Posting images with potential height violations

[usrmesarge]

I am not even clear that there is anything wrong with the flight in the first place. There are no restrictions related to helipads.

Depending on where this is it may be far enough away from the airport that it’s not in controlled airspace at all.

Even if it is in controlled airspace you can easily get authorization to fly there which I wouldn’t know if you got or not.

The FAA investigated when a complaint is made. They don’t go looking through the internet to find violations

Believe that they FAA does infact check out these websites for violations most are not followed up on unless it's an aggregious violation of FAA rules. Mostly warnings.

 

[passedpawn]

Believe that they FAA does infact check out these websites for violations most are not followed up on unless it's an aggregious violation of FAA rules. Mostly warnings.

On what basis do you believe this?

 

[Luckygecko]

Oops I figured out where this was and it is in controlled airspace.



FWIW now that I know where this is it would be very easy to prove that your friend was breaking the rules because there’s no legal way a recreational pilot could be that high in that area. If you are worried about it and it sounds like you are then maybe I wouldn’t post it.

Good stuff looking at open sourced intelligence sources.

While I strongly encourage safe and legal drone operation, I don't think it would be as easy to prove it as you say. With one photo, (without exif data) it would be hard to prove drone location. It could be a cropped photo with the drone placed in the the location at a distance one might not expect. For example, there is hilly terrain in-line and behind the apparent location marked on your map. One might can guess the date and time of day using the ferry arrival thus look at location of the shadows in relationship to the drone, etc, etc.

My point being, a random posting not showing or promoting overtly obvious unsafe operation and posted by someone who is most likely not an 'influencer' is not something to be too worried about. There is not much cause to do a forensic analysis of the lovely photo.

As others note, compliance and enforcement has taken on an education role at the forefront. The OP has received a short education on the subject about the photo from you and from reading this thread, thus can make their friend a more educated operator next time. Likewise, they will hopefully be a good ambassador for the drone community.

 

[roboscan]

I would never suggest that anyone intentionally (or unintentionally) break the law / rules and I am not intending to suggest the following as a means of avoiding getting caught doing so, but but I'd think posting a photo without any other "incriminating" details would not be enough to get someone in trouble.

Without any image details (or someone explicitly saying, "Look at this photo I, John Doe took yesterday at such and such place at such and such altitude!") if you strip out the image details (for instance opening the original image in editing software and then re-saving as an entirely new document without the original metadata) then the photo you post could have come from just about anywhere. Maybe you found it on the web and re-posted it. Maybe someone you got it from told you he/she took it, but was lying. I don't think an official stumbling across that photo on the web could derive enough information to definitively suggest who might have flown illegally in order to take the photo.

If you post the photo as posted above, it does contain all kinds of information in the metadata (I have no idea who Jose is ). It shows when and exactly where the photo was taken (Lat / Lon) and even (theoretically) the altitude the image was taking at: "203m" ASL and "162m" relative to where you took off from (If I am understanding how DJI writes the metadata). But I believe those numbers were generated by GPS, which, if you read around the web, you will see may be highly inaccurate for altitude measurement. It may have been recorded by barometric sensors (which can change reading with temperature) or the ground sensors (not really if above several meters) or a combination of all three (again, not entirely sure how DJI computes altitude). Basically, I'm not even sure those details would be good-enough to stand up as evidence that can prove anything specific just by stumbling across a photo on the web. (Not to mention, someone could even alter the metadata with fake info - perhaps someone wants to impress their significant other by saying they flew at 2000ft!)

Again, I wouldn't go about flying where you're not supposed to (and if you knowingly did, it's probably best not to share the photo on the web and gloat about it) but realistically, I think it would be very unlikely anything would result from it if someone did.
J

 

[Vic Moss]

Believe that they FAA does infact check out these websites for violations most are not followed up on unless it's an aggregious violation of FAA rules. Mostly warnings.

The FAA does not have the manpower to monitor websites for violations. They only time they check them is when there is a report. And even then the photo/video itself is not grounds for enforcement. There must other corroborating evidence.

 

[waltermitty]

I have read of at least 2 drone pilots have reported on the forums that the FAA reached out to them after seeing their videos posted which were in clear violation of the regs.

 

[Vic Moss]

I have read of at least 2 drone pilots have reported on the forums that the FAA reached out to them after seeing their videos posted which were in clear violation of the regs.

I have no doubt. When someone posts something stupidly flown, there is a very good likelihood that someone reported them.

 

[waltermitty]

I have no doubt. When someone posts something stupidly flown, there is a very good likelihood that someone reported them.

No, the way they wrote their post stated that the FAA rep saw while browsing and investigated, thus confirming the violation. It was not a Karen type call ratting them out. If I can retrace my reading and locate them, I will post links

 

[Vic Moss]

No, the way they wrote their post stated that the FAA rep saw while browsing and investigated, thus confirming the violation. It was not a Karen type call ratting them out. If I can retrace my reading and locate them, I will post links

Interesting.

I've been assured by my FAA contact (who would be in the know), that this does not take place. FAA ASI folks aren't supposed to be cruising the internet looking for violations. They don't have time.

I can imagine that if they're a drone enthusiast and like to watch drone videos it could have happened on their own time. But they're not supposed to be doing that. Oh well.

 

[brett8883]

Hopefully the FAA doesn’t have such vast resources they can afford to have people proactively searching the internet for minor drone violations. We have plenty of better uses for those tax dollars.