Threatening Email about FAA regulation

[SteveMann]

Am I a HOBBYIST or operating COMMERCIALLY (subject to 333 exemption and pilots license rules)?

It's still a commercial operation according to the FAA. The legal term is "holding out" and is described in AC120-12a .

From the Advisory Circular:

For example, the expression of willingness to all customers with whom contact is made that the operator can and will perform the requested service is sufficient. The fact that the holding out generates little success is of no consequence. The nature and character of the operation are the important issue.
​

There are lots of ways to "hold out", but the basic idea is if someone in the general public comes to you and asks you to fly [for] them and you agree, you are probably holding out. Any form of advertising demonstrates a clear sign that you are holding out.

 

[Meta4]

Have you checked Texas state law regarding photographing a videoing private property? You will need every property owner's written permission if their property is shown in either a photo or video taken with a drone. Compensation notwithstanding.

HB 912 doesn't say that.
It does say:
Sec. 423.003. OFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO CAPTURE IMAGE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.
Don't use your drone to snoop or spy and you're fine.

 

[kenjancef]

For the 333, I thought that you could still get one, even without the pilot's license. It would be the PIC (pilot in command) that would have to be licensed. So I could have a 333, but hire someone with a license to pilot my Phantom... or am I wrong about that?

 

[Buzz Covington]

For the 333, I thought that you could still get one, even without the pilot's license. It would be the PIC (pilot in command) that would have to be licensed. So I could have a 333, but hire someone with a license to pilot my Phantom... or am I wrong about that?

I believe you are 100% correct.

 

[kenjancef]

I believe you are 100% correct.

I filed for a 333, and it's actually in the comment phase. I'm hoping that by the time it's approved they will have gotten rid of the license requirement. If not, then I wait til they do... just because I'd have the 333 doesn't mean I'd take the chance of getting caught...

 

[480sparky]

HB 912 doesn't say that.
It does say:
Sec. 423.003. OFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO CAPTURE IMAGE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.
Don't use your drone to snoop or spy and you're fine.

Define " intent to conduct surveillance". I'll bet it's different than someone else's definition.

 

[kenjancef]

Define " intent to conduct surveillance". I'll bet it's different than someone else's definition.

Yea, someone else with a shotgun....

 

[BigAl07]

For the 333, I thought that you could still get one, even without the pilot's license. It would be the PIC (pilot in command) that would have to be licensed. So I could have a 333, but hire someone with a license to pilot my Phantom... or am I wrong about that?

That's exactly right. "Acquiring" the Section 333 Exemption does not require any type of pilot training or anything. To operate within the regulations set forth in the Section 333 Exemption is when the PIC is required to have a current Pilot Rating.

My 81 year old mother who can hardly drive a car can be granted Section 333 Exemption but it's useless unless someone with a current FAA Pilot's Certificate (and associated medial requirement) are at the controls of the aircraft. This could be her son (me) or a hired FAA airman but even then the FAA Airman has to be trained and proficient in the specific aircraft as well as current with PL and Medical requirements.

I think I just went in a full circle and I apologize LOL.

 

[kenjancef]

I think I just went in a full circle and I apologize LOL.

Apologize to your mom if you can't help her out with her 333.... lol...

 

[Jaime Ray Vaughn]

Am I a HOBBYIST or OPERATING COMMERCIALLY?

I've read the two legal documents, and the House Bill 912 seems to say in part 423.002 that it is "lawful" to do these things (then names a bunch of examples). Item 6 there is a point in our favor. I don't think that means it is "unlawful" to do anything else, its merely giving permission to do the things it lists.

Part 423.003 says "
A person commits an offense if the person uses an
unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately
owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct
surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image." The rest of the document seems to point out the actions that could be taken against someone guilty of 423.003. I have no interest in conducting surveillance.

As for the FAA document dated 1986, this is regarding common carriage of persons or property. I don't believe (although an attorney might disagree) that any of these things are related to what I want to do.

Taking pictures of private property or municipal property, with permission FOR NO COMPENSATION seems to be breaking no rules. I think I'm willing to take a chance.

 

[kenjancef]

I would think that the only person that would have any affect on complaining would be the property owner. If you have permission (and I'd probably get it in writing...) from them, then if anyone else complained I figure wouldn't matter, correct?