Let the debating begin...

[Cymru]

Part 107 comes up all the time but what is the equivalent in the UK

Currently PfCO (A few thousand pounds investment and a few hundred a year renewal.).

From Jan 1st it'll be A2CoC or GVC.

 

[vindibona1]

You are SOO off the mark it's laughable. You cannot compare taking a photo from a handheld camera ON the ground to one from a drone. FAA does not have jurisdiction ON the ground.

The rules are NOT hard to understand. If you wake up and go out with the INTENT of taking footage to post on your social media page you are under Park 107. PERIOD. If you go out just to mess with your drone, practice flying, and film some stuff and later down the road decide that "hey, that looks cool, I think I'll share this" you are a recreational flyer. PERIOD. It's all about INTENT at the moment you are flying. Yes, the intent is hard to prove in most cases, but if you have a YouTUbe channel or FB group where you post lots of drone flights and images it's very easy for the FAA to show intent. If you post an occasional image/video on your personal FB page or if you have a TY account that you mostly post other things to you are fairly safe to say your intent was recreational. Read up the rules here: Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

Yes, I know it sound nitpicky and it is a razor edge, but nothing in the video posted by the OP is incorrect or false.

Note that soon it may become moot as you will be REQUIRED to take a certification course even for recreational flying.

Changes Coming in the Future​

The law also requires:

1. Drone operators to pass an online aeronautical knowledge and safety test and carry proof of test passage.
2. The FAA to issue guidance for how it will recognize community-based organizations.

I suggest you re-view the interview again. While you are correct it all come down to intent at the moment of flight, what the FAA guy said contradicts the concept of intent and almost specifically said, if you turn your camera on while in flight, and then later post it on social media you are in Part 107 land REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR INTENT WAS AT THE TIME OF FLIGHT; a large departure from initial intent.

 

[Expose]

The dictionary gives the definition of commercial as “making or intended to make a profit”.

In that case, I'll charge just enough to pay for the drone. And I'll just continue to do that for every new drone I fly. AND, since it's really a flying camera and my profession and hobby are photography, I can use the funds to pay for new equipment as well. Canon D1s, tripods, Photogenic lights. I like this idea. Funny how weddings and portraits I take end up paying for this stuff too.

 

[spsphotos]

Does the regulation related to "community based organizations" only apply within those communities? I have to assume that it applies if I'm flying within an area reserved for remote controlled model planes, but what about outside those areas?

Won't matter WHERE you fly, they will use the rules set by those community-based clubs as the template for any drones flying in that area. I don't see this happening anytime soon as there are a lot of issues with how to implement/enforce/educate.

 

[spsphotos]

I suggest you re-view the interview again. While you are correct it all come down to intent at the moment of flight, what the FAA guy said contradicts the concept of intent and almost specifically said, if you turn your camera on while in flight, and then later post it on social media you are in Part 107 land REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOUR INTENT WAS AT THE TIME OF FLIGHT; a large departure from initial intent.

I agree he was probably incorrect on that point. I'm going on all the actual training I've gotten from people who actually fly drones for a living and my own research. It all boils down to what your intent is when that drone leaves the ground. None-the-less, the FAA is NOT out to fine every Joe Shmoe who posts a video or picture online. If they detect a pattern or the person who posts it does so in a manner that suggests the flight was for that exact purpose they, at MOST, my call you and "educate" you. Not fine you out of the gate. The ones we see being fined are idiots who IGNORE the FAA's attempts to educate or do crap that so brazen that they have no choice but to act. Personally, it's NOT difficult to get a Part 107 license or all that expensive. If you are planning on flying a lot then it's probably a smart thing to do. I'm studying for my test (need to dive into weather and charts...my weak spots). I hope to have it in early January.

 

[vindibona1]

I agree he was probably incorrect on that point. I'm going on all the actual training I've gotten from people who actually fly drones for a living and my own research. It all boils down to what your intent is when that drone leaves the ground. None-the-less, the FAA is NOT out to fine every Joe Shmoe who posts a video or picture online. If they detect a pattern or the person who posts it does so in a manner that suggests the flight was for that exact purpose they, at MOST, my call you and "educate" you. Not fine you out of the gate. The ones we see being fined are idiots who IGNORE the FAA's attempts to educate or do crap that so brazen that they have no choice but to act. Personally, it's NOT difficult to get a Part 107 license or all that expensive. If you are planning on flying a lot then it's probably a smart thing to do. I'm studying for my test (need to dive into weather and charts...my weak spots). I hope to have it in early January.

