Boss asked me to record a video, do I need a 107 license?

[sar104]

IMHO, I believe your (umanbean‘s )diagram is directly on point and correctly depicts current FAA and statutory rules. I base this contention primarily on 44809’s Federal Register notice (at Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft) which states:
“SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
…
Recreational flyers must adhere to all of the statutory conditions to operate under the Exception for Limited Recreational Operation of Unmanned Aircraft. Otherwise, the recreational operations must be conducted under 14 CFR part 107.”

This is also found under AC No: 91-57B (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57B.pdf):

7.1 Statutory Conditions. Until further notice, paragraphs 7.1.1 through 7.1.8 provide guidance on how a person may meet the eight statutory conditions of the statutory exception of 49 U.S.C. § 44809 to operate a UAS for recreational purposes. A person who fails to meet any of the statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 44809 may not operate UAS under the statutory exception and would need to operate them under part 107 or any other applicable FAA authority.
(emphasis added)
I certainly respect the opinion, knowledge, and experience of the pilots in this forum. However, based on the words of The Federal Register and 44809, I have to conclude that umanbean‘s diagram correctly depicts current FAA rules.
I would add one other thing for consideration. The word “outside” is different from the words “does not apply” since they have different meanings and should not be used interchangeably.
If my analysis of 44809 above is incorrect, I would greatly appreciate someone explaining what I am missing.

This is turning into rather an abstract discussion of set theory, but to ask the question differently, if Part 107 does not apply to flights made under 44809, in what way do you see 49 U.S.C. 44809 as being "inside" 14 CFR Part 107? They are entirely different regulatory frameworks.

And what you quoted above clearly states that recreational flights conducted under 44809 do not fall under Part 107:

Recreational flyers must adhere to all of the statutory conditions to operate under the Exception for Limited Recreational Operation of Unmanned Aircraft. Otherwise, the recreational operations must be conducted under 14 CFR part 107.​

How is not flying under 14 CFR Part 107 construed as being inside Part 107?

 

[umanbean]

How is not flying under 14 CFR Part 107 construed as being inside Part 107?

Ever since I started with GPS drones and became aware of Part 107, I always thought that all sUAS flights were governed by 107, but that recreational flights were the 'exception to the rule'... therefore the diagram I posted. I know nothing concrete about the actual wording, so now I feel I've been wrong about that. Thanks for your input.

This is turning into rather an abstract discussion of set theory

Yessir, it is.... WWVT? (what would Venn think?)

 

[JasonUWPhoto]

Definitely 107. Think about this… you’re around the building, the drone does a flyaway (no fault of your own) and hurts or kills someone. You don’t have a license. Wouldn’t want to be in that position.

 

[wardtom084]

Let's put it this way. If you were not the one that came up with the idea to do this, it is business.

 

[umanbean]

The FAA maybe could (should?) re-write sUAV rules\regs more clearly. I've always wondered why certain laws, as written, were overly confusing... referring to 'subsection so-and-so', complex phrasing/wording etc... but now I think also they're written so abstractly so they can be further interpreted by a law officer on the scene, a prosecutor, or ultimately, a judge.

Besides, I don't need to fully comprehend 107/44xxx... if I have a question, I've got sar104!!!! (and not to leave anyone out - ALL the other experts here, THANK YOU ALL!) I've learn a metric ton since I joined the PhantomPilots forum years ago, then came here.

 

[Rich QR]

This is turning into rather an abstract discussion of set theory,

Yes. When one tries to draw diagrams with circles and text, unless one is extremely precise in describing what the placement of the circles and text mean, people will draw unwarranted conclusions and/or miss points that you intended to make.

This diagram is misleading not only because the recreational circle is inside the Part 107 circle, but further because the diagram uses the phrase "recreational flight", without distinguishing between recreational flight under Part 107 and recreational flight under Section 44809. Section 44809 explicitly requires that flights made under its terms be strictly for recreational purposes, but Part 107 doesn't have any restrictions regarding the purpose of flight, allowing flights for recreational or non-recreational purposes, or any grey area in between. Many people informally use the term "recreational flight" to mean "Flight under section 44809", while others use the phrase "recreational flight" to mean "flight made for the purposes of recreation". Unless you're clear about what you mean by "recreational flight", you'll be misinterpreted by someone.

