Can I fly at night?

[brett8883]

Oh for cry-eye.
Just go read this:

Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

www.faa.gov

It's simple and easy to read.

While this is a good short page that has good simple information and suggestions most people can read without losing focus, my issue with it is that it mixes real honest to god laws in with official FAA “guidance” and also added in “recommendations” but makes no attempt to identify which is which.

That page is basically someone’s cliff notes for this advisory circular found here which is the FAA’s official open letter to pilots explaining officially the current state of regulations permanently found here which is the FAA’s official “interpretation” of the honest to god law the relevant bit of which is found and codified here none of which explicitly mentions flying at night or needing any kind of lighting.

However the law states that in order to qualify for §44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft

“(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.“

The FAA adds their official interpretation which is: “This makes the recreational flyer responsible for knowing the altitude and position of their aircraft in relation to other aircraft, and responsible for maintaining a safe distance from other aircraft by giving way to all other aircraft in all circumstances.”

The website you cited makes the assumption that in order to fulfill this requirement at night you’d need “lighting that allows you to know its location and orientation at all times.” Which is probably true in most situations but not all. If I fly my drone in my back yard 20-50 ft at night I can see my “altitude and position of [my] aircraft in relation to other aircraft, and responsible for maintaining a safe distance from other aircraft by giving way to all other aircraft” without the need for navigational lighting

So again good advice but I don’t like how it makes certain things out to be cut and dry laws or regulations when they really aren’t.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

While this is a good short page that has good simple information and suggestions most people can read without losing focus, my issue with it is that it mixes real honest to god laws in with official FAA “guidance” and also added in “recommendations” but makes no attempt to identify which is which.

That page is basically someone’s cliff notes for this advisory circular found here which is the FAA’s official open letter to pilots explaining officially the current state of regulations permanently found here which is the FAA’s official “interpretation” of the honest to god law the relevant bit of which is found and codified here none of which explicitly mentions flying at night or needing any kind of lighting.

However the law states that in order to qualify for §44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft

“(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft. he Aircraft is Operated in a Manner That Does Not Interfere With, and Gives Way to, Any Manned Aircraft.”

The FAA adds their official interpretation which is “This makes the recreational flyer responsible for knowing the altitude and position of their aircraft in relation to other aircraft, and responsible for maintaining a safe distance from other aircraft by giving way to all other aircraft in all circumstances.”

The website you cited makes the assumption that in order to fulfill this requirement at night you’d need “lighting that allows you to know its location and orientation at all times.” Which is probably true in most situations but not all. If I fly my drone in my back yard 20-50 ft at night I can see my “altitude and position of [my] aircraft in relation to other aircraft, and responsible for maintaining a safe distance from other aircraft by giving way to all other aircraft” without the need for navigational lighting

So again good advice but I don’t like how it makes certain things out to be cut and dry laws or regulations when they really aren’t.

Well you may not like it but if we could get everybody to at least read that we would be way ahead of the game obviously it’s not being read.

We’re not all as smart as you and sometimes simpler is better.

 

[JayTea26]

While this is a good short page that has good simple information and suggestions most people can read without losing focus, my issue with it is that it mixes real honest to god laws in with official FAA “guidance” and also added in “recommendations” but makes no attempt to identify which is which.

That page is basically someone’s cliff notes for this advisory circular found here which is the FAA’s official open letter to pilots explaining officially the current state of regulations permanently found here which is the FAA’s official “interpretation” of the honest to god law the relevant bit of which is found and codified here none of which explicitly mentions flying at night or needing any kind of lighting.

However the law states that in order to qualify for §44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft

“(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft. he Aircraft is Operated in a Manner That Does Not Interfere With, and Gives Way to, Any Manned Aircraft.”

The FAA adds their official interpretation which is “This makes the recreational flyer responsible for knowing the altitude and position of their aircraft in relation to other aircraft, and responsible for maintaining a safe distance from other aircraft by giving way to all other aircraft in all circumstances.”

