Tricky Question

[J.James]

Well its not like the FAA would have any way of knowing if some roofer used a drone to look at a roof.

and Like my dad always said. What the government dont know cant hurt you. IE just keep it to your self and DONT tell the goverment any thing. esp any thing thats none of there dam business.

 

[tcope]

OP, you are fine using your drone for this; it's a free estimate. Please do it and don't listen to the doomsayers.

Getting caught is a different matter but you might want to actually look into your statement before presenting it as it could not be more incorrect. The FAA has been _very_ clear on this matter. If the OP is not flying as a hobby or recreation then a license would be needed. Charge or no charge... it does not matter. He would be flying as a part of his business. Again... this is _VERY_ clearly not flying as a hobby or for recreation and would require an exception.

In fact, doing it for $50 bucks won't kill you. There are no FAA resources available to bag you for a $50 dollar job. They have no way of knowing that you did it for money anyways. It will simply be a you tube video online of a "roof", or better yet, supplied to your client on a thumb drive.

There are means in place for the FAA to find out about this... it's called "competitors". The FAA states that the business competitors are usually the ones who turn in reports.

Would it happen that the FAA would find out? I think it's highly unlikely. However, the FAA has now gone after a company for flying outside hobby use without a license and this is getting to be more of a hot topic. So if they found out it's very possible the OP could be fined.

 

[aburkefl]

If i am asked to estimate work to redo a roof, for instance strip 3 layers & plywood out & redo from scratch, & i use the drone to merely take pictures in order to see the total extent of the job, is that really much different then me climbing on the roof, & taking pictures? Would this be a no-no to the FAA? Thanks in advance for any input.

The way i see it, i am not selling the pictures or video i take, i am merely using them as a tool to see what needs to be done.

It's sometimes comical to read posts on these forums. Neither the FAA nor the Bar Association are participants/members of this forum. You should not accept legal advice on any of these forums. It's generally simple enough to contact the correct source.

It doesn't matter if the "advisor" is well-intentioned or not - they're not the ones you'll have to answer to if you violate a law. It's my understanding that ignorance (lack of knowledge) of a specific law is not an excuse or defense. Caveat - I'm not an attorney either!

 

[Dirby]

Do this at your own risk.
Don't say that you haven't been warned.

 

[480sparky]

Why, no Mr. FAA. I didn't use a drone. I use an Osmo on a painter's pole.

 

[SteveMann]

DroneLawJournal is recommended reading.

To this date, no drone operator has been prosecuted for commercial use of their personal drone. Pirker, SkyPan and others have all been charged with violating 14 CFR §91.13 'Careless and Reckless', but none for commercial use.

 

[Bert OConnor]

The FAA feels any commercial use is a no-no. What you're describing is definitely commercial.

Fruit of the tree, unfortunately.

 

[Bert OConnor]

If i am asked to estimate work to redo a roof, for instance strip 3 layers & plywood out & redo from scratch, & i use the drone to merely take pictures in order to see the total extent of the job, is that really much different then me climbing on the roof, & taking pictures? Would this be a no-no to the FAA? Thanks in advance for any input.

The way i see it, i am not selling the pictures or video i take, i am merely using them as a tool to see what needs to be done.

Using your quad in this fashion helps limit injuries from falls, lowering your insurance liability costs, oh I forgot who cares about you if you're earning money and preventing injury, the key here is thou shalt not earn a buck by using a quad for the greater good.

 

[twist4]

I think what the hobbyist and self employed do not see yet is this is about integrating large scale systems into the national airspace.

There will be everything from delivery drone airborne carriers to FedX flying their fleet, unmanned every night. Think 747 drones not our toys.

Right now we the people are looking to the FAA to pull another social change like promoting the Airplanes into Airline businesses.

It a roofer wants to help he can register his UAS and be a real thought leader.

Else if a noisy neighbor turns him in the FAA get to trod on t
Him and make an example.

Self Rule! Everywhere else they are busy restricting drones to specific reservations smaller and smaller

He we are leading a vast integration.

 

[Bert OConnor]

I think what the hobbyist and self employed do not see yet is this is about integrating large scale systems into the national airspace.

There will be everything from delivery drone airborne carriers to FedX flying their fleet, unmanned every night. Think 747 drones not our toys.

Right now we the people are looking to the FAA to pull another social change like promoting the Airplanes into Airline businesses.

It a roofer wants to help he can register his UAS and be a real thought leader.

Else if a noisy neighbor turns him in the FAA get to trod on t
Him and make an example.

Self Rule! Everywhere else they are busy restricting drones to specific reservations smaller and smaller

He we are leading a vast integration.

15-20 feet over my roof is as high as you need to get a decent view of my roof, I know, I've done it and noted issues with the shingles. I was in class g airspace, too low to be a hazard to helos or fixed wing aircraft. Registering my 2 pound plastic quad is like swatting flies with a sledge hammer IMHO. BTW both my quads have FAA issued N numbers, but registering a quad to fly 20 feet above my roof will serve no purpose.

 

[DAP-UAV]

The real estate company in NY & Chicago took pics of buildings. They even had a 333. But. The drone was not registered and the operator not a pilot. FAA fine $1.9 million. No accident. How did they find out? The FAA uses as an example a man who used a drone to inspect a structure prior to painting it. He was fined. He did not charge himself for the video. It matters not. Commercial is anything to do with business.

 

[DAP-UAV]

15-20 feet over my roof is as high as you need to get a decent view of my roof, I know, I've done it and noted issues with the shingles. I was in class g airspace, too low to be a hazard to helos or fixed wing aircraft. Registering my 2 pound plastic quad is like swatting flies with a sledge hammer IMHO. BTW both my quads have FAA issued N numbers, but registering a quad to fly 20 feet above my roof will serve no purpose.