So you and I agree on most things. And I agree that the FAA isn't on a mission to fine people who make innocent mistakes. But he was absolutely misleading in the way he shaped what falls under Part 107 vs recreational. As you can see from my signature, probably like you I am a Part 107 pilot, and before that was extremely cautious, to the point of creating projects that I knew I couldn't even consider for a future promotional website. But under his description, even though the full intent of my projects at the time were largely for practice as well as fun, I was in violation of Part 107- which I clearly was not. The law says what the law says, and as a rule, with the exception of bureaucratic over-reach, anything outside of the verbage of the law bears no restrictions. My objection was that he was citing examples that went beyond the scope of the law and written FAA guidlines.

 

[DoomMeister]

I agree he was probably incorrect on that point. I'm going on all the actual training I've gotten from people who actually fly drones for a living and my own research. It all boils down to what your intent is when that drone leaves the ground. None-the-less, the FAA is NOT out to fine every Joe Shmoe who posts a video or picture online. If they detect a pattern or the person who posts it does so in a manner that suggests the flight was for that exact purpose they, at MOST, my call you and "educate" you. Not fine you out of the gate. The ones we see being fined are idiots who IGNORE the FAA's attempts to educate or do crap that so brazen that they have no choice but to act. Personally, it's NOT difficult to get a Part 107 license or all that expensive. If you are planning on flying a lot then it's probably a smart thing to do. I'm studying for my test (need to dive into weather and charts...my weak spots). I hope to have it in early January.

Flying my drone and taking photos/videos are both hobbies. I enjoy doing both and it is MY recreation. MY INTENT when I fly is to have fun piloting my drone and taking pictures or video. Trying to do both well is always a challenge to improve on my skills as a drone pilot and as an amateur photographer.

To have some mealy mouth meatball from the FAA tell me I’m flying as anything other than a recreational pilot is out and out rubbish. That pencil neck needs to bury his face in his rule book and read till he goes blind.

It is much safer to to be taking photos with a drone than flying a GA aircraft at under 400 feet altitude and snapping photos out the window. One hell of a lot cheaper, quieter, and effective too.

Anyone who buys into his malarkey is just helping instill the mindset that the large corporations want put forth to help in their takeover of the airspace we all use right now. They want to make it too expensive to operate, just like what happened with a lot of general aviation back in the 80’s and 90’s and many owner/pilots were forced out by rising costs.

 

[Meta4]

If you wake up and go out with the INTENT of taking footage to post on your social media page you are under Park 107. PERIOD

That's completely incorrect.
Even if you spell out PERIOD, it still doesn't make it true.

but if you have a YouTUbe channel or FB group where you post lots of drone flights and images it's very easy for the FAA to show intent.

The FAA understands what the real situation is even if their representative in that video was mistaken about things.
Post 42 explains what the real situation is.

Note that soon it may become moot as you will be REQUIRED to take a certification course even for recreational flying.
Changes Coming in the Future
The law also requires:

1. Drone operators to pass an online aeronautical knowledge and safety test and carry proof of test passage.
2. The FAA to issue guidance for how it will recognize community-based organizations.

Not really certification and you certainly will not be required to take a course.
It's going to be a simple, hard-to-fail, multiple choice quick quiz.

 

[DanMan32]

Well, we don't know for sure what the safety and knowledge test will be like, but could indeed be like the 10 question quiz DJI incorporated into Go4 for a while.

 

[DanMan32]

All this talk about intent on posting on YT. I still don't think flying with the intent on posting media from it automatically negates recreational flying. You also have to determine the nature of the YT account and the posting to that account.

One thing I did glean from this is that if you fail the recreational exemption litmus test in any way, then you automatically fall under 107 rules. What has to be spelled out though is what constitutes recreation flying or what isn't allowed as recreational flying.

CBOs haven't been officially recognized yet, but AMA is respected by FAA so following their rules would be a safe bet.

