What Do You Do? - Non 107 pilot flying for business

[Weaponized]

I've been in business for 12 years now. I noticed from the start that some businesses use negative marketing, ie. pointing out the shortcomings of their competitors.

Some can't help themselves. Their business is slow or lacking and in their mind it has to be the fault of their competitors. Sooo they bash them. Sometime subtly, sometimes blatantly. To be clear I'm NOT implying anyone is doing this here BUT...when you're worried about what a competitor is doing, you forget the things you should be doing.

Don't know where I heard this but I've lived by it...

If you have to "un-sell" your competitors to stand out...you pretty much have nothing to sell.

 

[Twenty Eight November]

I've been in business for 12 years now. I noticed from the start that some businesses use negative marketing, ie. pointing out the shortcomings of their competitors.

Some can't help themselves. Their business is slow or lacking and in their mind it has to be the fault of their competitors. Sooo they bash them. Sometime subtly, sometimes blatantly. To be clear I'm NOT implying anyone is doing this here BUT...when you're worried about what a competitor is doing, you forget the things you should be doing.

Don't know where I heard this but I've lived by it...

If you have to "un-sell" your competitors to stand out...you pretty much have nothing to sell.

I think this one is more about someone not following the law and not as much about competition. If someone is out there not following the law then it hurts us all, especially in this industry.

 

[Weaponized]

I think this one is more about someone not following the law and not as much about competition. If someone is out there not following the law then it hurts us all, especially in this industry.

The point was that nothing is fair in business. I have competitors that could be perceived as having an unfair advantage for a variety of reasons, some of which include skirting/breaking the law, or exploiting loopholes in it. They're simply sleazy for a variety of reasons.

It will drive you insane if you focus on what they're doing, or make it your mission to shut them down. The end result is that you're not focusing on yourself. As a small business, for every second spent NOT promoting yourself, there's another competitor who's NOT cheating setting the world on fire, and likely right under your nose.

I compete against them, not the shitbags. There will always be a few and for every one you get rid of, another will slide into their spot. Sure...if they're killing someone that's different but they're largely not worth the effort.

 

[aerialimagery]

I think this one is more about someone not following the law and not as much about competition. If someone is out there not following the law then it hurts us all, especially in this industry.

So if I'm flying my drone safely, making money, but unlicensed, how am I hurting you and others? I don't see what the advantage is, except the negligible fee for the test.

 

[Twenty Eight November]

Ok so I tried the analogy of practicing medicine but it wasn't something you could wrap your heads around so let's look at one closer to home.

What if I started my own aerial photography business. I hire a photographer and instead of a drone we use a light aircraft. We don't have a business license, we aren't insured and neither of us have a sport, recreational or commercial pilot's license. What would be the problem with that? I know how to fly, I started learning to fly when I was 12. I took my part 61 exam and passed when I was 15. I have flown single engine and multi engine and I have flown under VFR and IFR. It just got expensive and I lost interest and never finished training and got my PPL. But I have friends that have their PPL and some that are instructors and when I go up with them I fly the plane. That little picture to the left was me in the front seat of a T6 flying aerobatics while the pilot sat in the back seat just along for the ride. So would it be wrong for me to go out and start an aerial business flying a plane and undercut all of the competition because I didn't see the need for a license or insurance or any of the other expenses that go along with a legitimate business of this type? What's the difference? Do you think that if the airport manager found out I didn't have my license he wouldn't turn me in with the blink of an eye? Or what about the licensed pilot that is running his aerial photography business and finds out I don't have a license, insurance or anything else? Should he just say mind your own business and let it go because he is "flying his plane safely, making money but unlicensed, and isn't hurting you or others"? Don't come back and say it isn't the same because you are talking about a plane and not a drone. There isn't any difference! Both are aircraft. Both are flying in the NAS. Both can cause damage. Both could get someone killed.

