DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Legality of shots that possibly weren't legal

You have the situation backwards. There are uniform FAA regulations regarding sUAS operation - those are 14 CFR Part 107 - but, under pressure from the model aircraft community, Congress decided to cut recreational pilots a break and relieve them of some of those regulations. So it's not that stricter rules were put in place for non-recreational use, it's that the basic rules were relaxed for recreational use.
? Hmmm, I see what you did there.

However, it doesn't change the fact that recreational and commercial flights are treated unequally under the rules.

Recreational model flyers were historically always "relieved" of the burdensome regulations otherwise imposed onto commercial flyers. That's why there was pressure from the model aircraft community. It's certainly nice that Congress has decided to continue "cutting them a break".

The question remains though, why should a fun flight over my neighbour's roof be permitted for recreational purposes and thus illegible for exemption from Part 107, but not for checking his gutters unless done fully according to Part 107? Same flight, same drone, same operator, just different intent. What if I get my kicks, just for fun, flying along gutters? Why can't I share a video of that with my neighbour?

What's the justification for stricter regulations applied solely by intent, commercial versus recreational, when they're exactly the same flight? How is one more dangerous than the other?
 
? Hmmm, I see what you did there.
No - you apparently didn't see what I did there, which was to provide a very simple explanation for what you observed.
However, it doesn't change the fact that recreational and commercial flights are treated unequally under the rules.

Recreational model flyers were historically always "relieved" of the burdensome regulations otherwise imposed onto commercial flyers. That's why there was pressure from the model aircraft community. It's certainly nice that Congress has decided to continue "cutting them a break".
So you approve of the relaxation of the regulations for recreational pilots? If so then you have answered your own question.
The question remains though, why should a fun flight over my neighbour's roof be permitted for recreational purposes and thus illegible for exemption from Part 107, but not for checking his gutters unless done fully according to Part 107? Same flight, same drone, same operator, just different intent. What if I get my kicks, just for fun, flying along gutters? Why can't I share a video of that with my neighbour?
What are you arguing then - that all pilots should be under the more relaxed recreational rules?
What's the justification for stricter regulations applied solely by intent, commercial versus recreational, when they're exactly the same flight? How is one more dangerous than the other?
You have made it perfectly clear that you know what the justification is - it's that the reasonable 14 CFR Part 107 rules were unpalatable to the traditional model aircraft community (with some justification given the aircraft that most of them fly and the more limited VLOS capabilities available to them), and they mustered enough support to get relief. That relief rather inevitably also covered recreational drone use.
 
You have the situation backwards. There are uniform FAA regulations regarding sUAS operation - those are 14 CFR Part 107 - but, under pressure from the model aircraft community, Congress decided to cut recreational pilots a break and relieve them of some of those regulations. So it's not that stricter rules were put in place for non-recreational use, it's that the basic rules were relaxed for recreational use.
Exactly. Well put. This is what people don't seem to understand.

The rules were put in place for safety for ALL drones. AMA and others went out and proved that the recreational community has a stellar safety record, and Congress had the FAA relax the rules for recreational operators.

We don't fly under more strict rules as 107 Pilots, recreational flyers operate under lessened rules. That's what people need to understand.
 
What are you arguing then - that all pilots should be under the more relaxed recreational rules?

You have made it perfectly clear that you know what the justification is - it's that the reasonable 14 CFR Part 107 rules were unpalatable to the traditional model aircraft community (with some justification given the aircraft that most of them fly and the more limited VLOS capabilities available to them), and they mustered enough support to get relief. That relief rather inevitably also covered recreational drone use.
We don't fly under more strict rules as 107 Pilots, recreational flyers operate under lessened rules. That's what people need to understand.
Both of you are missing the point.

When I say that the number 10 is twice as big as the number 5, you argue that I'm looking at it backwards since it's actually the number 5 that's only half as big as the number 10.

Both of you say the rules are the same for everyone, but at the same time you say they're less restrictive for recreational flyers. So the rules are not the same.

Yes, I know how we got to this point. Recreational flyers (the vast majority of flyers) screamed loudly enough to earn some measure of relief from their benevolent FAA. As a result two classes of flyers exist determined by whether you fly just for your own fun, or whether you fly in any sort of manner that's beneficial to humanity.

Back to the question from the original poster. Assuming his flight was legal in every other sense (the authorities on site had no objections) he could have done his overflight of the burned area for his own enjoyment as a recreational pilot. But he cannot (without full Part 107 authorization) do the exact same flight when his friend asks him to do it for him.

