Crash Reconstruction

[BigAl07]

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

It has LONG been stated that a Recreational Operator can capture something during a RECREATIONAL flight that coincidentally has VALUE to someone else. For instance.... I can be flying RECREATIONALLY and capture something NEWS worthy.... happen to see an accident, incident, fire etc. That DATA (video, pictures etc) can be shared or even sold as long as the INTENT of the flight was purely RECREATIONAL. If this happens once or sporadically it's possible... but if this same "recreational operator/Good Samaritan" happens to be at several scenes/incidents then it's whole other ball game. Once again morals come into play and it may end up being you need to convince Judge/Jury of your true intentions.

Honestly someone helping out Emergency Services isn't going to be a big deal unless there is an INCIDENT. If something happens involving the UAS and the FAA is brought into the picture then your beef could become a case for the FBI and the US Attorney General's Office. The FAA can only levy Civil Penalties and revoke flying privileges. If the FBI gets involved it gets ugly and hairy in a hurry.

 

[UasDriver]

Thank's That helps alot, still waiting for BillyBobs check to clear

 

[BigAl07]

..... because it's not about safety, it's about power n control.

The problem with this way of thinking is it's way to "narrow/limited". What you're missing is the 30,000' view. The FAA isn't about POWER and CONTROL. They are about SAFETY and the Public Perception of Safety. Just because your perspective is Govt = BAD doesn't make it accurate or right.

In our little world of UAS we feel like we have all these rights and guarantees to fly our RC toys around. In our community we feel big and powerful and feel like it's our RIGHT to fly when and where we want. The error is our #'s are not nearly as large as we would like to think they are, in fact when we factor in the number of PEOPLE who don't know anything about our industry or worse who don't like our industry (right or wrong in their thoughts) our percentages are fairly small. There are a LOT more of those who don't know or don't like us then there are of us.

I'm one of the lucky ones who gets to go and speak to those people when there is a UAS complaint, or God forbid an incident involving a UAS. When John Q. Public starts complaining to the boards, councils, and law makers the snowball will grow immensely in order to quiet the masses. We have a PR problem not a GOVT problem.

 

[quinn karter]

The problem with this way of thinking is it's way to "narrow/limited". What you're missing is the 30,000' view. The FAA isn't about POWER and CONTROL. They are about SAFETY and the Public Perception of Safety. Just because your perspective is Govt = BAD doesn't make it accurate or right.

In our little world of UAS we feel like we have all these rights and guarantees to fly our RC toys around. In our community we feel big and powerful and feel like it's our RIGHT to fly when and where we want. The error is our #'s are not nearly as large as we would like to think they are, in fact when we factor in the number of PEOPLE who don't know anything about our industry or worse who don't like our industry (right or wrong in their thoughts) our percentages are fairly small. There are a LOT more of those who don't know or don't like us then there are of us.

I'm one of the lucky ones who gets to go and speak to those people when there is a UAS complaint, or God forbid an incident involving a UAS. When John Q. Public starts complaining to the boards, councils, and law makers the snowball will grow immensely in order to quiet the masses. We have a PR problem not a GOVT problem.

Lets just hope more people take an interest in our hobby and industry in these coming years. That said, I here the drone industry is supposed to skyrocket in the next decade. Regarding our numbers? Well, I doubt they will get high enough to reduce the "snowball" effect. Hopefully, the snowballs will get smaller as we educate others. I had to educate the local police and many of my neighbors on my drones. I had to melt the snow ball, if you will. It took some time, but now, everyone accepts my flights without unfounded fears and paranoia. The police don't visit me anymore.

 

[UasDriver]

I've crossed this bridge many times, as a rockclimber, we were dirty hippies, as an off roader we were destroying the planet, as a sUAV pilot i'm violating privacy, potential threat, danger to society. NEVER, in all those endeavors did I find the Gvmnt idea's and laws beneficial to anyone except the govmnt.
community awareness/involvement was the best solution, that avenue died by 2000's
you can't legislate stupid (people), no matter how many laws you create, worse law abiding folk are more likely criminals since we missed that last dotted i on page 1234 in legal brief HR1852, sub heading........

