Getting within 5 feet of people not actually part of the flight crew would surely be a breach under any legislation? In Oz, even with a waiver, you wouldn’t be able to go closer than 15 metres to them—and you’d probably need a bird with at least six motors.
When the competition plays by their own rules.
- Thread starter The Rolling Drones
- Start date
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 30
- Reactions
- 8
I guess my original post was more rhetorical in nature, but thanks everyone for the thoughtful replies. Still photography was my main source of income for 30 years until I took an editing job a few years ago, so I whole heartedly agree with the comments on the invasion of the prosumer Pro. For me I noticed when auto focus was introduced to SLRs in the 90s the ranks of “pros” grew drastically.
If you are good at what you do and more importantly can market yourself,it does not matter what the completion does, you can make a decent living. That does not mean when other people thumb their nose at the rules it is not annoying. Not lose sleep over it bothersome, but SMH worthy at the very least. When a Client says they see drone shots over people all the time, it makes it a pain to have to explain to them why you can’t, I think that is the most obvious problem.
To answer my own question, yes of course their are advantages to getting your part 107, that is why we go through all the trouble and expense of obtaining it. I think I was just wishing there was more enforcement of the requirement to be licensed to work, but I suppose that will come in time.
Below is the example of flying over people I mentioned. This guy does not live near me, I just happened on this example online. I don’t think it is horrible, but there is no question he is not following the rules about flying over people. I really don’t believe it would be possible to get a waiver for this kind of operation. The bride was blinking from the prop wash for crying out loud. Lol.
Wedding Memory Video
If you are good at what you do and more importantly can market yourself,it does not matter what the completion does, you can make a decent living. That does not mean when other people thumb their nose at the rules it is not annoying. Not lose sleep over it bothersome, but SMH worthy at the very least. When a Client says they see drone shots over people all the time, it makes it a pain to have to explain to them why you can’t, I think that is the most obvious problem.
To answer my own question, yes of course their are advantages to getting your part 107, that is why we go through all the trouble and expense of obtaining it. I think I was just wishing there was more enforcement of the requirement to be licensed to work, but I suppose that will come in time.
Below is the example of flying over people I mentioned. This guy does not live near me, I just happened on this example online. I don’t think it is horrible, but there is no question he is not following the rules about flying over people. I really don’t believe it would be possible to get a waiver for this kind of operation. The bride was blinking from the prop wash for crying out loud. Lol.
Wedding Memory Video
AnzacJack
Australian Defence Veteran
Wow, not much to question there. Thought you may have been exaggerating, but this is not good operations.
AnzacJack
Australian Defence Veteran
I have just reached out to contact the bloke to let him know what he is doing may be a problem. Also linked this thread to him so he may come here and have a read.
I’m a believer in trying to educate before reporting to authorities and getting out the big stick.
Sure, I agree, he should be conversant with all the regs he is operating under (or perhaps not operating under in this case). Like him or not, he is one of us, and maybe help is what he needs instead of reporting.
I’m also guessing he has already been reported, and it may be he just flips me off for my email to him. At least I feel I have made an attempt to improve our work place and now the ball is in his court, and I’ve given some advice instead of anonymously reporting the dude.
I’m a believer in trying to educate before reporting to authorities and getting out the big stick.
Sure, I agree, he should be conversant with all the regs he is operating under (or perhaps not operating under in this case). Like him or not, he is one of us, and maybe help is what he needs instead of reporting.
I’m also guessing he has already been reported, and it may be he just flips me off for my email to him. At least I feel I have made an attempt to improve our work place and now the ball is in his court, and I’ve given some advice instead of anonymously reporting the dude.
Last edited:
TheRock
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2017
- Messages
- 334
- Reactions
- 259
- Age
- 74
You can't compete for government contract work without the 107. Some can pay quite well. This goes for private contracts in many instances as you have to be insurable.
Well done. I'd say he's been reported but I'd also bet he will be Re-Repoted in the near future as well.
Dan C
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2019
- Messages
- 159
- Reactions
- 92
- Age
- 63
Can you not fly over people who are willing participants?
These aren’t random strangers.
