Case study, appreciate comments:

S F Ogden · May 19, 2018

Hi Everyone,

I am an amateur videographer who received my Part 107 license in December 2017. FYI, I applied for Airspace Authorization in January 2018 for the local airport (KGUC) Surface E airspace and last week received a 4 month authorization. The authorization specified I comply with the maximum height restrictions in the UAS air facilities map and expires 9/30/18. I assume & hope the authorization’s 9/30 expiration coincides with nationwide LAANC availability. But I digress. I have a case study I’d like those with more knowledge than I to consider.

A local semi-government/chamber-of-commerce type organization hired a production company (including a Part 107 pilot) to produce a video of mountain biking on local trails as part of their ongoing efforts to promote the area. I believe the aerial/video shoot I’m writing about took place on 5/15/2018.

While I’d like to think the project was handled legally & professionally, it looks to me to not completely be the case. This is why I’m asking the community to clarify if I understand the rules correctly (or not.)

The 5/15/18 filming location was on a mountain bike trail within the Surface E airspace of the local airport (KGUC) during airport operational hours. KGUC is a non-towered airport operational between 0600 – 2230 local time. Sunrise is about 5:55 am this time of year. The filming location on 5/15/2018 appears to be within both 100’ and 0’ (no-fly) grids on the UAS air facilities map. I believe those grids, while relevant to my authorization, are irrelevant to this case as this case appears to involve completely unauthorized UAS flights. Prior shoots were also in the Surface E airspace and I presume operated with a similar level of rules knowledge and authorization as the 5/15 shoot.

Someone I know was part of the 5/15/18 shoot. Previously, we had discussed the requirements to fly UAS in the KGUC Surface E over the bike trails, my unwillingness to fly until my authorization request was approved, and my impatience as I awaited the approval. He was interested in what I was up to and had casually asked many questions about the regulations. It was when I received my authorization approval and emailed him with the good news that I learned about this shoot that occurred the previous day.

My friend said when they arrived & prepared to film, the pilot and crew appeared to have their ducks in a row. They had commercial filming permits from both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) & the local city (Gunnison, CO). My friend tells me he asked if they had FAA permission to fly near the airport as he knew about my 5 month wait for the FAA airspace authorization. My friend said someone with the production company (I assume the Part 107 pilot) told him they didn’t need FAA approval to fly there. But then saw fit to call the local airport “to confirm.” In that call they were told as long as they stayed under a certain height they were fine. Anyone taking a look at the sectional map would see the dashed magenta circle around the airport denoting SFC E airspace.

I question how a Part 107 pilot could be that close to an airport and not know his airspace. Then assert "no FAA permission needed here" as if he did know. Then ask a local airport person (non-FAA) for airspace knowledge and then rely on that for a commercial operation. Yikes! Appears to me either the pilots were absolutely clueless about airspace designations (and their Part 107 certificate knowledge responsibilities) or hoping they could get by without anyone noticing. My money is on the latter. . .

My brother (both a private & part 107 pilot) is an airport manager at a busy airport in a distant state. He tells me he doesn’t have authority to grant airspace permissions. He goes on to say he certainly welcomes & accepts notifications from hobby pilots and appreciates the courtesy of a head’s up from the Part 107 ones.

Bottom line is that my understanding from my Part 107 studies was the magenta dashed circle identifies Surface E during airport operation hours (clearly noted in the legend of a sectional chart) and specific FAA authorization is required for Part 107 flights in Surface E; that's not subject to any interpretation - it's black & white. Of course I could be badly misunderstanding the rules in which case I’ll eat my crow – please pass the hot sauce. But that is why I’m posting this. I welcome the education and it seems a good case for the community to discuss.

Thanks for your comments,
Steve

R.Perry · May 19, 2018

Gunnison is a class E airspace from the surface, not 700 feet, so yes you need authorization to fly there. If you only have a Magenta circle the class E airspace starts at 700 agl, and below that is class G airspace. This is an issue that has confused many drone pilots but one you really need to understand. City and county governments don't have authority to authorize drone operations within controlled airspace, only the FAA does.
I recently had an argument with a park ranger, he said drone operations were not allowed in their park. I was outside the park in Class G airspace and flew into their park boundaries. I told him he had no authorization to restrict the airspace over his park, only the FAA can do that. Now if that had been a National park, he would have been correct because that airspace is restricted.
It is very important to fully understand where you need authorization and where you don't.
You did the right thing waiting for authorization.

LUIS MARTINEZ · May 19, 2018

This airport is Class E SFC only during hours of operation. Otherwise is Class G.
If the pilot flew within 0600 – 2230 local time (sounds like he did) he was in Class E SFC and flew w/o authorization. IMHO...

S F Ogden · May 19, 2018

yep, this time of year the window between sunrise & starting of airport operations is about 5 minutes. Until I received my authorization, I had planned to shoot in that window as the days get longer.

Dave Pitman · May 19, 2018

They should have gotten an authorization but if nothing bad happens on the shoot the FAA is currently turning a blind eye. We are, for the most part, on the honor system at this point.

R.Perry said:
Now if that had been a National park, he would have been correct because that airspace is restricted.

Actually, you can technically operate in the airspace above National Parks too. However I concede that it is impractical to do so.

