107 Loophole

[Ragnar]

You didn't read the second part...what I meant was...if you follow all the rules for getting paid you are less likely to into any trouble....FYI Aviation us filled with cowboy pilots that don't pay any attention to the rules.....The FAA really isn't out to get you or catch you doing something wrong...they are all pilots or retired pilots and they don't want to see Aviation get shut down. If you don't understand an FAR call, email, or go down to the local office and ask questions. Have a nice day!

Sadly it's this kind of thinking which has caused the introduction of so many restrictive rules.

 

[Ty Pilot]

It's only illegal if you get caught. If you are 107 certificated treat all flights like you are getting paid.

That second point is incorrect also. If I treat all flights like I am 'getting paid' (commercial flight) then that means I must fly all flights under the 107 rules. In actuality, a 107 certified pilot can fly recreational flights and therefore by definition 'must not' fly like we're getting paid, instead a 107 must fly under the recreational rules when flying for fun.

I think what you may have meant is that if you're a 107 pilot, you know the rules and how to be safe, so do so (be safe) always when flying.

 

[sdold]

instead a 107 must fly under the recreational rules when flying for fun.

The way I understand it, since I have the RPIC sUAS certificate I can fly under part 107 for recreation if I want to. I don't believe that anything requires me to fly under some other part.

 

[brett8883]

In actuality, a 107 certified pilot can fly recreational flights and therefore by definition 'must not' fly like we're getting paid, instead a 107 must fly under the recreational rules when flying for fun.

That last part isn’t correct. A 107 pilot can fly under part 107 at any time even for recreation. Only if flying recreationally under the rules in the limited exception for recreational operations must a 107 pilot follow the rules for the limited exception for recreational operations. Basically you can’t mix and match rules but 107 flights can be for recreation or otherwise.

I think where people get tripped up is thinking part 107 is for getting paid and the limited exception for recreational operations is for recreation. In fact everything is 107 with the... wait for it... exception being that if flying for recreational purposes then you can fly under these special rules carved out in the Exception for Recreational Operations of Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

For people without part 107 airman certificates this exception is the only way they can legally fly.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Yes I agree, we can fly under the 107 for fun but we don't have to is my point. All we have to make sure is, that the entire flight is flown under one set of rules for it's entirety.

 

[Ragnar]

That second point is incorrect also. If I treat all flights like I am 'getting paid' (commercial flight) then that means I must fly all flights under the 107 rules. In actuality, a 107 certified pilot can fly recreational flights and therefore by definition 'must not' fly like we're getting paid, instead a 107 must fly under the recreational rules when flying for fun.

I think what you may have meant is that if you're a 107 pilot, you know the rules and how to be safe, so do so (be safe) always when flying.

You are missing the point. If you fly under the strictest of FAR's then anything below that is legal (recreational)...I've been a professional helicopter pilot for 30 years....you are over thinking it

 

[AG214]

The OP is sufficient evidence to demonstrate commercial intent.

 

[Letmein]

Just get certified! Whether you are just a hobbyist or wanting more... the information that you will learn will make you a better pilot all around.

 

[Captain Lou]

Watched a YT video recently and it was about part 107 testing and the person happened to get friendly with a FAA employee... they had lunch and talked about the license ... the question came up about what is meant by “for commercial use” and he explained it to him like this... if you take pictures of the wife and kids playing in your back yard having a good ole time - that’s recreational... if the wife and kids all are wearing “Coke” shirts , that’s commercial use !!
He was told... anything that is a furtherance of a business is considered needing a 107... period !
why is everyone looking for a loophole ? Follow rules and there will be fewer made for us all !!
Justmyopinion!!

 

[brett8883]

Watched a YT video recently and it was about part 107 testing and the person happened to get friendly with a FAA employee... they had lunch and talked about the license ... the question came up about what is meant by “for commercial use” and he explained it to him like this... if you take pictures of the wife and kids playing in your back yard having a good ole time - that’s recreational... if the wife and kids all are wearing “Coke” shirts , that’s commercial use !!
He was told... anything that is a furtherance of a business is considered needing a 107... period !
why is everyone looking for a loophole ? Follow rules and there will be fewer made for us all !!
Justmyopinion!!