I do applaud your effort, I did advocate work for climbers in the '90s

 

[Stillers]

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.

Im not sure this logic maths out that cut and dry. By using this logic, it would mean the same thing as requiring someone to hold a CDL just to drive to work. Filming with the intent to use the data is not a very far reach from Driving witht he intent to make money. As is with most regulations written in this country, this one is left dubiously vague and non-committal on key points. This is done intentionally by authorities, lawmakers, and regulators. Theyre written as so to allow the government as much wiggle room as possible when it comes to enforcement. A black-and-white regulation would handicap the governements ability to use statute law against any unforseen circumstances which they do not like. A solid example of this is the Constitution. It clearly states what the government can and cannot do and theres no getting around it. But, 200 years later theres alot of gaps in the Constitution and most of them have sprung up due to the things that the Founding Fathers couldnt have seen coming and therefore didnt put into the Constitution. Its also noteworthy that the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights was written in 4653 words. We were able to create the greatest system of governance in less than 5000 words but CARES Act was 5300 pages long.

Every time you write a rule or regulation down, you also create a new way to break the law and you also create a new loophole for some to skirt past the law while others get caught. Does it really surprise anyone that in a country with over 300,000 statues, rules, laws, and regulations on the books has the highest prison population in the world and, I suspect, the highest corruption rate amongst its politicians?

 

[BigAl07]

Im not sure this logic maths out that cut and dry. By using this logic, it would mean the same thing as requiring someone to hold a CDL just to drive to work. Filming with the intent to use the data is not a very far reach from Driving witht he intent to make money. As is with most regulations written in this country, this one is left dubiously vague and non-committal on key points. This is done intentionally by authorities, lawmakers, and regulators. Theyre written as so to allow the government as much wiggle room as possible when it comes to enforcement. A black-and-white regulation would handicap the governements ability to use statute law against any unforseen circumstances which they do not like. A solid example of this is the Constitution. It clearly states what the government can and cannot do and theres no getting around it. But, 200 years later theres alot of gaps in the Constitution and most of them have sprung up due to the things that the Founding Fathers couldnt have seen coming and therefore didnt put into the Constitution. Its also noteworthy that the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights was written in 4653 words. We were able to create the greatest system of governance in less than 5000 words but CARES Act was 5300 pages long.

Every time you write a rule or regulation down, you also create a new way to break the law and you also create a new loophole for some to skirt past the law while others get caught. Does it really surprise anyone that in a country with over 300,000 statues, rules, laws, and regulations on the books has the highest prison population in the world and, I suspect, the highest corruption rate amongst its politicians?

Well you're wrong. To think, let alone suggest to others, that flying to capture DATA to use for Crash Scene Reconstruction is in any way recreational is totally absurd. No portion of that operation, or the INTENT of it, could even remotely be argued it was "just for my own personal recreational use".

It really is that simple. I'm not some keyboard warrior here spouting off things I think I know or regurgitating things I've merely read on the forums. I eat, sleep, breathe, and DO this 7 days a week. Part of my duty with the FAA is to try and open a clear pathway of communications between the Legal Ease of our Regulations and John Q. Public. Whether or not John Q. Public accepts the regulations is well outside of my scope. I am here to try and digest it and present it in the most simple/common terms as is possible. From that point on it's up to you whether you want to fly legally or not.

EVERY UAS Operator (outside of a Govt operation) is Part 107 by DEFAULT! EVERY ONE OF US!

If you want to utilize the "Protection" of ~44809 (the exception for recreational small unmanned aircraft) you have to follow ALL (8) of the criteria for ~44809. If you fall outside of ANY portion of ANY of those (8) criteria you do not meet the requirements for ~44809 and are, by default operating under Part 107 (unless Govt or Public Safety and in those cases you'll be operating under a very strict and detailed COA). It's an ALL or NOTHING type of situation and you can't mix n match ~44809 with Part 107 regulations.

