Crash Reconstruction
- Thread starter CrashRecon 2
- Start date
I think the info might be useful just as with any photos gathered. But if the intent is to provide
legal evidence level information, I imagine there might be some professional standard or goals
to consider. Perhaps surveying a LEO forum if you can
legal evidence level information, I imagine there might be some professional standard or goals
to consider. Perhaps surveying a LEO forum if you can
kyokushinkai
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 9
- Age
- 75
I am using the Evo 2 as well as the Mavic Air 2 for accident reconstruction (routes) and traffic patterns at the time of the accident. I am a license PI in NC. Drone footage is admissible in court if you are the person who took the video and can attest to the video not being manipulated in any way.
dirkclod
Well-Known Member
kyokushinkai
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 9
- Age
- 75
No, I do not charge for flights, video or photographs and do not solicit for drone work. I use my drone in my line of work for no charge. I requested a clarification for the 107 rule prior to flying my drone with the FAA. I fly for no profit to make it very clear. I perform pro-bono work as I am retired and do not need the income.
dirkclod
Well-Known Member
kyokushinkai
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 9
- Age
- 75
dirkclod
Well-Known Member
Hear that and not trying to get nothing started but trying to understand what your saying. If you use your drone as a private investigator that would seem to me you would have to have your part 107. I’m not no expert on FAA rules like @BigAl07 is and will
get him to explain it to me. ?
Welcome to the forum @CrashRecon 2 ?
kyokushinkai
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2021
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 9
- Age
- 75
Well you are almost correct in your thinking but again and maybe for the last time, I am still licensed as a PI but am retired and have been from working for hire or fees over two years now. I perform some Pro Bono work, "FOR FREE" and no charge in certain circumstances, that means I do not fall under the part 107 commercial use of a drone for fee or charge. I also do not advertise, take fees or perform services for anyone for a fee. I am not sure why I have to explain my circumstances unless there are those who are part 107 that think they are being shorted from making money. In any case I just tried to answer the question that was asked about accident re-construction and this is how it ends up. Have a nice day
With all due respect, @kyokushinkai, I'm afraid you've been grossly misinformed. The ONLY way to not fly under Part 107 is to fly under the Recreational Allowance ~44809. Recreational is 100% exactly that... in no way does it further a business or another person/entity.
You're actions are 100% required to operate under Part 107. I'm not just tossing spitwads here... I'm an FAA Safety Team Representative and an FAA Safety Team Drone Pro.
Charging is but ONE caveat that removes the "protection" of ~44809. Any action in a flight that does not fall fully inside the protective bubble of ~44809 requires Part 107.
Here are a couple of links for you to ponder:
(LONG Version)
(Medium Version)
FAA Recreational Drone Laws
Interested in the U.S. Recreational Drone Laws? New laws have been published which have changed things drastically.
jrupprechtlaw.com
(short version)
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
www.faa.gov
and a bit more:
And here's the BEST part of this whole thing... you're flying in MY District/Region (Charlotte NC Region).
Last edited:
Just for some clarity here.....
To do Commercial Work we have 3 options:
In regards to the Section 333, many of today's operators think this is no longer valid but it is it's just no longer issued for "normal" UAS operations because Part 107 covers most of the needs. If someone needs to do something that can not be done under Part 107 (not allowed and not waiverable) we can still apply for a Section 333 Exemption. They are MUCH harder to get and require a Pilots License to get.
The member in question above, @kyokushinkai was operating under a Section 333 Exemption at the time when he was performing the noted works in this thread. While it's true he did not have Part 107 he was operating legally under Section 333 Exemption rules.
Hopefully this clears up the topic and puts the controversy to rest.
To do Commercial Work we have 3 options:
- Part 107 (which we all know and cough-love-cough)
- Public Safety COA (Emergency Services type of Govt work)
- Section 333 Exemption
In regards to the Section 333, many of today's operators think this is no longer valid but it is it's just no longer issued for "normal" UAS operations because Part 107 covers most of the needs. If someone needs to do something that can not be done under Part 107 (not allowed and not waiverable) we can still apply for a Section 333 Exemption. They are MUCH harder to get and require a Pilots License to get.
