FAA- "Report all commercial activity conducted by non-Part 107 licensees to the local FAA FSDO"...

[Acuity9]

I attended an FAA safety seminar at Tampa International last week. It was a good presentation, hosted by the Tampa International Airport Manager, and presented by two FAA personnel. By show of hands of the nearly fifty attendees present, almost half were general aviation pilots, and an easy three-quarters were Part 107 UAS "Remote Pilot" license holders. After their ninety minute program, a question-nd-answer session ensued. I asked the following;

"As the majority in the room are Part 107 licensees who have significant business investments in the thousand-dollar annual liability policies, and some who have tens-of-thousands invested in UAS airframes, cameras and sensors, what is the FAA prepared to do to protect those of us who legitimately conduct business in an educated, safe way, compliant with FAA licensing regulations, from unlicensed operators?"

Their answer?

"Report all commercial activity conducted by non-Part 107 licensees to the local FAA FSDO Office. We have people that HAVE to investigate every report. If you make a report, we will investigate it."

My follow-up question;

"What are potential outcomes?"

Their reply;

"There are civil penalties and fines that could be administered to offending individuals."

I for one, I intend to report ALL activity in my area with great determination.

If you witness unfair, non-Part 107 operators performing commercial services, I urge Part 107 license holders to make a report in order to protect the right to offer UAS services professionally, preserve our investments, and help enforce safe operation throughout the industry.

You will be able to find your local FSDO office at Federal Aviation Administration

Further, I highly suggest that each one of us educate EVERY customer on the need for asking for a copy of our Part 107 license, AND a copy of our Certificate of Insurance as a standard practice. Essentially, the FAA expects EACH of us to protect our own industry and investments, and it will take EACH of us to do so.



​

 

[BigAl07]

The FAA has always, ALWAYS requested we report any aviation violations and this includes sUAS violations as well.

We are expected to "Police ourselves" . . .

 

[Meta4]

what is the FAA prepared to do to protect those of us who legitimately conduct business in an educated, safe way, compliant with FAA licensing regulations, from unlicensed operators?"

The FAA doesn't see their role as protecting your business.
They are more focused on managing aviation safety and are under-resourced to take care of everything.
This is confirmed by the record of prosecutions for unlicensed commercial use: Basically No One In The US Is Getting Fined For Flying Drones Without A Licence

 

[aerialimagery]

I won't turn them in. I'm not looking for the government to protect me from competition.

 

[FatherXmas]

I won't turn them in. I'm not looking for the government to protect me from competition.

For me, it depends on if they do stupid stuff when they fly, like beyond VLOS, over people, etc.

 

[aerialimagery]

For me, it depends on if they do stupid stuff when they fly, like beyond VLOS, over people, etc.

Agreed. If someone is endangering people with their drone, they should be reported. I just don't like the idea of seeing a license as belonging to some kind of exclusive trade association. How would we even know if someone is not licensed anyway?

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

I attended an FAA safety seminar at Tampa International last week. It was a good presentation, hosted by the Tampa International Airport Manager, and presented by two FAA personnel. By show of hands of the nearly fifty attendees present, almost half were general aviation pilots, and an easy three-quarters were Part 107 UAS "Remote Pilot" license holders. After their ninety minute program, a question-nd-answer session ensued. I asked the following;

"As the majority in the room are Part 107 licensees who have significant business investments in the thousand-dollar annual liability policies, and some who have tens-of-thousands invested in UAS airframes, cameras and sensors, what is the FAA prepared to do to protect those of us who legitimately conduct business in an educated, safe way, compliant with FAA licensing regulations, from unlicensed operators?"

Their answer?

"Report all commercial activity conducted by non-Part 107 licensees to the local FAA FSDO Office. We have people that HAVE to investigate every report. If you make a report, we will investigate it."

My follow-up question;

"What are potential outcomes?"

Their reply;

"There are civil penalties and fines that could be administered to offending individuals."

I for one, I intend to report ALL activity in my area with great determination.

If you witness unfair, non-Part 107 operators performing commercial services, I urge Part 107 license holders to make a report in order to protect the right to offer UAS services professionally, preserve our investments, and help enforce safe operation throughout the industry.

You will be able to find your local FSDO office at Federal Aviation Administration

Further, I highly suggest that each one of us educate EVERY customer on the need for asking for a copy of our Part 107 license, AND a copy of our Certificate of Insurance as a standard practice. Essentially, the FAA expects EACH of us to protect our own industry and investments, and it will take EACH of us to do so.