There is zero difference in actual risk or danger. The ONLY difference, and apparently the over-riding crucial and vitally significant difference (according to the FAA and everyone who responded here), is that one is recreational and the other is commercial.

That law is absurd. I know my opinion counts for nothing. The law is what it is.

Grandpa owns a big cattle ranch with acres of space for his grandkids to have fun flying their FPV model aircraft. Grandpa suggests to his grandkids, while you're just wasting time flying around in circles, why don't you do something useful like flying down to the watering hole to check if any of those dumb cattle are bogged down stuck in there mud again. The smart aleck kid replies, Gosh Grandpa, I can't do that because I don't have my full Part 107 licence.
 
Why should it make any difference at all if, at the same time, I used my drone to check the gutters on my neighbour's house? Oh no, you can't do that legally unless you first study to read and understand reams of regulations, NOTAMS, METAR, etc. Why?
One answer is "because that's what the rules say". I think we've covered that. If you want to know why the rules say that, you've got to get inside the minds of those who wrote and passed the rules. Good luck with that.

It may have something to do with the idea that those who are motivated strictly by fun may have less motivation to operate in marginal weather or in other questionable conditions. Aviation is full of bad decisions made under the pressure of keeping a schedule or commitments to others.
 
There is some bad information here.

Anything that falls outside a purely recreational flight requires a 107. Scenarios 1 and 4 are most definitely flights that require a 107.

And the FAA doesn't really change the answer. There are certain people inside the FAA (FSDO is notorious for this) that don't have the correct information, so they can muddy the waters. This is exactly why people like myself and @BigAl07 do what we do. We get questions like this from FSDO all the time.
 
The op answered his own question. His flight was for a Fire Association for review of the fire scene. So the intent of the flight was not recreational but to support a business review of fire response actions. And the Intent is what the FAA will look at, so this is a 107 flight.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: grinnelljd
Flying over a neighbors roof is part 107, not rec. Will anyone care? No but it is not rec. Read the rules, if you are flying and taking shots for a family photo album, for family use, or flying around for fun, check out the top of a nearby tree, that is all rec. Anything beyond your own personal enjoyment is part 107. Flying over you neighbors roof and noticing a vent cap missing and telling him could still be rec, but the intent of the flight is for you, not your neighbor.

And, if it's a rec flight, it is NOT legal for later use as a demo real, as the footage is used commercially. Your lawyer could argue it was taken as rec, then later used for 107, but its not a good argument.

Finally, as @vic said, will anyone care? Especially if you now have your 107 cert? Probably not.

And I don't have all the info, but if a municipality asked you to fly, my understanding is they don't require part 107, are exempted from it for things like fire, S&R, etc. And I believe that can extend to the muni asking the association to fly, then they ask you... maybe someone else could elaborate that part
 
Not sure but isn't this a question of it being a recreational or commercial flight? Helping out a buddy I would think is kind of irrelevant. I can help my buddy out by taking a vid of his boat, I'm still flying recreationally as I have not made any financial gain from the filming and making money from the flight and footage was never the intention of the flight, therefore nto commercial. If you were helping a buddy and had no intention of any commerical gain from the footage then I believe you have nothing to worry about.
The rules are laid out here: Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

Rule #1 is very clear.
  1. Fly only for recreational purposes (enjoyment).
By flying for your friend to video the fire area you are NOT flying recreationally. Yes, you may enjoy it, but it's not for YOUR enjoyment. Whether you get compensated or not you are flying at the behest of another for their later use. That is NOT recreational. Nothing of monetary value needs to be exchanged for it to be commercial use. Now if you just happen to go flying there one day on your own with NO previous intention of using that footage for someone else's benefit, and then at a later day your friends see it and you give him a copy that is 100% OK. It's solely about INTENT at the time of the flight. So by you flying your drone to take video for your friends use your intent is very clear that it was NOT a recreational flight.

Chances are though that you won't get in trouble as long as the footage doesn't end up on the internet. :).

The easiest way to avoid all this is to just get your Part 107. It's NOT that difficult and in the long run, will save you headaches down the road. :)
 
Both of you are missing the point.

When I say that the number 10 is twice as big as the number 5, you argue that I'm looking at it backwards since it's actually the number 5 that's only half as big as the number 10.

Both of you say the rules are the same for everyone, but at the same time you say they're less restrictive for recreational flyers. So the rules are not the same.
I've never said the rules are the same for everyone. They're not. They're very similar, but not the same.
Yes, I know how we got to this point. Recreational flyers (the vast majority of flyers) screamed loudly enough to earn some measure of relief from their benevolent FAA. As a result two classes of flyers exist determined by whether you fly just for your own fun, or whether you fly in any sort of manner that's beneficial to humanity.

