Ok, help me out... am I wrong?

[VenomXts]

Live in USA, I was under the impression all 4 below would be fine under recreational license.

Scenario 1: if I as a recreational user want to take off after a storm to 1st get a shot of my roof for any damage then speed off to get some cloud and lightening shots as the storm moves away... do those roof shots "Require" a part 107?
Scenario 2: if I as a recreational user want to take off after a storm to get a shot of my roof for any damage do those roof shots "Require" a part 107?
Scenario 3: if I as a recreational user want to take off after a storm to get a shot of my neighbors roof for any damage do those roof shots "Require" a part 107? (not charging at all for them).
Scenario 4: If i took a storm shot and gave it to the local news for Free does this require a 107?

Thanks

 

[AlanL]

Short answer - under current FAA rules defining recreational use the first 3 of the above scenarios fall under 107 rules. Launching with the intent to inspect your roof is not recreational.

If you shot some footage of a storm with the intent to give it to your local news it is not recreational. Here is where there is wiggle room - if you simply shot images of the storm and decided afterwards to give a copy to your local news you can argue that you didn't launch with the intent to capture footage for your local news.

Intent of the flight is everything according to the 44809 rules. Fickle? No doubt but that's the way the rules are currently written.

For the record I got my Pt. 107 just so I didn't have to care about whether my flight is recreational or not. I do not do actual commercial work.

 

[mavic3usa]

Technically if you don't take off with your drone simply to fly for fun then you need a part 107. So for each of those scenarios, technically you need a part 107.

Technically, if you took off with your drone just to have fun and fly recreationally and when you fly over your house, you noticed something and decided to take a closer look.....fine.

Fortunately, realistically it doesn't necessarily work out this way and the part 107 is more likely to be associated with using your drone for commercial purposes for promoting your business. This would open up the recreational aspects of drone fly a bit more so it isn't so narrow.

Honestly, roof inspection is not fun or recreational so I don't see how it can be recreational. Not going to matter if you are paid or free, it's the type of work that matters and technically, if it's not for fun then it falls under commercial.

In my opinion, it has more to do with your intent when you take off with your drone. What happens after that matters less. The video is not tagged as a recreational video or a commercial video, it is the flight. Recreational video can be sold or given away for free.

 

[Vic Moss]

Technical answers:

1) 107, not recreational
2) 107, not recreational
3) 107, not recreational
4) 44809 or 107. You can sell or give shots to anyone without a 107 if the intent of the flight was just to capture for fun afterwards. If you flew with the intent to give them to media, then it's not a recreational flight.

Actual answers, the FAA is very unlikely to care unless there was an incident. And even then, probably only for scenario #3.

 

[tlyons]

Live in USA, I was under the impression all 4 below would be fine under recreational license.

Scenario 1: if I as a recreational user want to take off after a storm to 1st get a shot of my roof for any damage then speed off to get some cloud and lightening shots as the storm moves away... do those roof shots "Require" a part 107?
Scenario 2: if I as a recreational user want to take off after a storm to get a shot of my roof for any damage do those roof shots "Require" a part 107?
Scenario 3: if I as a recreational user want to take off after a storm to get a shot of my neighbors roof for any damage do those roof shots "Require" a part 107? (not charging at all for them).
Scenario 4: If i took a storm shot and gave it to the local news for Free does this require a 107?

Thanks

The first 3 are recreational. The 4rth is giving benefit to someone who makes money from it and you might get publicity from it.

Here's the law: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...itleVII-partA-subpartiii-chap448-sec44809.pdf

Don't base your actions on internet knowledge; get knowledge from sources that end in .gov; all else is just "somebody said." The only quibble is how "strictly recreational" is defined and that is often misunderstood. For many years, recreational legally has meant for personal enjoyment without commercial benefit or compensation of any kind. No one changed that.

Occasionally, the FAA posts info with plain meaning. For example:
"Flying for recreational purposes means flying only for fun. Flying for work, payment, or as part of any business (even if not being paid) is not considered recreational flying."

https://www.faa.gov/faq/how-recreational-flying-defined#:~:text=Flying%20for%20recreational%20purposes%20means%20flying%20only%20for,not%20being%20paid%29%20is%20not%20considered%20recreational%20flying.

A plain reading of that says you're OK for the 1st three and that is in agreement with earlier reference to the written law. OTOH, if you have a roof repair business you plainly cannot survey roofs without a part 107 even if its "free."

If some nitpicker wants argue about the definition of work, here's the result of a court case:
"The term "work" broadly means "all physical or mental exertion (whether burdensome or not) controlled or required by the employer and pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer." Gonzalez v. Tanimura & Antle, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83326 (D. Ariz. Sept. 29, 2008)"
So, no, looking at your own roof is not legally work and unless your neighbor is your employer neither is looking at their roof.

Giving photos to the local news? I would argue it wasn't work and you had no commercial interest so its also OK. Clearly the local news is a commercial business so there could be a (weak) counter argument. As a practical matter, few courts so forget themselves that they go anywhere near ruling against a 1st amendment right. The FAA is not dumb and so is unlikely to bring something to court that is so weak legally.

Good luck with the roof.

 

[GFields]

Read the content of @Vic Moss (post #4) and follow it.

 

[sarahb]

Live in USA, I was under the impression all 4 below would be fine under recreational license.

Scenario 1: if I as a recreational user want to take off after a storm to 1st get a shot of my roof for any damage then speed off to get some cloud and lightening shots as the storm moves away... do those roof shots "Require" a part 107?
Scenario 2: if I as a recreational user want to take off after a storm to get a shot of my roof for any damage do those roof shots "Require" a part 107?
Scenario 3: if I as a recreational user want to take off after a storm to get a shot of my neighbors roof for any damage do those roof shots "Require" a part 107? (not charging at all for them).
Scenario 4: If i took a storm shot and gave it to the local news for Free does this require a 107?