 

[DoomMeister]

The CBO is one thing that needs to be abolished in the recreational exemptions. Had my fill of the RC snobs at a couple of fields. I’m 63 years old and know how to follow rules. I don’t need a nanny organization to pay money to, that in essence boffed themselves when they let the FAA exclude them from the sUAS council. I joined another online group that was committed to safe drone flight and administered their own safety knowledge test (based on FAA regulations).

 

[One20OnePoint5]

The dictionary gives the definition of commercial as “making or intended to make a profit”.

that is NOT the definition for Part107. if you GIVE your photos videos to a BUSINESS. you need part 107. nothing to do with profit.

 

[One20OnePoint5]

i just want the public to be educated about recreational and commercial. there are alot of grey areas but its still very simple. i just wish in every box you cant even start your mavic until you read a document, go online and certify you read it and you get a code to enter into your controller. im sick and tired of talking to commercial accounts who say " oh yea bob does that for us, he has a drone" is he licensed? "what do you mean?". is he part 107 certified? "ill get back to you"

 

[DoomMeister]

i just want the public to be educated about recreational and commercial. there are alot of grey areas but its still very simple. i just wish in every box you cant even start your mavic until you read a document, go online and certify you read it and you get a code to enter into your controller. im sick and tired of talking to commercial accounts who say " oh yea bob does that for us, he has a drone" is he licensed? "what do you mean?". is he part 107 certified? "ill get back to you"

Maybe all car manufacturers should have you read the operators manual, blow into a breathalyzer to make sure you haven’t been drinking, and sample your blood to insure you are not under the influence of drugs before you can start the engine.

To go along with that you should need a CDL if you take anyone in the vehicle with you as you are infringing on taxi drivers and bus drivers. Heaven forbid you let someone help pay for gas if you carpool.

Yes I agree that those using their drones in a commercial enterprise need to get their 107 certification, but flying to capture a nice photo or video to post on your Facebook, YouTube, or other social media does not constitute furtherance of a business unless you are using it for some type of gain.

 

[DanMan32]

The CBO is one thing that needs to be abolished in the recreational exemptions. Had my fill of the RC snobs at a couple of fields. I’m 63 years old and know how to follow rules. I don’t need a nanny organization to pay money to, that in essence boffed themselves when they let the FAA exclude them from the sUAS council. I joined another online group that was committed to safe drone flight and administered their own safety knowledge test (based on FAA regulations).

You don't need to be,a member of the CBO. You only need to pick one (hopefully there will be several eventually) and fly by their rules.

I think the point was to be more flexible on the finer points and nature of the recreational flight if the governing organization (CBO) is reasonable and responsible.

 

[StevePA]

It does not appear to be whether it's commercial, or whether facebook is commercial etc.. it goes to the "intent" of that 1st fight and the FAA guys makes that clear with examples. That kite example is it. Are you there to fly the gadgit or take photos. if it's photos its 107, regardless of the intended use of the pics - comm, charity whatever. So there's a distinction between the flying and the USE of the flight and gadget. If the flight is intened for something, other than just the fun of flying, ie taking pics, it's getting into 107 because flying is no longer what the flight is about; flying is just the means to an end and that end is the photo - or the intent. Whereas, if you're just noodling around and happen to garb a pic that was not the intent of the flight, that's OK. Obviously there's a lot of room to wiggle as to what the intent of the flight was, but intent is always a moving target. In fact the example got thornier where an otherwise hobby use pic turned into a 107 pic when a 3rd party made use of it.

 

[DoomMeister]

It does not appear to be whether it's commercial, or whether facebook is commercial etc.. it goes to the "intent" of that 1st fight and the FAA guys makes that clear with examples. That kite example is it. Are you there to fly the gadgit or take photos. if it's photos its 107, regardless of the intended use of the pics - comm, charity whatever. So there's a distinction between the flying and the USE of the flight and gadget. If the flight is intened for something, other than just the fun of flying, ie taking pics, it's getting into 107 because flying is no longer what the flight is about; flying is just the means to an end and that end is the photo - or the intent. Whereas, if you're just noodling around and happen to garb a pic that was not the intent of the flight, that's OK. Obviously there's a lot of room to wiggle as to what the intent of the flight was, but intent is always a moving target. In fact the example got thornier where an otherwise hobby use pic turned into a 107 pic when a 3rd party made use of it.