The very first criteria of ~44809 is:
1. The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.
That's pretty Cut & Dried IMHO. Nothing else after that matters because flying to gather DATA to Reconstruct a Crash Scene is pretty much well outside "Recreational" in just about any capacity which pierces the protective bubble.

Here's the full ~44809 posted in the Federal Register for anyone who wants to delve into it more:

Federal Register :: Request Access

If you think there is some wiggle room then by all means put your money where your mouth is and take it to court. Until then, you're flat out wrong. Suggesting otherwise is reckless and inconsiderate to others who may be reading this and sincerely wanting to fly legally and safely.

~Allen~

 

[Txfirecop]

You are required to fly under Part 107 rules. You receive value for your flights. Doesn’t have to be money. Suck it up like the rest of us have done and get your 107. You might want to get some insurance for your hobby accident reconstruction business also.

 

[Stillers]

Well you're wrong. To think, let alone suggest to others, that flying to capture DATA to use for Crash Scene Reconstruction is in any way recreational is totally absurd. No portion of that operation, or the INTENT of it, could even remotely be argued it was "just for my own personal recreational use".

It really is that simple. I'm not some keyboard warrior here spouting off things I think I know or regurgitating things I've merely read on the forums. I eat, sleep, breathe, and DO this 7 days a week. Part of my duty with the FAA is to try and open a clear pathway of communications between the Legal Ease of our Regulations and John Q. Public. Whether or not John Q. Public accepts the regulations is well outside of my scope. I am here to try and digest it and present it in the most simple/common terms as is possible. From that point on it's up to you whether you want to fly legally or not.

EVERY UAS Operator (outside of a Govt operation) is Part 107 by DEFAULT! EVERY ONE OF US!

If you want to utilize the "Protection" of ~44809 (the exception for recreational small unmanned aircraft) you have to follow ALL (8) of the criteria for ~44809. If you fall outside of ANY portion of ANY of those (8) criteria you do not meet the requirements for ~44809 and are, by default operating under Part 107 (unless Govt or Public Safety and in those cases you'll be operating under a very strict and detailed COA). It's an ALL or NOTHING type of situation and you can't mix n match ~44809 with Part 107 regulations.

The very first criteria of ~44809 is:
1. The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.
That's pretty Cut & Dried IMHO. Nothing else after that matters because flying to gather DATA to Reconstruct a Crash Scene is pretty much well outside "Recreational" in just about any capacity which pierces the protective bubble.

Here's the full ~44809 posted in the Federal Register for anyone who wants to delve into it more:

Federal Register :: Request Access

If you think there is some wiggle room then by all means put your money where your mouth is and take it to court. Until then, you're flat out wrong. Suggesting otherwise is reckless and inconsiderate to others who may be reading this and sincerely wanting to fly legally and safely.

~Allen~

Well thats all fine and dandy. And Im not saying that youre not right in the info youre saying. Or that thats how its enforced. What Im saying is that theres more than sufficient reason to believe that this interpretation would not hold up if it was challenged in court. A great deal of regulations, especially new, first draft ones do not. Courts strike these things down all the time. And Id wager that this, along with the upcoming proposed rules changes, are overstepping the governments authority in some way. Like I said in my last post, the logic is just too arbitrary. If something seems wrong, it usually is.

 

[BigAl07]

Well thats all fine and dandy. And Im not saying that youre not right in the info youre saying. Or that thats how its enforced. What Im saying is that theres more than sufficient reason to believe that this interpretation would not hold up if it was challenged in court. A great deal of regulations, especially new, first draft ones do not. Courts strike these things down all the time. And Id wager that this, along with the upcoming proposed rules changes, are overstepping the governments authority in some way. Like I said in my last post, the logic is just too arbitrary. If something seems wrong, it usually is.

