What rules can be "bent"?
- Thread starter aerialimagery
- Start date
Driving slightly over the speed limit is an odd analogy and I'm not sure it applies here. If you're talking about a hypothetical situation where it is impossible to hurt others with your actions, then my answer is pretty irrelevant. In that case my challenge to you would be it isn't a question of "can you bend the rules" as much as "can you challenge yourself to be more creative and solve your problem without bending/breaking the rules."
If you're talking about a situation where speeding, or in this case flying, could actually cause another person or multiple people harm, then aren't you really just putting your needs before the safety of others around you? I guess we'll always have people that do that in society and people that don't. Either way, that seems really more of an issue for a forum on morals than drones IMO.
With that said, I'd prefer if we all operate under the assumption that we all follow the rules to the best of our ability here. It seems to me anyone implying otherwise puts themselves and their business on unstable legal ground, and is creating evidence to be used against themselves in future legal cases.
TBH I was unsure whether I should even respond to this thread considering the title.
If you're talking about a situation where speeding, or in this case flying, could actually cause another person or multiple people harm, then aren't you really just putting your needs before the safety of others around you? I guess we'll always have people that do that in society and people that don't. Either way, that seems really more of an issue for a forum on morals than drones IMO.
With that said, I'd prefer if we all operate under the assumption that we all follow the rules to the best of our ability here. It seems to me anyone implying otherwise puts themselves and their business on unstable legal ground, and is creating evidence to be used against themselves in future legal cases.
TBH I was unsure whether I should even respond to this thread considering the title.
Last edited:
Ironically you've given one of the best replies (IMHO) to date on this topic.
"Driving slightly over the speed limit is an odd analogy and I'm not sure it applies here. "
I didn't say "slightly" and why doesn't the analogy work?
I didn't say "slightly" and why doesn't the analogy work?
I’ve been working on and making a nice living on a television show for three seasons because the guy before me had an issue with safety and regulations. Because I was on set in a different capacity and already had my 333 along with a good repretation for safety and integrity, I was handed the gig.
While I appreciate the work, I would really appreciate those who work as professional operators following regulations even if you don’t agree with them just to “get the shot”. Doing it outside of that, but in your opinion safely, is just that, your opinion. Incident or not, once it goes public, the die is cast to add to the ever growing number of rules and restrictions which the government feels necessary because of irresponsible operators.
Lastly, as a private pilot, I agree with the other private pilot who commented that we don’t get to ignore procedure just because we think it can be done safely. We usually never have the full picture, and arrogance is a bad trait for anyone let alone a pilot.
While I appreciate the work, I would really appreciate those who work as professional operators following regulations even if you don’t agree with them just to “get the shot”. Doing it outside of that, but in your opinion safely, is just that, your opinion. Incident or not, once it goes public, the die is cast to add to the ever growing number of rules and restrictions which the government feels necessary because of irresponsible operators.
Lastly, as a private pilot, I agree with the other private pilot who commented that we don’t get to ignore procedure just because we think it can be done safely. We usually never have the full picture, and arrogance is a bad trait for anyone let alone a pilot.
Did I say I have an "issue" with safety and regulations? Is it arrogance to ask?
I'm just making a conversation.
I also made a point there are those who say they do everything exactly by the book, but then they have no problem driving 75 in a 65 zone. Why is that? (BTW, that's something I won't do. Why should I risk my life and the lives of others to shave a few minutes off my driving time?)
I have flown with many pilots who are flight instructors or commercial pilots who happily descended below 1,000 feet over populated areas for me to get the photos I needed, because they thought they could do so safely (because of surrounding terrain and places they could land, etc.). One of those pilots was a full time air traffic controller.
So tell me please why it's ok to drive over the speed limit but arrogant and unsafe to fly a drone at 415 feet? Or would you let that slide?
If you're in a controlled airspace and meet a fellow who wants to buy your drone, would you fly it at 10 feet just to show him that it works or is that a violation that is unsafe? I posed that question to someone at the FAA and his response was "use common sense."
If you have authorization to fly according the to grid and one of your targets is half way in a 100' cell, and the other half in a 0 cell, would you fly a few yards into the 0 cell to get views from that angle, or will you limit your flight to go no further than that exact cell line and not cross it even by an inch? Would it be arrogant and unsafe to access the situation, see that there is no air traffic, take into account the 200' radio tower nearby, and make the judgement that it would be perfectly safe to fly the drone a 100 yards within the zero cell?
I'm not talking about flagrant violations or buzzing a busy terminal, but about those things on the "edge" and fall within a general rule of "common sense."
I'm just making a conversation.
I also made a point there are those who say they do everything exactly by the book, but then they have no problem driving 75 in a 65 zone. Why is that? (BTW, that's something I won't do. Why should I risk my life and the lives of others to shave a few minutes off my driving time?)
I have flown with many pilots who are flight instructors or commercial pilots who happily descended below 1,000 feet over populated areas for me to get the photos I needed, because they thought they could do so safely (because of surrounding terrain and places they could land, etc.). One of those pilots was a full time air traffic controller.
