Due to drone laws & restrictions, does anyone else feel it to be nearly impossible to legally fly anywhere other than their backyard...?

[sar104]

I recently read an article that stated over 50% of UAV comercial flights are being done by non 107 certified pilots. Once the photos are taken and the EXIF or Metadata is removed, the photos become untraceable. I doubt the FAA has a real estate photo task force looking at real estate agent aerial photography. The client isn't the one responsible for making sure the pilot is 107 certified, so once the client has possession of the imaging the FAA is stuck, unless they get tips on who these non-107 pilots are.

Actually the client is responsible, both for ensuring that the pilot is licensed and that the pilot has appropriate insurance, not least because if an accident occurs then the client will be jointly liable for damages.

 

[Don Testme]

Actually the client is responsible, both for ensuring that the pilot is licensed and that the pilot has appropriate insurance, not least because if an accident occurs then the client will be jointly liable for damages.

Can you cite this regulation? Thanks.

 

[sar104]

Can you cite this regulation? Thanks.

Certainly. It's those two pieces of Federal code that so many people like to talk authoritatively about but hardly any has actually read:

14 CFR Part 107

49 U.S.C. Sec. 44809

 

[BigAl07]

I recently read an article that stated over 50% of UAV comercial flights are being done by non 107 certified pilots. Once the photos are taken and the EXIF or Metadata is removed, the photos become untraceable. I doubt the FAA has a real estate photo task force looking at real estate agent aerial photography. The client isn't the one responsible for making sure the pilot is 107 certified, so once the client has possession of the imaging the FAA is stuck, unless they get tips on who these non-107 pilots are.

Our MLS requires the Aerial Photographer to have their current Part 107 on file. I didn't think they kept track of it until I got an email stating that my currency was lapsing in a month (which it was). They won't accept ANY Images that are from a UAS (some photogs have lied and said it was a Pole Cam but that's on them) without proof of Part 107.

 

[BigAl07]

Can you cite this regulation? Thanks.

This screen shot may help some:

 

[sar104]

This screen shot may help some:

View attachment 143611

Thanks for posting that - I misread which post I was responding to.

 

[Chaosrider]

- say you want to do an overhead of a reservoir, park or other public lands, well my state has specifically forbid flying of drones in state parks
- my county has forbid it

There's a clear solution to this problem.

You're living in the wrong place!

Douglas County, Nevada has no such prohibition. I explicitly called DC Parks and Rec to confirm that.

It turned out that the park I want to fly from is in a DJI restriction zone, and I need to plow through the authorization process to break that loose, but after that, I'm good to go.

You know what they say in real estate about the three most important things:

1) Location
2) Location
3) Location

The same is true regarding freedom and government restrictions.



TCS

 

[lookout]

That comment sounds a little more commie than American oh those are the rules question and be punished. Besides I'm 2 miles from the red line not like I'm right on base at some point it dose become more about control than safety the part 107 is proof of that. The fact I can buy a drone with no training or license but soon as I try and make a dollar with it I have to have a 107 its kinda like how a gun in the pocket is some how more deadly and requires training over a gun on the hip.

I don't understand that either. Part 107 should only be about airspace. What I do with it on a monetary basis, shouldn't matter to the government. A commercial pilot's license is the difference between just splitting the cost of the flight with the passengers as opposed to being able to charge how ever many passengers whatever commercial price for services (it's more of a proficiency thing). Some insurance companies do something similar with new drivers of cars. Not so much with the drone.

And the manned aircraft have to have a minimum of 500' over an area, which is where the drones can fly underneath that, the 400' limit. Congested areas are 1000' minimum, like cities. Hey we should be able to fly our drones up to 1000' feet in congested cities and fly lower in open areas! Except those darn low flying weed woppers.

Taking a picture now, but selling it later, constitutes requiring having a part 107 of when the picture was taken. How can you plan for that? Oh...you took that picture of the sunset with a drone instead of a smart phone? Oh...sell that drone picture to me.

 

[spudster]

Taking a picture now, but selling it later, constitutes requiring having a part 107 of when the picture was taken. How can you plan for that? Oh...you took that picture of the sunset with a drone instead of a smart phone? Oh...sell that drone picture to me.

This is not completely accurate. If you go out and take photos of the sunset just for fun (recreationally) and at some later date someone wants to buy a copy of it, you do not need a Part 107 to do that. It is the "intent" when the original photo was taken that matters.

 

[MS Coast]

You have to be licensed to cut someone's hair commercially. I can't help but wonder if people who own electric clippers and licensed barbers have conversations similar to this one.

It's interesting that some folks I know get so worked up about regulations on drones but don't have concerns about fishing licenses, dog licenses, hunting regulations, fishing creel limits, car registrations and inspections, or regulations that dictate how far off the ground your mailbox can be.