The website you cited makes the assumption that in order to fulfill this requirement at night you’d need “lighting that allows you to know its location and orientation at all times.” Which is probably true in most situations but not all. If I fly my drone in my back yard 20-50 ft at night I can see my “altitude and position of [my] aircraft in relation to other aircraft, and responsible for maintaining a safe distance from other aircraft by giving way to all other aircraft” without the need for navigational lighting

So again good advice but I don’t like how it makes certain things out to be cut and dry laws or regulations when they really aren’t.

Thank you.

 

[brett8883]

sometimes simpler is better.

I agree that it is absolutely essential to have this simple easy to read page and it is a net positive it just isn’t the source I would cite when looking at the more peculiar points in the regulations.

 

[Ron Caballero CAP]

My apologies. Flying under both Part 107 and recreational rules does make it confusing at times.

I have always made sure to fly any night flights under recreational rules since Part 107 does not allow for it, except for civil twilight and with lights.

It would only make sense that recreational flights would at the very least require the same level of lighting to fly in even darker conditions than those that are allowed for Part 107. However when dealing with the government, things don't always make sense.

In this case there is nothing in the regulations about recreational pilots needing lights for flying in darkness. Again, my mistake and my apologies.

What about a person who is Part 107 qualified, BUT does 90% of flying as "recreational"?

 

[DavidM]

Does anyone know the rules for recreational night flying in Australia? I have a MA2. Haven’t tried it as yet at night but keen to take some hyperlapse video.

No in Australia CASA laws state only between sunrise and sunset for recreational pilots. Big fines if caught flying at night without appropriate licencing and approvals.

 

[brett8883]

What about a person who is Part 107 qualified, BUT does 90% of flying as "recreational"?

You’d have to follow the set of rules you choose before taking off and follow them for the entirety of the flight. You can’t pick and choose rules from from both 107 and the exception for recreational operations.

 

[Ron (MM)]

1. NOTE: Flying drones in certain airspace is not allowed. Classes of airspace and flying restrictions can be found on our B4UFLY app.
2. Keep your drone within your visual line of sight, or within the visual line-of-sight of a visual observer who is co-located (physically next to) and in direct communication with you.
3. Do not fly at night unless your drone has lighting that allows you to know its location and orientation at all times.
4. Give way to and do not interfere with manned aircraft.
5. Never fly over any person or moving vehicle.
6. Never interfere with emergency response activities such as disaster relief, any type of accident response, law enforcement activities, firefighting, or hurricane recovery efforts.
7. Never fly under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Many over-the-counter medications have side effects that could impact your ability to safely operate your drone.
8. Do not operate your drone in a careless or reckless manner.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

What about a person who is Part 107 qualified, BUT does 90% of flying as "recreational"?

If you’re getting paid for it it’s part 107 there’s really no choice.

If you’re not getting paid for it well then by definition it’s recreational. I suppose you could claim it was part 107 but not sure why you do that.

 

[PhantomFandom]

If you’re not getting paid for it well then by definition it’s recreational.

That is not correct. Recreational vs Commercial does not hinge on monetary compensation. You do not need to get paid or even receive compensation in order for a flight to be considered commercial.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

That is not correct. Recreational vs Commercial does not hinge on monetary compensation. You do not need to get paid or even receive compensation in order for a flight to be considered commercial.

I’d be interested to know what your definition of commercial is then

 

[brett8883]

I’d be interested to know what your definition of commercial is then

In this context what really matters is if it is recreational or not. The normal rules are part 107 but you can qualify for an exception to the part 107 rules by way of the “limited exception for recreational operations of unmanned aerial vehicles” if you adhere to the exception requirements, the first of which is “The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.”
- FAA Reauthorization Act 20

Doing a job free of charge for a charity is an example where no money is changing hands yet the job is not for a recreational purpose either, therefore, part 107 rules apply.

For a pilot that is 107 certified, when conducting an operation that might qualify for for the recreational exception, the pilot is within his right to decline the exception and follow part 107 instead. However, official FAA guidance says that in that situation where a choice can be made the pilot must follow which ever set of rules he/she chooses for the duration of the flight. No mixing recreatIonal and 107 rules in the same flight.