So tell me please why it's ok to drive over the speed limit but arrogant and unsafe to fly a drone at 415 feet? Or would you let that slide?
If you're in a controlled airspace and meet a fellow who wants to buy your drone, would you fly it at 10 feet just to show him that it works or is that a violation that is unsafe? I posed that question to someone at the FAA and his response was "use common sense."
If you have authorization to fly according the to grid and one of your targets is half way in a 100' cell, and the other half in a 0 cell, would you fly a few yards into the 0 cell to get views from that angle, or will you limit your flight to go no further than that exact cell line and not cross it even by an inch? Would it be arrogant and unsafe to access the situation, see that there is no air traffic, take into account the 200' radio tower nearby, and make the judgement that it would be perfectly safe to fly the drone a 100 yards within the zero cell?
I'm not talking about flagrant violations or buzzing a busy terminal, but about those things on the "edge" and fall within a general rule of "common sense."
Last edited:
I'm sorry you misunderstood my use of the word arrogant, and I apologize for that. This indeed is a good conversation.
I was referring to manned aircraft, and how not staying within procedure is a recipe for disaster, because of the fact you usually don't know everything about a particular situation, so deviation unless in an emergency is never a good idea. Your pilot friends were more than likely in the right. I don't know where you were, but you're obviously quoting the minimum over congested areas. Part 91.119 also says... "Anywhere – An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface." When your over sparsely populated or water the minimum is 500 feet.
But thats a minimum right? I will also bet that they didn't descend into a class of airspace requiring authorization without it even for a minute, at least I hope they didn't, and thats what I'm trying to explain here.
I'm probably also a little touchy when it comes to regulations anyway, because a violation with a UAV leading to a suspension, also suspends all other certificates you have until resolution. Could you imagine an ATP suspended because of a drone. Hopefully we never hear that one. When it comes to all the effort and fortune you've spent pursuing your love of aviation, an airspace violation is just not worth it for me even if I had the dang thing tethered.
So my answer to your question is no. I have had many times including today, to tell the producers I cannot fly where they want me to, and yes I have been asked "what if its just 10 or 20 feet of the ground" and the answer is still no.
When it comes to arrogance, we all can produce it. If I apply it to UAV operation and your conversation starter, than I would repeat what I said, in that its never an issue, until there's an issue. When SHTF, the whole professional community takes a hit along with the person who caused it, so instead (and I don't mean you) of saying "well maybe," we should all be saying "definitely not!"
More regulation? Increased scrutiny? I was just on set where they hired a helicopter because I couldn't fly there. It came with 2 FAA safety monitors from the local FSDO!
I'm lucky I have a regular drone job right now, and one day that will end when this show wraps. We all know with the current system its almost impossible to make a living unless your in Class G all the time.
Don't let ourselves believe its ok to, as you put it in your driving analogy, to put others at risk, because there IS a lot more at risk than a bad shot.
I was referring to manned aircraft, and how not staying within procedure is a recipe for disaster, because of the fact you usually don't know everything about a particular situation, so deviation unless in an emergency is never a good idea. Your pilot friends were more than likely in the right. I don't know where you were, but you're obviously quoting the minimum over congested areas. Part 91.119 also says... "Anywhere – An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface." When your over sparsely populated or water the minimum is 500 feet.
But thats a minimum right? I will also bet that they didn't descend into a class of airspace requiring authorization without it even for a minute, at least I hope they didn't, and thats what I'm trying to explain here.
I'm probably also a little touchy when it comes to regulations anyway, because a violation with a UAV leading to a suspension, also suspends all other certificates you have until resolution. Could you imagine an ATP suspended because of a drone. Hopefully we never hear that one. When it comes to all the effort and fortune you've spent pursuing your love of aviation, an airspace violation is just not worth it for me even if I had the dang thing tethered.
So my answer to your question is no. I have had many times including today, to tell the producers I cannot fly where they want me to, and yes I have been asked "what if its just 10 or 20 feet of the ground" and the answer is still no.
When it comes to arrogance, we all can produce it. If I apply it to UAV operation and your conversation starter, than I would repeat what I said, in that its never an issue, until there's an issue. When SHTF, the whole professional community takes a hit along with the person who caused it, so instead (and I don't mean you) of saying "well maybe," we should all be saying "definitely not!"
More regulation? Increased scrutiny? I was just on set where they hired a helicopter because I couldn't fly there. It came with 2 FAA safety monitors from the local FSDO!
I'm lucky I have a regular drone job right now, and one day that will end when this show wraps. We all know with the current system its almost impossible to make a living unless your in Class G all the time.
Don't let ourselves believe its ok to, as you put it in your driving analogy, to put others at risk, because there IS a lot more at risk than a bad shot.
Just be careful, folks. I'm working with a company that uses AI to determine whether a given video was shot illegally. You can expect that the FAA will be using it. Just saying....