By your argument, if the drone has a camera then you need your 107 cert because you are not flying for fun if you turn the camera on. Tell that to all those that bought selfie drones to get photos of themselves because their arms were too short to get the shot.

This goes on forever like a boring tennis match. Let’s face facts here and take a good look at where this whole thing is headed. In just a few years you will be forced to buy into a USS with a monthly fee just to be able to fly your drone. That is so big business can start crisscrossing low altitude airspace to make even more money off of customers and not worry about where someone is flying, either because they could afford to buy a new system that complies or just gave up because it costs too much.

I would not mind having to take a test to prove my knowledge like with 107 certification, but I don’t want to have to pay $160 to take it and prove I know how to safely fly a sUAS. A hobby is about enjoyment and not forking out big bucks to Big Brother because huge corporations want to take over.

 

[StevePA]

By your argument, if the drone has a camera then you need your 107 cert because you are not flying for fun if you turn the camera on. Tell that to all those that bought selfie drones to get photos of themselves because their arms were too short to get the shot.

This goes on forever like a boring tennis match. Let’s face facts here and take a good look at where this whole thing is headed. In just a few years you will be forced to buy into a USS with a monthly fee just to be able to fly your drone. That is so big business can start crisscrossing low altitude airspace to make even more money off of customers and not worry about where someone is flying, either because they could afford to buy a new system that complies or just gave up because it costs too much.

I would not mind having to take a test to prove my knowledge like with 107 certification, but I don’t want to have to pay $160 to take it and prove I know how to safely fly a sUAS. A hobby is about enjoyment and not forking out big bucks to Big Brother because huge corporations want to take over.

This is a sort of false equivalence, buttressed with an irrelevant multidimensional conspiracy theory.
This is not my argument, it’s what the FAA guy said. He drew a distinction predicated on “intent”.
“if the drone has a camera then you need your 107 cert because you are not flying for fun if you turn the camera on” is a nōn sequitur in that the existence of the camera does not trigger 107. Even the use of it doesn’t necessary trigger 107. It’s the “intent” of that use that triggers. It is categorically incorrect to state: 1. “if the drone has a camera” it requires a 107. This is simply not correct.
2. Adding “ because you are not flying for fun if you turn the camera on” does not change anything because turning on the camera does not necessarily trigger 107 either, as is covered in the FAA’s discussion. The camera can used for other functions such as direction/navigation that are clearly within the permissible “fun” use. And, even if you do take a photo, it’s not necessarily a trigger for 107, again covered the FAA's example.
Again the FAA is not saying the camera or its use triggers 107, it’s the intent of that use if it is used. It’s a fine line but the code seems to want to make that distinction.
As for whether or not big biz is using the FAA for some sort nefarious purpose lacks relevance here I think, and facts, even if there were some substance to it.

 

[Nile Mcmillion]

In that case, I'll charge just enough to pay for the drone. And I'll just continue to do that for every new drone I fly. AND, since it's really a flying camera and my profession and hobby are photography, I can use the funds to pay for new equipment as well. Canon D1s, tripods, Photogenic lights. I like this idea. Funny how weddings and portraits I take end up paying for this stuff too.

Funny thing is as a manned private pilot you can actually legally charge for some of the cost of fuel.

 

[Meta4]

the FAA guys makes that clear with examples. .. .

The thing is, that FAA guy was confused himself and what he said was very wrong and contradicts the FAA's published policies on the matter.
Read my posts #18 and #42 (particularly the link in #42) to get the FAA's take on this rather than what one misguided individual FAA guy said.

Are you there to fly the gadgit or take photos. if it's photos its 107, regardless of the intended use of the pics - comm, charity whatever. So there's a distinction between the flying and the USE of the flight and gadget. If the flight is intened for something, other than just the fun of flying, ie taking pics, it's getting into 107 because flying is no longer what the flight is about

Fortunately the FAA does not take such a twisted hardline fundamentalist approach.
They do understand that flying and taking photos can be and often is 100% recreational.