Back to the question from the original poster. Assuming his flight was legal in every other sense (the authorities on site had no objections) he could have done his overflight of the burned area for his own enjoyment as a recreational pilot. But he cannot (without full Part 107 authorization) do the exact same flight when his friend asks him to do it for him.
*see below.
There is zero difference in actual risk or danger. The ONLY difference, and apparently the over-riding crucial and vitally significant difference (according to the FAA and everyone who responded here), is that one is recreational and the other is commercial.

That law is absurd. I know my opinion counts for nothing. The law is what it is.

Grandpa owns a big cattle ranch with acres of space for his grandkids to have fun flying their FPV model aircraft. Grandpa suggests to his grandkids, while you're just wasting time flying around in circles, why don't you do something useful like flying down to the watering hole to check if any of those dumb cattle are bogged down stuck in there mud again. The smart aleck kid replies, Gosh Grandpa, I can't do that because I don't have my full Part 107 licence.
Yes, that would be a 107 flight, but the FAA (or anyone else on the planet) wouldn't give it a second thought. There is the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law. People shouldn't use one to justify (or criticize) the other.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rcourtney671
And I don't have all the info, but if a municipality asked you to fly, my understanding is they don't require part 107, are exempted from it for things like fire, S&R, etc. And I believe that can extend to the muni asking the association to fly, then they ask you... maybe someone else could elaborate that part
Unless that municipality if flying under a self-certification Public COA (& they have certified the drone operator), a 107 is required.

SAR and other public flights fall under 107. Someone with only a recreational drone operators permit (for lack of better term) cannot legally fly for a municipality. There are of course extenuating circumstances, like a emergency SAR, but overall, a 107 is required.
 
Sure, everyone is missing the point except you. I'm not going to waste any more time indulging your willful obtuseness and endless inappropriate analogies.

Obtuse and inappropriate?

My question, plain and simple, is why the FAA places such a high degree of importance on the difference between recreational vs non-recreational operations?

By flying for your friend to video the fire area you are NOT flying recreationally.
[...]
It's solely about INTENT at the time of the flight.

That's precisely the issue.

The FAA's mandate is to ensure SAFETY in the sky. Why is your INTENT more important than actual SAFETY? Why is flying for your own personal fun somehow considered more safe and less in need of regulation compared to any flight that provides an actual benefit to anyone?

Here are some simple non-obtuse scenarios.
  1. I like admire the view while flying my drone around our small lake for my own enjoyment. The drone is always within line-of-sight, below 400', observer, etc., etc.
  2. On another same regular flight around the lake I spot an abandoned canoe hidden deep within the bullrushes at the swampy end of the lake. It's only visible from the air. I ignore the canoe.
  3. Same flight, but I recognize the lost canoe as belonging to my neighbour, and I decide to retrieve the nice canoe and keep it for myself. Law of the sea, salvage rights, whatever.
  4. Same flight, I recognize the canoe, and notify my neighbour so he can retrieve his own canoe.
  5. Same daily flight around the lake, but my neighbour mentioned he lost his canoe so I'll keep an eye out for it. I find it, he retrieves it.
  6. Same daily flight around the lake, but my neighbour gives me $20 to look for his canoe.
Splitting hairs again:
  1. The first scenario was entirely for my own personal enjoyment, ergo recreational.
  2. Is equally enjoyable, with only a small degree of guilty feelings for not caring about the lost canoe.
  3. Equally enjoyable, with the added bonus that I now coincidentally have a canoe. I indirectly benefited from this flight by stealing a canoe, but it still counts as a recreational flight as it was not initially my intent to search for and steal a canoe. I just stumbled onto it during my otherwise innocent normal recreational flight. [Of course I would never actually steal a canoe like this. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's canoe."]
  4. Same enjoyable flight, but I find extra satisfaction in having done a good deed in letting my neighbour know where to find his lost canoe. It's still recreational, since it was not initially my INTENT to search for a canoe.
  5. I do the same flight every day. Looking for a lost canoe merely makes it more interesting.
  6. The $20 weighs heavily in my pocket. In order for it not to interfere with my flying ability, I do all my regular pre-flight checks including the proper weight-and-balance calculations. I determine that by equally distributing the weight, with $10 in my left pocket and the other $10 in my right pocket, I can retain my proper balance so I won't fall off the dock while piloting my drone. The $20 slight increase in my overall weight merely serves to increase my stability anchoring me into my dock chair, and otherwise has ZERO effect on the safe operation of my drone flight.
There is ZERO difference in the level of risk, danger, or peril, presented to other aerial traffic or to people on the ground. I'm flying exactly the same way in each scenario. Whether I'm looking at the ducks and loons on the lake, or whether I'm looking at a lost canoe, it makes no difference whatsoever in the way I safely conduct the same flight every day.