​

Only time I reported a 107.39 violation I gave the FSDO the website w/ video. Their reply was they were too busy unless I had pilot name, location date& time, blah blah. As a retired cop I found their response analogous to "Well, ma'am do you know the burglar's name & address... oh by the way his phone number???"
I guess the word investigate means something different to the FAA than to cops. I'll never waste my time again, unless I see a safety violation in my presence. In such case I "may" bother and try to get additional information or at least try to get the local gendarmes to write an incident report. Even if they refuse, the call will be a matter of record and assigned a call # in their dispatch system and may help the feds in what I'm sure will be an exhaustive investigation.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Agreed. If someone is endangering people with their drone, they should be reported. I just don't like the idea of seeing a license as belonging to some kind of exclusive trade association. How would we even know if someone is not licensed anyway?

"I just don't like the idea of seeing a license as belonging to some kind of exclusive trade association.
No, it's just a government issued certificate that certifies a minimum training level for the safety of the public. No different than a commercial pilot certificate, issued to ensure paying customers are hiring a pilot w/ a specific proficiency level.

"How would we even know if someone is not licensed anyway?"
Ask?

 

[Kristina Fowler]

I attended an FAA safety seminar at Tampa International last week. It was a good presentation, hosted by the Tampa International Airport Manager, and presented by two FAA personnel. By show of hands of the nearly fifty attendees present, almost half were general aviation pilots, and an easy three-quarters were Part 107 UAS "Remote Pilot" license holders. After their ninety minute program, a question-nd-answer session ensued. I asked the following;

"As the majority in the room are Part 107 licensees who have significant business investments in the thousand-dollar annual liability policies, and some who have tens-of-thousands invested in UAS airframes, cameras and sensors, what is the FAA prepared to do to protect those of us who legitimately conduct business in an educated, safe way, compliant with FAA licensing regulations, from unlicensed operators?"

Their answer?

"Report all commercial activity conducted by non-Part 107 licensees to the local FAA FSDO Office. We have people that HAVE to investigate every report. If you make a report, we will investigate it."

My follow-up question;

"What are potential outcomes?"

Their reply;

"There are civil penalties and fines that could be administered to offending individuals."

I for one, I intend to report ALL activity in my area with great determination.

If you witness unfair, non-Part 107 operators performing commercial services, I urge Part 107 license holders to make a report in order to protect the right to offer UAS services professionally, preserve our investments, and help enforce safe operation throughout the industry.

You will be able to find your local FSDO office at Federal Aviation Administration

Further, I highly suggest that each one of us educate EVERY customer on the need for asking for a copy of our Part 107 license, AND a copy of our Certificate of Insurance as a standard practice. Essentially, the FAA expects EACH of us to protect our own industry and investments, and it will take EACH of us to do so.
​

I'm glad to know you did this. Those questions burn in my brain every day. I seize the opportunity whenever I can to tell potential customers about the Part 107 requirement. So far, about 98% of customers still DO NOT know about the requirement. At one point, I even went so far as to take it to the offending pilots in their favorite hangout: Craigslist. I maintained a post in Craigslist that simply stated the facts about the Part 107 mandate for commercial activity and included relevant links as backup. I also included relevant keywords in the ad so that unsuspecting customers searching for drone pilots would no doubt stumble across my ad. Creating awareness in the marketplace is critical.

I even mystery-shopped a few. One guy justified his non-compliance by saying he was just doing it as a side job to earn some spending cash. Another guy with a very fancy website presented his $5 drone registration receipt and truly believed it was his legitimate license.

Rule of thumb: if a pilot advertises their business and DOES NOT state they are licensed, it's a safe bet they are not.

The FAA's willingness to fine offending individuals is encouraging, but I'm holding out hope they would also implicate customers who hire rogue pilots and make them equally as guilty. There are no legal consequences for a client who hires a rogue client, other than the risk they take by getting 3rd-partied by someone else who incurs a loss by the negligence of the rogue pilot.

 

[flockshot]

If they are being dangerous I would turn them in. If they are not being dangerous I would not.
There are some folks around that would turn in their neighbor for videoing his nieces wedding just to experience the process. That is not what we need in my opinion.

 

[Kristina Fowler]

If they are being dangerous I would turn them in. If they are not being dangerous I would not.
There are some folks around that would turn in their neighbor for videoing his nieces wedding just to experience the process. That is not what we need in my opinion.

The title of this thread makes no mention of "dangerous". Danger is not the point of the thread. Adherence to FAA Part 107 regulation is. I think you can safely assume that the basis of the regulation already takes into account a mitigation of danger. Also, his niece's wedding is not subject to Part 107 compliance unless he sells it or is used for the "futherance" of a business. Otherwise, hobbyists rules apply. The position that this poster takes (not ratting out the rats) is known as "Bystander Apathy". Do your homework and form your on opinions on "Bystander Apathy". I would not be pleased if my house is burning down while I was out and no one called 911.

