I'm glad that in Canada the level of licensing you need is governed by what your flight plan is, not your intent. No grey areas about getting paid or doing favours, because it doesn't matter.
Boss asked me to record a video, do I need a 107 license?
- Thread starter cowsgonemadd3
- Start date
- Status
Rich QR
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I agree with that. Oh, I certainly agree that, if you want to fly without a license, you must abide by each and every one of the limitations of 44809, and you don't get to fly above 400' AGL around structures, and all that.
But most of my flights would be legal under either set of rules, and I'm not always certain which set applies. I have a Part 107 certificate. I almost always fly for strictly recreational purposes. My flights are nearly always daytime VFR with over 3 statute miles visibility. I have never used the "near a structure" provision of Part 107 to climb above 400' AGL. I generally don't fly in controlled airspace. My drone is registered for Part 107 flight, but it weighs less than 250g. I always carry both my TRUST certificate and my Part 107 license.
I believe that, for most purposes, it doesn't matter. If I'm ever questioned by law enforcement, I can force the flight to be interpreted as one or the other simply by presenting only one type of credential: my Part 107 certificate or my TRUST certificate. If I don't present my TRUST certificate when requested, it can't be a legal 44809 flight, and so it must be judged by the Part 107 rules. If I do present my TRUST certificate, and if I meet all the other 44809 limitations, then Part 107 doesn't apply.
But what if I present both my TRUST certificate and my Part 107 license? Do I get to have the flight judged under 44809 rules, unless and until the investigators determine that I wasn't in compliance with one of the limitations, in which case the flight becomes subject to all the Part 107 rules?
This is not a serious real-world problem. It's merely an example that, in my mind, doesn't fit neatly into the "you're either one or the other" claim. Many flights can be compliant with both sets of rules.
66427cobra
Well-Known Member
I flew my Mini 2 over my house to check my gutters (I am 107 certified). It provided a great view and the prop wash blew some of the debris out of the gutter.
Thinking of getting a bigger drone for the fall season as I need more power.
Does Binford make a drone? Argh...Argh...Argh...?
The whole thing makes no sense. It's completely illogical.
I do understand how y'all (USA) ended up at this point. Recreational flyers have been safely enjoying their hobby for many generations without the need of FAA regulations. That's because model flyers did all (most) of their flying at their local hobby club field which imposed their own strict set of safety regulations on their club members. Break the rules, you can no longer fly at that field.
But now everyone has access to simple-to-fly VTOL drones that can take off and be flown anywhere by anyone. Hence all these stricter regulations.
But the recreational hobby flyers justifiably complained, because they have such a good safety record. So Congress forced the FAA to retain and carve out those exemptions for recreational flyers.
You can fly over your house and your neighbour's house as long as it's just "for fun", all purely recreational. But you can't do the exact same flight without Part 107 if your "intent" is to inspect your gutters, or somehow far worse inspect your neighbour's gutters.
Why is one considered safe for hobby flyers, while the other requires a more restrictive level of certification? It's no safer to fly a drone "for fun" versus "non-recreational". The completely artificial and meaningless dividing line is based solely on "intent".
It's implying that recreational flyers are somehow less of a hazard to society because they're just having "fun", whereas commercial flyers clearly are the real hazard and thus must be subject to more regulation. But that's ridiculous.
The key is in those as-yet missing Community Based Organization standards. If the FAA can force all recreational drone flyers back onto hobby club fields, problem solved. But that's certainly never gonna happen. That genie has long since escaped the bottle.
Do you have an FAA reference? I have some old photos and videos that someone has asked about using and I'd like to be able to assure them (and myself, I guess) that it's strictly ok. Thanks.
I think that you are overcomplicating the question. There are two simple ways that you can be "one or the other":
- The flight is not recreational - by definition you are under Part 107.
- The flight is recreational - you can choose to fly under Part 107 or 44809.
Rich QR
Well-Known Member
It's not a problem. I've never had an authority figure ask me to make a choice about which rules I was flying under, and in the vast majority of my flights, I have not made such a choice or designation. If someone ever forced me to make such a choice, I could flip a coin.
It's only a problem for those who would insist that all flights must be under only one set of rules or the other. Most of mine comply with both, and I can't find any rule that says it's illegal to comply with both, nor one that requires me to make an explicit designation of only one set that I am flying under.
Sure, 107.1 (b) (2) says that if Section 44809 applies, then Part 107 doesn't apply. But there's no rule that says who makes the determination whether 44809 applies, and no rule that says any such determination must be made for a particular flight where no challenge is made to its legality. Like Schroedinger's cat being simultaneously alive and dead, at least until somebody opens the box and collapses the wave function, I believe most of my flights exist in a superposition state of both Section 44809 and Part 107. At least until somebody makes a determination of whether or not Section 44809 applies. But I see no reason why I should collapse that wave function unless and until somebody with authority forces me to do so.
Last edited:
PatrickMicc
Active Member
You are reading Part 107 correctly, but ignoring 49 U.S.C. 44809, which answers your question about determination:
(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:...
In other words if the flight is qualified under 44809 (i.e. satisfies 44809 (a) (1) - (8)), the pilot may choose to fly under 44809. The pilot makes the determination of eligibility and the choice.
