Can I sign a BLVOS waiver for recreational purposes

[AirplanedOut]

I'm wanting to get into the Airplane hobby, and after I learn more airplane flying, I want to explore the world of FPV flying. BLVOS. I just want to have adventures, such as going from my neighborhood, to a local gas station.

 

[Vic Moss]

I'm not exactly sure of what you're asking, but I think you're asking if you can get a BVLOS waiver for recreational FPV. So I'm assuming flying FPV w/o a visual observer to help you.

If so, the answer is no. Waivers are only for 107 folks. Recreational flyers must fly under a CBO Safety Guideline, and none of them allow FPV w/o an observer.

If that's not what you mean, can you explain a bit further?

 

[AirplanedOut]

I'm not exactly sure of what you're asking, but I think you're asking if you can get a BVLOS waiver for recreational FPV. So I'm assuming flying FPV w/o a visual observer to help you.

If so, the answer is no. Waivers are only for 107 folks. Recreational flyers must fly under a CBO Safety Guideline, and none of them allow FPV w/o an observer.

If that's not what you mean, can you explain a bit further?

That's exactly what I was talking about. However, since flying FPV recreationally doesn't have waivers, does having a Youtube channel and posting myself flying FPV airplanes (for monetization) still count as recreational?

 

[mobilehomer]

That's exactly what I was talking about. However, since flying FPV recreationally doesn't have waivers, does having a Youtube channel and posting myself flying FPV airplanes (for monetization) still count as recreational?

No

 

[Vic Moss]

That's exactly what I was talking about. However, since flying FPV recreationally doesn't have waivers, does having a Youtube channel and posting myself flying FPV airplanes (for monetization) still count as recreational?

No. It's about intent of flight. If you're intending to post those videos to your monetized YT account that is no longer a flight "flown strictly for recreational purposes", which is the first requirement for recreational flights.

107 required.

 

[GFields]

does having a Youtube channel and posting myself flying FPV airplanes (for monetization) still count as recreational?

It doesn't matter. A recreational pilot cannot file for a waiver (BLOVS). So, just get a friend to be a visual observer for you.

 

[Cafguy]

I love flying FPV You want a friend with you for more reasons than just legal. Bring a buddy, heck maybe get them into it too. Soon you will have no problems getting an observer to go flying with you. Also remember for non DJI long range FPV you will need to get your HAM radio technician license.

 

[finity]

However, since flying FPV recreationally doesn't have waivers, does having a Youtube channel and posting myself flying FPV airplanes (for monetization) still count as recreational?

I think you seem to be asking if calling it a non-recreational flight allows you to get a waiver for BVLOS and that somehow allows you to bypass the recreational part?

It doesn't really matter either way if you don't have your part 107 certification. Monetizing the video doesn't help you and in fact only makes the requirements more stringent.

without the part 107 posting the video to a monetized Youtube channel is illegal.

 

[G Saunders]

What I've gleaned from watching the drone news, is that BVLOS needs a drone that's got provisional certification for it and a commercial remote pilot certificate. Parrot will help get waivers for their Anafi AI, Skydio can do it, so can Percepto. Aloft and others provide web and 4G LTE or 5G services to manage the flights, Verizon used to, but got out of it... There are no published rules for it yet, it's being handled case by case... If this is wrong, I'd appreciate being corrected...

 

[Vic Moss]

What I've gleaned from watching the drone news, is that BVLOS needs a drone that's got provisional certification for it and a commercial remote pilot certificate. Parrot will help get waivers for their Anafi AI, Skydio can do it, so can Percepto. Aloft and others provide web and 4G LTE or 5G services to manage the flights, Verizon used to, but got out of it... There are no published rules for it yet, it's being handled case by case... If this is wrong, I'd appreciate being corrected...

What is a provisional certification? Is this EU?

 

[G Saunders]

What I've gleaned from watching the drone news, is that BVLOS needs a drone that's got provisional certification for it and a commercial remote pilot certificate. Parrot will help get waivers for their Anafi AI, Skydio can do it, so can Percepto. Aloft and others provide web and 4G LTE or 5G services to manage the flights, Verizon used to, but got out of it... There are no published rules for it yet, it's being handled case by case... If this is wrong, I'd appreciate being corrected...

