Got a call from the FAA today

johan · Jul 9, 2015

Also student pilot solo flights are fair game. Private pilots are allowed to use certified aircraft for commercial photography. Student pilots are not. Therefore any youtube videos posted showing a student pilot flying solo is an example of an illegal commercial operation.

There are TONS of these clips on youtube. Does anyone believe for a moment that FAA wants to try to pursue certificate actions on each and every one of these pilots? If what they're trying to do with drone pilots ends up causing them more grief than they're giving out, they will stop doing it.

Stevenas · Jul 9, 2015

redmoe said:
So he was asserting that posting it to YouTube made it other than hobby use? The PDF he sent you is specifically referring to civil and commercial use. Not sure how you evaluate LOS from a video either.

I guess the take away is do your best not to piss people off (seems obvious) and do post the evidence.

Cant wait for them to start monitoring the flight logs. I'm sure they will be able to justify the intrusion.

I can only assume he thought I was making money from my You Tube account. I am aware that YT will pay out if you have A LOT of clicks on your video. But mine are not even over 200 views. The other point he touched on was danger over crowds or flying beyond line of sight. Which is never obvious in my posted videos.
I guess he is using a general, blanket bluff like he has used many times before on others.
Like he stated: "As the UAS Focal Point for all of Arkansas I receive links, phone calls, letters, emails, etc daily regarding various UAS/Drone ops in the state. Your video was just one of many."

SteveMann · Jul 9, 2015

Stevenas said:
A few days ago I posted video of the 4th of July fireworks in my community as shot from my P2V+.
Well today I get a call from my local FAA official warning me of possible federal violations from my posted flights. For example, flying over crowds, flying at night, flying for commercial purposes and flying out of visual line of sight of the aircraft.
I asked him how he discovered my "possible violations" and I got this reply in an e-mail:
"Steven,
As the UAS Focal Point for all of Arkansas I receive links, phone calls, letters, emails, etc daily regarding various UAS/Drone ops in the state. Your video was just one of many."

Do these people search You Tube or FB for this sort of thing or do you think the actually received a complaint?

Anyone else have a similar experience?

If you think for a split second that this call came from the FAA or any other authority, then I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I’d like to sell you, cheap.

You've been pranked.

The FAA will not use the telephone in that manner. All initial contacts with potential rule violations is in writing. You can look through the enforcement guidelines "Order 2150.3B - FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program" [link], but you will not find any directive for a Compliance and Enforcement action by telephone. Especially when the phone caller is quoting non-existent regulations. There are no FAA rules about flying over crowds, flying at night and flying out of visual line of sight of the aircraft. Flying for commercial purposes may violate Part 41 rules, but the FAA got their hand slapped by the NTSB when they tried enforcing that rule on Raphael Pirker. No drone operator has been charged with violating any FAA regulations since the Pirker debacle.

The FAA Enforcement and Compliance division first sends a civil penalty letter to the person charged with a violation. The civil penalty letter contains a statement of the charges, the applicable law, rule, regulation, or order, the amount of civil penalty that the Administrator will accept in full settlement of the action or an offer to compromise the civil penalty.

If you or anyone else gets a similar call, ask the caller which division and region of the FAA they belong to. Get their name. Get a callback number. (It's a prank call, so don't expect any cooperation). What FAA rule number, are you supposedly violating? Then call your nearest FSDO (Flight Standards District Offices) with that information. If it is an FAA employee, then they are in trouble for making this kind of phone call contrary to policy. If it's a prank call the FAA may ask the DOT Inspector General or the FBI to investigate the call because it's a felony to impersonate an agency official.

Did the email have an faa.gov address, or did it look like this one from an AOL address:
"FAA laws currently state that UAV/UAS are not to be flown for professional usage, yet your website clearly states that you are offering professional photos and videos for compensation. The current fines for offering drone services without a permit is $5000. The FAA is scheduled to release it’s new laws September 2015 however currently you are in violation. I would suggest you change your offerings until you obtain the proper FAA certification."

Did either the eMail or Phone caller tell you to take down your video? If yes, then it most certainly is not an FAA official because John Duncan, director of the FAA’s Flight Standard Service, told inspectors in April (2015) that they have no authority to order or suggest that drone videos posted online be removed. A video “is ordinarily not sufficient evidence alone to determine” that a drone flight violated federal rules, he wrote in a memo.