We, as in those who give a $h!t about the hobby or the industry, want things to be done safely. Right now the hobby and the industry are under the microscope. The average person who doesn't educate themselves on drones thinks that we are all trying to fly over their house and peep in their windows at night to see some skin on someone. If that was our intent, we could do it a heck of a lot cheaper with a good set of binoculars or a camera with a telephoto lens. Not all but a huge majority of private and commercial pilots see us as a hazard to the NAS and point out every single unsafe thing they see and lump us all together as one even when it is only a small group not following rules. Everywhere you turn there are cities, counties and states putting regulations in place dictating where we can and can't operate. So all it would take is one person that is not following all the rules to have an accident and then the spotlight is going to be on all of us even more than what it is. People don't look at the good in things anymore, they only look at the bad. Remember people don't kill, guns kill!

If a "negligible fee" is all that is keeping this guy from being legitimate and he is out there making money hand over fist then he should just study for the exam, pay the fee, and pass the test like all the rest of us have done. But it isn't about that, he has said that insurance and a license is BS, so with that attitude you can't say he is even flying safely because if he shuns this then I would be willing to bet he is not following any rules. He probably flies above 400 AGL, he probably flies over people, he probably operates from places that the law doesn't allow. He probably thinks all the rules around the hobby or industry are BS as well. Now do I know this for a fact? Absolutely not, but what I do know is if someone actually says (and this guy did according to the OP) that a license is BS, then he probably thinks everything else is as well.

So how does it hurt us? Because all it takes is one person like this disrupting air traffic, causing an accident, or heaven forbid someone getting injured or killed, and then it isn't this one person that was the problem it is everyone that flies a drone or model aircraft or anything that could do the same. So yes it hurts us.

There is a lot more to flying a drone than just getting a license. The license doesn't make the pilot, or make you good at business. I get that! I have spent a few years trying to perfect flying to get that buttery smooth shot that I was looking for, or being able to fly safely in that really tight spot to get that perfect shot that I couldn't capture with a DSLR. Safety is #1 in my full time job, it has to be or someone may die. That philosophy carries over to what I do flying a drone. That is why I have checklists, pre planning, maintenance protocols, logs for everything, I studied for the exam, I got my license, I try to keep an open mind and learn from others in the industry, and I try to do everything to not be that person that does something wrong and draws unwanted negative attention to the drone hobby or industry. If you know someone is doing something wrong, and you turn your back, you are just being complacent. If we don't work to police our own hobby/industry and people keep going off the reservation, then someone else is going to come in and police us and then NONE of us are going to like it. So it hurts us!

 

[aerialimagery]

How is it that making money with a drone is "unsafe" if not licensed but doing the same flying as an unlicensed hobbyist is safe? I'm not "wrapping my head around" THAT idea. So long as unlicensed hobbyists can fly in the same spaces without a license as can those who make money with their drone, I also think the part 107 license is BS.

Also, you continue to bring up "insurance." Insurance is good but is not the law so far as I know it. Shouldn't you also have insurance? I don't fault you that you don't but you could cause just as much damage as someone who is making money with their drone.

Lastly, I don't think these arguments are about safety and the law primarily. They are about frustrated people who are not doing well with their business and who think someone else is "stealing" their customers.

 

[Twenty Eight November]

How is it that making money with a drone is "unsafe" if not licensed but doing the same flying as an unlicensed hobbyist is safe? I'm not "wrapping my head around" THAT idea. So long as unlicensed hobbyists can fly in the same spaces without a license as can those who make money with their drone, I also think the part 107 license is BS.

Also, you continue to bring up "insurance." Insurance is good but is not the law so far as I know it. Shouldn't you also have insurance? I don't fault you that you don't but you could cause just as much damage as someone who is making money with their drone.

Lastly, I don't think these arguments are about safety and the law primarily. They are about frustrated people who are not doing well with their business and who think someone else is "stealing" their customers.

The reality is, you aren't worth my time. Me trying to explain anything to you isn't worth another second of my time because you aren't going to understand how it hurts industry, especially when you think that the license is BS as you just stated. So think how you want. As for me, if I catch someone not following the rules or not having a license when they should have a license, I am going right to FSDO because if I don't then I am doing a disservice to the industry.

