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

[aerialimagery]

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.

You don't have to argue, then. But it would be nice if you would answer my question. If you knew that a fellow photographed his own church with his drone and received $50 from the church, would you turn him in?

 

[aerialimagery]

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

Is it really a "problem"?

How do we go about doing the policing?

Do we turn the fellow in as per my example, or do we just give him a "warning"?

In the year that I have had my 107 license I have only once seen someone operating a drone. I talked with him a little about it and asked if it was a Mavic, which it was, but found out he also owned an Inspire. He was concentrating on his flying and photography and was not in the mood for further conversation, so I left. Was it my duty to find out if he was making any money doing that, and if so, was he licensed?

I remember when I was in grade school and saw Joey telling Mrs. Smith that Johnny used TWO paper towels when drying his hands in the bath room. (We were only supposed to use one). Joey was very concerned about this broken rule, especially since when Johnny was using that second towel, "his hands were already really dry." I don't want to be like Joey, relishing in the opportunity to "bust" someone for something that's not a big deal.

 

[Kristina Fowler]

You don't have to argue, then. But it would be nice if you would answer my question. If you knew that a fellow photographed his own church with his drone and received $50 from the church, would you turn him in?

Of course, I'd turn him in. Oh - I see. Because it's a church, that makes it different. Are you implying that because it's a church, that exempts him from Part 107 rules? And the operator had no choice but to accept the money because it would have hurt the pastor's feelings? Part 107 makes no exceptions for churches. What if it was a hospital or commercial office building? Makes no difference. I've already stated my position on non-107 pilots deriving income. You need to read over my replies.

Also, waiting for the answer to my question about "a few bucks on the side"... Give me that magic number. At what point, specifically (in dollars), does it become a reportable offense?

 

[LUIS MARTINEZ]

Is it really a "problem"?

How do we go about doing the policing?

Do we turn the fellow in as per my example, or do we just give him a "warning"?

In the year that I have had my 107 license I have only once seen someone operating a drone. I talked with him a little about it and asked if it was a Mavic, which it was, but found out he also owned an Inspire. He was concentrating on his flying and photography and was not in the mood for further conversation, so I left. Was it my duty to find out if he was making any money doing that, and if so, was he licensed?

I remember when I was in grade school and saw Joey telling Mrs. Smith that Johnny used TWO paper towels when drying his hands in the bath room. (We were only supposed to use one). Joey was very concerned about this broken rule, especially since when Johnny was using that second towel, "his hands were already really dry." I don't want to be like Joey, relishing in the opportunity to "bust" someone for something that's not a big deal.

 

[aerialimagery]

Of course, I'd turn him in. Oh - I see. Because it's a church, that makes it different. Are you implying that because it's a church, that exempts him from Part 107 rules? And the operator had no choice but to accept the money because it would have hurt the pastor's feelings? Part 107 makes no exceptions for churches. What if it was a hospital or commercial office building? Makes no difference. I've already stated my position on non-107 pilots deriving income. You need to read over my replies.

Also, waiting for the answer to my question about "a few bucks on the side"... Give me that magic number. At what point, specifically (in dollars), does it become a reportable offense?

I think that would be a very spiteful thing to do. I couldn't do it in good conscience. The church was just an example. It could have been a school or a business.

It's not about the money. I don't care how much money is being made, I'm not going to report it, unless it's being done unsafely. If someone is being paid (or not being paid) to buzz a busy controlled airport with their drone, I will report it.

 

[Kristina Fowler]

I think that would be a very spiteful thing to do. I couldn't do it in good conscience. The church was just an example. It could have been a school or a business.

It's not about the money. I don't care how much money is being made, I'm not going to report it, unless it's being done unsafely. If someone is being paid (or not being paid) to buzz a busy controlled airport with their drone, I will report it.

Ah yes - spiteful. Sorry - all out of guilt trips. Turning in a man of assumed high moral character, but is nonetheless in violation of regulations. Member of the congregation providing (not-free) services to the church. Now let's change the narrative just a bit. He accepts $2,500 from the church (see how convenient and easy it is to flip the script?). Wait - let's just arbitrarily make it $5,000 - just as you arbitrarily made it $50. Now let's continue the story. And what about the owner of the commercial office building? Why is he suddenly being left out of the conversation?

For what its' worth, I just finished up a 2-week orthomosaic mapping project for my church. Estimated street value: $1,500. My fee to the church? $0.00.

Still waiting on your magic number - below which it's ok to violate Part 107 regulations; above which it's not ok to violate Part 107 regulations? Please be specific. Waiting....

 

[skiptv]

How do you know if they are 107 or not? Have a waiver or not? Are flying as a Hobby or Not? Just because you are 107 doesn't mean you know what you are doing either. I dont think having "pilots" report on each other is a good way to create better, safer pilots. As for the Biz end of all this, my concern comes from 107 pilots that are "whoring" themselves out and doing work at bargain basement prices, the you lower your bar to next to nothing, then that is what you are worth, and it drags us all down with you.

