Would you bother...

[BigAl07]

Hello and welcome to the Commercial Drone Pilots forum @dangerd. We are glad to have you on board. I'm confident you'll find lots of helpful and enlightening information throughout this forum.

If you haven't already done so, consider adding your LOCATION to your forum profile to help us know where you are when you post suggestions or ask for assistance. It helps a lot more than you might think especially because this is an international forum with members from all parts of the world. Here's a direct link to yours:

https://commercialdronepilots.com/account/personal-details

Allen

 

[aerialimagery]

Aerial, it seems you dislike the government, but enjoy the freedom? All were trying to do is tell you what the current law is for conducting business using a drone. Your making it a bigger deal of this than we are! Bottom line you don't seem like rules and regulations?

Bottom line is that I don't mind if an unlicensed drone pilot photographs his own business with his own drone, and then uses those images for business purposes. I stated that and it was others who challenged me for stating that, besides implying that I had some kind of bad attitude that went against the "drone industry" or that I'm just a hobbyist who doesn't get it.

I don't see the harm in it. It seems very reasonable and just. And it's no more unsafe than all the other hobbyists out there flying their drones just for fun.

What DOES bother me is when they think that sending a drone into sky makes them an "aerial photographer" who can produce aesthetic, well-composed images that are on the same level as what a professional photographer can do. But many Part 107 pilots are in that same boat. They think if they have a drone and a licence that that means they are "aerial photographers," but judging by many websites I've seen, most of them don't have good photography skills and their work is very sub-professional. (Note, I'm referring to taking aesthetic photos and videos. Construction progress and mapping is in a different category as I see it). But it's my problem and my job to communicate my abilities to prospective customers.

I do like rules and regulations. I just don't like when rules and regulations or the application of them go beyond what is reasonable. And stating that opinion and not caring if business owners use their own drone in their own business is not breaking any rules or regulations.

 

[AH-1G]

Bottom line is that I don't mind if an unlicensed drone pilot photographs his own business with his own drone, and then uses those images for business purposes. I stated that and it was others who challenged me for stating that, besides implying that I had some kind of bad attitude that went against the "drone industry" or that I'm just a hobbyist who doesn't get it.

I don't see the harm in it. It seems very reasonable and just. And it's no more unsafe than all the other hobbyists out there flying their drones just for fun.

What DOES bother me is when they think that sending a drone into sky makes them an "aerial photographer" who can produce aesthetic, well-composed images that are on the same level as what a professional photographer can do. But many Part 107 pilots are in that same boat. They think if they have a drone and a licence that that means they are "aerial photographers," but judging by many websites I've seen, most of them don't have good photography skills and their work is very sub-professional. (Note, I'm referring to taking aesthetic photos and videos. Construction progress and mapping is in a different category as I see it). But it's my problem and my job to communicate my abilities to prospective customers.

I do like rules and regulations. I just don't like when rules and regulations or the application of them go beyond what is reasonable. And stating that opinion and not caring if business owners use their own drone in their own business is not breaking any rules or regulations.

It doesn't matter what you think, its the current regulation that's enforced and rather then hem hawing about it, just accept it.

You may not see harm but aviation does.

"reasonable" is a very open ended opinion, so FAA has to set a standard for now.

Just get your 107 and there won't be any issues, hopefully?

 

[aerialimagery]

It doesn't matter what you think, its the current regulation that's enforced and rather then hem hawing about it, just accept it.

You may not see harm but aviation does.

"reasonable" is a very open ended opinion, so FAA has to set a standard for now.

Just get your 107 and there won't be any issues, hopefully?

One last comment and then I'm done beating this horse.

John owns a nursery and takes pictures of it with his drone because he thinks they look cool. His brother Joe also owns a nursery and takes similar drone photos of his similar nursery. Except Joe uses his photos to count his trees and keep track of inventory.

John and Joe are doing exactly the same thing. Except...Joe is breaking the law. That's the absurdity of applying this regulation without using any common sense.

Joe is not harming anyone.

I hope you've changed your evil ways and are obeying the speed limits these days. A government regulation is a government regulation. And yes I do have my 107.

 

[AH-1G]

One last comment and then I'm done beating this horse.

John owns a nursery and takes pictures of it with his drone because he thinks they look cool. His brother Joe also owns a nursery and takes similar drone photos of his similar nursery. Except Joe uses his photos to count his trees and keep track of inventory.

John and Joe are doing exactly the same thing. Except...Joe is breaking the law. That's the absurdity of applying this regulation without using any common sense.

Joe is not harming anyone.

I hope you've changed your evil ways and are obeying the speed limits these days. A government regulation is a government regulation. And yes I do have my 107.

You just don't get it! Advertising vs: not advertising.