 

[Dave Pitman]

How is it that making money with a drone is "unsafe" if not licensed but doing the same flying as an unlicensed hobbyist is safe? I'm not "wrapping my head around" THAT idea. So long as unlicensed hobbyists can fly in the same spaces without a license as can those who make money with their drone, I also think the part 107 license is BS.

Why do you want to make this a philosophical question when it's a simple question regarding the rule of law?

Can someone that does not want to obtain a RP cert. be a safe operator? Sure.
Can that same person be a skilled photographer, cinematographer, etc. ? Sure.
Can that same person make money doing it and remain legal? Nope.

It's very simple. As was mentioned by @Twenty Eight November, the feds have been very clear regarding commercial aviation and that has carried over to uas. If you feel so strongly that the certificate is meaningless, you should be lobbying the feds. Arguing that the "safe" non-certified operator is just as entitled to operate commercially as any certified operator is just simply wrong, sorry.

 

[aerialimagery]

Why do you want to make this a philosophical question when it's a simple question regarding the rule of law?

Can someone that does not want to obtain a RP cert. be a safe operator? Sure.
Can that same person be a skilled photographer, cinematographer, etc. ? Sure.
Can that same person make money doing it and remain legal? Nope.

It's very simple. As was mentioned by @Twenty Eight November, the feds have been very clear regarding commercial aviation and that has carried over to uas. If you feel so strongly that the certificate is meaningless, you should be lobbying the feds. Arguing that the "safe" non-certified operator is just as entitled to operate commercially as any certified operator is just simply wrong, sorry.

"Weaponized" made some good points that I agree with.

Anyway, I think I'm beating this to death, but I'll say it again. It's not so much that they have a problem with someone operating "illegally" but that there seems to be an attitude that that somehow that gives them an unfair advantage and that they're not entitled to whatever money the are making (it belongs to the complainer...)

I agree that pilots should be tested and certified, but until it applies to ALL, it seems very ridiculous to me. It's those who are making money with their drones who are likely to be more safe and careful than those who are not.

Also, I think an owner of a business should be able to use his drone in his own business without having a part 107. For example, why should a quarry owner have to have a part 107 to photograph his own quarry to take measurements, etc., when some kid is flying his drone over his quarry on weekends without a license? It doesn't make much sens to me.. That's a case of the law being unjust an unreasonable, IMHO.

I remember when I was in grade school and one of the kids tattled on another one for using TWO paper towels in the restroom. (The rule was that we were supposed to use only one). Some people are concerned about safety and justice. Others get their jollies by getting someone in trouble.

I'm concerned more about the spirit of the law than the letter of the law. But I do have my part 107 license.

And Mr. Twenty Eight who is flying his drone as a hobbyist and without any insurance stands just as much of a chance of destroying a valuable structure as anyone else, and if that happens it hurts everyone in the industry, according to his logic. But maybe to him insurance is BS?

 

[Dave Pitman]

I agree that pilots should be tested and certified, but until it applies to ALL, it seems very ridiculous to me.

Depending on how the re authorization bill is implemented, you may well get your wish.

It's those who are making money with their drones who are likely to be more safe and careful than those who are not.

That's fine. Wouldn't it also make sense that this responsible, safety conscious individual would also want their business to be on the right side of the law? Why go to all that effort to be safe and build a solid reputation only to risk it by not a acquiring an admittedly easy to get certificate?

Also, I think an owner of a business should be able to use his drone in his own business without having a part 107. For example, why should a quarry owner have to have a part 107 to photograph his own quarry to take measurements, etc., when some kid is flying his drone over his quarry on weekends without a license? It doesn't make much sens to me.. That's a case of the law being unjust an unreasonable, IMHO.

We're all allowed to have our opinion and lobby or discuss our views. But just because we may disagree with a law or regulation doesn't mean that we won't be held accountable for our disregard. Part of that accounting may be that our peers may report our illegal activity.