"Especially new"? This wording has been in all of the regs since we started getting Section 333 Exemptions in ~2015.

I've presented it to the best of my ability with decades of experience and being fully involved in this industry. It's up to anyone reading this to make their own judgement calls and be ready to accept the consequences if you decide to attempt this w/o Part 107.

 

[UasDriver]

would not hold up if it was challenged in court.

maybe in Mayberry, but we're talking Feds, endless time n money, I fly with common sense and learned knowledge, if that's against the law I'll make paper planes and eat my 3 square

 

[Herdfan]

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.

So this morning after the ice storm I sent mine up for some video of the neighborhood. Ended up getting some footage of the interstate and exit ramps (they were a mess).

So as I was looking at it, I decided to send it to a local TV station in case they wanted to air it.

Fair or foul?

 

[BigAl07]

So this morning after the ice storm I sent mine up for some video of the neighborhood. Ended up getting some footage of the interstate and exit ramps (they were a mess).

So as I was looking at it, I decided to send it to a local TV station in case they wanted to air it.

Fair or foul?

Fair. Your INTENT of the flight was purely recreational. So long as you continued to follow ~44809 rules you're good to go. DATA gathered during a genuine Recreational flight can be used sold/shared if later found to have value.

 

[quinn karter]

Im not sure this logic maths out that cut and dry. By using this logic, it would mean the same thing as requiring someone to hold a CDL just to drive to work. Filming with the intent to use the data is not a very far reach from Driving witht he intent to make money. As is with most regulations written in this country, this one is left dubiously vague and non-committal on key points. This is done intentionally by authorities, lawmakers, and regulators. Theyre written as so to allow the government as much wiggle room as possible when it comes to enforcement. A black-and-white regulation would handicap the governements ability to use statute law against any unforseen circumstances which they do not like. A solid example of this is the Constitution. It clearly states what the government can and cannot do and theres no getting around it. But, 200 years later theres alot of gaps in the Constitution and most of them have sprung up due to the things that the Founding Fathers couldnt have seen coming and therefore didnt put into the Constitution. Its also noteworthy that the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights was written in 4653 words. We were able to create the greatest system of governance in less than 5000 words but CARES Act was 5300 pages long.

Every time you write a rule or regulation down, you also create a new way to break the law and you also create a new loophole for some to skirt past the law while others get caught. Does it really surprise anyone that in a country with over 300,000 statues, rules, laws, and regulations on the books has the highest prison population in the world and, I suspect, the highest corruption rate amongst its politicians?

The CDL scenario presented is an excellent argument. We certainly don't drive to work for recreational puposes, and at the same time we are not recuired to hold a CDL. We drive to work for monetary gain. I hope the government doesn't figure that out. All work commuters will need CDLs to drive to work. LOL. I doubt they would go that far. Anyway, this is a fun thread.

 

[UasDriver]

My neighbor likes my "trip clips", asks if I can shoot their land, I fly, have fun, give them the footage and go home.
they don't like the raw, want's me to edit a cool clip and offer $3.99
fair or foul?

 

[verticalflyer]

The CDL scenario presented is an excellent argument. We certainly don't drive to work for recreational puposes, and at the same time we are not recuired to hold a CDL. We drive to work for monetary gain. I hope the government doesn't figure that out. All work commuters will need CDLs to drive to work. LOL. I doubt they would go that far. Anyway, this is a fun thread.

Certain people, groups and orgs have been salivating for years about instituting a federal mileage tax. So don't think that anyone won't go that far because the proposed legislation has already been written and rewritten.

 

[quinn karter]

Well you're wrong. To think, let alone suggest to others, that flying to capture DATA to use for Crash Scene Reconstruction is in any way recreational is totally absurd. No portion of that operation, or the INTENT of it, could even remotely be argued it was "just for my own personal recreational use".