If you insist on drawing circles and putting text in them, I'd suggest having two completely disjoint circles, and labelling one "Flight under Part 107", while the other is labelled "Flight under Section 44809". If you insist, you could shade the entire 44809 circle with a shading that indicates recreational flight, and shade a portion of the Part 107 circle with the same shade to indicate recreational flight.

 

[umanbean]

Yes. When one tries to draw diagrams with circles and text, unless one is extremely precise in describing what the placement of the circles and text mean, people will draw unwarranted conclusions and/or miss points that you intended to make.

This diagram is misleading not only because the recreational circle is inside the Part 107 circle, but further because the diagram uses the phrase "recreational flight", without distinguishing between recreational flight under Part 107 and recreational flight under Section 44809. Section 44809 explicitly requires that flights made under its terms be strictly for recreational purposes, but Part 107 doesn't have any restrictions regarding the purpose of flight, allowing flights for recreational or non-recreational purposes, or any grey area in between. Many people informally use the term "recreational flight" to mean "Flight under section 44809", while others use the phrase "recreational flight" to mean "flight made for the purposes of recreation". Unless you're clear about what you mean by "recreational flight", you'll be misinterpreted by someone.

If you insist on drawing circles and putting text in them, I'd suggest having two completely disjoint circles, and labelling one "Flight under Part 107", while the other is labelled "Flight under Section 44809". If you insist, you could shade the entire 44809 circle with a shading that indicates recreational flight, and shade a portion of the Part 107 circle with the same shade to indicate recreational flight.

Wow...

I'm humbled, thanks for your interpretation

 

[Rich QR]

The FAA maybe could (should?) re-write sUAV rules\regs more clearly.

The FAA had nothing to do with writing Section 44809. That was entirely the product of the US Congress.

The FAA does develop a body of regulations, divided into Parts. Part 107 is a product of the FAA. The US Congress passes the US Code, divided into Sections. That's why Part 107 is called a "Part", while Section 44809 is called a "Section".

As for re-writing the rules to make them more clear, that's a fine idea. But it can be extremely difficult to do while maintaining the precise meaning. As the wording of particular laws and regulations gets interpreted in case law and other documents, changing that wording can confuse things more than it helps. Did they change that word beause they wanted to change the meaning? or did they change it because they wanted to keep the existing meaning and make it easier to understand?

 

[umanbean]

The FAA had nothing to do with writing Section 44809. That was entirely the product of the US Congress.

The FAA does develop a body of regulations, divided into Parts. Part 107 is a product of the FAA. The US Congress passes the US Code, divided into Sections. That's why Part 107 is called a "Part", while Section 44809 is called a "Section".

As for re-writing the rules to make them more clear, that's a fine idea. But it can be extremely difficult to do while maintaining the precise meaning. As the wording of particular laws and regulations gets interpreted in case law and other documents, changing that wording can confuse things more than it helps. Did they change that word beause they wanted to change the meaning? or did they change it because they wanted to keep the existing meaning and make it easier to understand?

So would this be more representative?

 

[Zbip57]

So you are saying that if I fly over my house to look at my own gutters (instead of getting on ladder) I would need a Part 107?

Yes - according to the letter of the law. Will it be enforced, or is it even realistically enforceable, in that situation? Of course not.

1. I'm going to fly over my house, just for fun, and coincidentally notice the gutters need cleaning.
2. I'm going to fly over my house to check whether the gutters need cleaning.

1 is recreational. 2 is non-recreational and thus requires Part 107.

It's an absurd distinction.

Definitely 107. Think about this… you’re around the building, the drone does a flyaway (no fault of your own) and hurts or kills someone. You don’t have a license. Wouldn’t want to be in that position.

It's no safer to be flying recreationally around the building and suffering the same flyaway, is it?

