Commercially Flying VS Recreational Flying———Can a Single Pilot Engage in Both?

[GoGracefully]

Informed Pilots:

After reading yesterday's post in General Discussions titled "400 foot elevation" I have some questions.

If one completes the Part 107 Exam and receives their the FAA credential are they thereby a "commercial pilot" or must they be in the process of engaging in commercial work to hold the status. In other words, once one holds the commercial status are they never again a hobbyist flyer?

Please do not interpret this question as a quest for rationale to engage in dangerous behavior, but in the 400 Foot Elevation string it is apparent that the existing rules seem to imply night flying and exceeding 400 feet AGL is not specifically restricted for hobbyists. If that is correct I could imagine an FAA certified pilot going out into his or her backyard one night to film a solar eclipse moonrise like the one we had here in Hawaii the other night. If so, would that pilot be a hobbyist acting in the absence FAA governance or a Commercial UAA pilot clearly breaking the rules who should know better?

Aloha,
Jim

Photo Credit: BigIslandNow.com

 

[Meta4]

If one completes the Part 107 Exam and receives their the FAA credential are they thereby a "commercial pilot" or must they be in the process of engaging in commercial work to hold the status. In other words, once one holds the commercial status are they never again a hobbyist flyer?

Just as:

• You could be a professional photographer and work shooting for clients and in your time off, take photos for pleasure,
• You could fly a Boeing 777 for a major airline and in your time off fly a Cessna or aerobatic aircraft for recreation,
• Someone with a part 107 can fly their drone for business and at other times fly for their own enjoyment.

 

[GoGracefully]

Just as:

• You could be a professional photographer and work shooting for clients and in your time off, take photos for pleasure,
• You could fly a Boeing 777 for a major airline and in your time off fly a Cessna or aerobatic aircraft for recreation,
• Someone with a part 107 can fly their drone for business and at other times fly for their own enjoyment.

Thank you Meta4, but I am also interested in the ethical side of the question too. A Boeing pilot may fly a Cessna on her off time, but would she knowingly exceed the 400 AGL when flying her drone just because she is off duty and holds a Part 107. Being in full possession of the spirit and letter of laws and regulations does seem to imply some larger degree of culpability when acting in grey areas of the rules.

 

[Former Member]

Updated my answer. This is an old thread, not sure if its still valid:

Can Commercial Fly Recreational rules when not being paid?

 

[RCdancer]

Of course you can do both. Currently, 107 pilots cannot fly at night without a waiver (although they are apparently getting ready to change that rule), while hobbyists can.

 

[GoGracefully]

Updated my answer. This is an old thread, not sure if its still valid:

Can Commercial Fly Recreational rules when not being paid?

Thank you Thunderdrones. That thread was very informative. Perhaps the part most relevant to my question is posted by sar104 and reposted below. Now, if sar104's information is accurate then based on §101.41 (b) anyone reading this post ought not fly at night or over 400 AGL regardless or whether or not they are flying "purely for fun."

Why? Because by being part of this forum as hobbyists we are essentially part of a "nationwide (International really)community based organization" and thereby potentially well informed as to the more stringent rational (Guidelines) for not engaging in those behaviors. At least that is my take on the matter, and to make it more tangible imagine that as a recreational flyer you fly above 400 AGL and cause some sort of incident. Now, even without major harm done, if it is ever discovered that one of us posted onto a thread like this, and are in full possession of the knowlege of the potential risks involved with such recreational activities, it becomes apparent that we are acting negligently based on our community.

Like most laws and rules it is all open to interpretation, but if one falls outside what the highest judges of our time decree as the law, then we will suffer the consequences.

I completely understand your point of view but you still be missing the point. It's not a perspective - it's the actual wording of the law, backed up by FAA interpretation for those who questioned it. The test is not recreational vs. commercial, it's recreational vs. non-recreational. 14 CFR Part 101 doesn't mention commercial - what it does say is that you must be flying purely for fun:

§101.41 Applicability.​

​

This subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of a model aircraft (or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft) that meets all of the following conditions as set forth in section 336 of Public Law 112-95:​

​

(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;​

​

(b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;​

​

(c) The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;​

​

(d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and​

​

(e) When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation.​

 

[sar104]

Thank you Thunderdrones. That thread was very informative. Perhaps the part most relevant to my question is posted by sar104 and reposted below. Now, if sar104's information is accurate then based on §101.41 (b) anyone reading this post ought not fly at night or over 400 AGL regardless or whether or not they are flying "purely for fun."