It really is that simple. I'm not some keyboard warrior here spouting off things I think I know or regurgitating things I've merely read on the forums. I eat, sleep, breathe, and DO this 7 days a week. Part of my duty with the FAA is to try and open a clear pathway of communications between the Legal Ease of our Regulations and John Q. Public. Whether or not John Q. Public accepts the regulations is well outside of my scope. I am here to try and digest it and present it in the most simple/common terms as is possible. From that point on it's up to you whether you want to fly legally or not.

EVERY UAS Operator (outside of a Govt operation) is Part 107 by DEFAULT! EVERY ONE OF US!

If you want to utilize the "Protection" of ~44809 (the exception for recreational small unmanned aircraft) you have to follow ALL (8) of the criteria for ~44809. If you fall outside of ANY portion of ANY of those (8) criteria you do not meet the requirements for ~44809 and are, by default operating under Part 107 (unless Govt or Public Safety and in those cases you'll be operating under a very strict and detailed COA). It's an ALL or NOTHING type of situation and you can't mix n match ~44809 with Part 107 regulations.

The very first criteria of ~44809 is:
1. The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.
That's pretty Cut & Dried IMHO. Nothing else after that matters because flying to gather DATA to Reconstruct a Crash Scene is pretty much well outside "Recreational" in just about any capacity which pierces the protective bubble.

Here's the full ~44809 posted in the Federal Register for anyone who wants to delve into it more:

Federal Register :: Request Access

If you think there is some wiggle room then by all means put your money where your mouth is and take it to court. Until then, you're flat out wrong. Suggesting otherwise is reckless and inconsiderate to others who may be reading this and sincerely wanting to fly legally and safely.

~Allen~

It would be simply too hard to prove who filmed the area of the accident scene. The civil judge in an accident case in not going to ask where the footage or photos came from, as long as the area is identifiable as the scene of the accident. Erasing the EXIF data will also preclude the establishment of the identity or source of the video/photos. Excluding a warrant or an insanely overzealous FAA investigator or police officer, establishing the source of the footage would be impossible and a waist of time and money at the state and federal levels. Unless the footage shows gross negligence and extremely unsafe flight behavior, an investigation, in all probability, is out of the question. Safe flying every one.
P.S. I'm not sure why we are even taking about this. Google maps aerial and street level cams should be sufficient for an accident scene presentation. Also, ground views can be taken with your cell phone, if there are any specific details you need to convey to the judge. Google's aerial views should definitely be sufficient in substitution of drone video. If someone really needed some aerial shots, I doubt a few pics from a drone would warrant a criminal investigation by our government.

 

[Stillers]

The CDL scenario presented is an excellent argument. We certainly don't drive to work for recreational puposes, and at the same time we are not recuired to hold a CDL. We drive to work for monetary gain. I hope the government doesn't figure that out. All work commuters will need CDLs to drive to work. LOL. I doubt they would go that far. Anyway, this is a fun thread.

Precisely. DOT has a very broad definition of when a vehicle is considered commercial. They left it like that deliberately because their policy is to regulate only in the interests of public safety and protecting them from dangers created by interstate commerce. Beyond that, they will yield authority in all other matters to the states. Most federal regulating bodies maintain policies of limited intervention. They claim they do this to keep true with the constitution but I suspect that's just a cop out excuse for shedding their work load and don't have to work as hard. This includes the FAA who's policy concerning drones is that they are the sole authority with exclusive jurisdiction over the sky. They have already proven their willingness to intervene and stop Municipal attempts to restrict drones with measures that attempted to regulate the actual flight of the drone. But at the same time have shown an unwillingness to intervene on matters seen as outside of their scope. This is supported by their refusal to take any action to prevent Municipal regulations that are placed on takeoff/landing location (not the act of taking off and landing, only where it can be done)or restrictions that apply to the use of the remote control. So there's no reason to believe that they will have any desire to get very creative and move outside of their comfort zone in how they regulate drones. Because there is very little reduction of safety critical hazards between flying 737 for an airline and flying your own Cessna, I expect that their approach to drones will follow DOTs model because it's a better fit than approaching it the same way as they do airliners. The reduction of risk between an 80,000 pound truck and a Chevy Impala is relatively similar to flying a plane and flying a drone. *RELATIVELY* There's already clear signs thst that they're doing exactly that when they established classification of intent based on weight. DOT freed its self from significant burden of responsibility by only applying regulation to vehicles over 10,001 lbs just as the FAA did by drawing a line at 250 Grams. Other restrictions in part 107 and the new proposed rules seem to fit that spirit too. But, most times, when a brand new set of regulations over previously unregulated sectors are rife with overreach and abuses of authority. There are several points that will be very easy to challenge and would likely end favorably for citizens.