 

[GFields]

What a read this thread is

 

[wardtom084]

Flying over your house looking at your gutters is your idea. If you rent the house and the landlord wants you to do the same it is not your idea it is business. I think a lot of confusion would be eliminated that all reactional flying is your idea. Anything else is business.

 

[umanbean]

What a read this thread is

That happens, sometimes... and sometimes when you least expect it.

But, the real question is... do you feel like you've learned anything yet?

I know I have... and I'd be willing to take it to another thread, appropriately named so anyone who clicked on it would know exactly what they're 'getting into'.

How about: 107 vs 44809 (or what some call 'recreational' flying) - In a Nutshell... and do Venn diagrams, which have long been used in education and presentation to present inclusive/exclusive concepts in an easy to understand format.

 

[Vic Moss]

Time to post this again (admin standing approval). There is no gray area when it comes to 44809 v. 107. You're one or the other.

This article explains it to a "T". Even my FAA contacts have thanked me for this article. It's precise and accurate. And updated since TRUST came out.

Hobby v. 107: Unscrambled - Drone Service Providers Alliance

Why does it seem so difficult for some people to understand the very marked difference between the FAA’s “hobby” rules and “commercial” rules when it comes to UAS (drone) flights in the National Airspace System (NAS)? Our rules could not be any more clear. It seems human nature wants to default...

dspalliance.org

 

[hychewright]

I've been flying Drones for fun since 2015. I'm not Part 107 qualified and don't wont to be. That said.....I did take the recreational test as per the FAA regulations for recreational flying. My Drones are registered with the FAA so I guess I'm all legal. However, looking down the road..... I hope it don't come down to if you own a drone and fly it then you must have a part 107 licenses to fly? Hope that's not the case in the future .

There are a lot of us that just love to just fly drones for fun only. I'm one of those people. Personally....... IMHO if a person wont's to earn $$ flying a Drone.....that's fine if that is what they wont to do. Get part 107 certified and start earning $$! It's great! I just hope the FAA don't take the recreation fun flying out of the equation for us. Happy and Safe flying.

 

[umanbean]

I hope it don't come down to if you own a drone and fly it then you must have a part 107 licenses to fly? Hope that's not the case in the future .

There are a lot of us that just love to just fly drones for fun only. I'm one of those people. Personally....... IMHO if a person wont's to earn $$ flying a Drone.....that's fine if that is what they wont to do. Get part 107 certified and start earning $$! It's great! I just hope the FAA don't take the recreation fun flying out of the equation for us. Happy and Safe flying.

GREAT perspective! Thanks for that.

I fly just for fun too, at the moment... might want to get 107 cert later, but for now I just LUV operating a 3D flying machine in a given space

 

[Rich QR]

So would this be more representative?

View attachment 133909

There's nothing in common. 107.1 (b) (2) says that if Section 44809 applies, then Part 107 doesn't apply.

 

[sar104]

Time to post this again (admin standing approval). There is no gray area when it comes to 44809 v. 107. You're one or the other.

This article explains it to a "T". Even my FAA contacts have thanked me for this article. It's precise and accurate. And updated since TRUST came out.

Hobby v. 107: Unscrambled - Drone Service Providers Alliance

Why does it seem so difficult for some people to understand the very marked difference between the FAA’s “hobby” rules and “commercial” rules when it comes to UAS (drone) flights in the National Airspace System (NAS)? Our rules could not be any more clear. It seems human nature wants to default...

dspalliance.org

This needs to be a sticky, or whatever they are called.

 

[eEridani]

The thing that seems to be a hurdle right now is who the heck knows of an organization that is providing your safety guidelines? There are ZERO organizations in my area that do any of this. At least, none that are publicly searchable.

ps: there is this, and what I am flying under right now:

AC 91-57B - Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft – Document Information

www.faa.gov

 

[sar104]

The thing that seems to be a hurdle right now is who the heck knows of an organization that is providing your safety guidelines? There are ZERO organizations in my area that do any of this. At least, none that are publicly searchable.

Then just use the AMA guidelines.