Uncertified Rogue Commercial Drone Operators

[Tenly]

But it's the law. You don't have the right to arbitrarily decide whether it's practical or not or arbitrarily decide whether or not it applies to you. Why do you only get 4 downs in football? I think the rule is silly and my team deserves 5. What makes rogues and 107 different is the likely absence of witnesses. Not much different than shoplifting. If the drone shoot was televised, I'd be willing to bet he'd be legal.

Well - legal or not - if I were in charge of enforcement - I think I would draw the "prosecution" line at "advertising".

If someone is actively advertising that they can provide Drone Services - and they don't have the necessary license - AND they actually accept a client and DO the work for them - they should be prosecuted. But you can't prosecute them just for advertising their services - you have to catch them actually providing the services. The ad could be something someone posts to see if there's enough business out there to warrant the time and expense of getting the 107 - or he could be intending to subcontract the work to a pilot that does have the proper license. There are all kinds of valid and legal reasons why an unlicensed individual might be advertising drone services. So an ad alone is not enough to prosecute on.

And also - I would give a pass to:

1) a hobbyist or amateur that is asked by a friend or a family member to shoot their wedding or take picture of their house for sale - whether they receive compensation or not.

2) a hobbyist or amateur that is out flying recreationally and somehow manages to film something that has value - and is able to sell some of their photos as landscape prints - or captures a video clip of something spectacular that a news agency might be willing to purchase

I know that in the US - those 2 scenarios are technically illegal without a 107 or 333 - but common courtesy should exempt those minor infractions from prosecution. Just like a police officer doesn't usually issue a ticket for 2 miles per hour over the speed limit (even though it is illegal) - the people responsible for prosecuting drone licensing violations should use a similar yardstick for determining what to pursue and what to let go.

But don't get me wrong. I do think that anyone who is advertising and performing drone services without a license (to non-family, non-friends) should be prosecuted and fined for their failure to comply with the law.



Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[Robert Weaver]

the people responsible for prosecuting drone licensing violations should use a similar yardstick for determining what to pursue and what to let go.

It needs to be black and white. If you have a license and follow the rules you are fine. If you don't have a license you need to be prosecuted and punished. Ham radio would be no better than a CB radio if they didn't fine and prosecute violators. Drop the F bomb on a your first newscast and the station gets fined and you get fired. If you don't enforce the regulations there is no point in having them. If you are operating commercially without a license you have no right to interfere with my authorized commercial operation. Whether it's for family or friends shouldn't matter. "I'm just doing it for my realtor friend" or "I'm just shooting for my realtor uncle". There is no end to that.

 

[Kristina Fowler]

It needs to be black and white. If you have a license and follow the rules you are fine. If you don't have a license you need to be prosecuted and punished. Ham radio would be no better than a CB radio if they didn't fine and prosecute violators. Drop the F bomb on a your first newscast and the station gets fined and you get fired. If you don't enforce the regulations there is no point in having them. If you are operating commercially without a license you have no right to interfere with my authorized commercial operation. Whether it's for family or friends shouldn't matter. "I'm just doing it for my realtor friend" or "I'm just shooting for my realtor uncle". There is no end to that.

This is correct. You are certainly free and clear to write your rep in DC or contact the FAA directly about the rule changes you'd like to see. The FAA has regional offices. Depending on how practical it is, you can go and sit across the table from them. I did. They are nice as can be. Otherwise, Civil Disobedience is about the only option, but it may have consequences.

 

[Stargazer1]

Why is everyone overlooking the fact that the faa has no authority to dictate regulations to private citizens using drones. Congress makes laws. Not the faa. They have no authority over us. And no just because they claim authority does not give them authority. If the federal government wants to regulate drones. They first need a constitutional ammendment granting the government the power to do so, and then congress (not the faa) could makes laws to support that ammendment.

 

[Robert Weaver]

Why is everyone overlooking the fact that the faa has no authority to dictate regulations to private citizens using drones.