I hope this wind settles down so I can get out to fly instead of reading about it here on the computer.

 

[Chris J]

I know exactly what you mean. I live in the Seattle area and it's tough to find a spot that's not near an airport. I can't even fly in my backyard.

If I flew primarily for recreation it would bother me more than it does, but I use my Mavic more as a tool when I head east out into the high desert. I use it to spot my hits on target when I do long range shooting (out to 1200 yards or so).

I also travel internationally a lot for work so my secondary use case is to get aerial shots of the places I visit, but like you eluded to...those no drone signs seem to be popping up everywhere. Things definitely are not like they used to be, thanks primarily to people being people.

 

[lookout]

You have to be licensed to cut someone's hair commercially. I can't help but wonder if people who own electric clippers and licensed barbers have conversations similar to this one.

It's interesting that some folks I know get so worked up about regulations on drones but don't have concerns about fishing licenses, dog licenses, hunting regulations, fishing creel limits, car registrations and inspections, or regulations that dictate how far off the ground your mailbox can be.

I hope this wind settles down so I can get out to fly instead of reading about it here on the computer.

There are people who wonder about all of that and how much of it is actually necessary as well as the drone regulations. Some people just like paperwork.

 

[lookout]

Oh good grief... I had to read a recent FAA subscription mailing.

A major point of emphasis to keep in mind regarding expense sharing flights is the “common purpose test”. This means, that the pilot must have his or her own reason for traveling to the destination, not simply for the transportation of the passengers.

For example: A private pilot is flying to Stillwater, Oklahoma, to visit her mother in the hospital over the weekend. Five of her friends would be coming with her to attend a football game that same weekend. She CAN legally share expenses because she has a reason to fly to Stillwater (visit her mother) not simply to transport her friends. Expanding the same scenario; if she has too many friends going to the football game that she has to make a second trip to pick up the rest, she CANNOT legally share expenses on the second trip because her purpose for flying to Stillwater was complete when she arrived the first time. The second flight was solely for the transportation of passengers.

And what about the return trip? I have to really want to go back home?

I don't remember things like this being an issue before, maybe they've changed the rules over time. And they are carrying it over into drone operations too.

 

[BigAl07]

Oh good grief... I had to read a recent FAA subscription mailing.

A major point of emphasis to keep in mind regarding expense sharing flights is the “common purpose test”. This means, that the pilot must have his or her own reason for traveling to the destination, not simply for the transportation of the passengers.

For example: A private pilot is flying to Stillwater, Oklahoma, to visit her mother in the hospital over the weekend. Five of her friends would be coming with her to attend a football game that same weekend. She CAN legally share expenses because she has a reason to fly to Stillwater (visit her mother) not simply to transport her friends. Expanding the same scenario; if she has too many friends going to the football game that she has to make a second trip to pick up the rest, she CANNOT legally share expenses on the second trip because her purpose for flying to Stillwater was complete when she arrived the first time. The second flight was solely for the transportation of passengers.

And what about the return trip? I have to really want to go back home?

I don't remember things like this being an issue before, maybe they've changed the rules over time. And they are carrying it over into drone operations too.

No this isn't new but it's being brought up again because people are trying (just like drone operators) to exploit legal loopholes.

Also you stated:

"Taking a picture now, but selling it later, constitutes requiring having a part 107 of when the picture was taken. How can you plan for that? Oh...you took that picture of the sunset with a drone instead of a smart phone? Oh...sell that drone picture to me."

That statement is 100% wrong!! You can absolutely take a picture under ~44809 ( Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft) and then later find the picture has value and sell it. This has been very well documented many times over. As long as your intent of the FLIGHT is purely recreational you're good to go. But if you go up with the INTENTION to take pictures to sell you are 100% operating well outside of the Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft and fully liable for all of Part 107.

Also it needs to be noted that the ONLY reason you have this caveat/bubble carve out is because some heavy hitters in the UAS industry were able to lobby in Congress and convinced them to make a bubble of protection for the purely recreational operations. It's not because the Government is trying to pull a quick one and screw recreational operators it's protecting those who are genuinely hobbyist while closing loopholes to those who think they are smarter than the system and try to work "around" the regulations.

 

[lookout]

No this isn't new but it's being brought up again because people are trying (just like drone operators) to exploit legal loopholes.

Also you stated:

"Taking a picture now, but selling it later, constitutes requiring having a part 107 of when the picture was taken. How can you plan for that? Oh...you took that picture of the sunset with a drone instead of a smart phone? Oh...sell that drone picture to me."