 

[aerialimagery]

Ah yes - spiteful. Sorry - all out of guilt trips. Turning in a man of assumed high moral character, but is nonetheless in violation of regulations. Member of the congregation providing (not-free) services to the church. Now let's change the narrative just a bit. He accepts $2,500 from the church (see how convenient and easy it is to flip the script?). Wait - let's just arbitrarily make it $5,000 - just as you arbitrarily made it $50. Now let's continue the story. And what about the owner of the commercial office building? Why is he suddenly being left out of the conversation?

For what its' worth, I just finished up a 2-week orthomosaic mapping project for my church. Estimated street value: $1,500. My fee to the church? $0.00.

Still waiting on your magic number - below which it's ok to violate Part 107 regulations; above which it's not ok to violate Part 107 regulations? Please be specific. Waiting....

I already answered that question. I don't care if was for $50 or $5,000. I gave that example because that situation is much more likely. I can imagine a scenario where a church might want some photos and might want to compensate the parishioner a few bucks to help cover his costs. No harm. No foul. Nothing worth reporting.

I had a potential customer tell me that an employee who owned a drone was instead going to do the photography. I wasn't outraged about part 107 bs. I'm much more offended that they think just because they can send a drone into the sky that that means they can take excellent aerial photos. I wasn't going to pull the "it's illegal" card on them. That would guarantee I don't get the work when they see the lousy job their employee does and go looking for a pro. If their own employee can't use a drone to photograph their own property, then that's a very dumb rule and I'm not going to participate in enforcing dumbness.

So long as hobbyists can fly drones without licenses, the idea that it's unsafe to use a drone for hire unless licensed doesn't hold any water as far as I'm concerned. But if you want to hunt them down and turn them in, knock yourself out.

 

[Meta4]

This whole situation comes from the FAA originally not understanding anything about modern drones and trying to see them as conventional aircraft because that's all they understood.
A higher standard of licensing was required for commercial use of conventional aircraft so it was easy for the FAA to decide that a higher standard was required for commercial use of a drone than for recreational use.
That's how they came up with the ridiculous 333 requirement to have an actual full airplane licence to sell a few house photos to a real estate agent.
At the same time, no licence was needed to fly and photograph for recreation.
The FAA loosened the rules later to replace the crazy 333 rule with the more realistic 107 that would allow anyone to use their drone commercially with a simple test.
But they still have the stupid situation where you could quite legally fly and photograph but to sell those photos would be in breach of the rules.

The FAA aren't the who-can-sell-photos police.
Their business is aviation safety and they have too many important things to do with not enough resources to waste time on who is selling some photos and do they have a 107.
The rule isn't being enforced because it would be too hard to and it isn't an aviation safety issue.

Since it's quite legal to fly and photograph without any qualification and the act of selling photos makes no difference to air safety anyway, it would make a lot of sense for the FAA to change their rules to something more realistic.
Australia did this a while back and allows commercial use of sub-2kg drones without commercial licensing.

 

[flockshot]

Step one: Make it legal for anyone who has pictures to sell them. No license required.

 

[Avocet]

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.

I understand your position, I do. However, if during your neice's wedding the drone has a mishap that causes injury , property loss or other, guess who is going to pay the price ultimately? The predictable response will be that those of us who are required to following Part 107 rules will see them change (and also non 107 rules) which will most likely cause further constraints on the 107 ticket holders.

It's a hard call so early in this game ... I'm hoping that the lines between hobbyists and 107 pilots begins to widen even more. This would mean more stringent requirements for 107 pilots as it pertains to testing requirements., etc. The 107 cert is far, far too easy to obtain in my opinion.

 

[flockshot]

I understand your position, I do. However, if during your neice's wedding the drone has a mishap that causes injury , property loss or other, guess who is going to pay the price ultimately? The predictable response will be that those of us who are required to following Part 107 rules will see them change (and also non 107 rules) which will most likely cause further constraints on the 107 ticket holders.

It's a hard call so early in this game ... I'm hoping that the lines between hobbyists and 107 pilots begins to widen even more. This would mean more stringent requirements for 107 pilots as it pertains to testing requirements., etc. The 107 cert is far, far too easy to obtain in my opinion.

If something goes bad, it is the responsibility of the pilot. That is no secret.
As for what it will do to the reputation of the 107 pilot, that point is moot. Everything that goes bad with drones puts more pressure on the rules.
This notion that passing a 60 question test with no flight standards or pilot skill requirements makes people safer is really difficult to swallow.
Do I have my 107? Yes.
Does it make me a better pilot, no. Just more knowledgeable of the 107 rules.
I know this doesn't set well with people who fear that hobbyist photographers will damage their business, but the truth is that they will not. Either you can offer your customers a better product than the hobbyist or you can not. If you can not, you are in a weak position to move your business forward, but if you can, that hobbyist will not hurt you.

 

[R.Perry]

I have had a couple of run-ins with the FAA and never been fined. What good is it to report someone when you know nothing is going to be done. Years ago I took a small job flying for a guy. He had two planes, problem was he was blind in one eye and had no depth perception, needless to say he didn't have a current license. He darn near killed a family of people and I reported him to the FAA. He lived in a remote area of California and was flying off of a 2000 foot gravel runway.
The FAA never came out, never checked him out, and he kept flying, including flying into Oakland, CA airport. I had given the FAA is aircraft N numbers, and his name..... They did nothing.
I won't waste my time.