What is a provisional certification? Is this EU?

It's what you work out with the FSDO-Flight Safety District Office that entertains your waiver from Part 107 or 135. I'm not sure what the equivalent is in the EU. Aviation agencies everywhere are all on the verge of publishing new regulations for VLOS, specifications for aircraft, certification requirements for pilots and operators which may be packaged in a new Part 108. Meanwhile, they're issuing provisional waivers for those who can demonstrate they can operate safely beyond VLOS to do what they do... I think it's maybe in the dozens have waivers, with a new one or two announced every few weeks. The last NPRM for the regs was published maybe six months ago, might be the final... They got Remote ID into law, and adding VLOS to Part 107 nd 135 operations is next...

 

[Vic Moss]

It's what you work out with the FSDO-Flight Safety District Office that entertains your waiver from Part 107 or 135. I'm not sure what the equivalent is in the EU. Aviation agencies everywhere are all on the verge of publishing new regulations for VLOS, specifications for aircraft, certification requirements for pilots and operators which may be packaged in a new Part 108. Meanwhile, they're issuing provisional waivers for those who can demonstrate they can operate safely beyond VLOS to do what they do... I think it's maybe in the dozens have waivers, with a new one or two announced every few weeks. The last NPRM for the regs was published maybe six months ago, might be the final... They got Remote ID into law, and adding VLOS to Part 107 nd 135 operations is next...

FSDO has nothing to do with waivers, that all comes from AFS-830 in DC (Waiver Office). They approve the waivers.

Also, FSDO is "Flight Standards District Office".

Part 108 was a suggestion as part of the FAA's BVLOS ARC, which was published in March of last year. If it becomes a reality or not is yet to be seen. We (AAAC) were tasked last year with coming up with suggestions to the FAA to expedite the BVLOS process. Sean Cassidy from Amazon gave a report on true BVLOS at our last AAAC meeting in April. I gave the Extended VLOS (eVLOS) report for my team. We are suggesting that they open us 3 miles of length if we have command of the airspace. We hope that happens sooner than later.

As far a provisional waivers, those don't exist. The FAA gives actual waivers. We need the data to prove that our flights are safe. 107.29 waivers are a good example. We as an industry ended up with almost 1000 107.29 waivers, all with zero issues.

The FAA realized we could just make it part of the 107 instructions.

My business partner and I at DSPA were the first to get FPV w/o VO waivers. We now are seeing more and more.

I should have another waiver (OOP) in the next month or so. One we can get easily with the right ConOps. When we get those, we'll share that process too.

It's all about baby steps with the FAA. We'd like to see them graduate to toddler steps. Their philosophy is "crawl, walk, run". It just takes too long to get to the walk stage.

 

[G Saunders]

FSDO has nothing to do with waivers, that all comes from AFS-830 in DC (Waiver Office). They approve the waivers.

Also, FSDO is "Flight Standards District Office".

...

It's all about baby steps with the FAA. We'd like to see them graduate to toddler steps. Their philosophy is "crawl, walk, run". It just takes toolong to get to the walk stage.

Thanks so much for this, is the correction I was hoping to get...

 

[mavic3usa]

without the part 107 posting the video to a monetized Youtube channel is illegal.

Just wanted to clarify this in case anyone missed it.

it is not illegal to post a video to a YT channel....ever.

However, it is against FAA regulation to engage in commercial activity using a drone without a part 107.

If you fly a recreational flight and during that flight your intent was truly recreational and you were just having fun, that particular flight is a recreational flight and forever and regardless wherever that video ends up has nothing to do with the law. Posting a recreational flight onto a monetized platform does not convert the recreational flight into a commercial flight.

In fact, the First Amendment (with exceptions) pretty much guarantees that posting a video on YT is never going to be a criminal (illegal) act. Flights are "illegal" not the posting.