Why? Because by being part of this forum as hobbyists we are essentially part of a "nationwide (International really)community based organization" and thereby potentially well informed as to the more stringent rational (Guidelines) for not engaging in those behaviors. At least that is my take on the matter, and to make it more tangible imagine that as a recreational flyer you fly above 400 AGL and cause some sort of incident. Now, even without major harm done, if it is ever discovered that one of us posted onto a thread like this, and are in full possession of the knowlege of the potential risks involved with such recreational activities, it becomes apparent that we are acting negligently based on our community.

Like most laws and rules it is all open to interpretation, but if one falls outside what the highest judges of our time decree as the law, then we will suffer the consequences.

An interesting argument. But while this is, at least in some sense, a community-based organization, it doesn't set any guidelines for flying. The only organization in the US currently fitting that description is the AMA, and their guidelines do not proscribe flying at night.

 

[GoGracefully]

An interesting argument. But while this is, at least in some sense, a community-based organization, it doesn't set any guidelines for flying. The only organization in the US currently fitting that description is the AMA, and their guidelines do not proscribe flying at night.

You would think all those doctors in the AMA have enough to do without butting into our airspace.

 

[TerreDrone]

Thank you Meta4, but I am also interested in the ethical side of the question too. A Boeing pilot may fly a Cessna on her off time, but would she knowingly exceed the 400 AGL when flying her drone just because she is off duty and holds a Part 107. Being in full possession of the spirit and letter of laws and regulations does seem to imply some larger degree of culpability when acting in grey areas of the rules.

The only way she could fly above 400 AGL is with a waiver/airspace authorization. Regardless to flying as part 107, 333, other. That's the law and limit (unless flying for inspection of a structure---but I would still file for NOTAM and contact ATC in that case).

The question of commercial or not, is more of bearing if flying as part 107, is considered commercial (regardless if for money or not). If flying under recreational rules, are held to a greater detail of notifications and rules. If you know Airmap or similar and toggle through Flying under: 107, 333, for fun...the differences are clear.

 

[sar104]

The only way she could fly above 400 AGL is with a waiver/airspace authorization. Regardless to flying as part 107, 333, other. That's the law and limit (unless flying for inspection of a structure---but I would still file for NOTAM and contact ATC in that case).

The question of commercial or not, is more of bearing if flying as part 107, is considered commercial (regardless if for money or not). If flying under recreational rules, are held to a greater detail of notifications and rules. If you know Airmap or similar and toggle through Flying under: 107, 333, for fun...the differences are clear.

Apart from the 5-mile notification requirement, Section 336 (Part 101) recreational flying has almost no associated rules, precisely because of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. There is no 400 ft limit and no night flying restrictions, for example.

 

[TerreDrone]

Apart from the 5-mile notification requirement, Section 336 (Part 101) recreational flying has almost no associated rules, precisely because of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. There is no 400 ft limit and no night flying restrictions, for example.

True, but the 5-mil rule warrants not only airports, but heliports, etc. (anything with a landing pad). So this would constitute hospitals, fire stations, police hq, etc. If you were flying in the city limits, you'd be looking at an enormous task. Most of the model aircraft enthusiasts I know, flying designated RC areas anyway. Airmap captures those zones as well. If hobbyists are allowed above 400 AGL, that's the first I learn of it.

 

[sar104]

True, but the 5-mil rule warrants not only airports, but heliports, etc. (anything with a landing pad). So this would constitute hospitals, fire stations, police hq, etc. If you were flying in the city limits, you'd be looking at an enormous task. Most of the model aircraft enthusiasts I know, flying designated RC areas anyway. Airmap captures those zones as well. If hobbyists are allowed above 400 AGL, that's the first I learn of it.