49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace

Congress has the constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. If you are flying a drone in the NAS performing interstate commerce the FAA has to power to regulate that private citizen. That power was delegated to them by congress, who has the power to regulate interstate commerce. According to Article 1 Section 8 congress also has the power to make rules for the government. Hence we have the FAA.

 

[younggun84]

I don't think so. I'm certainly not a member of the Thought Police. You have the right to think anything you want, but I don't think you have the right to break the law. Exercising rights and breaking the law are mutually exclusive.

This is utterly ridiculous and if you take a look at this nations history you will find many cases where people broke laws while exercising rights that pretty much everyone would agree they had.

You can't legislate rights away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kristina Fowler]

This is utterly ridiculous and if you take a look at this nations history you will find many cases where people broke laws while exercising rights that pretty much everyone would agree they had.

You can't legislate rights away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you would have scrolled down a little, you might have seen this: "Otherwise, Civil Disobedience is about the only option, but it may have consequences."

 

[Enrico Schaefer]

The drone community is not served well by people who take issue with the authority of the FAA to regulate UAS. The inability of the FAA to efficiently implement regulations is fair game.


Enrico Schaefer
UAV Attorney
www.dronelaw.pro

Free Part 107 Waiver and Airspace Training Videos. Part 107 Waiver & Airspace Training Videos - Hire a Drone Law Attorney - Fly Under FAA Part 107

 

[Novum Dives]

It’s amusing to read so many people take the positions that the rules and laws governing flight of any kind are “ridiculous” or somehow infringing on rights (you have no more right to charge for aerial photography than you do to represent someone in a courtroom). Much like operating a motor vehicle, preparing someone’s taxes, or providing medical care, people need to have some baseline competence. It’s especially true when operating commercially, as now consumers are involved, which is being glossed over by so many here.


It’s also curious to read the ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy, with all the examples of how they do so in other aspects of life and business. It’s tu quoque and lazy thinking (not surprisingly). Those people are weak minded and willed, (and many don’t run businesses, I’d wager). The notion that your work should speak for itself, or that license holders are “scared of losing business to unlicensed individuals who are better at said business” is laughable. Name a scenario where federal or state licensure/certification is required and the unlicensed reliably do a better job. Doctors? Lawyers? Accountants? Plumbers? Electricians? Would you take a flight if the pilot wasn’t licensed?


Even in, (or especially) in real estate (I have both a part 107 cert and state RE sales license btw), should licensure matter. There is no other industry filled with as incompetent and lazy people as you find in RE. And these are the licensed ones…imagine the alternative. I read the plumber/HVAC/electrician argument here and talk about it more than I care to. I know you can point out how many unlicensed people do the work and it’s just “part of the business.” I replaced a light that time or installed that toilet too. Lol. No **** it’s not hard. It’s about time, experience and having baseline knowledge when operating for consumers.


Ever meet someone who found out 2 weeks before they were supposed to close on their house that they weren’t selling it because the unlicensed contractor never pulled a permit for that kitchen electrical? I have. More than once. I’ve also met homeowners who’ve had to tear down parts or whole additions because unlicensed clowns didn’t meet code in some way. No legitimate, let alone successful, business is running without proper licensure.


People who take the time to properly license themselves for business operations are routinely more skilled in their craft. People who don’t are just grabbing at money.


The consideration that reporting unlicensed operators is “stooping to their level”, and that you should “focus on your own business and stay out of other peoples’ is fatuous, at best. Unintelligent at worst. Markets are created by buyers and sellers. If every clown with a $500 drone is advertising $100 flights for hire that becomes the market. Obviously (obviously), the goal is to have a great portfolio and provide the best service. Running a business is running a business. You would, ostensibly, be doing your best anyway.


Then there’s the “get the FAA out of the way crowd”. Lol. I’m about as Libertarian as they come, but there are activities that need oversight, (whether by a government or another body) when direct interaction and safety of the public at large is in the picture. Civilization needs traffic rules, whether on the ground or in the sky.


Personally? I don’t worry one bit about the competition from unlicensed anyone (in any industry), because they’re all lazy and don’t produce. But they harm consumers and I can’t wait for these clowns to get pinched by not only the FAA, but other governing bodies in respective businesses. I will absolutely report unlawful flights, and also contact DCP, RE boards and anyone else that needs to know when half-assed scrubs are doing illegal things.