 

[Dave Pitman]

That's crazy @R.Perry and sad really.

 

[Quad Squad]

The FAA is not going to waste their resources on a "drone investigation task force."

They make make it sound all good and official at meetings and such, but they are not going to come out and investigate people that part 107 holders call, just because those people didn't get their 107's.

Not gonna happen.

 

[BigAl07]

The FAA is not going to waste their resources on a "drone investigation task force."

They make make it sound all good and official at meetings and such, but they are not going to come out and investigate people that part 107 holders call, just because those people didn't get their 107's.

Not gonna happen.

I can tell you this much.... they can and DO investigate at least SOME reports. It's been a while but in late 2016 I was the "subject" of one such investigation. Initially I thought one of my dear friends was up to a prank but the more we talked the more I realized this was the Real Deal and the gentleman on the phone was genuine. After about 5 minutes of detailed questions etc he apologized for taking up my "valuable" time and stated, "Someone reported you as an unlicensed sUAS operator in your area and we were reaching out to you to verify this and see how to proceed with our investigation. When we get a report to our office we are required to look into it. You have satisfied our questioning and we appreciate your time and cooperation".

I asked him who had reported me and he could not (would not) give out that information. He merely stated once it gets to his level he is required to make contact and do an investigation.

After the call was over I made a phone call myself to our FAA sUAS Liaison and his exacts words were, "That pretty much sounds Text Book for an initial contact made when someone has lodged a complaint about a non-credentialed sUAS operator. If you had not satisfied their interest they would have scheduled a face to face meeting with you."

So while I'm sure many reports can go un-investigated I know 100% for SURE some do get some detailed scrutiny.

 

[RNCotton]

The FAA is not going to waste their resources on a "drone investigation task force."

They make make it sound all good and official at meetings and such, but they are not going to come out and investigate people that part 107 holders call, just because those people didn't get their 107's.

Not gonna happen.

Maybe not, but where it *does* come into play would be a scenario like this:

John has a drone. John flies and makes money. John doesn't have his 107. John does a lot of "dangerous" things like flying jobs BLOS, doing night commercial video, and was paid by a venue to fly over large crowds and video a concert for them. John is very reckless in his flying and will do *ANYTHING* to get the shot.

Billy has his 107, has his daylight waiver, doesn't fly BLOS, doesn't fly over people. Billy has companies ask him to quote a job, and he quotes $150/flight hour. Company after company turn him down because John will do it for $50 and a 6-pack. Billy turns down the job for the concert venue because what they want him to film is not legal to do without a flight over people waiver, so they hire John instead. They give him 10 tickets and tell him "bring your drone and go nuts"

John makes a major pilot error and slams his drone, full speed, into the crowd injuring 2 people in the crash, and causing a panic of drunken concertgoers that mob the exit and trample and injure a dozen more people.

Billy never spoke up about anything John has been doing in the past. The FAA gets involved in the investigation, and although it's a serious offense, John is a first time offender, so they fine him $5,000 which he appeals down to $1,000 with a requirement to get 107.

OR ...

Billy and other pilots have repeatedly filed complaints against John with the FAA. He repeatedly informs them of John's reckless endangerment of people with his unlicensed commercial flying. The FAA never investigates John. But, after this incident, the FAA looks at their records and sees that John has had multiple complaints against him, from multiple pilots. The FAA slaps a $50,000 fine instead and John loses his appeal.

 

[R.Perry]

You both make good points, and yes they will investigate, but I'm wondering if it is based on who is reporting. Obviously if they called you, who ever reported you knew enough about you, or got your drone numbers meaning they were close enough to the drone at some point to read them.
Where I work we have a bunch of professors at the college that have nothing better to do than complain about anything and everything. They have made calls to the FAA, and if they claimed I was endangering students then that would probably be enough to get them out of the office and come take a look.

The thing is if we are all trying our best to play by the rules, then we have little to fear from the FAA, not if there is an accident with injures the NTSB will be knocking at your door and they aren't nice.

 

[BigAl07]

....Obviously if they called you, who ever reported you knew enough about you, or got your drone numbers meaning they were close enough to the drone at some point to read them.....

He didn't have my aircraft information but he had my company name and company phone number. We are a fairly small community and fortunate enough to have our name and logo in both local papers weekly as well as have our company name etc on our cars. Everywhere we go it's easy to get our name and number so it's not a stretch to find my name and the rest is history.

Through some mutual friends we concluded (as best we could with no REAL evidence) that it was a local competitor just starting up a business in my area and trying to cause problems. He "reported" me to the sheriff's office (which I happen to work for occasionally doing SAR) stating I was flying illegally and should be shut down. The sheriff called me stating someone had expressed concerns over my credentials and that he had assured them he was familiar with me and my "abundance of credentials".

 

[S F Ogden]

What about Part 107 pilots who knowingly choose to ignore airspace authorization requirements? I just started a thread over here about a specific case: Case study, appreciate comments: