and is over the grass. If it was over the crowd, there would be flying tent canopies, hats and coolers, and scattering people. The downwash and crosswind from those on the ground when it is hovering like that is over 100mph.

 

[Jam0ne]

""You can ride your bicycle while simultaneously operating your drone in a sparsely populated area, and even have the drone carry someone else's property, as long as it's just for fun and not for compensation or hire.""

Does this mean, all those Youtubers riding bikes, bicycles, scooter, cars, etc., while using "active track" (or any type of tracking) to film themselves is "breaking FAA laws ?
(Youtube = compensation)

 

[Skydreamer]

Does this mean, all those Youtubers riding bikes, bicycles, scooter, cars, etc., while using "active track" (or any type of tracking) to film themselves is "breaking FAA laws ?
(Youtube = compensation)

not if they are part 107…..but i am also curious how faa turned into irs ?

 

[Zbip57]

Does this mean, all those Youtubers riding bikes, bicycles, scooter, cars, etc., while using "active track" (or any type of tracking) to film themselves is "breaking FAA laws ?
(Youtube = compensation)

Yes, for at least a couple of reasons.

Is it still VLOS when the drone is actively tracking your bicycle but you're not watching it because it's out of sight somewhere behind your back? You'd need a rearward facing passenger on your bicycle to act as Visual Observer, no?

§ 107.25 (b) From a moving land or water-borne vehicle unless the small unmanned aircraft is flown over a sparsely populated area and is not transporting another person's property for compensation or hire.

Active tracking yourself while riding a bicycle would only be okay if you're doing it in a "sparsely populated area", and not transporting someone's property for hire (i.e. not while delivering pizza to someone else, but apparently only okay if it's your own pizza.)

 

[Jamesz]

Isn't the most basic lawbreaking issue that neither of them is watching the drone for much of the time. Surely for any flight to be legal, regardless of vehicles etc, you have to keep an eye on it

 

[Zbip57]

Re: Is active tracking with a drone to film yourself while in a moving vehicle illegal?

not if they are part 107…..but i am also curious how faa turned into irs ?

That's the really bizarre part. The "moving vehicle" restriction is actually in Part 107, see § 107.25.

If you are flying purely "recreational" and thus subject to the exemptions afforded to recreational pilots, you still need to be flying according to the rules imposed by your CBO, (i.e. AMA, or whatever). Do the AMA have a specific restriction against flying from moving vehicles??

But if you are not eligible for the recreational exemptions, i.e. using your drone commercially to deliver pizza, then the full Part 107 applies to you. In that case, § 107.25 applies to you, and you specifically are not allowed to fly your drone from any moving vehicle while using the drone to deliver pizza "for compensation or hire".

So that begs the question, what if I am not being hired or compensated in any way? As long as there is no compensation, does that mean I can deliver free pizza (candy, easter eggs, flat-screen tv, etc) to others with my drone while piloting from a moving vehicle, because that's my form of recreational activity?

 

[Zbip57]

…..but i am also curious how faa turned into irs ?

It does seem like the FAA is obsessed with this distinction between recreational vs non-recreational, as though operating commercially is somehow far more dangerous than recreational and thus deserving of more stringent and complicated regulation, resulting in all these bizarrely tangled FAA regulations.

It's safe and okay to fly for fun and for your own recreational entertainment. But if you're not entertained and not having fun, then cheer up, because here's a whole whack of crazy regulations that now apply to you!

Even though it sure appears to be the case, and the obvious result, it has been explained to me many times that this is not actually what happened.

The FAA fully intended to have all their new rules apply equally to everyone (just like we did in Canada, not counting the exemption [recently rescinded] given to MAAC [our version of AMA]).

But recreational and model flyers in America, who've been flying for eons with no problem, screamed and complained to their political representatives that the FAA's proposed regulations were unfair and should really only apply to the masses of ignorant new people who recently acquired a camera drone for christmas and are now doing stupid stuff with their toys.

Congress forced the FAA to include ill-conceived exemptions for "recreational" flyers, but with strings attached. To qualify for the recreational exemptions, you have to fly according to your CBO rules (rules which the FAA must approve), and/or be flying only within a FRIA zone, etc, etc.