 

[tuxon64]

I love flying FPV You want a friend with you for more reasons than just legal. Bring a buddy, heck maybe get them into it too. Soon you will have no problems getting an observer to go flying with you. Also remember for non DJI long range FPV you will need to get your HAM radio technician license.

Why and what would you use the HAM for? I got mine because of boredom during the lockdowns. No one in my area talks on HAM but the do on GMRS.

 

[Cafguy]

The frequencies used on the video transmitters of other drones requires you to

 

[Alejandro Villegas]

You can recreational BVLS in your dreams, or in you Metaverse environment or in your wet dreams as well.

 

[Vic Moss]

Why and what would you use the HAM for? I got mine because of boredom during the lockdowns. No one in my area talks on HAM but the do on GMRS.

If a frequency of a controller is over a certain power (>1W?), or if used on a certain frequency (5650mhz to 5925mhz). Otherwise you don't need them.

 

[finity]

it is not illegal to post a video to a YT channel....ever.

Sorry I should have been more clear...

if the intent of the flight was to capture video to post it on a youtube channel for monetization then it is a part 107 required flight.

there have been a few youtube content creators who have been contacted by the FAA (one I remember specifically is

) to tell them their video's were illegal unless they got their part 107 because they were intentionally filming with their drone with the intent to post it to a monetized channel.

If the intent was to fly for fun and then post it to youtube just to share it with family and friends and only coincidentally it made money then that's a recreational flight.

this:

"having a Youtube channel and posting myself flying FPV airplanes (for monetization)...?"

seemed to be implying the former not the latter.

 

[mavic3usa]

Sorry I should have been more clear...

if the intent of the flight was to capture video to post it on a youtube channel for monetization then it is a part 107 required flight.

there have been a few youtube content creators who have been contacted by the FAA (one I remember specifically is

) to tell them their video's were illegal unless they got their part 107 because they were intentionally filming with their drone with the intent to post it to a monetized channel.

If the intent was to fly for fun and then post it to youtube just to share it with family and friends and only coincidentally it made money then that's a recreational flight.

this:

"having a Youtube channel and posting myself flying FPV airplanes (for monetization)...?"

seemed to be implying the former not the latter.

Agreed with this "to tell them their video's were illegal unless they got their part 107 because they were intentionally filming with their drone with the intent to post it to a monetized channel." But I still need to clarify: Even if you post it a free channel where you would make no money or you didn't get paid for the video, it is still illegal to fly your drone while furthering your business without part 107. It doesn't matter if the channel is monetized or not. I know you were simply quoting what these folks were told but I wanted to go one step further and make sure we understand "monetized" is just a buzzword and doesn't bring home the message. It doesn't matter who's getting paid (or not). People like to bring up "monetized" because they think it drives home the point about needing part 107.

Also I still need to say this: Posting a video is not illegal. The flight is illegal. The videos are never illegal. There is no such thing as an "illegal video." Can we just focus on what the FAA considers when it comes to the law: the flights. People get confused when they have a drone video in their hand and then they think they need to look to the FAA to determine what they can and cannot do with that video. The FAA cannot tell you want you can do with that video. It's not about the videos. And it doesn't matter if I am "intentionally" filming or "unintentionally" filming, but what is the intent of the flight when you took off. Again, adding "intentionally" seems to have this effect of proving a point when it really doesn't make any difference. Taking off from the ground, making a decision to turn on and record with the camera....those alone are not relevant to issue. If that couple had unintentionally filmed, they would still need part 107.

Yes I know I am nitpicking but these nuances are what have lead to the mass confusion around this issue and basically paralyzed the FAA when it comes to enforcement. They should have simply left it at "commercial" vs "non-commercial."

And for the record, for the laws this is my understanding and my opinion based on what i have seen and heard so ymmv. That couple were ratted out by a competitor who complained to the FAA. the FAA chose to respond, they weren't scouring the internet for violators. Someone call them in, probably made up a bunch of exaggerations about them, FAA told them get a part 107. That's the story the way I heard it.