it is possible in as little as 60 days you will be able to start flying from your backyard again. however, the circumstances will likely be different than when you flew earlier this year. at that point going forward, you can expect all future changes to directly impact you up to and including restricting your ability to fly. that's what "controlled" means. i would get in as much flying as you can because the days of more control (maybe not from the faa but state and local governments) are coming.
FAA Released Advisory Circular 91-57B - Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft
- Thread starter kadras
- Start date
it is possible in as little as 60 days you will be able to start flying from your backyard again. however, the circumstances will likely be different than when you flew earlier this year. at that point going forward, you can expect all future changes to directly impact you up to and including restricting your ability to fly. that's what "controlled" means. i would get in as much flying as you can because the days of more control (maybe not from the faa but state and local governments) are coming.
2020HeinSite
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2018
- Messages
- 60
- Reactions
- 28
- Age
- 74
The practice of law is all about arguing words. Lawyers deliberately write ambiguous statements in legal documents for one very simple purpose: It keeps them employed.
Frankly, I tend to agree with Shakespeare’s "Richard" (the profanity editor here will not allow his colloquial name to be used here ) in Henry VI:
Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2
JACK CADE. Valiant I am.
SMITH [aside]. A must needs; for beggary is valiant.
JACK CADE. I am able to endure much.
RICHARD [aside]. No question of that; for I have seen him whipp'd three market-days together.
JACK CADE. I fear neither sword nor fire.
SMITH [aside]. He need not fear the sword; for his coat is of proof.
RICHARD [aside]. But methinks he should stand in fear of fire, being burnt i' th' hand for stealing of sheep.
JACK CADE. Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop'd pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,– as king I will be,–
ALL. God save your majesty!
JACK CADE. I thank you, good people:– there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.
RICHARD. The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
LAANC should launch for recreational pilots, which would allow you to request authorization to fly in the controlled airspace near your home.
sorry springer i thought you had a different question. when laanc becomes available and if it turns out as planned, recreational pilots will get a huge relief. right now, controlled airspace is strictly off-limits with no way to legally fly (except for fixed sites) but that could all change for the better. but ultimately, i think it's a double-edged sword when you are now locked into gaining authorization in order to fly. times are coming when no authorization will be given. it used to be "notify and fly" but there is no such thing. if the system is down, you get a big fat no, or you get no reply, you cannot fly. which is where we are today. of course, none of this ever happened in the past but when hobbyist join, then you'll see things change. it would be naive to think the system just approves everything else why have the system?
Most lawyers would agree, at least ones who haven’t been practicing for 30 years. But when laws and regs are written largely by non-lawyers who try to sound like lawyers, that’s where the problems arise.
I think that many of the phrases and contexts are used due to established legal precedent to prevent others from misinterpreting or contesting. Need a “legalese” dictionary.
You must know only bad lawyers. Ambiguous phrases will get a lawyer sued for malpractice in a heartbeat. That’s not good for business. I know because I’ve sued lawyers for that. THAT is good business.
That’s true to some extent; I was really more thinking of terribly-written laws that take a diagram to figure out which clause refers to what, and have ambiguities like forgetting to include an “and” or “or” at a critical place. I’ve been involved in getting several statutes struck down just because they were so poorly written (in each case, written by non-lawyer legislators even after the lawyer legislators told them their wording wouldn’t work).
Either way, Congress, agencies, and state legislatures could do a far better job making clear laws. For example, I read laws for a living, but I’ve had to spend a lot of time parsing various FARs in the recent past (mostly airplane related but a few drone ones) and I’m still not sure I am entirely correct in my interpretations (my flight instructors sometimes trade ground school for legal discussions of CFR interpretation).
Last edited:
One good example of what you’re talking about is the “under color of state law” phrase from 28 USC 1983, the federal civil rights statute (originally called the Klan act as that was the intended target). It was always unclear what exactly it meant (or how broadly it applied), but many decades of appeals and Supreme Court cases largely established what it meant, at least as far as the courts were concerned, so Congress never changed it. Actually, that language goes back to the original statute and not a court decision, but basically the same thing: sloppy language that became ensconced in the law.