NO you can NOT (at least in the USA)! The FAA Federal Regulations can't be "Waived" by John Q Public. Part 107 clearly states you can not fly over any person not part of the flight crew. It's pretty black and white.
*edited to add US/FAA designation for clarity
Last edited:
not much different than you paying your uber driver $100 to drive you to the airport at 100mph. If the driver gets pulled over, he can’t tell the cop, “it’s cool, my passengers said it’s ok and paid me to do it.”
while obviously i don’t think the newly weds paid extra for that shot, and i don’t think they had any idea it was illegal, the person operating the drone should have known. And if that person didn’t know that person shouldn’t have the cert.
Could the operator have had a waiver? In theory, possible. But I’d bet a grand that he or she didn’t.
AnzacJack
Australian Defence Veteran
yea i just rechecked the wording of our CASA regs, and certainly no ability to fly within 15m for this type of shot.
On the latest numbers from the FAA, there are over 100000 pilots with Part 107 certification.
2349 of these have had some kind of waiver granted and only 75 have been approved for 107.39 Operation over People.
That's 0.23% of the waivers granted or <0.1% of 107 pilots who are permitted to fly over people.
It's not granted for flying with ordinary off-the-shelf drones.
BlueRidge
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2018
- Messages
- 32
- Reactions
- 29
Hey All,
As a small business owner, I can tell you that things can and do go wrong. If someone gets injured or property is damaged, the first rule lawyers follow is "sue everyone"! Sue you, sue the realtor, the wedding planner, the manufacturer, etc...If that happens, you better have your business license, Part 107 certificate, liability insurance, and any additional authorizations you need.
The difference between hobby and recreation is if money is passed (in the USA).
Either way, as the operator, you are liable for any injuries or damages. This could be a "lose your house" sized problem if you have a big accident. If you are legitimate, you're clients are in the clear. If a realtor hires someone who isn't, they may be held liable because they didn't confirm that the pilot they hired is licensed and insured. There are plenty of "guys with a truck" acting as contractors out there. They don't have proper insurance and licensing, but I have found that the best clients (repeat clients) want to deal with someone that plays by the rules, not...some guy with a drone.
As a small business owner, I can tell you that things can and do go wrong. If someone gets injured or property is damaged, the first rule lawyers follow is "sue everyone"! Sue you, sue the realtor, the wedding planner, the manufacturer, etc...If that happens, you better have your business license, Part 107 certificate, liability insurance, and any additional authorizations you need.
The difference between hobby and recreation is if money is passed (in the USA).
Either way, as the operator, you are liable for any injuries or damages. This could be a "lose your house" sized problem if you have a big accident. If you are legitimate, you're clients are in the clear. If a realtor hires someone who isn't, they may be held liable because they didn't confirm that the pilot they hired is licensed and insured. There are plenty of "guys with a truck" acting as contractors out there. They don't have proper insurance and licensing, but I have found that the best clients (repeat clients) want to deal with someone that plays by the rules, not...some guy with a drone.
I'll post the same thing I always do with this comes up.
There are two very good reasons to have a 107 and follow the laws.
First, it's the law. Enforcement (for lack thereof) shouldn't be part of the decision process on whether or not to follow them.
Second, if the first one isn't enough of a reason for someone, insurance is. If you're flying without a 107 and have an "incident" that damages property or persons, your insurance will deny your claim. Period. And if you're flying commercially without insurance... Well, that's another thread altogether.
There are two very good reasons to have a 107 and follow the laws.
First, it's the law. Enforcement (for lack thereof) shouldn't be part of the decision process on whether or not to follow them.
Second, if the first one isn't enough of a reason for someone, insurance is. If you're flying without a 107 and have an "incident" that damages property or persons, your insurance will deny your claim. Period. And if you're flying commercially without insurance... Well, that's another thread altogether.
When drones starts to hurt or kill people, everyone purchasing a drone over a certain weight will need to be licensed similar to vehicle licensing and registration. The rules/laws will be much clearer, and perhaps the FAA will allow local AHJ (Authority Having Juridication) to regulation certain "drone" airspace. Until that time, be safe, have fun, and follow existing regulation and try not to assume too much. 