That statement is 100% wrong!! You can absolutely take a picture under ~44809 ( Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft) and then later find the picture has value and sell it. This has been very well documented many times over. As long as your intent of the FLIGHT is purely recreational you're good to go. But if you go up with the INTENTION to take pictures to sell you are 100% operating well outside of the Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft and fully liable for all of Part 107.

Also it needs to be noted that the ONLY reason you have this caveat/bubble carve out is because some heavy hitters in the UAS industry were able to lobby in Congress and convinced them to make a bubble of protection for the purely recreational operations. It's not because the Government is trying to pull a quick one and screw recreational operators it's protecting those who are genuinely hobbyist while closing loopholes to those who think they are smarter than the system and try to work "around" the regulations.

So like people want to use a drone to take a group picture of their coworkers, or their club or family feud reunion. Do they have to go through all that part 107 just to get a picture of everybody? Well, probably yes and no.

 

[sar104]

So like people want to use a drone to take a group picture of their coworkers, or their club or family feud reunion. Do they have to go through all that part 107 just to get a picture of everybody? Well, probably yes and no.

Forget about the photography. The criterion is simple - is the flight recreational? If yes, then no Part 107 is needed. If no, then it falls under Part 107.

Taking photographs or videos for personal enjoyment doesn't make a flight non-recreational.

 

[lookout]

Forget about the photography. The criterion is simple - is the flight recreational? If yes, then no Part 107 is needed. If no, then it falls under Part 107.

Taking photographs or videos for personal enjoyment doesn't make a flight non-recreational.

So you see these drone races on TV now and you can hardly tell where they are going, but they fly under the virtual reality hood. So they have to have a part 107 to race especially if they are going to win a trophy or cash or something? They would be doing it recreationally with this annoying aspect of winning a prize. I doubt otherwise that somebody would be paying me money to go out into an open field and buzz around in circles for recreation.

Professional photographers not using a drone get paying customers too without any specific paperwork that I am aware of. Shouldn't really matter how the photograph comes about.

 

[sar104]

So you see these drone races on TV now and you can hardly tell where they are going, but they fly under the virtual reality hood. So they have to have a part 107 to race especially if they are going to win a trophy or cash or something? They would be doing it recreationally with this annoying aspect of winning a prize. I doubt otherwise that somebody would be paying me money to go out into an open field and buzz around in circles for recreation.

Professional photographers not using a drone get paying customers too without any specific paperwork that I am aware of. Shouldn't really matter how the photograph comes about.

I'll try one more time on the off-chance that you really still don't understand.

It has nothing to do with the photography - it's only the intent of the flight that matters.

Part 107 isn't a license to take photographs with your drone - it's a license to fly the drone for purposes other than recreation.

 

[lookout]

Oh here we go on the drone racing part. There isn't a rule on indoors flying.

Do Drone Racing Pilots Need a Certificate ?
The FAA does not regulate drone flying that is done indoors. A drone must be registered with the FAA if it weighs more than 8.8 ounces = 0.55 lbs (250 grams).
However, a person does not need a remote pilot certificate to race a drone indoors even if they are being paid or winning prizes.
Racing drones outside for a hobby does not require a remote pilot certificate either unless the racing is done commercially for pay or to win prizes.
If a person gets any pay or receives in-kind services, such as prizes, for flying a drone outside, this requires the drone pilot to have a remote pilot certificate.

Want to Fly a Drone? Everything You Need to Know - RotorDrone

Drone News | UAS | Drone Racing | Aerial Photos & Videos | Want to Fly a Drone? Everything You Need to Know

www.rotordronepro.com

 

[BigAl07]

So you see these drone races on TV now and you can hardly tell where they are going, but they fly under the virtual reality hood. So they have to have a part 107 to race especially if they are going to win a trophy or cash or something? They would be doing it recreationally with this annoying aspect of winning a prize. I doubt otherwise that somebody would be paying me money to go out into an open field and buzz around in circles for recreation.

Professional photographers not using a drone get paying customers too without any specific paperwork that I am aware of. Shouldn't really matter how the photograph comes about.

You are totally missing the point.... the photograph isn't the issue... the FAA doesn't care if you're taking photos at all.. .it's about the FLIGHT.... the F-L-I-G-H-T and the intent of the flight.

You're trying to prove a point that has been defined many MANY times over and you're again flat out wrong!

So like people want to use a drone to take a group picture of their coworkers, or their club or family feud reunion. Do they have to go through all that part 107 just to get a picture of everybody? Well, probably yes and no.

Ok look at it like this... if a person wants to provide FREE (no money exchanged it's for FUN/FREE) Dental work to their coworkers, club, family.... do they need to be an actual Licensed Dentist or do they just need to have picked up a few dental tools along the way and self certify as a Dentist?