The member in question above, @kyokushinkai was operating under a Section 333 Exemption at the time when he was performing the noted works in this thread. While it's true he did not have Part 107 he was operating legally under Section 333 Exemption rules.
Hopefully this clears up the topic and puts the controversy to rest.
quinn karter
Well-Known Member
I don't think this would be considered a 107 flight, its a civil suite, if one of the persons in the accident filmed the intersection or roadway. Also that person is not filming for or representing any government agencies, just you. By strict definition you are not truely doing it for monetary gain. Legally, the insurance pays a mechanic, not you. In concept you are simply showing the judge something. The video itself isn't being filmed for pay, unless you hired someone to fly and film the intersection(that's a different story). That person would need a 107 lic and permit. If you do, take pictures from the corners of the street, where you will not have cars or people under you. The FAA could mess with you if any of you footage breaks any of their statutes. If you are going to video, cut any parts where you may have inadvertently flown over a vehicle, bicyclist or person. Blur out license plates if caught on your cam. Get in and out as fast as possible, you can get in trouble for loitering if you stand in one place too long, well, that's if your standing near the intersection. My advice is to find a place to hide. Otherwise you may get harassed by police. Also, fly at hours where there will be the least amount of traffic possible. Maybe you can add some CGI cars later and really impress the judge. Chas bang. I'm not sure if i read this whole thread right. I just did a real quick read. Oh, THAT THING ABOUT, "in no way does it further a business or another person/entity." IS CONFUSING. The statute needs to define the word "further". Is the person in the accident, the mechanic, the judge, the plaintiff or defendant being "furthered". What if the ruling "sets everyone back". That's the opposite of 'furthering." The person has already have been "set back" by the accident. Can you further any party by taking a video and showing the judge. How direct must the link to the drones flight and footage be to the furtherance of someone, especially someone that has already been set back. The video itself, is not just a furtherance, it is also a setback.
Last edited:
quinn karter
Well-Known Member
Oh, THAT THING ABOUT, "in no way does it further a business or another person/entity." IS CONFUSING. The statute needs to define the word "further". Is the person in the accident, the mechanic, the judge, the plaintiff or defendant being "furthered". What if the ruling "sets everyone back". That's the opposite of 'furthering." The person has already have been "set back" by the accident. Can you further any party by taking a video and showing the judge. How direct must the link to the drones flight and footage be to the furtherance of someone, especially someone that has already been set back. The video itself, is not just a furtherance, it is also a setback. Mathematically must the furtherance be more than the set back, and who makes this determination. Is pain and suffering a set back. What is it's monetary value. Has the judge been furthered by the video. Is happiness a furtherance. Suppose I lost 1000 dollars, a set back, but gained 2000 dollars, an extra 1000 was for pain and suffering. Did I gain a furtherance or does the pain negate the furtherance. Do they define furtherance, regardless of setbacks. Is the term setback even included in the rules. What happens when a setback, out weighs the furtherance? This isn't just semantics. The FAA started this issue, by using the word furtherance. For furtherance to exist, setback must exist. If one equals the other, there is no furtherance nor setback. The point become mute.With all due respect, @kyokushinkai, I'm afraid you've been grossly misinformed. The ONLY way to not fly under Part 107 is to fly under the Recreational Allowance ~44809. Recreational is 100% exactly that... in no way does it further a business or another person/entity.
You're actions are 100% required to operate under Part 107. I'm not just tossing spitwads here... I'm an FAA Safety Team Representative and an FAA Safety Team Drone Pro.
Charging is but ONE caveat that removes the "protection" of ~44809. Any action in a flight that does not fall fully inside the protective bubble of ~44809 requires Part 107.
Here are a couple of links for you to ponder:
(LONG Version)
(Medium Version)
FAA Recreational Drone Laws
Interested in the U.S. Recreational Drone Laws? New laws have been published which have changed things drastically.
(short version)
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)
and a bit more:
And here's the BEST part of this whole thing... you're flying in MY District/Region (Charlotte NC Region).
