What rules can be "bent"?

[aerialimagery]

I contacted the FAA for clarification basically asking whether there was any room regarding these lines, and this was the response, so that's that. I'm wondering if asking for "additional authorization" for those circumstances will take even more time than the usual requests.

"There are no negotiations in regards to the quadrants. The latitude or longitude that identifies that quadrant is the absolute. In the case below, if the back of the building is within a “0” quadrant then, an additional authorization will need to be requested. Because it is a “0” quadrant, I or another specialist, have to forward the request to the ATC facility for their review and approval."

 

[The Editor]

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?

I’m in the UK. Our rules are slightly different over here.

 

[aerialimagery]

I’m in the UK. Our rules are slightly different over here.

OK, thanks for clarifying that. Do you have to apply for authorizations like we do and does it take much time for them to be approved?

 

[The Editor]

OK, thanks for clarifying that. Do you have to apply for authorizations like we do and does it take much time for them to be approved?

Not really (although ATC has to be informed for certain classes of airspace).
We do it the other way round in as much as so long as a building/area/person/structure etc is under our control we are able to fly the mission.
For people, buildings, structures, vehicles etc not under our control we are able to fly within 50m (30m for take off and landings).

 

[Newton Ware]

Ok, so what’s the harm in “bending the rules”, right? We all drive a little over the limit, right?

But how do you feel about all of those real estate folks, (and others), flying drones and doing jobs and not bothering to get a license, because “what’s the big deal?” While folks who do the right thing can’t find work or make decent wages?

I told my kids growing up that all the drinking and driving might seem like fun, and you may get away with it many times. But the first time you don’t get away with it, all those other times don’t matter any more.

Life is all about making decisions, make good ones.

 

[AH-1G]

I'm sure if a Real Estate Broker found out somebody selling property with out a proper license they would be the first to squeal to authorities!

 

[aerialimagery]

Well I found out that the FAA is a lot touchier about those lines than I thought they were. Now I know.

But as far as realtors flying without a license--it doesn't bother me. They wouldn't buy my services anyway, and as long as they're doing it safely I'm not going to squeal on them. If they're being unsafe, then I'll report them, but not because I think they are taking business from me. That would be spiteful.

 

[Rodger]

If you have authorization to fly according to the grid and you have a subject barely in a "0" cell, but adjacent to one that can be flown, would you fly it? I had one like that, and decided to call the tower the day of the photography to see if they would give me a break, and the controller told me to go ahead and do it, but don't tell anyone he said so. So I don't know what would have happened if I had been caught, and I ended up not doing it anyway because I had to unlock the drone and didn't know how to at that time.

Or let's say you don't have any authorization to fly in class E, but you have a subject just barely inside it. Do you think it would be ok to go ahead and do it so long as you do so safely?

And to those who will cite the exact letter of the law--when you're driving do you ever exceed the speed limit?

At any rate, the current regulations and waiting times are interfering with business that can be conducted safely with or without the approval of the FAA.

This is my big problem, now that I know, I would be scared to heck to do something wrong. If the controller said don't tell anyone that I said so means that he knows you should not be doing it and he will deny ever talking to you in the first place. Always safer to follow the Rules and Regulations.

 

[924]

Isn't it possible to bend a rule and be safe at the same time? You break the speeding laws but I presume you do so safely?

Isn't it possible to fly your drone at 425 feet safely?

I have flown with many pilots who have bent the minimum altitude regulations in order to get lower and closer to my photography subject, but they did so safely, where they had a place to land in case of engine failure, etc.

I'm just saying that I don't agree with your premise that bending a rule here and there will lead to disregard for safety and the spirit of the law.

 

[924]

Of course it's possible to bend a rule and still be safe but the best answer to your question that I can think of NOT to do it isn't the possible fine you might have to pay if you get caught. It's the risk of overregulation that will likely result from a hundred guys who bend that rule and will be caught. We're all going to pay when there are enough examples of rule-bending to lead the rule-makers to conclude that...whoa...we have to ground these drone pilots.

I'm inclined to follow the rules "just because," but courtesy to my peers is an even better reason.

 

[aerialimagery]

I wonder why they at least don't give us 50' automatically everywhere (or almost everywhere). Or 50' above the highest object within 100' laterally.

 

[924]

Don't call it a drone. Call it a kite.