“1. The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

Your unmanned aircraft must be flown for only a recreational purpose throughout the duration of the operation. You may not combine recreational and commercial purposes in a single operation. 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.”
(Federal Register 84 FR 22552)

Doing a job at someone else’s direction with or without pay is certainly one way to burst the protection of the exception for limited recreational operations of UAVs but lack of money exchanging hands doesn’t automatically make it recreational.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

In this context what really matters is if it is recreational or not. The normal rules are part 107 but you can qualify for the exception of limited recreational operations of unmanned aerial vehicles if you adhere to the exception requirements, the first of which is that the aircraft is flown solely for recreational purposes.

Doing a job free of charge for a charity is an example where no money is changing hands yet the job is not for a recreational purpose either, therefore, part 107 rules apply.

For a pilot that is 107 certified, when conducting an operation that might qualify for for the recreational exception, the pilot is within his right to decline the exception and follow part 107 instead. However, official FAA guidance says that in that situation where a choice can be made the pilot must follow which ever set of rules he/she chooses for the duration of the flight. No mixing recreatIonal and 107 rules in the same flight.

“1. The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

Your unmanned aircraft must be flown for only a recreational purpose throughout the duration of the operation. You may not combine recreational and commercial purposes in a single operation. 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.”

Doing a job at someone else’s direction with or without pay is certainly one way to burst the protection of the exception for limited recreational operations of UAVs but lack of money exchanging hands doesn’t automatically make it recreational.

Not sure if the regulation you quoted has any relevance to the question at hand.
After numerous talks with FAA the deciding factor is remuneration and really nothing else.
If you did a mission for the charity and accepted nothing in return the FAA would accept that as a recreational flight.
If you did a mission totally free but the photographs were used for a business then it becomes questionable.

Apparently the FAA currently has no desire to enforce much of anything other than flying in restricted airspace and other tomfoolery we really don’t have Much in the way of legal precedents to understand this further.
In the end the scope context of a law is determined by its enforcement Which sets a precedent.

So really all we have to go on is opinion.

 

[PhantomFandom]

I’d be interested to know what your definition of commercial is then

It is not my definition, it is the FAA's definition which was incredibly well explained by @brett8883 above. If the flight is anything other than strictly recreational then it falls outside of the exception for recreational flight.

So the crux of the matter comes down to your definition of recreational.

Not sure if the regulation you quoted has any relevance to the question at hand.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the question at hand. You need to know the rules governing recreational vs commercial before you can make the decision on which guidance you are flying under.

After numerous talks with FAA the deciding factor is remuneration and really nothing else.

The "folks at the FAA" can't give you legal advice. In fact most will tell you that they cannot interpret the regulations for you. My local FSDO was very clear when I asked them about regulations. They can point me to the regulations but can offer ZERO assistance on interpreting them. They cannot provide you legal guidance. So even if they do and it is incorrect, you are still flying illegally.
In this case it is completely wrong because nowhere do the regulations mention renumeration. If it is not in the regulations, how can you or the "folks at the FAA" come to this conclusion?

If you did a mission for the charity and accepted nothing in return the FAA would accept that as a recreational flight.

Again not true. They most likely will not come after you, but that still does not make it recreational. Lack of enforcement does not equal legality. Much like driving 63 on a highway where the speed limit is 60. You likely won't get pulled over but that does not make it legal.
In both the charity flight and the highway speeding case, everything is just great until something happens. If you hydroplane at 63 and cause an accident, the speeding will be a contributing factor and you are at fault.
With the charity flight, if your battery catches fire, the drone crashes into some woods and starts a forest fire, your liability insurance (you did have liability insurance, right?) will not pay because you were flying illegally.

If you did a mission totally free but the photographs were used for a business then it becomes questionable.

Not even close to questionable. If your intent during the flight was to use them for a business (totally free) then the flight is 100% commercial.

Apparently the FAA currently has no desire to enforce much of anything other than flying in restricted airspace and other tomfoolery

That is very true, and yet makes no difference to whether or not the flight is commercial or recreational.