 

[Geo_in_KS]

One last comment and then I'm done beating this horse.

John owns a nursery and takes pictures of it with his drone because he thinks they look cool. His brother Joe also owns a nursery and takes similar drone photos of his similar nursery. Except Joe uses his photos to count his trees and keep track of inventory.

John and Joe are doing exactly the same thing. Except...Joe is breaking the law. That's the absurdity of applying this regulation without using any common sense.

Joe is not harming anyone.

I hope you've changed your evil ways and are obeying the speed limits these days. A government regulation is a government regulation. And yes I do have my 107.

Ok, I have to throw in my 2 cents after reading through every post.
First, to address this specific example; if John is taking pictures of his nursery with his drone because he thinks they look cool, and not putting them on a website for his nursery, TV, etc. then thats fine, its for "his pleasure" (IE, hobby). Joe is using his drone as a business tool, and as per FAA regulations, must have the proper licensing to do so.
Heres a more direct comparison I thought of after reading your first response to this subject:
I own a large farm and sell cattle, I have enough property to build a grass runway so I go buy a Cessna 172. I dont want to spend all the money & time to get a pilots license but I want to fly my new plane to check out my herd sometimes. Im not hauling any passengers, charging any money or anything, and just flying over my property, so thats fine right?
Another example, on my farm I need to haul my crops to the mill and I bought a semi truck/trailer, its mine so I dont have to get a CDL to drive it on the road (false).
(just a big example by the way, I dont have a plane, farm, truck or cattle).
Anyway, just my contribution to the discussion. Oddly, in a way, I actually agree with you aerial, but rules are rules.

 

[aerialimagery]

Ok, I have to throw in my 2 cents after reading through every post.
First, to address this specific example; if John is taking pictures of his nursery with his drone because he thinks they look cool, and not putting them on a website for his nursery, TV, etc. then thats fine, its for "his pleasure" (IE, hobby). Joe is using his drone as a business tool, and as per FAA regulations, must have the proper licensing to do so.
Heres a more direct comparison I thought of after reading your first response to this subject:
I own a large farm and sell cattle, I have enough property to build a grass runway so I go buy a Cessna 172. I dont want to spend all the money & time to get a pilots license but I want to fly my new plane to check out my herd sometimes. Im not hauling any passengers, charging any money or anything, and just flying over my property, so thats fine right?
Another example, on my farm I need to haul my crops to the mill and I bought a semi truck/trailer, its mine so I dont have to get a CDL to drive it on the road (false).
(just a big example by the way, I dont have a plane, farm, truck or cattle).
Anyway, just my contribution to the discussion. Oddly, in a way, I actually agree with you aerial, but rules are rules.

I don't think your 172 analogy works because it's illegal to fly it without a license, whether your are commercial or not. No license is needed for a hobbyist to fly a drone.

As far as your truck analogy goes, it would be more in line with my reasoning if you said you were going to buy a large truck and only drive it on your own property without the CDL.

Anyway, I do have my 107 because I am doing and pursuing commercial work and it would annoy me if I'm competing with someone else does not have a license and who is going after the same customers, but I would never complain about a farmer using a drone to fly only fly his own property without a license. He's not hurting anyone. That's where the law is going too far, and it would surprise me if it were enforced to that extreme. Besides, how would anyone know? I think maybe the direction things should go is that EVERYONE should have to pass a test and have a license. People who use them for business are naturally going to be more careful and safer. It seems strange to me that the FAA seems to be implying that the hobbyist will naturally be safer and doesn't need a license.

 

[Geo_in_KS]

Ok, you're right, my analogies probably didn't align real close to what you were trying to explain.
Who knows, maybe the laws will change, its still a very young industry.

 

[BigAl07]

I think maybe the direction things should go is that EVERYONE should have to pass a test and have a license.

I fully agree 1,000,000% there

It seems strange to me that the FAA seems to be implying that the hobbyist will naturally be safer and doesn't need a license.

There is a piece of the puzzle you're not aware of. The FAA does NOT think that hobbyist are safer and if they had their wishes EVERYONE would be taking the test (much like ALL manned pilots take some level of testing if Sport, Rec, Private etc).

In 2012 Congress tied the FAA's hands when lobbyists (money handlers) persuaded the FAA to "Carve Out" a special "Exemption" for hobbyist from the FARs. Basically the "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012" created a very specific "Bubble of protection" for hobbyist and pretty much forbade the FAA from making any new rules/laws against hobbyists. This "Carve Out" is now Section 336 which is why they are protected from Part 107 law.

The FAA does NOT think hobbyist are safer but they are indeed "protected" from Part 107 so long as they meet EVERY criteria to operate within Section 336. The moment they pierce that protective bubble they are subject to ALL of Part 107.