 

[BigAl07]

Listen, you're all barking up a dead tree. You're trying to mix and mash scenarios to prove an invalid point.

The FAA isn't regulating COMMERCE etc. The FAA merely states that every UAS operator, by default, operates under Part 107 rules. The ONLY way to not operate under Part 107 is either Public Use COA (Govt etc) or by the "Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft" (aka ~44809). If you are not flying under a Public Use COA your only way to NOT fly under Part 107 is to meet ALL of the criteria for ~44809 (only 6 applicable as of this writing, the other 2 will be next quarter). If any portion of your flight does not FULLY meet the criteria of ~44809, the entire flight is now Part 107. Making money, getting compensation, flying for your employer, flying for a Dept, are just a few ways you pierce the protective bubble of ~44809.

And for those who say, "The FAA is over reaching", "The FAA is just making rules to make more $$" etc.... it wasn't the FAA who mandated all of this and I can assure you it's been noting less than a headache since about 2011. An act of Congress (Public Law 112-95, Title III, Subtitle B) says that you need a license to operate a sUAS non-recreationally. The FAA regulations merely codify that law as they were mandated to do so.

Here is a good quote from one of our industry leaders who is active on another forum (sar104)

"Neither the law nor the regulations mention commercial use and, as pointed out above, it's not the sale of your photos or videos that is regulated - what's regulated is the non-recreational nature of the flight when you acquired those materials. As a result, you can, in fact, sell such material without a Part 107 certification if the original intent of the flight was recreational. What you cannot do (with a few exceptions) is fly in the first place if the purpose of the flight is not purely recreational. Commercial intent would just be a subset of non-recreational uses."

 

[Stillers]

The simple fact that the FAA distinguishes that there is a mode of flight that is considered "Recreational" means that it must also have a a second distinguishment of flight mode. What is it? Non-recreational flight? By extrapolation that by nature almost certainly means professional flights. If you apply the linguistic tendencies most commonly observed for official use of government, professional is almost always used as a the offset of amateur and the synonym offset of recreational is........ Commercial. There may not be any specific mention of a commercial class or commercial flight mode of drones **at this moment** but there is a de facto designation of such by simply defining what "non-commercial" or recreational flight qualifies as. At the very minimum, they're paving the way for future legislation in that regard. Which makes sense that there would be no need for commercial regulation at this time for the simple fact that regulation only comes out of two needs: Public safety and tax revenue generation. The current regulations in place certainly cover most public safety concerns. But there likely is not enough commercially motivated flight occuring in the market that would result in sufficient tax revenue to even offset the costs of the government to collect it. Bureaucracy is expensive and its likely that monitoring and collection of tax on commercial drone flight would likely cost the government upwards of $10,000,000. To meet that threshold at this point would take a tax levy so high it would most certainly hinder growth in the market. If not kill it all together. Both of which are counter productive to the best interests of government. This is why it's been "such a headache" for the FAA. Because congress satisfied its obligation of meeting public safety needs but has no intention of allotting any more government resources into something which provides no benefit to to them. Being as nearly all drone manufacturers are not American companies and there's no commercial interest for lobbying policy or regulation before the existence of such regulation, that may be quite some time before either the FAA or Congress redress the issue of commercial flight. But, the existence of such is, at the least, characterized by the existence of a definition of what is not commercial flight.