The Realtor Can Be Fined for Non Part 107 Pilot???

[MtManDavey]

I've read in these very pages that the drone pilot who does not have a Part 107 can be fined for shooting images of real estate for a realtor or realty company. I have also read that the realtor who hires the pilot can be fined significantly more.

I am giving a presentation to a group of realtors this coming week. I called the FAA to ask about these fines and was told that IF someone would be fined for any breach of the Part 107 compensation rules when not appropriately licensed, it would be the pilot, not any business who hires the pilot.

If anyone has actual documentation to show other than what I was told by the FAA FSDO directly, I would very much appreciate seeing it. Otherwise, seems just another set of incorrect data, which I can now blame on the internet.

Cheers and happy flying.

Dave

 

[Zac Elliott]

I wonder if the realtors can just be fined, etc. by their licensing board or the agency they work for? I would assume somewhere in their regulations, guidelines, etc, they are required to work with other professionals that are "properly licensed" and maybe even insured. I agree though, they probably wouldn't be liable under Part 107.

 

[tcope]

Did the relator operate the drone within FAA airspace? Then the FAA has no jurisdiction over that person or their actions. Perhaps they bought photos that were taken in violation of the FAA regulations but that does not give the FAA jurisdiction over them.

 

[sar104]

Did the relator operate the drone within FAA airspace? Then the FAA has no jurisdiction over that person or their actions. Perhaps they bought photos that were taken in violation of the FAA regulations but that does not give the FAA jurisdiction over them.

Right - to be prosecuted by the FAA they would have to be in breach of Federal Law. Part 107 only addresses the operation of UAVs and so does not apply to a third party non-operator.

In that situation I would be more concerned about liability insurance. Businesses contracting UAV work will generally require the operator to hold liability insurance that protects the business from liability claims. If the operator is not Part 107 licensed then there will likely be no coverage.

 

[tcope]

Right - to be prosecuted by the FAA they would have to be in breach of Federal Law. Part 107 only addresses the operation of UAVs and so does not apply to a third party non-operator.

In that situation I would be more concerned about liability insurance. Businesses contracting UAV work will generally require the operator to hold liability insurance that protects the business from liability claims. If the operator is not Part 107 licensed then there will likely be no coverage.

Insurance does not cover criminal acts, period. It addresses civil acts. Violation of part 107 would be criminal.

 

[N017RW]

Damage to a ‘clients’ home or property would be civil liability.
Ouch!!!

 

[BigAl07]

I'm curious your FSDO took such a strong stance stating a "Business" isn't liable. I have a screen print from the FAA's email where they stated something entirely different. Granted of course someone could have "Photo shopped" this image I have reason to believe that it at least WAS valid as of last year.

So of course we have "conflicting" information from the FAA but it's entirely possible the person answering your call didn't have "ALL" the details to answer your question correctly.

Allen

 

[flockshot]

Before drones, the same discussion has been going on with "private pilots" taking aerial photographs and selling them for 50 years that I know of. This is not a new issue in aviation, and I have never heard of a private pilot, or their customer ever being bothered about 'furtherance of a business' even though it has been on the books for all these years. Where you get into trouble is when something goes very bad during the flight, and you were doing a 'illegal' commercial operation without a license.

There are the laws that we can find and post, and then there is the practical matter of enforcement. I would suggest that you will never see a realtor punished in any way shape or form, unless they could be shown to know in advance that they were violating some laws.

If you want to take real estate pictures, do some study work and take the 60 question test. You are allowed to miss 18 of the questions and still become a 'commercial drone pilot', fully qualified to take some pictures. Also, you are not required to know how to fly a drone to get the license. Therefore, the real estate agent can get the license, use his nephew to take the pictures, and be perfectly legal since the agent was "pilot in command".

 

[MtManDavey]

Thank you all for your responses. The posting by Big Al is just what I was referring to when I called the FAA, to either confirm or deny that the business can be held responsible for what a non-licensed drone pilot does and creates income. It's possible the person I talked with did not have all of the information but suggested that the FAA would not go after the realtor, whether they were somehow complicit in the flight by the pilot. She mentioned that if the FAA were to go after anyone (which she also considered generally unlikely for this issue), it would have to come from the FAA's legal division, not a Field Office staff member.

I don't see anyone getting prosecuted for flying for profit, whether Part 107 or hobbyist, unless they commit a gross violation related to safety. In the meantime, thanks to Al for sharing the screen print. It's why I called the FAA directly, and the documentation I would like to see myself before passing on to my realtor clientele that they would be in serious violation if any of them hired a non-Part 107 drone pilot. It's often difficult to keep up with the changes in current practices, regulations, methodologies, authorizations and the like. While I am a highly experienced photographer, I am definitely a newbie at the drone business, and BigAl is far more experienced in the world of flying so I accept that this may have credibility.

Again, thanks to all for your comments and responses.

 

[flockshot]

The most common condition is that if a guy or gal wants to take real estate pictures, they will already have the 107. Many hobbyist pilots have a 107 just for fun. It just won't be a problem because 107 pilots are all over the place and will become even more common because Controlled Airspace is being opened up to 107 pilots, and 107 pilots are not required to notify Class G airports of their flights. It's just easier and more fun to have the 107.