There’s also a separate set of canons of statutory construction that apply to statutes that are crafted from judicial decisions as opposed to ones drafted directly by congress/legislature.
Since nobody asked.
Last edited:
Recreational flyers can still sell anything they want, after the fact, as long as the intent at the time of the flight was solely recreational.
i agree with this, but i still feel like the community is throwing about and misusing the words like "solely" and "strictly" (and i understand why).
what is the difference between:
1.as long as the intent at the time of the flight was solely recreational.
2.as long as the intent at the time of the flight was recreational.
since you can't have a mixed flight and you cannot change your intent during a flight...
to me, the word "solely" and "strictly" refers to how you fly overall (not that particular flight). someone who delivers pizza for a living uses their POV as a deliver vehicle during the week and on weekends, they take off the sign and drive it around town running errands for personal use. the ups truck is used solely for commercial package delivery. solely doesn't mean when it leaves the hub in the morning, it only has a commercial route for the day. every day.
but i digress.
That is not true.. If you sell something or even give some pictures (a realtor friend for example). for no money you are still breaking the law and are flying for commercial purposes. Not sure how they would catch rec pilots selling photography, but it is illegal. I have heard realtors can lose their license for using UAV pilots that are not certified or using a drone themselves for their business.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you sure?This would be the realtor having the power of FAA. Rumors can be a problem. Please post a reference for all. Thanks
how does that make any sense at all? for some reason, the drone community thinks their "practice" is new and therefore following new and special rules unique to the world. this isn't new territory whether we are talking about intent, dual-licenses, commercial vs non-commercial, irs, laws, etc.
of course the realty industry can do whatever they want, i guess they can pull your license if you look cross-eyed at the client's wife. if they catch you breaking the law, any law, fine.
but here's my opinion. if you drone is individually registered, it is a commercial drone for the purposes of insurance and for part 107 and every time it takes off, it's a commercial flight meaning it cannot operate under the rules of recreational. you can still fly for fun and if you do and you take pictures, you can sell them. a 107 pilot who takes off intending to fly for fun captures 1 hour of footage and then next week someone wants that footage, he's supposed to overlook his 107 and remember that when those photos were taken, it was a fun flight? i dunno, i'm not 107, what's the industry practice for this?
same as the opposite. if you are a recreational pilot, every time you take off, it's a fun flight. your intent is recreational and your intent is never commercial and it can never be commercial because you don't have 107. what happens after that doesn't change your intent. if you sell a photo, it doesn't covert your recreational flight into a commercial flight. it might prove your intentions were ill but it's silly to try to label each and every flight based on what happens with the footage over the next few years or what route was flown, or any other criteria other than what counts for the IRS or the FAA....which is intent. as a recreational flyer, every time i fly, i fly with the intent to have fun and after that, whatever happens happens. if i post a fun video on yt and don't monetize it, my intent is proven at that point. if someone else takes my footage and use it and then send me $1 for kicks, how does that change my intent? did that person just turn me into a criminal? if a year later, a production company says we love that footage you posted on yt last year of your hawaii vacation, we'll pay you for it to use 2 shots, am i supposed to not accept the payment because the flight was recreational or because i don't have a 107? it's like selling something on ebay, you can sell without being a commercial business; you can sell to a certain extent without have a business license. it's all about intent.
that's how i am moving forward and if the drone community doesn't like it....
I think the rational is that if you start making money you will continue to do more and more commercial work. This usually involves people and property (especially in overpopulated NJ) and is not safe if you don't know what you are doing or what manned aircraft are doing. Part 107... especially if you take a course, teaches you everything from battery safety, to how to speak to air craft on a radio if needed.
- Joined
- May 27, 2017
- Messages
- 14,458
- Reactions
- 19,469
- Location
- Los Alamos, NM
- Site
- www.mavicpilots.com
1 and 2, above, are identical, and refer to "the flight", not "all flights". That's why it says "the flight".
Well, that's, just, like, your opinion, man. (and also incorrect).
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
-
Hello everyone! New aspiring drone pilot here, from Portugal.
- Started by Rui S
- Replies: 4
-
-
-
Forum statistics