When drones starts to hurt or kill people, everyone purchasing a drone over a certain weight will need to be licensed similar to vehicle licensing and registration. The rules/laws will be much clearer, and perhaps the FAA will allow local AHJ (Authority Having Juridication) to regulation certain "drone" airspace. Until that time, be safe, have fun, and follow existing regulation and try not to assume too much.
The laws are very clear now. There is VERY little that is gray anymore.
And drones will never hurt of kill people, on a large scale. There have been millions of drone flights over the last couple of years, and there has yet to be one fatality, and very few non self-inflicted injuries.
And we will have Remote ID on the US very soon. The NPRM for that will come out in December (latest date announced by the FAA).
Also, its very unlikely the FAA will give NAS control to local governments. That would create a horrendous headache to anyone that flies drones. At best, they'll work with LEOs to assist in enforcement or evidence gathering for federal laws.
There has to be practicality on this.
I agree, when interacting in public airspace, and by that I mean airspace that is likely to be entered by the general public, FAA rules should definitely be closely applied.
But when you're talking about a private affair where only the wedding participants (party, guests and vendors), and flying at very low altitudes, say 50-100 ft in G space, then there should be some leeway with the fly over people.
As for the Uber analogy, that's on public roads. A better example would be at a location closed to the general public in a manner/environment that is not typically going to have issues, and everyone there is aware and accepts the risks. An amateur race is the best example I can come up with.
I agree, when interacting in public airspace, and by that I mean airspace that is likely to be entered by the general public, FAA rules should definitely be closely applied.
But when you're talking about a private affair where only the wedding participants (party, guests and vendors), and flying at very low altitudes, say 50-100 ft in G space, then there should be some leeway with the fly over people.
As for the Uber analogy, that's on public roads. A better example would be at a location closed to the general public in a manner/environment that is not typically going to have issues, and everyone there is aware and accepts the risks. An amateur race is the best example I can come up with.
Hey, my question is everyone keeps using the "Part 107" standard but as I understand it, the wedding photographer wasn't a Part 107 pilot so how are these regs applicable to them? I understand that hobby flyers have rules, I'm just asking why the term "Part 107" keeps being bandied about? It's funny because I filmed a family member's wedding and didn't feel the need to abide by "Part 107 regulations" or whatever. I was on private property, filming a private event, with the knowledge and presumably consent of everyone present. I'm wondering why it's being assumed this person was Part 107 or even needed to be?
dirkclod
Well-Known Member
Hi Lon
and you would have to be a holder of one to even do it.
Sorry but don't know just how to answer you .I thought if they were willing and wanted you to
do it it was ok but well you read what was said.
Wasn't never said he was or not just assumed I guess .
Is what the thread started out being about.And what I gathered as you should have reading the thread unless you are a 107 holder and jump through hoops you can't fly over anyone
and you would have to be a holder of one to even do it.
Sorry but don't know just how to answer you .I thought if they were willing and wanted you to
do it it was ok but well you read what was said.
Pietros
Well-Known Member
"I'm wondering why it's being assumed this person was Part 107 or even needed to be?"
Because the video in question is an advertisement for drone services on a commercial web site. That would probably come under 107.
;o)
there seems to have been a couple of different discussions, one about random people without a 107 cert doing commercial work, and then specifically the wedding video mentioned by op.
the wedding video is clearly commercial work. while the word “compliant” seems to be used a little loosely, he has this on their website-
Credentials - Aerial51 Studios
We are professional and experienced pilots, cinematographers and photographers. • Part 107 UAV Licensed Pilot with FAA • Fully Insured • Members of UAV Coach • Members of Drone Pro Academy • Member of IMDb
www.aerial51studios.com
he does some quality work, the demo reel on the website is really good. while the random person performing commercial work without a cert might be worth reporting, i don’t think the wedding video is, nor do i think the typical understaffed/over worked fsdo would find it egregious enough to do anything.
(cue someone mentioning 107.51 after watching the demo reel.)
Last edited:
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
Mini 4 Posting for posterity, my first Hyperlapse- Started by Feek
- Replies: 0
-
2 Pro Exploring the Fire Mine: Secret tunnels and dark arcades- Started by wind-up
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Forum statistics