In the end the scope context of a law is determined by its enforcement Which sets a precedent.
So really all we have to go on is opinion.

Enforcement does not determine legality (as above). Try using that excuse when you get a ticket for 63 in a 60. "Um, sir judge, you cannot find me guilty since law enforcement never enforces going over the speed limit by such an insignificant amount". You would be guilty even if in all of past history no one was ever given a ticket for that small speeding offense.

So really all we have to go on is opinion.

Yes your opinion and the contradicting FAA facts (regulations).

 

[Deleted member 114292]

It is not my definition, it is the FAA's definition which was incredibly well explained by @brett8883 above. If the flight is anything other than strictly recreational then it falls outside of the exception for recreational flight.

So the crux of the matter comes down to your definition of recreational.


It has EVERYTHING to do with the question at hand. You need to know the rules governing recreational vs commercial before you can make the decision on which guidance you are flying under.


The "folks at the FAA" can't give you legal advice. In fact most will tell you that they cannot interpret the regulations for you. My local FSDO was very clear when I asked them about regulations. They can point me to the regulations but can offer ZERO assistance on interpreting them. They cannot provide you legal guidance. So even if they do and it is incorrect, you are still flying illegally.
In this case it is completely wrong because nowhere do the regulations mention renumeration. If it is not in the regulations, how can you or the "folks at the FAA" come to this conclusion?


Again not true. They most likely will not come after you, but that still does not make it recreational. Lack of enforcement does not equal legality. Much like driving 63 on a highway where the speed limit is 60. You likely won't get pulled over but that does not make it legal.
In both the charity flight and the highway speeding case, everything is just great until something happens. If you hydroplane at 63 and cause an accident, the speeding will be a contributing factor and you are at fault.
With the charity flight, if your battery catches fire, the drone crashes into some woods and starts a forest fire, your liability insurance (you did have liability insurance, right?) will not pay because you were flying illegally.


Not even close to questionable. If your intent during the flight was to use them for a business (totally free) then the flight is 100% commercial.


That is very true, and yet makes no difference to whether or not the flight is commercial or recreational.


Enforcement does not determine legality (as above). Try using that excuse when you get a ticket for 63 in a 60. "Um, sir judge, you cannot find me guilty since law enforcement never enforces going over the speed limit by such an insignificant amount". You would be guilty even if in all of past history no one was ever given a ticket for that small speeding offense.


Yes your opinion and the contradicting FAA facts (regulations).

Very bad example speeding is strongly enforced.
Think what you wanna think. I can’t say you’re wrong but I certainly can’t agree that you’re right.
Enforcement has everything to do with the law.
Laws that are not enforced can become completely invalid.
In fact you could probably use that as a defense if it ever came up which it won’t.
I think the FAA knows that it can’t be enforced So they haven’t even tried.
There’s a good chance remote ID for fall flat on its face. Because there’s really no good reason for it.

 

[brett8883]

Not sure if the regulation you quoted has any relevance to the question at hand.
After numerous talks with FAA the deciding factor is remuneration and really nothing else.
If you did a mission for the charity and accepted nothing in return the FAA would accept that as a recreational flight.
If you did a mission totally free but the photographs were used for a business then it becomes questionable.

Apparently the FAA currently has no desire to enforce much of anything other than flying in restricted airspace and other tomfoolery we really don’t have Much in the way of legal precedents to understand this further.
In the end the scope context of a law is determined by its enforcement Which sets a precedent.

So really all we have to go on is opinion.

It’s true that law is open to interpretation and even the FAA’s official guidance could later be overturned by a court.

It is also true that the FAA as the enforcement agency has the ability to pick and choose their battles and what they choose to enforce. I agree that there is a very low probability the FAA would take action against someone conducting an operation for a charity but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t break the rules.

The plain language of the law “The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes” is pretty clear that only operations that are strictly recreational in nature can qualify (though there are other requirements) for the exemption from the 107 regulations. The point is that it is not a matter of identifying what “commercial” means, it is a matter of identifying what “recreational” means.