 

[sar104]

Insurance does not cover criminal acts, period. It addresses civil acts. Violation of part 107 would be criminal.

I wasn't suggesting that insurance had anything to do with violating Part 107. I was pointing out that the main risk of using an unlicensed pilot is that you are not going to be covered for civil liability claims.

 

[O6-Hammerhead]

My understanding from speaking with the FAA is that the company “knowingly” hiring a non-107 pilot can be fined $11,000. However there have been only 2 such enforcement actions. According to the person with whom I spoke

Get your cert. why not do things right. It shouldn’t take a dent in someone’s wallet to convince them to do the right thing

 

[skypilot007]

Better to ask for forgiveness than permission go out and make money!

 

[O6-Hammerhead]

SkyPilot——
Sounds like you want to put others in jeopardy. Is that the way you meant it?

Seriously gang. Fly, have fun, and follow the rules/laws.

People like skypilot re the reason there are some many unreasonable regulations here in the US. His advice is just plain wrong and could land you in serious trouble

 

[BigAl07]

Better to ask for forgiveness than permission go out and make money!

@skypilot007 welcome to our forum.

Being (even acting as) a professional carries some responsibilities and moral obligations. Most of us take this very seriously and act accordingly.

I'm confident you won't make many "friends" on the forum with such an attitude as you posted in your very first post.

 

[Javiejav]

So question... as a realtor, and a drone pilot, am I required to have a 107 to take my own photos for a listing?? I don’t think that angle was covered in this discussion. I’ve been told in the past that it wasn’t required and it would be required if I were charging an extra percentage on my commission for aerial photos and videos

 

[flockshot]

So question... as a realtor, and a drone pilot, am I required to have a 107 to take my own photos for a listing?? I don’t think that angle was covered in this discussion. I’ve been told in the past that it wasn’t required and it would be required if I were charging an extra percentage on my commission for aerial photos and videos

The rule is that if a photograph, or video, is used in the furtherance of a business it requires a 107. Probably the best example I have heard is that if a farmer videos his fields of crops it is not a commercial picture. However, if when looking at the picture he realizes that one part of a field needs a insecticide treatment, then it is commercial and he is in violation of 107. Stupid, I know, but the point is, if it helps any business it is commercial.

 

[Richard R]

Again, as has been pointed out several times on the forum, the FAA doesn't even use the term 'commercial'. Their only concern is whether or not the flight is 'hobby', I.e. For personal enjoyment. ALL other flights come under Part 107 PERIOD.

 

[BigAl07]

So question... as a realtor, and a drone pilot, am I required to have a 107 to take my own photos for a listing?? I don’t think that angle was covered in this discussion. I’ve been told in the past that it wasn’t required and it would be required if I were charging an extra percentage on my commission for aerial photos and videos

Any flight that is outside of Hobby/Recreational requires Part 107. Even if you take a picture "for" your church/school/(insert any company name here) it's not for HOBBY/Recreation. You can not "HOBBY" for another person or business (yours or anyone elses's ) plain and simple.

The exchange of money is only one issue that would void your hobby status. Even the National Association for Realtors (NAR) has long noted that any Realtor use of a drone requires the Federally mandated licensing (was Section 333 but now is Part 107). It's also worth noting that more and more MLS services are requiring pilot credentials to be on file with them before they will accept Aerial images. With our state MLS they require my FAA RPIC license to be on file and when I submit the "Photographer's Agreement" with my submission they require the RPIC# to be included if it has aerial images.

And before someone sends you down the wrong path.... you can't "Fly for Free and charge for editing... or charge for the thumb drive.... or charge for consulting....or....." If the INTENT of the flight is to acquire data that is NOT 100% hobby it requires Part 107. There is really no grey area and your NAR Code of Ethics will also bring this into play as well.

 

[THECaptainKirk]

SkyPilot——
Sounds like you want to put others in jeopardy. Is that the way you meant it?

Seriously gang. Fly, have fun, and follow the rules/laws.

People like skypilot re the reason there are some many unreasonable regulations here in the US. His advice is just plain wrong and could land you in serious trouble

Jumping on skypilots “first post” as a reason we have unreasonable regulations? Really? The reason we have unreasonable regulations is the same reason we have unreasonable regulations in every government agency and to give some guy and his first post any “credit” for THAT is utter nonsense.

Some of us in this forum have our own ways of speaking out about these nonsensical regulations that clearly make no sense. I doubt anyone would read this post in its entirety and say - yeah I’m going to just go out and fly however and whenever I want. And I am going out on a limb here, but perhaps his maligned first post was a bit tongue in cheek? Sometimes, in dealing with government rules and regs on ANY subject they have ANY authority over the only thing one can do is inject a little humor into it just to keep one’s sanity.

I’m currently trying to navigate the SSA & VA to obtain benefits for my ailing mother. It shouldn’t be so complicated and tedious - going on 5 months now with two applications that I found out yesterday I probably could have messed up the entire thing by filing two. Nothing is ever clear or concise with big brother. To make it so would return too much power to we, the people. I’m just sayin....