It's not that you fly 20 ft. The capability of the drone is what matters. It has the capability to fly into controlled airspace. You use it for roofs all day....then one day you want to see what it can do like so many on You Tube invading controlled airspace over and over. Then it happens.

 

[jlummel]

DroneLawJournal is recommended reading.

To this date, no drone operator has been prosecuted for commercial use of their personal drone. Pirker, SkyPan and others have all been charged with violating 14 CFR §91.13 'Careless and Reckless', but none for commercial use.

The original poster's question is pretty much completely answered by going to the website Steve gives the URL for above. It's a must read for anyone interested in this topic, especially the documents that it links to regarding the ongoing melodrama of FAA and sUAV/Drones/Model aircraft (remember this affects even balsa and foam model aircraft, not just multirotors).

Having done more research into this myself, my understanding of what the FAA is trying to accomplish and it's implications have evolved as well, both on recreational and commercial use of drones. I still think that this registration scheme being proposed will get shot down as while the FAA has the authority to enforce rules and laws against reckless operation, registration is overreach of the highest magnitude and would not even be enforceable in the long run. But I'm starting to understand the gray areas that the FAA is operating from and how it affects situations such as originally posted in this topic.

It's particularly interesting to read the FAA complaint against Pirker as they outline what the FAA considered careless and reckless in that case (e.g.- most things you would do with a drone commercially). It's a bummer that it was never fully decided on so we could see how those complaints would get adjudicated though!

 

[GoodnNuff]

DroneLawJournal is recommended reading.

To this date, no drone operator has been prosecuted for commercial use of their personal drone. Pirker, SkyPan and others have all been charged with violating 14 CFR §91.13 'Careless and Reckless', but none for commercial use.

Umm except for SkyPan international who were recently fined $1.9 million for 65 commercial flights without authorization. That translates to just under $30,000 per fight.
FAA fines drone startup SkyPan $1.9 million for illegal drone flights - Fortune

 

[GoodnNuff]

15-20 feet over my roof is as high as you need to get a decent view of my roof, I know, I've done it and noted issues with the shingles. I was in class g airspace, too low to be a hazard to helos or fixed wing aircraft. Registering my 2 pound plastic quad is like swatting flies with a sledge hammer IMHO. BTW both my quads have FAA issued N numbers, but registering a quad to fly 20 feet above my roof will serve no purpose.

And in the life of your quad, you will never fly it more than 20 feet above your roof?

 

[twist4]

15-20 feet over my roof is as high as you need to get a decent view of my roof, I know, I've done it and noted issues with the shingles. I was in class g airspace, too low to be a hazard to helos or fixed wing aircraft. Registering my 2 pound plastic quad is like swatting flies with a sledge hammer IMHO. BTW both my quads have FAA issued N numbers, but registering a quad to fly 20 feet above my roof will serve no purpose.

I hear you, bro about Class G. I was stunned when the FAA claimed jurisdiction.

As I understand it, there is possibly going to be a new class of airspace out of this.
Perhaps between 4-500 AGL, will be a drone flyway over the US.

As to the purpose, it is wonderful to me to see Self Rule begin to define, yet again, what were before, simply 9th Amendment freedoms. No Law against it.

But, no one could predict the GPS precision and automation that we have now, either.

Coupled with the insane price reductions, lately, any fool can and does get a drone.

I have one.

I was only suggesting the trailblazing opportunity to get in there with roof inspection drones and become rich, sell franchises, etc. Or not.

 

[SteveMann]

Umm except for SkyPan international who were recently fined $1.9 million for 65 commercial flights without authorization. That translates to just under $30,000 per fight.
FAA fines drone startup SkyPan $1.9 million for illegal drone flights - Fortune

I will try to find a copy of the violation letter, but the indications from the FAA press release were that it was just 91.13.

 

[tcope]

I will try to find a copy of the violation letter, but the indications from the FAA press release were that it was just 91.13.

This is what the FAA states on their website. No mention of commercial flying.

But I was under the impression that they were flying commercially prior to the 333 exemption even being possible.

 

[GoodnNuff]

The actual Press Release:

For Immediate Release
October 6, 2015
Contact: Les Dorr or Alison Duquette
Phone: (202) 267-3883; email: [email protected]

NEW YORK – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today announces the largest civil penalty the FAA has proposed against a UAS operator for endangering the safety of our airspace.

The FAA proposes a $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan International, Inc. of Chicago. Between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations in some of our most congested airspace and heavily populated cities, violating airspace regulations and various operating rules, the FAA alleges. These operations were illegal and not without risk.

The FAA alleges that the company conducted 65 unauthorized commercial UAS flights over various locations in New York City and Chicago between March 21, 2012 and Dec. 15, 2014. The flights involved aerial photography. Of those, 43 flew in the highly restricted New York Class B airspace.

“Flying unmanned aircraft in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations is illegal and can be dangerous,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “We have the safest airspace in the world, and everyone who uses it must understand and observe our comprehensive set of rules and regulations.”

SkyPan operated the 43 flights in the New York Class B airspace without receiving an air traffic control clearance to access it, the FAA alleges. Additionally, the agency alleges the aircraft was not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and altitude-reporting equipment.

The FAA further alleges that on all 65 flights, the aircraft lacked an airworthiness certificate and effective registration, and SkyPan did not have a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for the operations.

SkyPan operated the aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger lives or property, the FAA alleges.

SkyPan has 30 days after receiving the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.

I've highlighted the word "commercial."

 

[tcope]

The FAA alleges that the company conducted 65 unauthorized commercial UAS flights over various locations in New York City and Chicago between March 21, 2012 and Dec. 15, 2014. The flights involved aerial photography. Of those, 43 flew in the highly restricted New York Class B airspace.

But I don't think they were charged with that.