 

[GMack]

When I worked in a camera store, I watched the pro photographers gang up on another newbie who operated out of her house. Pros were mad because the city required them to operate in a business district, and she wasn't. She was cheaper, and she was affecting their sales. So they got together to complain about her and turned her into city zoning. City zoning then shut her down - temporarily.

She came back with a vengeance and took even more work away from the pros with her own shop in their district. Outcome was she was just a much better marketer than they were, built up her clientele that followed her, and that was evident from the start. She ended up attracting their school accounts and put many pros out of business in the end. When I talked to her, she seemed to take glee in getting under their skin and getting one of their accounts.

Now the restaurants are going after the portable taco wagons. A whole new war is now going on in the city. The chef's with rent and storefronts will have to compete against them somehow. Winner will no doubt be the better marketer with them too. The storefront chefs will have to up their game rather than sit and complain about the taco wagon chefs. Complaining is a short term solution to a much larger problem which may also be personal.

 

[Novum Dives]

When I worked in a camera store, I watched the pro photographers gang up on another newbie who operated out of her house. Pros were mad because the city required them to operate in a business district, and she wasn't. She was cheaper, and she was affecting their sales. So they got together to complain about her and turned her into city zoning. City zoning then shut her down - temporarily.

She came back with a vengeance and took even more work away from the pros with her own shop in their district. Outcome was she was just a much better marketer than they were, built up her clientele that followed her, and that was evident from the start. She ended up attracting their school accounts and put many pros out of business in the end. When I talked to her, she seemed to take glee in getting under their skin and getting one of their accounts.

Now the restaurants are going after the portable taco wagons. A whole new war is now going on in the city. The chef's with rent and storefronts will have to compete against them somehow. Winner will no doubt be the better marketer with them too. The storefront chefs will have to up their game rather than sit and complain about the taco wagon chefs. Complaining is a short term solution to a much larger problem which may also be personal.

Theres' a huge difference between zoning issues and licensure/permitting on the basis of competence. If those taco wagon don't have the proper permits for preparing and serving food, they're finished, as they should be. No one is complaining about legit competition or marketing.

Obviously, if someone is worried about getting business taken by a better professional, better marketer, or better 'whatever', tough. The basic tenets of running a business should be self-evident. If not, this is a complete non-starter.

 

[Stargazer1]

If

49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace

Congress has the constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. If you are flying a drone in the NAS performing interstate commerce the FAA has to power to regulate that private citizen. That power was delegated to them by congress, who has the power to regulate interstate commerce. According to Article 1 Section 8 congress also has the power to make rules for the government. Hence we have the FAA.

If im using my drone for my business in my state and it doesent cross state lines then the interstate commerce clause doesent apply. And congress has no authority to delegate to government alphabet agencies the power to create laws that we the people must follow under the threat of some type of penalty. Congress and only congress has legislative power at the federal level. And furthermore, the FAA doesent have the power to regulate any private citizen period. Are we talking about the same country here? America? Land of the free? Or so we are told. And your talking about an unelected beurocracy having the power to regulate private citizens? What are you smoking? We aren't talking about Boeing 747's we're talking about a phantom. The FAA has no place here

49 U.S. Code § 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace

Congress has the constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. If you are flying a drone in the NAS performing interstate commerce the FAA has to power to regulate that private citizen. That power was delegated to them by congress, who has the power to regulate interstate commerce. According to Article 1 Section 8 congress also has the power to make rules for the government. Hence we have the FAA.