Sure - if you are conducting a flight that qualifies to be operated under both 44809 and Part 107, doesn't require LAANC approval, and you are also Part 107 certified, then you can avoid making a choice unless asked since there is no requirement to document that choice prior to flying.
Isn't it more like when a cop pulls you over for speeding or whatever the officer making the stop is the judge of why you are being stopped and what law/statue/ordinance you are in violation of; and then, if you want you can contest it in front of a judge?
For FAA things, the person/entity who is in authority and asking for your documents will be the one making the decision to cite or not to cite a violation and will tell you what statute or rule is at issue. Or, in the case of an accident, you will be making that determination on the required report you will be making.
Also - if applying for a special clearance to legally fly within controlled airspace you will also be making that determination on the form you fill out since the purpose of the flight is one of the questions asked. per the FAA for a LAANC clearance:
The information may include, but is not limited to, name, address, phone number, aircraft registration number, and a description of planned operation. Disclosure of this information is voluntary, but operation of a sUAS outside of the regulations at 14 C.F.R. Part 107 without a waiver or authorization in violation of that regulation may result in an enforcement action and/or civil penalties under 14 C.F.R. Part 13
That's the sort of re-write of US laws I was referring to earlier. To make the rules simple and clear. While, as written now, there may well and truly be no 'gray areas', to the average Joe Creditcard who buys a drone at the local big box store and were to try and read and understand the rules on his own, it's ALL a big gray area.
Then Joe unboxes the drone at home and there's no paperwork except safety disclaimers. No op manual, no reference to the need to find and read the FARs, not even an owner's manual for the machine or app, or directions on how to find one online!
To someone who can read and understand legal-ese, interpreting the FARs is not so hard... to me and 'Joe', it is.
Case in point:
"In General", in order to understand the really simple stuff that follows, you must first understand the exception provided in subsection (e), oh, and you also need to understand everything that is "notwithstanding" within all of chapter 447 of title 49...
The typical 'Joe' is never going to read one word beyond that first clause.
Exactly! And since there is no paperwork in the box nor given by the Best Buy or Walmart, Joe 'assumes' it's perfectly fine to charge up, takeoff in the backyard or wherever, and fly any-and-everywhere he wants to.
Completely oblivious to the existence of this forum, the manuals at dji.com, or the overly complex can-o-worms that is the FARs. Then he crashes it, or it lands itself in a NFZ and only then he googles why and finds this forum.
edit: I know this is a completely different issue than the complexity of the FARs, but still... a little nudge in the right direction to help Joe find and understand some educational materials would go a long way.
Last edited:
The legalese used to drive me batty in my career enforcing motor vehicle safety standards, working in the Canadian equivalent of your NHTSA doing vehicle crash-testing. The "intent" of every regulation was perfectly clear, but if there was ever any dispute and the lawyers got involved, watch out.
They could twist words like you wouldn't believe. You might be convinced you understood what this regulation said, but if you stand on your head, close one eye, and look at the words sideways, you'll soon realize you were completely mistaken, our interpretation is correct, you are completely out to lunch, and your embarrassing regulation is totally unenforceable.
Another case in point:
They could twist words like you wouldn't believe. You might be convinced you understood what this regulation said, but if you stand on your head, close one eye, and look at the words sideways, you'll soon realize you were completely mistaken, our interpretation is correct, you are completely out to lunch, and your embarrassing regulation is totally unenforceable.
Another case in point:
A regulation that is unenforceable becomes instantly irrelevant. A regulation that is obviously ludicrous, as in the above gutter example, leads to a loss of respect for any agency foolish enough to even attempt enforcement action under those circumstances.
But Joe isn't aware of the TRUST 'test' or that he should take it or the fact that you can't 'fail' it<(which might keep some from taking it for fear of maybe not being able to fly if they 'fail').
I don't know the answer to how to make people aware that they need some education to fly safely and responsibly. Surely there has to be a way though, but I don't see the FAA buying TV/radio time. Maybe a flyer in the box or given by the vendor with every drone?
That is until DJI or any other drone company gets sued because they did not inform buyers that education and testing is required to fly. That info needs to be included in every box and/or flyers given out with every purchase. Other industries have learned such lessons long ago.
Hey, no one ever told me that I can't fly over a crowd and it crashed into people because it had a "runaway".
Sorry - that assertion is complete nonsense. You can cherry pick all you want, but regulation has to be somewhat broadly written and cannot possibly explicitly list all situations that may arise, especially when congress intervenes in the process to insert narrowly defined protections that invite scope creep.
And since no agency has attempted to enforce against personal gutter inspection, as far as I'm aware, that point is both moot and a straw man argument.
This thread has clearly got you very excited at the chance to trash reasonable attempts at regulation, but you are vastly overreaching now.
I've suggested to Transport Canada that they produce a short flyer containing the basic information on their web site, and have it mandated that a copy must be given to anyone purchasing a drone.
It's not that difficult to understand what the rules are.
Hell, it would be possible to mandate a sticker on the box of every drone ≥250g pointing out that this drone requires a license to fly it, with a pointer to the web site. (Which I've also suggested.)
- Status
Similar threads