You've been pranked.

redmoe · Jul 9, 2015

if folks stopped being stupid and getting these things in the media we would be all good. I guess it nice to dream.

Stevenas · Jul 9, 2015

SteveMann said:
If you think for a split second that this call came from the FAA or any other authority, then I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I’d like to sell you, cheap.

You've been pranked.

The FAA will not use the telephone in that manner. All initial contacts with potential rule violations is in writing. You can look through the enforcement guidelines "Order 2150.3B - FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program" [link], but you will not find any directive for a Compliance and Enforcement action by telephone. Especially when the phone caller is quoting non-existent regulations. There are no FAA rules about flying over crowds, flying at night and flying out of visual line of sight of the aircraft. Flying for commercial purposes may violate Part 41 rules, but the FAA got their hand slapped by the NTSB when they tried enforcing that rule on Raphael Pirker. No drone operator has been charged with violating any FAA regulations since the Pirker debacle.

The FAA Enforcement and Compliance division first sends a civil penalty letter to the person charged with a violation. The civil penalty letter contains a statement of the charges, the applicable law, rule, regulation, or order, the amount of civil penalty that the Administrator will accept in full settlement of the action or an offer to compromise the civil penalty.

If you or anyone else gets a similar call, ask the caller which division and region of the FAA they belong to. Get their name. Get a callback number. (It's a prank call, so don't expect any cooperation). What FAA rule number, are you supposedly violating? Then call your nearest FSDO (Flight Standards District Offices) with that information. If it is an FAA employee, then they are in trouble for making this kind of phone call contrary to policy. If it's a prank call the FAA may ask the DOT Inspector General or the FBI to investigate the call because it's a felony to impersonate an agency official.

Did the email have an faa.gov address, or did it look like this one from an AOL address:
"FAA laws currently state that UAV/UAS are not to be flown for professional usage, yet your website clearly states that you are offering professional photos and videos for compensation. The current fines for offering drone services without a permit is $5000. The FAA is scheduled to release it’s new laws September 2015 however currently you are in violation. I would suggest you change your offerings until you obtain the proper FAA certification."

You've been pranked.

I can send you the full header from the e-mail then you can make that determination?

SteveMann · Jul 9, 2015

Headers are easily spoofed. Scam marketers do it all the time.

Even if it was from an FAA official, it would have been contrary to policy.

From Bloomberg Business, 4/14/2015:

Federal regulators will stop sending scary letters to drone hobbyists who post evidence of airspace infractions on YouTube

YouTube is blanketed with crimes against American airspace committed by private owners of unmanned aerial vehicles, which hasn't escaped the notice of officials at the Federal Aviation Administration. In recent years, the agency has sent letters to scores of drone hobbyists who published videos in which federal flight rules have clearly been violated. Panicked recipients often pull down the proof of their infractions.

That cat-and-mouse game has come to an end. As part of its kinder, gentler stance toward civilian drones, the FAA has set a new policy against involvement in most cases involving drone hobbyists with YouTube hits. John Duncan, director of the FAA’s Flight Standard Service, told inspectors last week that they have no authority to order or suggest that drone videos posted online be removed. A video “is ordinarily not sufficient evidence alone to determine” that a drone flight violated federal rules, he wrote in a memo.

Stevenas · Jul 9, 2015

SteveMann said:
Headers are easily spoofed. Scam marketers do it all the time.

Even if it was from an FAA official, it would have been contrary to policy.

From Bloomberg Business, 4/14/2015:

Federal regulators will stop sending scary letters to drone hobbyists who post evidence of airspace infractions on YouTube

YouTube is blanketed with crimes against American airspace committed by private owners of unmanned aerial vehicles, which hasn't escaped the notice of officials at the Federal Aviation Administration. In recent years, the agency has sent letters to scores of drone hobbyists who published videos in which federal flight rules have clearly been violated. Panicked recipients often pull down the proof of their infractions.