Ok let's take one more run at this...
Making MONEY is but ONE action that pierces the Protective Bubble called "Recreational Operation aka ~44809". It is not the ONLY condition that removes your protection. ANYTHING that is not purely recreational (for your own joy and entertainment) defaults to Part 107.
Furtherance of a business is in NO WAY recreational. That Recreational bubble is easily pierces and there's no putting it back.
Filming with the INTENT to use the DATA for anything other than ENTERTAINMENT pierces that bubble. In no way is filming an accident scene with the INTENT to share the data with a judge, jury, insurance company, investigator, town call, news agency etc etc is NOT in any way recreational. You can try to split hairs until you are blue in the face but filming an accident to USE the data for anything other than your entertainment is a CIVIL FLIGHT (aka Part 107).
Nothing in the above scenarios can be even remotely considered ~44809 operations.
Making MONEY is but ONE action that pierces the Protective Bubble called "Recreational Operation aka ~44809". It is not the ONLY condition that removes your protection. ANYTHING that is not purely recreational (for your own joy and entertainment) defaults to Part 107.
Furtherance of a business is in NO WAY recreational. That Recreational bubble is easily pierces and there's no putting it back.
Filming with the INTENT to use the DATA for anything other than ENTERTAINMENT pierces that bubble. In no way is filming an accident scene with the INTENT to share the data with a judge, jury, insurance company, investigator, town call, news agency etc etc is NOT in any way recreational. You can try to split hairs until you are blue in the face but filming an accident to USE the data for anything other than your entertainment is a CIVIL FLIGHT (aka Part 107).
Nothing in the above scenarios can be even remotely considered ~44809 operations.
quinn karter
Well-Known Member
Well said. thanks for all your input / posts. You've cleared this recreational flight thing up, very well indeed. Very succinct. Your posts should be read by everyone. Thanks Again.
UasDriver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2020
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 156
- Age
- 102
since INTENT is the word, am I the pilot "innocent" until gvmnt proves otherwise?
I fly for "ART", mine, my creations, for my enjoyment, no if's and's or butts.
6mths latter when BillyBob has to have my video, offers $3.99
am I retroactively guilty for that future choice NOT based of original intent?
my guess, yes, because it's not about safety, it's about power n control.
I fly for "ART", mine, my creations, for my enjoyment, no if's and's or butts.
6mths latter when BillyBob has to have my video, offers $3.99
am I retroactively guilty for that future choice NOT based of original intent?
my guess, yes, because it's not about safety, it's about power n control.
quinn karter
Well-Known Member
THE GOOD SAMARITAN. If I ever find myself in need of imagery post accident or even during, I will make sure I let the judge publicly know, an anonymous witness/ drone hobbyist provided the imagery. An unknown good Samaritan patriot with unknown 107 status just flying nearby recreationally flew over the accident scene, sending anonymous imagery. I didn't think of that scenario. If an anonymous hobbyist flies over an accident scene and provides imagery of it to one of the parties involved, the said hobbyist would be impossible to find or would not be worth the effort for the FAA to find such person..----Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are, or whom they believe to be, injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated
quinn karter
Well-Known Member
I pondered that scenario. The FAA could fine a person regardless of original flight intent I suppose. The statutes need to include wording with rehards to original flight intent and its statute of limitations if money was to be made via old footage. A person would obviously have to make sure there is no EXIF data in the film linking the filmaker to the video and no link of the actual videographer can be made. On another note, check my little post about THE GOOD SAMARITAN.
If your initial flight was purely hobby/recreational then it would fall squarely within ~44809 (aka Recreational Use). Your INTENT was purely recreational and that's the end of it. If someone finds value in your product after the fact, SCORE! That has been the formula since day ONE of Part 107.
Now if everything you "gather/create" immediately goes onto your RETAIL website then it's up to you to satisfy the Judge/Jury that you are flying purely for recreational means and the RETAIL portion is coincidental. Plus your morals also come into play at some point.
Similar threads
Latest threads
-
-
what is the procedure for replacement with serial number change?
- Started by mhassell
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.