USA Flying inside a large building. And the FAA

rmb · Dec 11, 2018

If as a 107 pilot (or any for that matter) being asked to fly inside a large building, does the FAA control from the floor up or from the roof up?
I ask for 2 different reasons. If it is only from the roof up, does the class of airspace matter and can you fly over people that are in the building.

I'm sorry if the answer is obvious, but I was asked by a client and could not find that answer for him, so I was hoping you bright folks could lend a hand.

Thanks, rb

SanCap · Dec 11, 2018

The FAA does not control indoor flights at all.

STKNRUD · Dec 15, 2018

SanCap said:
The FAA does not control indoor flights at all.

But will they get involved if someone is hurt/killed or there is significant property damage? I believe there is a required reporting provision and then there could be loss of license.

rmb · Dec 15, 2018

STKNRUD said:
But will they get involved if someone is hurt/killed or there is significant property damage? I believe there is a required reporting provision and then there could be loss of license.

A good point to consider. I mean technically if someone gets hurt wouldn't that be an aviation-related accident?
Thank you

STKNRUD · Dec 15, 2018

Absolutely. The FAA regs still prohibit flight in the vacuity of or over people. If, by example, you were flying over people at an indoor rodeo, you would be violating the regs.

Eric Braun · Dec 15, 2018

I don’t believe the FAA has any authority inside an enclosed space. Universities and research projects build cages just for this reason. They are not bound by FAA regs inside those cages.

STKNRUD · Dec 15, 2018

Off subject. The post was about flying in a large building, not a “cage”. But if someone is killed or seriously injured inside a “cage”, it doesn’t matter, it must be reported and is a violation.

Eric Braun · Dec 15, 2018

STKNRUD said:
Off subject. The post was about flying in a large building, not a “cage”. But if someone is killed or seriously injured inside a “cage”, it doesn’t matter, it must be reported and is a violation.

Same difference as far as regs are concerned.

STKNRUD · Dec 15, 2018

"Same difference" is an oxymoron. Don't understand. The FAA does reg indoor flight or cage flight since the regs for proximity to people applies to both.

Eric Braun · Dec 15, 2018

From Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Frequently Asked Questions

"If I'm just flying my UAS inside a building, do I have to register it?
If you're flying indoors, you do not need to register your unmanned aircraft as the FAA does not regulate indoor UAS use."

So if the FAA does not regulate indoor UAS use, it cannot restrict overflight.

STKNRUD · Dec 15, 2018

Eric Braun said:
From Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Frequently Asked Questions

"If I'm just flying my UAS inside a building, do I have to register it?
If you're flying indoors, you do not need to register your unmanned aircraft as the FAA does not regulate indoor UAS use."

So if the FAA does not regulate indoor UAS use, it cannot restrict overflight.

I understand your perspective but it is not correct in the context of the poster's question. The post was, "as a 107 pilot..." Based on that, he is operating under 107 regulations and implied that as he was being asked to do the flight. On that basis, the 107 regs would apply to flight near persons. It would be ludicrous to say that, if for example, he was commercially flying his drone within a large covered building in the proximity of people, he would not have to comply with those proximity regs. Your answer to the poster is that if he wants to fly his drone commercially, he can do so without registering, without complying with his 107 and over people. Are you willing to pay his defense costs if he goes ahead and takes the job?

Eric Braun · Dec 15, 2018

STKNRUD said:
...
Your answer to the poster is that if he wants to fly his drone commercially, he can do so without registering, without complying with his 107 and over people. Are you willing to pay his defense costs if he goes ahead and takes the job?

Yes, that is exactly my reading of FAA regs. They have no jurisdiction indoors at all... nothing. And, no, I would not pay to defend him. That's not my business and even if it were, I haven't been collecting premiums from him. He should have insurance and if it were me I'd have a discussion with that insurance company. They certainly have a right to object to activities that may be excluded under the policy.

STKNRUD · Dec 15, 2018

More appropriately, he should talk with the FAA before he accepts your foolish response to him.

Eric Braun · Dec 15, 2018

STKNRUD said:
More appropriately, he should talk with the FAA before he accepts your foolish response to him.

There is nothing in FAA regs that would make my advice "foolish". Nothing.
"the FAA does not regulate indoor UAS use." means what it says. No "except" is there.

STKNRUD · Dec 15, 2018

Ask the FAA for him and let us know. Over and out.

Eric Braun · Dec 15, 2018

STKNRUD said:
Ask the FAA for him and let us know. Over and out.

So, now you're telling me what to do?

cfriisha · Dec 15, 2018

Come-on folks, Eric made most sense to me: FAA is not in the game, but insurance certainly is, so let it be up to OP's insurance company. I guess they would not encourage him to fly over, or too near, a public audience, and personally I would not do it due to noise and the risk of flying into people.

STKNRUD · Dec 15, 2018

cfriisha said:
Come-on folks, Eric made most sense to me: FAA is not in the game, but insurance certainly is, so let it be up to OP's insurance company. I guess they would not encourage him to fly over, or too near, a public audience, and personally I would not do it due to noise and the risk of flying into people.

I obviously am not telling him what to do. He might be right. I am interested enough to call the local GADO on Monday and ask. I agree with the implication to safety regardless. It may be that it is ok with FAA simply because it is in a building. But I would argue that what is deemed illegal and dangerous outside, is dangerous inside. I recommended that it was wise and more appropriate to call the FAA before his insurance company because your insurance will not cover anything that is illegal or grossly negligent. If something happened, I would, as the prosecutor, argue that as a 107 operator knowing it was illegal and dangerous outside, why did he think it was safe inside. It’s all about risk vs reward. As an ATP, I’ve never been paid more for taking unnecessary risks and after thousands of hours, I’ve never been cited.

Eric Braun · Dec 15, 2018

STKNRUD said:
I obviously am not telling him what to do. He might be right. I am interested enough to call the local GADO on Monday and ask. I agree with the implication to safety regardless. It may be that it is ok with FAA simply because it is in a building. But I would argue that what is deemed illegal and dangerous outside, is dangerous inside. I recommended that it was wise and more appropriate to call the FAA before his insurance company because your insurance will not cover anything that is illegal or grossly negligent. If something happened, I would, as the prosecutor, argue that as a 107 operator knowing it was illegal and dangerous outside, why did he think it was safe inside. It’s all about risk vs reward. As an ATP, I’ve never been paid more for taking unnecessary risks and after thousands of hours, I’ve never been cited.

I can see the argument for voluntarily using 107 safety regs inside. On the insurance side, a criminal act is not covered by insurance for sure. But not following the rules is often not a criminal act. If you have an accident because you were speeding you are still covered. But if you have an accident because you were making a get-away from a bank robbery... not so much. So... where is the line?

STKNRUD · Dec 15, 2018

Eric Braun said:
I can see the argument for voluntarily using 107 safety regs inside. On the insurance side, a criminal act is not covered by insurance for sure. But not following the rules is often not a criminal act. If you have an accident because you were speeding you are still covered. But if you have an accident because you were making a get-away from a bank robbery... not so much. So... where is the line?

The “line” is determined by lawyers and often who has the most $$. I know, however, that as a commercial 107 operator, he would be held to a much high degree of responsibility. Any time you put on the hat of “professional”, you are graded much differently by lawyers and a jury. That is why I made the “foolish” comment. So many of these threads are about VLOS and 400’ without the appearance of a direct threat to people. This was different. I didn’t mean it as a personal insult. In the context of his post I think is wiser to qualify any response about the risk in addition to the legality. Flying inside in the vacinity of people is a lot different risk than exceeding VLOS in the middle of a farm field. No offense to you personally was intended.