If you can't prove that you are eligible, i.e. complying with all the conditions of the "recreational" exemptions, then the full weight of all of Part 107 does apply to you.

So now you have stupid and totally nonsensical distinctions like your sub-250g Mini doesn't require registration or Remote ID because its tiny weight was deemed to be essentially harmless and of neglible risk to humanity, but only when being flown recreationally.

If you use the exact same sub-250g Mini for any non-recreational purpose, like inspecting the rain gutters on your own home (or far worse, accepting compensation in the form of a bottle of beer for then also inspecting your neighbour's rain gutters) suddenly all of Part 107 applies to you, including the need to load a Remote ID module on your Mini, which in itself would bump it out of the sub-250g category. Brilliant.

Which brings me back to the flying from a "moving vehicle" question. Am I reading this wrong? The wording of § 107.25 (b) says it's prohibited when "transporting another person's property for compensation or hire".

What if you actually do use it for compensation or hire, but are not transporting another person's property? You're doing a site survey for a client, in a sparsely populated area, with the drone carrying your own camera, while you are in a moving vehicle. Is that legal?

What if you're doing that same site survey, carrying a special camera belonging to someone else, but you're not being compensated or hired? Is that legal?

Oh, but you'll say, that doesn't count under the recreational exemption because it's not for your own personal enjoyment. If there is any actual benefit to anyone [rain gutters inspected] or the flight is conducted for any reason other than your own personal amusement, then the full Part 107 commercial regulations apply to you even if you're not being paid! Yes, but, this bizarre clause is in the full Part 107, and it specifically says it's only prohibited if done for "compensation or hire". That suggests it doesn't apply if you're not being hired or compensated, no?

Why?

Doesn't that suggest [assuming VLOS or use of visual observer] that it's then legal to fly a drone from a moving vehicle if done for "recreational purposes"? None of this makes any sense to me.

 

[mavic3usa]

^I believe this is exactly why the FAA relies on education and administrative action to enforce the various drone laws. Unless your violations are egregious, none of this would stand up very well in court in front of a judge or jury if pursued from a criminal standpoint.

 

[BroomRider]

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

Yes, I watched that also, & was cringing throughout, watching all what I thought & saw must be 1 or another safety violations.

Hard to believe that a supposed “professional” would be flying like that!

I'm not a “professional” nor do I have the FAA Pt.107, but even I, with a healthy dislike for the FAA regs, would do what I saw in that video.

I have to wonder if someone from the FAA might be contacting him anytime soon…?

As I've heard, ScrewTube is 1 of the major hunting grounds for the FAA searching for stunts like these.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Transporting is the act of moving something from one location to another location.

Right there we're already in trouble. That's not how I understand the term.

To me, picking something up and walking (or flying) around with it is transporting it. There need not be any particular intended destination or purpose.

 

[BroomRider]

Sorry, a CBO is a United States thing.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreationalfliers/faa-recognized-community-based-organizations

As a recreational pilot, I pledge my allegiance to the AMA for now (that may change in the future) so I will follow the policies and guidelines they set forth for drone pilots.

The last time I checked, there were only 3 CBOs available to me, so I reviewed each of them, side by side, & chose the least restrictive of the 3, then printed it out, folded it up, & keep it in my flight kit bag.

Sure, I read each of them in comparing, but that was it – purely to do my best at complying with the requirement of having it with me – I can't even recall at the moment which 1 it is.

That some have said the CBOs can be every bit as restrictive as the Pt.107 for commercial pilots, is FAA's way of applying their “Catch-22” as it's the FAA that has to approve them in the 1st place.

Same for the extremely limited number of FRIAs…

Couple that with all the posts & comments I've read, just in this thread today, leaves me confirmed with my earlier impression that the FAA seems to be doing their level best to make flying UAVs as onerous as possible.

When commercial UAV delivery services & operations become more than a mere limited & exploratory thing, many of the FAA regs will certainly have to change, or even be outright deleted.

Meanwhile, as much of a tangled, convoluted, incomprehensible & even at times, contradictory, mess that the FAA regs are, I think it's clear that the goal is to dissuade UAV pilots, particularly, newcomers, from even bothering to get into any kind of RC flight of any kind.

