LAANC for hobbyists!

[msinger]

Has anyone heard about testing for recreational pilots?

The FAA doesn't have a release date for that test yet.

 

[kensteele]

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive... nope, not gonna

i won't lie either but it's obvious thousands of recreational pilots will. because the law is a trap, no different that speeding; pretty much everyone has lied about speeding. to me, it's best just to remain silent.

anyway, i feel most recreational pilots won't know or understand they are engaging in commercial activities and will freely admit to what they are doing not knowing the consequences. which is why the law is simply a gotcha law designed to trap honest law-abiding drone flyers just trying to do what makes sense to them. my drone, my house, my personal space, and all.

 

[kensteele]

Great news. Looking forward to using LAANC. Has anyone heard about testing for recreational pilots?

as long as we get laanc, we could care less how long it takes them to develop and post an online test, right? hope it never comes.

 

[sar104]

@sar104 Could you post the link, TIA

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title49-section44809&num=0&edition=prelim

 

[Thomas B]

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title49-section44809&num=0&edition=prelim

Thanks!

 

[TheWolfen]

Doing it for free versus commercial is not the test - it's whether or not the flight is recreational. 49 44809 (a) (1) says: "The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes." Simply not flying commercially doesn't satisfy that requirement, as the FAA has confirmed many times.



Certainly - one can simply lie about the flight if asked, if that's what you regard as a "workaround".

Wow... Good to know! For whatever reason I have always been under the impression that it was exactly the opposite. Kind of ridiculous, in my opinion, but I'm really glad you clarified that. Thanks!

 

[shanover]

for what its worth, my local regional airport has LAANC, and both my mavic pro and my spark will request authorization as soon as you try to take off. Sometimes the spark will take two or three tries, but it still comes through. the few times it has not, since I have been flying these short 3 months, I have heard and seen private planes taking off or landing. Afterwards, the LAANC approval comes through with no problem

 

[Gryphon962]

you will need to land your recreational flight and start a new commercial flight. you cannot mix the two. you can't be flying recreationally and then decide to start taking commercial pictures in the same flight. if you do, the flight will be considered a non-recreational commercial flight and with a 107 license that flight would be in violation.

the rules are stupid. which is why i was pushing the either your a 107 or you're not. trying to classify the activity by flight is stupid and pointless and it won't work.

No, no, no, yes, and no:

• The rules for all use of UAS under 55 lbs are written in Part 107.
• If you are certified under Part 107, you can do anything on any flight or all things in one flight.
• If you are not certified for Part 107 they you can only fly for strictly recreational purposes and must comply with other restrictions that only apply if you don't have a Part 107 cert.

It would be best if you try not to state what we can and cannot do in Part 107 unless you have passed the exam to prove that you understand the rules.

 

[kensteele]

you will need to land your recreational flight and start a new commercial flight. you cannot mix the two. you can't be flying recreationally and then decide to start taking commercial pictures in the same flight. if you do, the flight will be considered a non-recreational commercial flight and without a 107 license that flight would be in violation.

the rules are stupid. which is why i was pushing the either you're a 107 or you're not. trying to classify the activity by flight is stupid and pointless and it won't work.

No, no, no, yes, and no:

• The rules for all use of UAS under 55 lbs are written in Part 107.
• If you are certified under Part 107, you can do anything on any flight or all things in one flight.
• If you are not certified for Part 107 they you can only fly for strictly recreational purposes and must comply with other restrictions that only apply if you don't have a Part 107 cert.

It would be best if you try not to state what we can and cannot do in Part 107 unless you have passed the exam to prove that you understand the rules.

you are correct, there is a typo in my statement. i meant to say without instead of with, see my correction in red above. pretty sure you understood that....

 

[jacquespa]

I'm not sure how you can work around it legitimately. The intent of the flight is to inspect the shingles. How do you spin that realistically as purely recreational?

Maybe my hobby is looking at different roof & shingle designs
I agree your interpretation is correct and "recreation" was also explained in the webinar by the FAA. I never gave it that much thought before since I have not had a similar issue. Just seemed a bit extreme to me.

 

[Thomas B]

Here’s what I found on the FAA site:

Recreational Users | Know Before You Fly

knowbeforeyoufly.org

It states “The recreational use of sUAS is the operation of an unmanned aircraft for personal interests and enjoyment. For example, using a sUAS to take photographs for your own personal use would be considered recreational; using the same device to take photographs or videos for compensation or sale to another individual would be considered a commercial operation. You should check with the FAA for further determination as to what constitutes commercial or other non-hobby, non-recreational sUAS operations.”

