Part 107 pilots who also fly manned aircraft, is the written exam similar to the written for your private pilots license?

[Droning on and on...]

With the prices of rentals these days I don't blame on not keeping current.

Yeah, I let mine lapse I the early nineties for the same reason. If you didn't own, it was just too expensive.

 

[Paint Rock Drones]

Now I'm feeling my inner @mavic3usa start to twitch (said with 100% pure friendly ribbing ).

How does that violate the recreational exception? Seems like that's simply taking pictures for a friend.

I'm not a lawyer, and my lay understanding is that the case law is not settled. But if your friend asks you for something of value and you provide it, an argument could be made that you are participating in an activity that is not purely recreational. So the interpretation could be that it is not purely a recreational activity at that point.

By analogy, and my understanding is this is settled case law, if a private pilot heads off on a sightseeing flight and invites a friend along for the ride, that is fine under part 91. If I'm going from point A to point B and invite a friend along, that is fine too. But if a friend asks a private pilot to fly from point A to point B and drop him off, that can be interpreted as a commercial air taxi operation under part 135, regardless of whether any money changes hands. At that point the pilot needs a commercial certificate, and the rules are different. The intent of the flight is important.

So my conclusion is if you are flying in your back yard for fun and happen to take a picture of your neighbor's roof, then later share that photo with the neighbor you are fine under the exception, because your intent at the time of the flight was recreational. If your neighbor asks you and you specifically set out to take a photo of the roof then it falls under 107 without the exception. Of course as a practical matter the FAA is unlikely to care unless something else catches their attention.

 

[marinsd]

95% of my photography is pro-bono and 100% of my drone photography is pro-bono. Like above, I got my 107 so that I can video/photograph for non-profit groups. The cost was minimal (=an hour or two of flight-time) and the cost of a workbook. Everything else I learned from free-Youtube. And I felt the 107 was useful to understand the UAV rules and regulations. (PS I don't use my private ticket anymore either. When I got, my 172's and Cherokees were $9 an hour, wet.)

 

[mavic3usa]

Now I'm feeling my inner @mavic3usa start to twitch (said with 100% pure friendly ribbing ).

How does that violate the recreational exception? Seems like that's simply taking pictures for a friend.

Normally I would agree because simply taking a photo for a friend because he asked you to send the drone up and take the pictures and give it to him...to me that doesn't seem like you are flying your drone to promote your business (i.e. commercial activity).

However, flying recreational is an exception and it means every single flight you take is a commercial flight unless you find a valid exception for that flight only and right now, the only valid exception is if you take off with your flight and you fly strictly for fun (or recreational purposes). Any other reasons besides "flying for fun", even if it doesn't promote a business, can still be considered commercial which means you need to have a part 107. Technically speaking.

 

[LoudThunder]

How does that violate the recreational exception? Seems like that's simply taking pictures for a friend.

This has been covered so many, many times, even taking photos of your neighbor's roof just to see the conditions of the shingles earns you some measure of "goodwill" (I own you one…)… and the FAA does not allow it, I am not an FAA Narc, I am only tell you like it is, so now you know…

Quoted for the FAA Web Site…

Note: Non-recreational drone flying include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections, or taking pictures of a high school football game for the school's website. Goodwill can also be considered non-recreational. This would include things like volunteering to use your drone to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit organization.

Recreational Flyers & Community-Based Organizations | Federal Aviation Administration

Did your drone registration expire or does it expire soon? The DroneZone is the FAA's official website for registration. If you are having trouble logging into the DroneZone, you may need to reset your password (PDF).

www.faa.gov

 

[BroomRider]

I'm not a lawyer, and my lay understanding is that the case law is not settled. But if your friend asks you for something of value and you provide it, an argument could be made that you are participating in an activity that is not purely recreational. So the interpretation could be that it is not purely a recreational activity at that point.

By analogy, and my understanding is this is settled case law, if a private pilot heads off on a sightseeing flight and invites a friend along for the ride, that is fine under part 91. If I'm going from point A to point B and invite a friend along, that is fine too. But if a friend asks a private pilot to fly from point A to point B and drop him off, that can be interpreted as a commercial air taxi operation under part 135, regardless of whether any money changes hands. At that point the pilot needs a commercial certificate, and the rules are different. The intent of the flight is important.

So my conclusion is if you are flying in your back yard for fun and happen to take a picture of your neighbor's roof, then later share that photo with the neighbor you are fine under the exception, because your intent at the time of the flight was recreational. If your neighbor asks you and you specifically set out to take a photo of the roof then it falls under 107 without the exception. Of course as a practical matter the FAA is unlikely to care unless something else catches their attention.

I agree, re: “intent”.

I enjoy flying my drone, & the photography & video I take while doing it.

Since the only time I got to see the top of my roof is when I leaned my ladder & climbed up the tall 2 stories to see it in person, being able to launch my drone & go take a look around at it out of curiosity seemed a godsend, & I have done so.

If I were to do so with the intent of making use of what I saw, say for instance, a roof inspection, even if it were my own roof, other than out of pure curiosity, that would require the Pt.107.

Ditto if it were my friend's roof.

If I were to fly around their place, merely for the fun of enjoying the view, & either taking photos &/ recording video, & my friend's roof were an incidental part of what I photographed/recorded, & my friend was curious about what the photos/video looked like from a drone, & then saw, that would not require the Pt.107.

That would change if my friend asked me specifically to take photos/video of his roof, & specially with the intent of making use of them for a roof inspection.

I think that for such things, everything would hinge on the pre-meditated “intent”.

Proving or disproving such a thing would be very difficult if not impossible, without any corroborating evidence, & given that a person must be presumed not guilty unless & until proven otherwise, this is something that the FAA “legal beagles” & prosecutors will be fighting an uphill battle.

To the extent that, in the context of my aforementioned casual flights which included views of such roofs, if those later got viewed, & there were some kind of tangible benefit, say, they were taken prior to a storm blowing through, & a branch coming down & damaging said roof, & such recording was sent to the insurance company as proof of prior condition, that would still not be a violation of Pt.107 since, at the time the photos/videos were recorded, the “intent” element wasn't there, even later if they were then used for a tangible benefit.

Such things point out the current ridiculous definitions, when considering the element of “purposes of tangible benefit”.

A recreational pilot can fly a <250gm drone, without needing the Pt.107 so long as the use & "intent" at the time of the flight, was for pure enjoyment.

But, a pilot would need to have the Pt.107 to fly even the tiniest drone, & some are <50gm, even <25gm, far lighter than the 250gm line used to define those that are deemed safe enough for recreational pilots, for anything other non-recreational purposes.

I think it beyond any shadow of doubt that, at least for the <250gm class, the FAA rules between what's recreational & doesn't require registration, & what requires registration &/ a Pt. 107, & their disregarding from consideration of the weight of a drone when it comes to the actual reasons for the requirements to have a Pt.107, are all about the money (admittedly, not much) & more about the (ability for them to) control; again, at least for the <250gm class, it's not about safety at all.