FAA personnel are frustratingly confused by this themselves.

Clearly the type of clothing worn by someone does not turn an otherwise recreational flight into a non-recreational flight. That’s asinine.

If the point of the flight was to take photos for a Coca-Cola promotion THEN it would be non-recreational.

Where do they find these people.

 

[theDRONEranger]

Watched a YT video recently and it was about part 107 testing and the person happened to get friendly with a FAA employee... they had lunch and talked about the license ... the question came up about what is meant by “for commercial use” and he explained it to him like this... if you take pictures of the wife and kids playing in your back yard having a good ole time - that’s recreational... if the wife and kids all are wearing “Coke” shirts , that’s commercial use !!
He was told... anything that is a furtherance of a business is considered needing a 107... period !
why is everyone looking for a loophole ? Follow rules and there will be fewer made for us all !!
Justmyopinion!!

I would have to disagree with the thought process of wearing “Coke” shirts. Under the same premise, one could then also argue that by wearing a shirt with a “Ford”, or “Chevy”, or any brand name/logo as a subject while flying a drone makes it a commercial flight????

 

[brett8883]

I hear this term

furtherance of a business

used a lot but it’s noteworthy that this is not the official FAA language.

84 FR 22552 states, “If you are using the unmanned aircraft for a commercial or business purpose, the operation must be conducted under 14 CFR part 107 or other applicable FAA regulations.”

“Commercial or business purpose” implies intent is required.

 

[ajkm]

It's only illegal if you get caught.

I think you might need to go to law school if you believe this.

 

[Ron (MM)]

How right you are CAP L

 

[Heavydpj]

They gave this example: You ask someone if you have their permission to fly over and take videos of their property. A week later after you have looked over the footage, and realize how great it is....you contact the owner and ask if he wants to buy any of the footage. As long as you did not do it for financial incentive BEFORE the flight (such as talking money), you would be OK.

No, NOT ok; also not a loophole.

The dispositive act is that you used the image for profit, not what you intended to do with it. If that were the case, anyone could get out of a fine by merely claiming that the images were inadvertent.

BTW, who is "They"?

SMH

 

[Heavydpj]

if you take pictures of the wife and kids playing in your back yard having a good ole time - that’s recreational... if the wife and kids all are wearing “Coke” shirts , that’s commercial use !!

Doesn't matter whether or not the wife and kids are wearing a logo. As long as the person only uses the images for their personal purpose (e.g. personal social media account) then it's fine.

If the person sold the image to Coke, then there would be a problem.

 

[Heavydpj]

84 FR 22552 states, “If you are using the unmanned aircraft for a commercial or business purpose, the operation must be conducted under 14 CFR part 107 or other applicable FAA regulations.”

“Commercial or business purpose” implies intent is required.

??‍

 

[brett8883]

??‍

?

 

[BigAl07]

Watched a YT video recently and it was about part 107 testing and the person happened to get friendly with a FAA employee... they had lunch and talked about the license ... the question came up about what is meant by “for commercial use” and he explained it to him like this... if you take pictures of the wife and kids playing in your back yard having a good ole time - that’s recreational... if the wife and kids all are wearing “Coke” shirts , that’s commercial use !!
He was told... anything that is a furtherance of a business is considered needing a 107... period !
why is everyone looking for a loophole ? Follow rules and there will be fewer made for us all !!
Justmyopinion!!

Could you provide a link to that YT video? I'd love to know more and possibly get the powers-to-be to review such an incorrect statement from one of our FAA Employees.

 

[Heavydpj]

??‍

It's a facepalm

"A facepalm is the physical gesture of placing one's hand across one's face or lowering one's face into one's hand or hands, covering or closing one's eyes. The gesture is often exaggerated by giving the motion more force and making a slapping noise when the hand comes in contact with the face. The gesture is found in many cultures as a display of frustration, disappointment, exasperation, embarrassment, horror, shock, surprise, exhaustion, sarcasm, or incredulous disbelief."