When the competition plays by their own rules.

[The Rolling Drones]

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?

If you don’t make money with your drone, that is a completely different animal, but if someone is charging for their services they need to be Part 107 certified.

That was not just an assumption that the wedding photographer in question was a part 107 certified pilot, that is clearly displayed on his web site. Anyone generating income doing weddings in the USA needs to be Part 107 certified, so even without him stating that on the website, the fact that he was promoting his wedding UAV services would mean he would have to be part 107 to do so.

 

[Chas2379]

There is no "advantage" and it's probably best not to think it might be.
If everyone got their 107, there would still be no advantage.
It's a crowded marketplace and you just have to compete on the quality and price of your work.

Exactly why I didn't apply. A waste of time and money for a prestige badge that has has no advantage. I just used my Phantom 4A in a no fly city park lagoon to blow a child's soccer ball to shore. Can't pull my 107, I didn't charge the kid. Anyway I don't have one. This is just the personal opinion of an 81 year old dude, a former long time instrument rated pilot. I do know all the rules and I break a few, but I do fly safe. I hope you all do.

 

[bushie]

also not an expert on your 107. But our rules here apply to a 30m rule from anyone no involved in the opertion of the mission. If the couple being photographed are briefed, and are included within the flightplanning, then i dont see that this is illegal. Maybe not advisable to be in such proximity, but i dont think it automatically seen as a breach of the law. More information would be required to make that claim.

That is certainly not my reading of the rules in Oz. To my mind being involved in the operation means exactly that. Operating the controls or acting as an observer.

 

[AnzacJack]

Yep. I corrected myself in a later post

 

[bigswifty]

To my mind being involved in the operation means exactly that. Operating the controls or acting as an observer.

This is regarding the Australian "30m rule".

What if a shot was taken using Active Track? In that case is the subject in control of the drone by way of their own movements?

 

[AnzacJack]

Lots of grey areas, particularly with autonomous features

 

[Dan C]

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

Your reply does NOT resolve my question. The relevant text says, "You can’t fly a small UAS over anyone who is not directly participating in the operation...", so it comes down to the meaning of "direct participation".

Your sarcasm aside, where does 107 define this?

It appears you are assuming it means in flying the drone, but I see no text to stipulate that is the only meaning for "operation". I've seen situations where it seems clear that "operation" includes what you are doing with the drone. Participants in the operation would then include the consenting crowd.

 

[Dan C]

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.

Like Big Al, you've missed the point.

You are both missing the key issue of what participation means.

Note: I haven't said you are wrong. I'm saying you haven't supported the interpretation you are presenting.

 

[BigAl07]

Your reply does NOT resolve my question. The relevant text says, "You can’t fly a small UAS over anyone who is not directly participating in the operation...", so it comes down to the meaning of "direct participation".

Your sarcasm aside, where does 107 define this?

It appears you are assuming it means in flying the drone, but I see no text to stipulate that is the only meaning for "operation". I've seen situations where it seems clear that "operation" includes what you are doing with the drone. Participants in the operation would then include the consenting crowd.

Huh? Participating in the Operation us pretty clear unless you're looking to find a loophole to exploit. OPERATION isn't wedding/venue.

Participating in the Operation = Responsible for the SAFE FLIGHT of the Mission. This is clearly defined for Part 107 operations.

• Flying the Drone
• Safety Officer
• Visual Observer(s)

Not people in the wedding party or people at the venue. There are no LOOP HOLES about this for Part 107 (currently).

 

[superstarpup]

Participants in the operation would then include the consenting crowd.

hahahha no. Crowds participate about as much as the guy in 32B on the flight to Chicago is participating.

 

[Lon Denard]

If you don’t make money with your drone, that is a completely different animal, but if someone is charging for their services they need to be Part 107 certified.

That was not just an assumption that the wedding photographer in question was a part 107 certified pilot, that is clearly displayed on his web site. Anyone generating income doing weddings in the USA needs to be Part 107 certified, so even without him stating that on the website, the fact that he was promoting his wedding UAV services would mean he would have to be part 107 to do so.

Ah fair enough!

 

[Lon Denard]

Huh? Participating in the Operation us pretty clear unless you're looking to find a loophole to exploit. OPERATION isn't wedding/venue.

Participating in the Operation = Responsible for the SAFE FLIGHT of the Mission. This is clearly defined for Part 107 operations.

• Flying the Drone
• Safety Officer
• Visual Observer(s)

Not people in the wedding party or people at the venue. There are no LOOP HOLES about this for Part 107 (currently).

Couldn't they be classified as *visual observers* ? Hahaha!

 

[Lon Denard]

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.)

Oh...I completely admit to not having seen this, my bad.

 

[f2000ez]

Exactly why I didn't apply. A waste of time and money for a prestige badge that has has no advantage. I just used my Phantom 4A in a no fly city park lagoon to blow a child's soccer ball to shore. Can't pull my 107, I didn't charge the kid. Anyway I don't have one. This is just the personal opinion of an 81 year old dude, a former long time instrument rated pilot. I do know all the rules and I break a few, but I do fly safe. I hope you all do.

It;s ironic how the topic was about the competition following rules. Then this post. I just used my Phantom 4A in a no fly city park. Glad to see your following the rules