MMPerrish
Well-Known Member
That’s definitely a thing here ?It's like everyone was waiting with baited breath for the thinnest excuse to exhibit their knowledge (or lack of knowledge) and give a self-aggrandizing lecture.
That’s definitely a thing here ?It's like everyone was waiting with baited breath for the thinnest excuse to exhibit their knowledge (or lack of knowledge) and give a self-aggrandizing lecture.
An observer and control of the remote is all that’s needed.
He'll be doing the safety camera (D5) and audio recording near the sound booth and I'll be roving around w/ a D850 on a Ronin-S grabbing misc b roll. At the beginning I'd like to park the MPP in a position a bit away from the wedding party to capture everyone coming down the aisle from that perspective, then grab close-ups of them w/ the D850 and then go back and land the MPP.
I personally do appreciate that the OP is asking questions to learn the answers, to figure out best approaches to this wedding.Lots of surprising vitriol to reply to and I'm a bit under the gun with deadlines but did want to respond.
First, note that the very first word in my title question is 'Safely'...
A simple statement like "that would be illegal because...", along with an explanation would suffice. I totally don't get the need for writing "NO NO NO NO" or "NO" in giant red letters or "It’s past time for you and your son to learn about what’s legal and what’s safe."
On the latter note that I was indeed asking a question which for those not familiar is specifically for the purpose of learning. When someone asks a question it is usually because they want to learn and in asking a question are opening themselves up like a sponge for information. A firehose of vitriol does not a good learning environment make...
Lots of surprising vitriol to reply to and I'm a bit under the gun with deadlines but did want to respond.
First, note that the very first word in my title question is 'Safely' and I repeated that in my first sentence. I did not ask how to do it regardless of safety nor did I ask how to do it illegally nor did I in any way imply that I wanted to do something that was unsafe or illegal. Having been on this forum for a few years I was quite surprised by the self-righteous indignation of the replies that jumped to the conclusion that I wanted to do something unsafe or illegal and then proceeded to jump down my throat. It's like everyone was waiting with baited breath for the thinnest excuse to exhibit their knowledge (or lack of knowledge) and give a self-aggrandizing lecture.
........
Your "Dude/Dudette chill" comment pretty much sealed your fate for any type of reasonable response. Just because you THINK (and incorrectly so) someone else might be doing something similar in NO WAY makes it Safe, Legal, Ethical for you to blatantly bust the regulations.Dude/Dudette, chill. I was asking a question. Unattended flight is quite common as DHL and Fedex having been doing it for a several years as have security drones that autonomously launch when there's an alert on someone's property. Follow-me drone capabilities that are present in almost all consumer drones available today is similar.
I followed this thread for a bit and said nothing, but to answer your question on how to do it safe? Simply tether the drone and anchor it so that if anything happens it cannot fly into anyone or harm "much" of anything. As to legality having a 107 cert. and a tethered drone, that could fall into several areas perhaps of gray area of in control and having a tethered cam such as on a balloon...not researched it. But yeah... just tether it with enough slack for minute adjustments is my call on the safety side. Sounds like your flying/hovering area will allow that, which would then make those who commented scratch their head and say..."why didn't I think of that"
Of note: Add small lead sinkers (Or other such weights) to the line in about 6" increments to about 2 foot down to aid in keeping line taught and clear of props on landing. Hover to first sinker and slowly edge forward to land.
Edit: just looked, tethered drones are NOT exempt from 107 operations. But one could easily argue from your posts that your not doing it for gain nor intend for video to be used as such...but that is another whole can of worms for people to define 107 op's. As the saying goes...let he who have not sinned, cast the first stone
Get a bunch of lawyers together and there's nothing better than a debate on a gov't rule. From a legal standpoint it sounds like for this to come under 107 this would have to meet one of:Good morning @Repaid1
In his first post he clearly rules out Recreational Intent with one statement:
"This is for an outdoor wedding in a large field that my son and I are doing video for. He'll be doing the safety camera (D5) and audio recording near the sound booth and I'll be roving around w/ a D850 on a Ronin-S grabbing misc b roll."