Absent official guidance from the FAA that says all operations are recreational unless money changes hands I would be very wary of using that as the only metric because the plain wording of the law and the official FAA guidance say otherwise. the FAA is a large organization with many rules and the right hand doesn’t always agree with the left hand. The official guidance in the advisory circular and the Federal Register serve as the one official voice of the FAA. Absent a signed letter from the FAA that you can fall back on this is what I would follow.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

It’s true that law is open to interpretation and even the FAA’s official guidance could later be overturned by a court.

It is also true that the FAA as the enforcement agency has the ability to pick and choose their battles and what they choose to enforce. I agree that there is a very low probability the FAA would take action against someone conducting an operation for a charity but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t break the rules.

The plain language of the law “The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes” is pretty clear that only operations that are strictly recreational in nature can qualify (though there are other requirements) for the exemption from the 107 regulations. The point is that it is not a matter of identifying what “commercial” means, it is a matter of identifying what “recreational” means.

Absent official guidance from the FAA that says all operations are recreational unless money changes hands I would be very wary of using that as the only metric because the plain wording of the law and the official FAA guidance say otherwise. the FAA is a large organization with many rules and the right hand doesn’t always agree with the left hand. The official guidance in the advisory circular and the Federal Register serve as the one official voice of the FAA. Absent a signed letter from the FAA that you can fall back on this is what I would follow.

Photography is my hobby so for me it’s recreation unless I’m getting paid to do it.
And you’ll notice I didn’t use the term money and I use the term remuneration.
Unless the FAA more clearly defines the meaning of commercial or recreation it’s certainly not a point of law.
If you’re implying the FAA is confused I totally agree.

 

[brett8883]

Photography is my hobby so for me it’s recreation unless I’m getting paid to do it.
And you’ll notice I didn’t use the term money and I use the term remuneration.
Unless the FAA more clearly defines the meaning of commercial or recreation it’s certainly not a point of law.
If you’re implying the FAA is confused I totally agree.

Right. In the example of doing a flight for charity, the charity is gaining from your work because they have received something of economic value from you. If you didn’t do it for free they would have either had to hire someone to do it, gone out and purchased a drone and done the work themselves, or gone without the benefit of the drone work. If someone else benefits economically from your flight I can’t see how that could be considered recreational just using the dictionary definition of the word.

To use a more clear cut example, I work for a commercial real estate firm and do the drone work for our marketing material. I don’t get paid extra to do this and I would still have a job if I didn’t do it. The only thing I personally benefit from by doing it is that I like doing it and I think I do a better job than if we hired someone to do it. Would you still say that I could fly under the exception for recreational operations in that situation since I’m not receiving remuneration?

I will admit it is a nuanced topic and that it is worth while conversation to have.

 

[Deleted member 114292]

To use a more clear cut example, I work for a commercial real estate firm and do the drone work for our marketing material. I don’t get paid extra to do this and I would still have a job if I didn’t do it. The only thing I personally benefit from by doing it is that I like doing it and I think I do a better job than if we hired someone to do it. Would you still say that I could fly under the exception for recreational operations in that situation since I’m not receiving remuneration?

Not sure why you would use this as an example. It's ludacris.
Bottom line you are getting paid to fly missions for a commercial business.
-The fact you don't get paid extra - irrelevant you are getting paid.
-The fact you don't have to it - irrelevant you are getting paid.
-The fact you like doing - no comment, just silly in this context..
-You think you are doing a better job - ditto.
Why would you (or anyone else) think it otherwise?

If a private pilot takes pictures out of his windows and sells them does he suddenly need a commercial pilots certificate?
No, because he is not hiring out his services as a pilot.
If a pilot starts taking out photographers for money to take pictures - he then becomes a pilot for hire.
And if the FAA ever does decided to enforce this I can't imagine any other reasonable interpretation.

 

[fguthrie]

This is a great thread. I thought I could not fly my M2P at night period unless I had a waiver. Glad to hear under that under recreational rules, I can. Now for my question, I have a M2P, what additional lights do I need on it to fly at night?