But, the FAA says scenarios 5 & 6 require a whole different level of regulation because it's not the SAFETY of the flight that matters, it's the INTENT of the flight which matters more. If the flight is intended to benefit anyone in any manner other than for simple joy, that somehow requires a greater degree of regulation.

You don't find that absurd?
 
  • Like
Reactions: screwthepap
Obtuse and inappropriate?

My question, plain and simple, is why the FAA places such a high degree of importance on the difference between recreational vs non-recreational operations?
Okay - one last time. The FAA didn't and doesn't want any difference between the regulations. The FAA put in place an appropriate set of rules for sUAS operations. Congress then insisted that recreational pilots be treated differently.

Personally I, and many others including in the FAA, think that Part 107 should apply to all sUAS operations - would that consistency make you happier?
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07 and Rich QR
Personally I, and many others including in the FAA, think that Part 107 should apply to all sUAS operations - would that consistency make you happier?
In Canada we originally had the equivalent regulation as was originally in the USA. "Model Aircraft" must be flown in a manner that is not reckless or negligent, and must not endanger manned aircraft or persons or property on the ground. The "Don't be Stupid" rule made perfect sense.

When the FAA first introduced a 250gram threshold for registration of UAS, Canada followed suit. The FAA insisted on applying to UAS the same existing distinction then in effect for manned aircraft between Private (Recreational) versus Commercial, i.e. it's no longer a "Model Aircraft" if it's not being used for recreational purposes alone. As per the Pinker case, if you are paid for your flying then it's commercial and a whole different set of rules apply.

Whether it's Congress or the FAA or whoever, that distinction remains. A more lenient set of rules applies if it's for Recreational operations, and a more comprehensive restrictive set of rules applies for Commercial operations. It has nothing to do with safety. The distinction is determined solely by the intent of the flight.

Would it make me happier if one set of rules applied consistently to all Americans? I'm Canadian, eh. I'm sorry if you think I'm being obtuse and inappropriate. I'm just astounded that you Americans seem satisfied with your rules the way they are. You are entitled to the exemptions for recreational flights if you only fly for fun, but certainly not if anyone receives any benefit from those flights. It makes no sense.

In Canada we've gone through several iterations of knee-jerk regulations, most of the time mirroring what was being done in the USA. At first "Model Aircraft" merely had to continue to follow the Don't Be Stupid rule, whereas anyone wishing to do any sort of Commercial operations was forced to apply for a Special Flight Operations Certificate. That was a cumbersome process, requiring submitting paperwork months in advance of any planned commercial flight. If you could successfully demonstrate your worthiness of such a blessing, in a few cases Transport Canada might even grant a blanket SFOC for longer extended periods.

The SFOC application process was cumbersome, and the approval process was an unmanageable burden on Transport Canada. Commercial operators complained, legitimately upset about being forced to wait for approvals when it's not the commercial operators creating the problems in the first place. There are far greater numbers of recreational flyers than commercial operators. For the most part, business operators have a greater liability at stake in operating their business responsibly and according to whatever regulations apply. It is the amateur recreational flyer, many of whom are completely ignorant of any rules, that are of greater safety concern.

Years later we've finally arrived at a set of regulations in Canada that, mostly, make sense. Anything weighing more than 250grams needs to be registered and requires at least a Basic certificate to operate. The Basic restrictions are roughly similar to what is required under your Recreational exemptions to Part 107. For example, Basic operations require you to pass an exam (renewed every two years) with flights only permitted below 400', always within Line-of-Sight, not within any control zone, not within certain perimeters of any aerodrome, or heliports, etc. etc.

If you have a valid need to fly within a control zone, then you must demonstrate a higher level of proficiency via the Advanced exam and you must then operate under the more extensive Advanced Operations regulations (similar to your full Part 107). You need to coordinate your activities with the authorities governing those control zones, i.e. ATC, etc.

Our current regulations for Remotely Piloted Aircraft no longer contain any distinction between recreational versus commercial operations, as those are deemed meaningless and useless criteria for applying varying levels of SAFETY regulations. The same consistent set of regulations now apply regardless of the INTENT of your flight. The easier to obtain Basic certification is actually more restrictive as you are entirely banned from flying within control zones, etc. The more difficult to obtain Advanced certification provides you more freedoms, but you have to work much harder to prove your worthiness of that status.