If they are shooting aerials, ground video, ground stills, audio & sound booth, and grabbing b roll.... ummm they are shooting this venue "For Someone" which is clearly outside of ~44809 operations and falls under Part 107. Zero arguments to be made sir. He did everything but mention their hourly rate for this job LOL
…Compensation can be a bit of a grey area and so will depend on a variety of nuances, who the judge is and what kind of mood the judge is in that day. …
To my understanding, it doesn’t come down only to compensation, though a compensated job would be pretty clear. Again, my understanding, the exception is for recreation, only for recreation. Wedding photography/videography would not be seen as recreational in nature. It’s an activity that is typically performed by people who are compensated. Imagery is typically distributed to others. In other words, I’m suggesting that it’s the activity that is non-recreational.It sounds like it ultimately will come down to compensation. If there is no identified organized entity then that element isn't met. If the pilot says they did it for enjoyment then few courts will want to argue that…
Yes. If an entity (Business, NGO, ...) is involved then compensation is not necessarily a critical element though lack of comp will create a higher hurdle for it to be 107. If between individuals then compensation will be critical.To my understanding, it doesn’t come down only to compensation, though a compensated job would be pretty clear.
If, as suggested prior, I park a drone and have a VO next to me (or next to whomever is controlling the drone) then I would be within regs and safe? @MavicAir2Marc gets cred for what I believe is the most correct and mature response in simply recommending that as the best way to remain safe & legal.Back to the topic at hand, rec or non-rec, a “parked” drone is contrary to regulations and is not safe, particularly near an assembly of people.
Thanks, I try to be helpful. There's plenty of useless bashing on the Facebook groups. That's why I defer to Vic or Big Al for the legalities for sure. They have a lot more experience at this than I do.If, as suggested prior, I park a drone and have a VO next to me (or next to whomever is controlling the drone) then I would be within regs and safe? @MavicAir2Marc gets cred for what I believe is the most correct and mature response in simply recommending that as the best way to remain safe & legal.
It’s pretty hard to know at this distance, it *could* be within regs and it *could* be safe, but really it comes down to the exact situation. Using a VO is certainly a big step towards safety, however… a pilot has to make judgements informed by what’s actually happening around them.If, as suggested prior, I park a drone and have a VO next to me (or next to whomever is controlling the drone) then I would be within regs and safe? @MavicAir2Marc gets cred for what I believe is the most correct and mature response in simply recommending that as the best way to remain safe & legal.
You should have someone familiar with the drone who can take charge should something happen unexpectantly. Asking such a question here draws out the "Drone Police" to berrate you for even asking.
Will the drone stay in "Station Keeping?" Probably. I did something similar for a friends wedding. You should have someone familiar with the drone who can take charge should something happen unexpectantly. Asking such a question here draws out the "Drone Police" to berrate you for even asking.
Clearly you've not read the language of the order from Congress. It does not mention commercial use or compensation. Where in the WORLD are you getting the requirement to identify an organizational entity in order to meet some "element". Here's the language directly from the mouth of Congress:It sounds like it ultimately will come down to compensation. If there is no identified organized entity then that element isn't met. If the pilot says they did it for enjoyment then few courts will want to argue that.
FOR can be a critical word from a legal standpoint and how it relates to compensation beyond the pilot being compensated with enjoyment? Compensation is what triggers something as being at least partially FOR someone or some entity and thus beyond pure enjoyment.
I think you can call it a carve-out or exception or whatever but courts are going to be cautious about entering in to defining what is or is not enjoyment and perhaps especially in this case where congress ordered the FAA to create the exception. I've not read the language of the order from congress but it sounds like it will give fairly wide latitude to any attorney trying to say that something is 44809 rather than 107.
Perhaps so, but maybe not. Notice that part 107 identifies three distinct roles of people involved in the flight: The remote pilot in command, the person manipulating the flight controls, and the visual observer. That's especially evident in 107.31 and 107.33, but it's also indirectly referred to in 107.17. And that concept of having a person manipulating the flight controls who is distinct from the pilot in command is well-entrenched in regulations concerning human-carrying aircraft (flight instruction involves a student manipulating controls under the supervision of a licensed instructor, for example).That's similar to the advice given by the majority of replies.
"someone familiar with the drone" though, would need to be a part 107 pilot.
It's not entirely clear to me, but I think it might be possible for a licensed part 107 remote pilot in command to supervise an unlicensed person who manipulates the controls.
It seems to me that a primary issue is the fact that the remote pilot in command would presumably be busy with activities not related to the flight, and might be too far away or too otherwise occupied to supervise.