That cat-and-mouse game has come to an end. As part of its kinder, gentler stance toward civilian drones, the FAA has set a new policy against involvement in most cases involving drone hobbyists with YouTube hits. John Duncan, director of the FAA’s Flight Standard Service, told inspectors last week that they have no authority to order or suggest that drone videos posted online be removed. A video “is ordinarily not sufficient evidence alone to determine” that a drone flight violated federal rules, he wrote in a memo.

I actually asked Mr Minnix if I should remove the video and he said no, that it was not necessary.
Sorry, but I beg to disagree. This was no prank.

SteveMann · Jul 9, 2015

Stevenas said:
I actually asked Mr Minnix if I should remove the video and he said no, that it was not necessary.
Sorry, but I beg to disagree. This was no prank.

It would be against policy.
All enforcement actions begin with a letter - not a phone call.
Seriously, if you get such a call again, ask for the regulation number that you supposedly violated. He won't have one except possibly 91.13 Careless and Reckless, which has never been successfully used with a Drone operator.
If it's not a prank, then you have been bullied. Still against policy.

snerd · Jul 9, 2015

SteveMann said:
......... If it's not a prank, then you have been bullied. Still against policy.

This regime has violated so many "policies", that this bullying is chump change for them! It's happening............ the calls, the intimidation. It's trickled down though every agency in D.C. The president brought it with him when he got elected....................... Chicago Thug Politics. Not to get off on a political rant, but the current situation is just not possible to discuss without at least acknowledging what part politics plays in it. And "everything" in D.C is political!

tcope · Jul 9, 2015

SteveMann said:
He won't have one except possibly 91.13 Careless and Reckless, which has never been successfully used with a Drone operator.

There was a settlement with the defendant paying $1100. I'd certainly not call that a loss on the FAA's side. But corrrect, no guilty plea or verdict.

snerd · Jul 9, 2015

tcope said:
There was a settlement with the defendant paying $1100. I'd certainly not call that a loss on the FAA's side. But corrrect, no guilty plea or verdict.

I remember reading that one! FAA wanted to fine him $11K I think, they bargained down to $1100 and no admission of guilt. I think the easiest track they take is the careless and reckless charge, mostly from flying over people/crowds. You might want to think twice about doing it, at least until they post the new regs that are supposed to be coming soon.

shipdriver · Jul 9, 2015

tcope said:
There was a settlement with the defendant paying $1100. I'd certainly not call that a loss on the FAA's side. But corrrect, no guilty plea or verdict.

I do find that case interesting because he was using the drone commercially (he was hired to do aerial photography or videography by the University of Virginia over their campus) and the FAA knew that but that aspect was not in the charges, only the "reckless" part. In other words, the FAA actually had someone in court who did commercial operations with a drone and still did not cite that as a violation. I have a feeling that he probably could have won the case against the FAA altogether but the legal fees would have been far in excess of the $1100 settlement.

IflyinWY · Jul 9, 2015

Stevenas said:
A few days ago I posted video of the 4th of July fireworks in my community as shot from my P2V+.
Well today I get a call from my local FAA official warning me of possible federal violations from my posted flights. For example, flying over crowds, flying at night, flying for commercial purposes and flying out of visual line of sight of the aircraft.
I asked him how he discovered my "possible violations" and I got this reply in an e-mail:
"Steven,
As the UAS Focal Point for all of Arkansas I receive links, phone calls, letters, emails, etc daily regarding various UAS/Drone ops in the state. Your video was just one of many."

Do these people search You Tube or FB for this sort of thing or do you think the actually received a complaint?

Anyone else have a similar experience?

Deny, deny, deny.

90%+ of the FAA's cases are won by admittance.
I did not say lie. I did not say deceive. I am not encouraging you or anyone else to break the law.

If I believed you had done something wrong, I would not have offered my "3 Wise Men" to you. When the Feds can come to us with rules, in hand, which show we are breaking the law, I will change my tune. Until then, they can piss up a rope.

And I have to second Clipper707. I wouldn't want it done to me. Why do it to someone else?
Get a national campaign going on a certain day to make the point, (with the names changed to protect the guilty) yea, maybe. But to run around pointing fingers without being organized and coordinated would be just plain mean, and I believe counterproductive.

I ran off on a bit of a tangent. Steven, I hope I made myself perfectly clear.