It does include all those facilities, but it is just a notification requirement. You need to look at the altitude question differently. There is nothing in Part 101 that limits recreational flight to 400 ft AGL. There is a requirement to follow a CBO's guidelines, and that currently means the AMA. The AMA Safety Handbook doesn't limit recreational flight altitude either, except within 3 miles of an airport, and the FAA confirmed in writing that there is no 400 ft rule for recreational flight.

 

[TerreDrone]

It does include all those facilities, but it is just a notification requirement. You need to look at the altitude question differently. There is nothing in Part 101 that limits recreational flight to 400 ft AGL. There is a requirement to follow a CBO's guidelines, and that currently means the AMA. The AMA Safety Handbook doesn't limit recreational flight altitude either, except within 3 miles of an airport, and the FAA confirmed in writing that there is no 400 ft rule for recreational flight.

Interesting. I don't know anything about 101 (balloons, rockets). I know there is some UAS accepted in there, but whatever.

I fly for remote sensing---surveying, mapping with thermal, LiDAR and photogrammetry. So 400 AGL is way too high for our needs anyhow.

 

[sar104]

Interesting. I don't know anything about 101 (balloons, rockets). I know there is some UAS accepted in there, but whatever.

I fly for remote sensing---surveying, mapping with thermal, LiDAR and photogrammetry. So 400 AGL is way too high for our needs anyhow.

14 CFR Part 101 subpart E is the codified implementation of "Public Law 112-95, Section 336”, in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which specifies the rules for recreational flying. You are flying under 14 CFR Part 107, which is the overarching law on sUAS operation.

 

[TerreDrone]

14 CFR Part 101 subpart E is the codified implementation of "Public Law 112-95, Section 336”, in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which specifies the rules for recreational flying. You are flying under 14 CFR Part 107, which is the overarching law on sUAS operation.

I'll pass this my attorney buddy, he's a part 61 pilot and RP 107. I would be willing to bet this rule is outdated due to part 107 is more current. But I'll ask. In the survey world we adhere and exceed to FAA regulations so we can get more access/approval. So regardless to the argument you are trying to make, I wouldn't lean on this. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[sar104]

I'll pass this my attorney buddy, he's a part 61 pilot and RP 107. I would be willing to bet this rule is outdated due to part 107 is more current. But I'll ask. In the survey world we adhere and exceed to FAA regulations so we can get more access/approval. So regardless to the argument you are trying to make, I wouldn't lean on this. Just my opinion, of course.

I'm sorry it's too difficult for you to read that for yourself, but go ahead and ask whomever you like. You might want at least to read Part 107 though, since that's what you fly under, which states, under applicability:

§107.1 Applicability.​

​

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of civil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States.​

​

(b) This part does not apply to the following:​

​

(1) Air carrier operations;​

​

(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 101 of this chapter; or​

​

(3) Any operation that a remote pilot in command elects to conduct pursuant to an exemption issued under section 333 of Public Law 112-95, unless otherwise specified in the exemption.​

 

[TerreDrone]

I'm sorry it's too difficult for you to read that for yourself, but go ahead and ask whomever you like. You might want at least to read Part 107 though, since that's what you fly under, which states, under applicability:

§107.1 Applicability.​

​

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of civil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States.​

​

(b) This part does not apply to the following:​

​

(1) Air carrier operations;​

​

(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 101 of this chapter; or​

​

(3) Any operation that a remote pilot in command elects to conduct pursuant to an exemption issued under section 333 of Public Law 112-95, unless otherwise specified in the exemption.​

Oh I see, thanks so much for the clarification.

 

[julius13]

Why can’t non 107 pilots just comply with what you know to be the rules...stay below 400 v.f. and no flying at night. I have plenty of good footage of 30 min before sunrise and 30 min after sunset. Just plan your flights and you will be within the law.

 

[sar104]

Why can’t non 107 pilots just comply with what you know to be the rules...stay below 400 v.f. and no flying at night. I have plenty of good footage of 30 min before sunrise and 30 min after sunset. Just plan your flights and you will be within the law.

Perhaps because those are not the rules for recreational flight?