I'm sure we all have bent a law from time to time in our daily lives. But I don't think a responsible person goes out and blatantly breaks laws every day like the uncertified commercial uas op is doing every time they operate for hire, whether they think the law is worthy or not.

 

[Twenty Eight November]

"Weaponized" made some good points that I agree with.

Anyway, I think I'm beating this to death, but I'll say it again. It's not so much that they have a problem with someone operating "illegally" but that there seems to be an attitude that that somehow that gives them an unfair advantage and that they're not entitled to whatever money the are making (it belongs to the complainer...)

I agree that pilots should be tested and certified, but until it applies to ALL, it seems very ridiculous to me. It's those who are making money with their drones who are likely to be more safe and careful than those who are not.

Also, I think an owner of a business should be able to use his drone in his own business without having a part 107. For example, why should a quarry owner have to have a part 107 to photograph his own quarry to take measurements, etc., when some kid is flying his drone over his quarry on weekends without a license? It doesn't make much sens to me.. That's a case of the law being unjust an unreasonable, IMHO.

I remember when I was in grade school and one of the kids tattled on another one for using TWO paper towels in the restroom. (The rule was that we were supposed to use only one). Some people are concerned about safety and justice. Others get their jollies by getting someone in trouble.

I'm concerned more about the spirit of the law than the letter of the law. But I do have my part 107 license.

And Mr. Twenty Eight who is flying his drone as a hobbyist and without any insurance stands just as much of a chance of destroying a valuable structure as anyone else, and if that happens it hurts everyone in the industry, according to his logic. But maybe to him insurance is BS?

I guess you never really read posts. I fly both as a hobbyist and under 107. And I am insured either way.

 

[BigAl07]

Also, I think an owner of a business should be able to use his drone in his own business without having a part 107. For example, why should a quarry owner have to have a part 107 to photograph his own quarry to take measurements, etc., when some kid is flying his drone over his quarry on weekends without a license? It doesn't make much sens to me.. That's a case of the law being unjust an unreasonable, IMHO.

I think your point would be better stated, IMHO, like this:

"The kid flying the same drone, over the same quarry at the same height should have the same license and other regulatory requirements as the business owner doing the same thing"

That's a case of the law being unjust an unreasonable, IMHO.

First off let's get something clear... if the FAA could have made every sUAS operator abide by the same rules & regulations that is exactly where we would be today. And to that course, it's most likely where we are headed at least to some degree. The FAA didn't want a diverse set of rules for people operating the same aircraft, in the same location. It was not their decision to make and it has been a thorn in their side since the day it became law: 02/14/2012 Became Public Law No: 112-95

When lobbyist went to work prior to 2012 in efforts to protect those of us who have been flying these things for decades (And extremely safe and SELF POLICING by the way) it started a huge ripple in the sUAS arena. They were trying to make it to where hobby/recreational operators who flew R/C planes & heli from designated flying sites and who flew strictly according to AMA (the only CBO recognized but not officially named) were immune to new FAA rules designed for MultiRotors and other "Auto Flying" aircraft. They wanted to keep our flying fields open and us flying for fun without FAA interruption.

The problem is that Congress was very short sighted, did not know what they were talking about, and did not do ANY type of research into new sUAS Tech and how it was actively blowing up into a HUGE industry. They created the "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 " which literally tied the FAA's hands behind their backs in regards to hobby/recreational flying. Unfortunately it wasn't well written, well researched, or well understood by those writing it and it created a patch-work of sUAS regulations that have been a joke since day one. It inadvertently gave protection to operators who didn't know how to fly, how to learn the rules and regs, and often times who didn't CARE what they were. Just claim you're flying for fun and the sky is your apple. It was a mistake the minute the inked dried on the document.

Rest assured the FAA wanted (and should have) full regulation over all aircraft (models, rocket,s balloons, manned aircraft etc) and hopefully this is what we are well on our way to gaining in the near future. Now that 336 has been put out to pasture we might seem some sensible HOBBY regulations going forward.