Unmanned Aircraft in the National Parks (U.S. National Park Service)

Daniel Czerwinski · May 26, 2018

S F Ogden said:
Hi Everyone,

I am an amateur videographer who received my Part 107 license in December 2017. FYI, I applied for Airspace Authorization in January 2018 for the local airport (KGUC) Surface E airspace and last week received a 4 month authorization. The authorization specified I comply with the maximum height restrictions in the UAS air facilities map and expires 9/30/18. I assume & hope the authorization’s 9/30 expiration coincides with nationwide LAANC availability. But I digress. I have a case study I’d like those with more knowledge than I to consider.

A local semi-government/chamber-of-commerce type organization hired a production company (including a Part 107 pilot) to produce a video of mountain biking on local trails as part of their ongoing efforts to promote the area. I believe the aerial/video shoot I’m writing about took place on 5/15/2018.

While I’d like to think the project was handled legally & professionally, it looks to me to not completely be the case. This is why I’m asking the community to clarify if I understand the rules correctly (or not.)

The 5/15/18 filming location was on a mountain bike trail within the Surface E airspace of the local airport (KGUC) during airport operational hours. KGUC is a non-towered airport operational between 0600 – 2230 local time. Sunrise is about 5:55 am this time of year. The filming location on 5/15/2018 appears to be within both 100’ and 0’ (no-fly) grids on the UAS air facilities map. I believe those grids, while relevant to my authorization, are irrelevant to this case as this case appears to involve completely unauthorized UAS flights. Prior shoots were also in the Surface E airspace and I presume operated with a similar level of rules knowledge and authorization as the 5/15 shoot.

View attachment 529

Someone I know was part of the 5/15/18 shoot. Previously, we had discussed the requirements to fly UAS in the KGUC Surface E over the bike trails, my unwillingness to fly until my authorization request was approved, and my impatience as I awaited the approval. He was interested in what I was up to and had casually asked many questions about the regulations. It was when I received my authorization approval and emailed him with the good news that I learned about this shoot that occurred the previous day.

My friend said when they arrived & prepared to film, the pilot and crew appeared to have their ducks in a row. They had commercial filming permits from both the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) & the local city (Gunnison, CO). My friend tells me he asked if they had FAA permission to fly near the airport as he knew about my 5 month wait for the FAA airspace authorization. My friend said someone with the production company (I assume the Part 107 pilot) told him they didn’t need FAA approval to fly there. But then saw fit to call the local airport “to confirm.” In that call they were told as long as they stayed under a certain height they were fine. Anyone taking a look at the sectional map would see the dashed magenta circle around the airport denoting SFC E airspace.

I question how a Part 107 pilot could be that close to an airport and not know his airspace. Then assert "no FAA permission needed here" as if he did know. Then ask a local airport person (non-FAA) for airspace knowledge and then rely on that for a commercial operation. Yikes! Appears to me either the pilots were absolutely clueless about airspace designations (and their Part 107 certificate knowledge responsibilities) or hoping they could get by without anyone noticing. My money is on the latter. . .

My brother (both a private & part 107 pilot) is an airport manager at a busy airport in a distant state. He tells me he doesn’t have authority to grant airspace permissions. He goes on to say he certainly welcomes & accepts notifications from hobby pilots and appreciates the courtesy of a head’s up from the Part 107 ones.

Bottom line is that my understanding from my Part 107 studies was the magenta dashed circle identifies Surface E during airport operation hours (clearly noted in the legend of a sectional chart) and specific FAA authorization is required for Part 107 flights in Surface E; that's not subject to any interpretation - it's black & white. Of course I could be badly misunderstanding the rules in which case I’ll eat my crow – please pass the hot sauce. But that is why I’m posting this. I welcome the education and it seems a good case for the community to discuss.

Thanks for your comments,
Steve

Daniel Czerwinski · May 26, 2018

The pilot was in clear violation of airspace restrictions. The FAA is taking a look at videos posted on the internet and verifying that waivers were issued if required. I was just told yesterday of such a case. So it is not a matter of if for this pilot but when.
Good job on following the regs!

Stephen Mann · May 26, 2018

R.Perry said:
Now if that had been a National park, he would have been correct because that airspace is restricted.

No. Only the FAA may restrict flight.

Reference: Unmanned Aircraft in the National Parks (U.S. National Park Service)

"This action applies to the launching, landing, and operation of unmanned aircraft on lands and waters administered by the NPS. Jurisdiction by the NPS ends at the park boundary."

The NPS has no authority to retrict overflight- only the FAA can do that. You may launch, fly over NPS land and land outside of a National Park, and the NPS can't do anything. If you step one foot into NPS land, then you are operating your aircraft on NPS land.

Even if you are launching, operating and landing off of NPS land and your flight disturbs wildlife, then NPS rangers can cite you for 36 CFR 2.12 - Audio disturbances.

The curmudgeon is back.

R.Perry · May 26, 2018

Here is the one I love

If the user of the unmanned aircraft knowingly or recklessly creates a risk of public alarm or nuisance by causing noise that was unreasonable under the circumstances or by creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition, the user could be cited for disorderly conduct under 36 C.F.R. § 2.34.

Now they will allow bikers with extremely loud pipes to run through the park day and night but the noise from a drone might disturb someone. What kind of logic is that? It is a bunch of bureaucratic BS in my opinion.

As for Yosemite there is no way to fly into the park from outside park property and get close enough to any of the photographic opportunities, and that is from any of the entrances.

mdurbanek · May 27, 2018

Here's something interesting...KGUC was scheduled to go live on the LAANC beta program last Thursday, May 24. That's obviously 6 days prior to the scheduled rollout date.

SF Ogden, just for fun you should use Skyward or Airmap and see if you receive digital authorization for a flight in that same area. Please report back, it would be interesting to know.