The slippery slope is that if you already have a picture that you took when you were flying for recreational purposes, and offer to give it to him... completely legal as the intent of the flight was recreational. The subsequent transfer of the picture had nothing to do with the flight in the past. You are only illegal if you fly to get the picture to give to your neighbor.
Yes, the reality is that unless one was rewarded (in a recordable way) for any sort of flight action at any time, then a 'later' aspect of a photo or video gifting is really always going to be open to interpretation.
Kind of makes that side of the rule unenforceable in a lot of recreational / gifting situations.
Then it becomes a matter of pilot ethics, if one is willing to bend rules on such things . . . gifting photos / footage, flying that bit too far BVLOS, over 'things' that are probably best not to 'just in case', and so on.
The example that is often given is you can fly over your house but you can't fly (without 107) over your roof to check it out.
But you can't fly with the intent of checking your roof. How interesting.
Yes quite odd that you can't check your own roof, in safety and faster via a drone flight, rather than getting up a ladder and walking it, risking damage to tiles etc.
As my example above, if you flew that for fun, then noticed some ridge capping loose, someone somehow found out and reported you to FAA . . . it gets a bit far fetched for sure . . . but would the FAA be at all interested ?
A good chance of course not, but if they did, who's to say you just didn't fly for fun and see that later, and who really cares ?
No flight of manned aircraft was put at risk, no risk to pedestrians, property (outside normal flight risk), etc.
These are the supposed reasons for drone laws and rules.
It's an interpretation on the part 107 rule perhaps, but does anyone really think that will ever be enacted at any future time ?
It beggars belief that rules that may never be used, could ever be applied fairly or with certainty, are even contemplated, over bureaucratised rule making at its finest.
That roof inspection analogy is, I feel, a step up from taking an extended family snap for yourself at a gathering, and later sharing to social media online (where anyone can save it), or sharing with a far away relation by email.
Do the FAA really expect some rec pilot wanting a family gathering photo from a low angle air shot to contact a part 107 pilot and engage their services ?
Fly only for recreational purposes (enjoyment).
Isn't private photography / videography from the air usually undertaken for enjoyment ?
It's shared daily here as one might share a photo with another person in the shot, shared all over social media, just not sure that first clause could be reasonably applied for a simple family / friends photo, it just seems beyond the spirit of the rule.
I'm not sure you'd ever see this sort of enforcement in the US by the FAA, or CAA in the UK or NZ, or CASA here.
One can obviously see why and how this can easily be applied for commercial / business gain, be it at a cost / reward in any form, or even gifted . . . but there is still that clause for that even about intent at time of filming, which isn't mentioned at all in the rules of part 107, just that is deemed important as it dictates why the flight was undertaken.
It's all way off track to the post #50 anyway of course, as that photo wasn't taken to give to the neighbour.