You can do either/or/both recreational or commercial flights with a Basic certificate same as with an Advanced certificate. The only difference between the two levels of certification is where they allow you to fly. It has nothing to do with whether you're flying for fun, or as a favour to a friend, or actually being to paid to fly for business purposes.

How and where you fly is far more important than why you fly.

Anything under 250grams is currently exempt from registration or licensing requirements. The only rule that currently still applies is the same old "Don't be Stupid" rule. I can fly my unregistered Mavic Mini for recreational purposes, or I can fly my Mavic Mini for taking and selling Real Estate photos, or for searching for lost canoes as a volunteer or even as a paid professional. There is no difference whasoever based on intent, only Don't be Stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CGWYl1
The rules are laid out here: Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

Rule #1 is very clear.
  1. Fly only for recreational purposes (enjoyment).
Quoting from that link:
"Non-recreational purposes include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections, or taking pictures of a high school football game for the school's website. Goodwill or other non-monetary value can also be considered indirect compensation. This would include things like volunteering to use your drone to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit organization. Recreational flight is simply flying for fun or personal enjoyment."

Land of the Free?
 
So a year or so ago I was invited by a Fireman's association to tour a California burn area. It was long since put out, so this was a tour for them to review the aftermath. I was helping out a friend who was shooting some of it as footage for their internal usage. I wasn't paid. In the process, I flew my Mavic Air over a burn area within full view of the local police and fire team (who thought it was cool).

I realize now I probably broke a bunch of rules. It was my first outing with the drone and I was just excited. But now I worry about showing the footage even on my demo reel or social media. What is my exposure here?

Thanks for your thoughts.

John
With so many idiots out there buzzing people, the decks of ships, intruding on private property... I doubt they will be coming after you, especially since droning is more of a novelty to the police and most of them haven't a clue about the laws governing them so unless it's worth dragging you through court over it I wouldn't worry. Additionally if you received no recompense for the job you can easily claim it was for pleasure use as long as you don't misuse the footage, any judge will likely be angry towards the prosecutor and dismiss the case.

This being said, from what I understand any scofflaws with drones breaking the law CAN be prosecuted by either the FAA in the US or Transport Canada (Civil Aviation) in, yup, Canada. Both are FEDERAL institutions so those found guilty can go to FEDERAL prison.
 
Last edited:
This being said, from what I understand any scofflaws with drones breaking the law CAN be prosecuted by either the FAA in the US or Transport Canada (Civil Aviation) in, yup, Canada. Both are FEDERAL institutions so those found guilty can go to FEDERAL prison.
The FAA doesn’t prosecute anyone and put them in prison. They ate a safety and regulatory agency. If there was any prosecution, it would be done by the DOJ.

and no one is going to federal prison for drone violations.
 
I'm brand new at all of this. I stumbled across a Youtube video about a couple who had violated the rules. Not sure what they do for a living, but they would post random recreational drone videos on their monetized Youtube channel. This is a clear and unambiguous violation (they probably earned less than a dollar). Apparently someone reported them to the FAA, because they got a call by a very nice FAA rep who explained that they needed to get a 107 or they COULD be fined $100,000. So the husband (who did most of their flying) got the license.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CGWYl1
The FAA doesn’t prosecute anyone and put them in prison. They ate a safety and regulatory agency. If there was any prosecution, it would be done by the DOJ.

and no one is going to federal prison for drone violations.
IF SO, couldn't (in extreme cases as stated) the FAA make a request of the DOJ as technically anyone conducting pre-flight, in-flight or post-flight procedures with a drone appears to be considered a pilots regardless of their status? Thus such charges would be federal, no? This would also appear to apply to those abusing/assaulting drone pilots OR THERE DRONES in any of those 3 stages of flight.

Across CANADA Transport Canada says that they 'investigates illegal drone activity where there is ANY concern for aviation safety'. As for no one going to FEDERAL prison for drone violations, any prolific or heinous offender would undoubtedly at least be charged federally if utilizing their drones to willfully commit criminal acts which is in fact also profiting from the use of your unlicensed (or worse, licensed) drone.

Those being ***-hats, inept or are simply unaware, as I indicated previously, would likely not be on anyone's radar, this though I bet some sort of ticketing system will become an eventuality as DJI records most everything and you will be sent tickets/warnings like when a camera catches you speeding in your car.

Add-note: The FAA has had Congressional approval since 2018 to regulate aviation safety and runs the NIJ in tandem WITH the DOJ wherein concerning such matters.
 
Last edited:
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

Forum statistics

Threads
130,591
Messages
1,554,152
Members
159,592
Latest member
BHU