So bad that, by design, it's near, if not completely impossible, to fly without being at risk of being on the receiving end of violating something.

Some will likely put their bird on the shelf, while others will just go on flying, doing their best to avoid any situations & conditions which put them at increased risk.

Count me in the “A”, as in, latter, group.

 

[BroomRider]

not if they are part 107…..but i am also curious how faa turned into irs ?

The gov't, & any of its alphabet agencies, are just like The Mob, only they have badges.

If you've got something going, & making any kind of profit, they demand a piece of your action.

 

[BroomRider]

It does seem like the FAA is obsessed with this distinction between recreational vs non-recreational, as though operating commercially is somehow far more dangerous than recreational and thus deserving of more stringent and complicated regulation, resulting in all these bizarrely tangled FAA regulations.

It's safe and okay to fly for fun and for your own recreational entertainment. But if you're not entertained and not having fun, then cheer up, because here's a whole whack of crazy regulations that now apply to you!

Even though it sure appears to be the case, and the obvious result, it has been explained to me many times that this is not actually what happened.

The FAA fully intended to have all their new rules apply equally to everyone (just like we did in Canada, not counting the exemption [recently rescinded] given to MAAC [our version of AMA]).

But recreational and model flyers in America, who've been flying for eons with no problem, screamed and complained to their political representatives that the FAA's proposed regulations were unfair and should really only apply to the masses of ignorant new people who recently acquired a camera drone for christmas and are now doing stupid stuff with their toys.

Congress forced the FAA to include ill-conceived exemptions for "recreational" flyers, but with strings attached. To qualify for the recreational exemptions, you have to fly according to your CBO rules (rules which the FAA must approve), and/or be flying only within a FRIA zone, etc, etc.

If you can't prove that you are eligible, i.e. complying with all the conditions of the "recreational" exemptions, then the full weight of all of Part 107 does apply to you.

So now you have stupid and totally nonsensical distinctions like your sub-250g Mini doesn't require registration or Remote ID because its tiny weight was deemed to be essentially harmless and of neglible risk to humanity, but only when being flown recreationally.

If you use the exact same sub-250g Mini for any non-recreational purpose, like inspecting the rain gutters on your own home (or far worse, accepting compensation in the form of a bottle of beer for then also inspecting your neighbour's rain gutters) suddenly all of Part 107 applies to you, including the need to load a Remote ID module on your Mini, which in itself would bump it out of the sub-250g category. Brilliant.

Which brings me back to the flying from a "moving vehicle" question. Am I reading this wrong? The wording of § 107.25 (b) says it's prohibited when "transporting another person's property for compensation or hire".

What if you actually do use it for compensation or hire, but are not transporting another person's property? You're doing a site survey for a client, in a sparsely populated area, with the drone carrying your own camera, while you are in a moving vehicle. Is that legal?

What if you're doing that same site survey, carrying a special camera belonging to someone else, but you're not being compensated or hired? Is that legal?

Oh, but you'll say, that doesn't count under the recreational exemption because it's not for your own personal enjoyment. If there is any actual benefit to anyone [rain gutters inspected] or the flight is conducted for any reason other than your own personal amusement, then the full Part 107 commercial regulations apply to you even if you're not being paid! Yes, but, this bizarre clause is in the full Part 107, and it specifically says it's only prohibited if done for "compensation or hire". That suggests it doesn't apply if you're not being hired or compensated, no?

Why?

Doesn't that suggest [assuming VLOS or use of visual observer] that it's then legal to fly a drone from a moving vehicle if done for "recreational purposes"? None of this makes any sense to me.

Exactly!

The sub-250gm class – up to 249gms – deemed to be so light as to be allowed to be flown by recreational pilots & not registered or numbered, is OK.

BUT, fly a UAV of even lighter weight, for any kind of tangible gain, & suddenly the FAA deems it requiring the pilot to acquire the Pt.107 licence, & the UAV be registered, numbered, & equipped with an active RID.

The Mob wants a piece of your action.

It's all about the money; what other conclusion could there possibly be?