I think it would justify the pilot imaging his mother’s food and reporting to her.... As long as he wasn’t a roofing contractor... and the well-being of his mother is surely a personal interest.
I suppose that contacting FAA first is the absolute safest route. I will before I inspect my children’s roofs.

 

[solarguy]

I'm not sure how you can work around it legitimately. The intent of the flight is to inspect the shingles. How do you spin that realistically as purely recreational?

I would say that the intent of the flight was a fun flying challenge, and to improve fun flying skills?

 

[solarguy]

Maybe my hobby is looking at different roof & shingle designs
I agree your interpretation is correct and "recreation" was also explained in the webinar by the FAA. I never gave it that much thought before since I have not had a similar issue. Just seemed a bit extreme to me.

I have taken some pretty artsy stills of my roof, and Art is fun, and also my hobby.

 

[sar104]

I would say that the intent of the flight was a fun flying challenge, and to improve fun flying skills?

Yes - maybe, but this is being over-analyzed now. The point was that if the intent was to inspect a roof then there is no way to simultaneously argue that it is recreational flight. Even if it were recreational roofing then technically as written, the law regards that as non-recreational flight because you are not flying for fun. That discussion is purely about the way the law is written - not about how it is implemented.

In that context, I think it's clear that the law was not written that way specifically to prevent hobbyists from using a flying camera to take a quick look at a roof - it's more about requiring pilots who fly regularly for non-recreational reasons to be under Part 107. Volunteer search and rescue is a commonly-quoted example - it's definitely not commercial and many participants would argue that it is one of their hobbies. And yet it requires Part 107 - the FAA has stated that many times. So why do they require that? There are probably a couple of reasons.

Firstly - the FAA was prevented, in 2012, from regulating hobby flight - something that was never a big deal in the old days of limited RC flying at designated fields but that threatened to become a big deal with the explosion of drone technology in the hands of consumers. As a result, in the absence of being able to regulate recreational flight, they instead defined it as narrowly as possible. Secondly, SAR operations can actually be quite complex, and they didn't want well-meaning but unknowledgeable people flying around jeopardizing ground and air resources.

The first of those clearly applies to looking at your roof, while the second doesn't. But that said, looking at your roof is really not an activity that is going to be high on the list of FAA enforcement priorities, even though, technically, they could object, because it has very limited interaction with the NAS - less than many real recreational flights. They actually are far more interested in commercial operations or complex non-commercial operations such as SAR, and unless someone has an accident, moves on to advertising their services, or causes some other problem, I would be astounded if the FAA ever chases someone for this scenario.

 

[jacquespa]

Maybe now that the FAA is allowed to regulate hobby flight they will take another look at redefining the boundaries and separate the personal/help family/not for profit from the more complex volunteer/SAR/company/for profit operations.

 

[kensteele]

Maybe now that the FAA is allowed to regulate hobby flight they will take another look at redefining the boundaries and separate the personal/help family/not for profit from the more complex volunteer/SAR/company/for profit operations.

wow, another us vs. them for the drone community. so commercial pilots are trying to use the faa to restrict the hobby pilots, is that right?

well here's an update for you, not going to happen. nothing you or the faa can do to stop freedom. mostly likely this will backfire, always does.

 

[sar104]

wow, another us vs. them for the drone community. so commercial pilots are trying to use the faa to restrict the hobby pilots, is that right?

well here's an update for you, not going to happen. nothing you or the faa can do to stop freedom. mostly likely this will backfire, always does.

Well you completely misunderstood that post.

 

[kensteele]

Well you completely misunderstood that post.

prob so and i thought i might since i don't know that battle. but am i wrong about various divisions in the drone community?

 

[sar104]

prob so and i thought i might since i don't know that battle.

That's because you keep posting without reading.

but am i wrong about various divisions in the drone community?

Yes, I think you are completely wrong. You keep hammering on about some kind of conflict between Part 107 and recreational pilots, but it just looks like projection to me.

 

[kensteele]

That's because you keep posting without reading.

that's going to happen sometimes. not going to apologize for it.

Yes, I think you are completely wrong. You keep hammering on about some kind of conflict between Part 107 and recreational pilots, but it just looks like projection to me.

i'm not the only one who gets that impression. but you think the drone community is solid, all on the same page, supportive of one another?