R.Perry
Well-Known Member
I got my pilots license in 1978, over the years I have learned a couple of things about the FAA. They are much different than traffic cops, and each FAA individual is different. I have landed below minimums a couple of times and got talked to but that was about it. However they don't tolerate stupid and I have seen some pilots get their clock cleaned for doing dumb things. There is an old saying "there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots" If you push the envelop long enough, it will bite you. I have learned in my old age that rules are normally there to protect you and others. Some rules are designed to protect you from yourself.
R.Perry
Well-Known Member
If your aircraft is 900 feet AGL over a city you better be on approach or departure or the FAA may use your license for wall paper. When doing a downwind on a VFR approach you maintain 1000 ft AGL until you turn on to your base. Altitude is your friend, the ground isn't.
You have an assignment to take pretty pictures of the store you see in the close up below. You can see in the image on the left that it is located in a cell where the height restriction is zero. On the east side there is 300' clearance. You have authorization to fly the area according to the grid.
You could take photos from the east side including the parking lot and get some nice shots of the front of the store. But the customer also wants a few photos of that little nook on the north side, looking into it from the north.
Would it be unsafe to cross that line about a hundred yards to the west of it at 100' to take a few photos of that space? Do you think if you did that you could get in big trouble for it if caught? (For the sake of this argument the only way to get the photos that the client needs is to put the drone in that space).
Or is that line set in stone and you won't fly even a foot to the west of it?
You could take photos from the east side including the parking lot and get some nice shots of the front of the store. But the customer also wants a few photos of that little nook on the north side, looking into it from the north.
Would it be unsafe to cross that line about a hundred yards to the west of it at 100' to take a few photos of that space? Do you think if you did that you could get in big trouble for it if caught? (For the sake of this argument the only way to get the photos that the client needs is to put the drone in that space).
Or is that line set in stone and you won't fly even a foot to the west of it?
Yes it's illegal to cross that line by "about a hundred yards". A ZERO height area is a ZERO area period. Would there be a problem if you went a couple of feet into the area? Maybe not but 100' or 200' or 300'???
We are just now getting Airspace Authorizations to work in our benefit and we are already trying to bend the rules. SMH.
This is why we are having such a hard time with regulations. This thread is a classic example of why we are jumping through these hoops today when just a few years ago common sense and safety was the rule of the day... today maybe not as much.
@aerialimagery is it really worth losing your flying privs, your business, and possible fines to go that extra 100 yards into the ZERO height zone? I really hope the answer is a big resounding NEGATIVE!!
We are just now getting Airspace Authorizations to work in our benefit and we are already trying to bend the rules. SMH.
This is why we are having such a hard time with regulations. This thread is a classic example of why we are jumping through these hoops today when just a few years ago common sense and safety was the rule of the day... today maybe not as much.
@aerialimagery is it really worth losing your flying privs, your business, and possible fines to go that extra 100 yards into the ZERO height zone? I really hope the answer is a big resounding NEGATIVE!!
Simple.
Explain to the client that you are not prepared to fly outside of permissions granted and certainly not to compromise safety.
At the end of the day you have the final say whether a flight takes place or not - not the client.
If he jumps up,and down and rants that he want his picture from that angle, I smile, pack up, and walk away. My retainer, deposit for the job which is non refundable has already taken care of expenses so I am not out of pocket.
I have absolutely no problem playing devil's advocate or pushing the limits in a DISCUSSION. Talking about something and questioning rules and trying to figure out what will be enforced and what is a common sense "bending," as so many here will happily do on the highways, is not wrong. (But it is wrong to pocket someone's deposit who didn't completely understand that something couldn't be done).
I'm not saying I have done or plan to do any of these things. But IMHO, it's not unsafe to veer three hundred feet into that cell, no more than it is to go 70 in a 60 zone if conditions allow for it, and IMHO the FAA is not looking to bust anyone over that. (I was given permission from an air traffic controller to fly in a zero cell. He said he had more important things to worry about than a drone at 100 feet. I ended up not doing it because I couldn't unlock my drone and used a plane instead. But he was more than willing to bend the rule for me).
I'm not saying I have done or plan to do any of these things. But IMHO, it's not unsafe to veer three hundred feet into that cell, no more than it is to go 70 in a 60 zone if conditions allow for it, and IMHO the FAA is not looking to bust anyone over that. (I was given permission from an air traffic controller to fly in a zero cell. He said he had more important things to worry about than a drone at 100 feet. I ended up not doing it because I couldn't unlock my drone and used a plane instead. But he was more than willing to bend the rule for me).
My contracts (which the client signs) stipulates the deposit is non refundable (for exactly reasons like this).
My risk assements and site survey will determine what can and cannot be achieved which is made very clear to the client.
I also make it abundantly clear I will not fly outside of my CAA granted permissions for ANY reason.
Thanks for the explanation, but I don't understand your process or why the need to charge for risk assessment.
If that store had contacted me about photography I would have looked at it on this chart and I could say it will cost $X for photography from mostly the front side and that I am limited to that side because of FAA restrictions. They can agree to the price or pass. Why would I need to charge them anything to make a price quote?