 

[aerialimagery]

"I just don't like the idea of seeing a license as belonging to some kind of exclusive trade association.
No, it's just a government issued certificate that certifies a minimum training level for the safety of the public. No different than a commercial pilot certificate, issued to ensure paying customers are hiring a pilot w/ a specific proficiency level.

"How would we even know if someone is not licensed anyway?"
Ask?

Ask? It's not my business to ask.

Your analogy isn't valid because a license is not needed to fly a drone as a hobbyist, unlike flying an airplane. How is it more unsafe is it for an unlicensed drone pilot to to fly around his church and receive $50 from the congregation for taking a few photos than if he had flown it around the same church just for fun?

 

[aerialimagery]

The title of this thread makes no mention of "dangerous". Danger is not the point of the thread. Adherence to FAA Part 107 regulation is. I think you can safely assume that the basis of the regulation already takes into account a mitigation of danger. Also, his niece's wedding is not subject to Part 107 compliance unless he sells it or is used for the "futherance" of a business. Otherwise, hobbyists rules apply. The position that this poster takes (not ratting out the rats) is known as "Bystander Apathy". Do your homework and form your on opinions on "Bystander Apathy". I would not be pleased if my house is burning down while I was out and no one called 911.

You said it had nothing to do with "danger" and then you use a catastrophe (of a burning house) to make your point.

If a guy has a drone and is making a few bucks on the side with it, I'm not turning him in, so long as he's doing it safely. The problem I have and the fellow to whom you responded is that we are not going to be p***ks about it, just to protect our "turf." I'm not going to use a government regulation to make some poor guy's life miserable (who's probably only making chump change) because I'm so insecure that I'm worried he's stealing "my" business.

I do not state anywhere that I am "licensed." Not on my website or any of my marketing materials. I don't even use the word "pilot." I'm not a "pilot." I'm a photographer. According to your "rule of thumb," I am in violation of the law, so do your duty...

 

[Kristina Fowler]

You said it had nothing to do with "danger" and then you use a catastrophe (of a burning house) to make your point.

You're taking out of context. I used it as an example of "Bystander Apathy". Generalizing and word parsing accomplishes nothing here.

 

[aerialimagery]

You're taking out of context. I used it as an example of "Bystander Apathy". Generalizing and word parsing accomplishes nothing here.

The consequences are not the same. As per my example, if a many is having some fun flying his drone around his church, he' ok. If the next day his pastor offers him $50 to do the same thing and and take a few photos, and he accepts that and does that, then he's in violation of part 107. In this case, I'm going to look the other way. He gets a "bystander apathy" pass from me. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to contact the authorities?

 

[Kristina Fowler]

You're taking out of context. I used it as an example of "Bystander Apathy". Generalizing and word parsing accomplishes nothing here.

The consequences are not the same. As per my example, if a many is having some fun flying his drone around his church, he' ok. If the next day his pastor offers him $50 to do the same thing and and take a few photos, and he accepts that and does that, then he's in violation of part 107. In this case, I'm going to look the other way. He gets a "bystander apathy" pass from me. What are YOU going to do about it?

At what point does the guy "making a few bucks on the side" become reportable? How much money does he have to make before he reaches a reportable level? Please be specific.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Ask? It's not my business to ask.

Your analogy isn't valid because a license is not needed to fly a drone as a hobbyist, unlike flying an airplane. How is it more unsafe is it for an unlicensed drone pilot to to fly around his church and receive $50 from the congregation for taking a few photos than if he had flown it around the same church just for fun?

Now we are going to get into the "why are hobbyists allowed to do what they want while 107s have to follow the rules." Not going there.

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

At what point does the guy "making a few bucks on the side" become reportable? How much money does he have to make before he reaches a reportable level? Please be specific.

If 107 pilots will not help police the business, they are part of the problem.

 

[aerialimagery]

At what point does the guy "making a few bucks on the side" become reportable? How much money does he have to make before he reaches a reportable level? Please be specific.

What does money have to do with it? If he's making a lot of money he knows what he's doing with his drone. I had flown my drone less than an hour when I (just barely) passed my 107 test. I'm not any better or more safe because I am "licensed."

What I think should happen is that ALL people who fly drones should be licensed. Until then, I'm not going to worry about an unlicensed drone pilot making a few bucks to support his hobby.

As per my example, would you contact the FAA about the fellow who pockets $50 for taking some photos of his church with his drone?

 

[Kristina Fowler]

What does money have to do with it?

It has everything to do with. It's the entire premise of the OP. The feds made a rule that says if you make money, you MUST have a license. I searched the entire Part 107 rule for "a few bucks on the side" and can't find that section. Maybe you could share that part of the 107 rule that states it's ok to do that. If you fly for fun/hobby, then don't worry about it. That's never been the issue in this thread. I'm not sure why you refuse to understand this.

This reminds me that I broke one of my golden rules: Never argue with a contrarian.