 

[Robert Weaver]

If

If im using my drone for my business in my state and it doesent cross state lines then the interstate commerce clause doesent apply. And congress has no authority to delegate to government alphabet agencies the power to create laws that we the people must follow under the threat of some type of penalty. Congress and only congress has legislative power at the federal level. And furthermore, the FAA doesent have the power to regulate any private citizen period. Are we talking about the same country here? America? Land of the free? Or so we are told. And your talking about an unelected beurocracy having the power to regulate private citizens? What are you smoking? We aren't talking about Boeing 747's we're talking about a phantom. The FAA has no place here

The FAA doesn't make or write laws. They write rules that fall within the laws prescribed by congress. Those rules simply clarify the intent of the law. The FAA is merely an oversight organization just as the FCC is. They would then turn over any possibly criminal activity to the FBI or other agencies. So yes they can regulate you if you are operating a business and using the NAS to do so. That little phantom drone could bring down a large aircraft or even kill someone if it falls out of the sky. That like dropping a 2lb sledge hammer from the sky at 400'. Land of the free doesn't mean free rein to do as you please. There has to be rules in place for the common good of everyone. Imagine the choas of private citizens just aimlessly getting in cessnas and flying around without any regulation or certification required. Free country, right?

 

[Enrico Schaefer]

The law is clear. The Supreme Court has ruled. The FAA has jurisdiction whether you cross state lines or not. All your arguments are built on the false premise that the FAA and Congress are outside the law. But really you don't like the laws and don't want to abide by them. It's a political argument, not a legal one.

Regardless, this sort of rhetoric simply undermines and confuses the market. And that is bad for everyone.

 

[Stargazer1]

There are no laws written by congress regarding private use of small uav's. Therefore, the faa can't write rules based on laws that don't exist. Yes there's a small risk associated with using a phantom. It has the potential to cause damage. if it fell out of the sky it could hurt someone, but not kill them. Theres danger involved in whacking a baseball with a baseball bat too. Should the government regulate that too? And as far as phantoms being a danger to passenger aircrafts. That can be fixed easily with a built in governor in the firmware limiting the altitude to a safe level, below passenger crafts. No need to get the government involved.

The FAA doesn't make or write laws. They write rules that fall within the laws prescribed by congress. Those rules simply clarify the intent of the law. The FAA is merely an oversight organization just as the FCC is. They would then turn over any possibly criminal activity to the FBI or other agencies. So yes they can regulate you if you are operating a business and using the NAS to do so. That little phantom drone could bring down a large aircraft or even kill someone if it falls out of the sky. That like dropping a 2lb sledge hammer from the sky at 400'. Land of the free doesn't mean free rein to do as you please. There has to be rules in place for the common good of everyone. Imagine the choas of private citizens just aimlessly getting in cessnas and flying around without any regulation or certification required. Free country, right?

 

[Stargazer1]

There are no laws on this. FAA regulations are not laws. I'm not against laws. I'm against unelected beurocracies claiming powers they don't have. Unless I'm sitting in the cockpit of a manned aircraft, the FAA has no authority over me!
UAV attorney? Pfft! I call bs on that.

"The law is clear" he says. Pfft! go climb a tree

 

[N017RW]

"The law is clear" he says. Pfft! go climb a tree

What are your thoughts on?:
49 U.S.C. §§ 40103, 44502, and 44701-44735

 

[Stargazer1]

What are your thoughts on?:
49 U.S.C. §§ 40103, 44502, and 44701-44735

The last one is the only one that mentions uav's. And until they pass and ratify a constitutional ammendment granting authority to the federal government to regulate uav's, they have no authority. The only laws the feds have the authority to make are those which are to support the powers granted to them by us through the constitution. Until then, this is a state issue, not federal.

 

[Enrico Schaefer]

And there is the rub. Many states and municipalities would ban drones. Others would limit uses in ways that would create ambiguity. But the bottom line is no one would have any idea what the rules were from one location to the other. Biggest fight drone operators have is winning the field preemption argument establishing exclusive jurisdiction over the national airspace to the FAA. Luckily, there is Supreme Court precedent which strongly supports field preemption. In fact, there is still a chance that Congress will reiterate and legislate the field preemption principal, directly reminding the states and municipalities that they may not make any laws or ordinance regulating drones. Of course, this is old news to virtually everyone. Letting state regulate drones would be the death of drones.

 

[BigAl07]

Ok people... this is getting out of hand and borderline personal. Let's keep the comments civil and not personal.