Thanks

If you have to ask, it is most likely a Part 107 flight

 

[Vic Moss]

The first 3 are recreational. The 4rth is giving benefit to someone who makes money from it and you might get publicity from it.

Here's the law: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...itleVII-partA-subpartiii-chap448-sec44809.pdf

Don't base your actions on internet knowledge; get knowledge from sources that end in .gov; all else is just "somebody said." The only quibble is how "strictly recreational" is defined and that is often misunderstood. For many years, recreational legally has meant for personal enjoyment without commercial benefit or compensation of any kind. No one changed that.

Speaking of "Don't base your actions on internet knowledge...", you fall into that category. Because you're wrong.

All three of the first scenarios are not recreational. They each are flights to determine damage to roofs, which is definitely NOT recreational. Since they're not recreational, they automatically fall into 107 territory. So you're wrong there.

Even your link to 44809 disagrees with you. First test for the recreational exception is: "The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes." Flying to check a roof is not "strictly for recreational purposes."

The bigger question is if the FAA would care. See my post above for that explanation.

Not trying to be a hard case here, we just need to make sure we give people the correct information. Your post didn't.

 

[Vic Moss]

If you have to ask, it is most likely a Part 107 flight

Probably not untrue. Good barometer.

 

[VenomXts]

Probably not untrue. Good barometer.

They gona ground our DJI's Vic?

 

[Vic Moss]

They gona ground our DJI's Vic?

Grounding, no. Not allowing any future DJI gear? We hope not. Still cautiously optimistic.

 

[mavic3usa]

The first 3 are recreational. The 4rth is giving benefit to someone who makes money from it and you might get publicity from it.

Here's the law: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...itleVII-partA-subpartiii-chap448-sec44809.pdf

Don't base your actions on internet knowledge; get knowledge from sources that end in .gov; all else is just "somebody said." The only quibble is how "strictly recreational" is defined and that is often misunderstood. For many years, recreational legally has meant for personal enjoyment without commercial benefit or compensation of any kind. No one changed that.

Occasionally, the FAA posts info with plain meaning. For example:
"Flying for recreational purposes means flying only for fun. Flying for work, payment, or as part of any business (even if not being paid) is not considered recreational flying."

https://www.faa.gov/faq/how-recreational-flying-defined#:~:text=Flying%20for%20recreational%20purposes%20means%20flying%20only%20for,not%20being%20paid%29%20is%20not%20considered%20recreational%20flying.

A plain reading of that says you're OK for the 1st three and that is in agreement with earlier reference to the written law. OTOH, if you have a roof repair business you plainly cannot survey roofs without a part 107 even if its "free."

If some nitpicker wants argue about the definition of work, here's the result of a court case:
"The term "work" broadly means "all physical or mental exertion (whether burdensome or not) controlled or required by the employer and pursued necessarily and primarily for the benefit of the employer." Gonzalez v. Tanimura & Antle, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83326 (D. Ariz. Sept. 29, 2008)"
So, no, looking at your own roof is not legally work and unless your neighbor is your employer neither is looking at their roof.

Giving photos to the local news? I would argue it wasn't work and you had no commercial interest so its also OK. Clearly the local news is a commercial business so there could be a (weak) counter argument. As a practical matter, few courts so forget themselves that they go anywhere near ruling against a 1st amendment right. The FAA is not dumb and so is unlikely to bring something to court that is so weak legally.

Good luck with the roof.

I like your thinking but you forget one thing: The FAA basically says everything you do with your drone is commercial. But we can make an exception, a very narrow exception and that is: If you start your flight with the intent to have fun, then you qualify for a recreational flight. Otherwise, if that sentence is not true, basically you are part 107. It's not going to matter the definition of commercial or work or money or any of that. And that's dangerous but I won't get into that now.

 

[CadrePilot]

The first 3 are recreational. The 4rth is giving benefit to someone who makes money from it and you might get publicity from it.

So, so wrong.
Home maintenance is not recreational.

 

[Starz]

the FAA is very unlikely to care

One thought might be the FAA is probably busy doing other things besides watching for the homeowner that wants a few pictures of their own personal possessions. Like many other governmental organizations, likely overworked and underfunded.

 

[Cafguy]

My 2 cents:
If you or anyone you know "gains" anything from your flight you are flying commercially Your neighbor and yourself "Gained" by not having to pay a roofing inspector-therefore its a 107 flight.
the last one is a bit tricky If you gave it to them for free to broadcast that one time then I would say you are fine However If you gave them the footage for free and then told them that you could provide this service for other newsworthy items then you are advertising for business and even if you gave the footage away I would think that falls under part 107--???

 

[Zbip57]

Your neighbor and yourself "Gained" by not having to pay a roofing inspector-therefore its a 107 flight.

Like the recent ruling (South Carolina?) about not being able to use drones for mapping unless you're a licensed professional surveyor, are we going to see similar restrictions on drones being used by unlicensed roof inspectors?

I understand the reasoning behind that, legitimate trained professionals want to protect their trade. But why should the FAA give two hoots over whether anyone "gained" anything from flying their drone versus simply flying for fun? Flying for fun isn't any safer when nobody gains anything other than enjoyment.

If it's about safety, then the SAME rules should apply to everyone. Or, if it is considered acceptable that drones can be operated "safely" when they're being flown just for fun, then why can't they similarly be operated "safely" when checking your neighbour's roof?

If you're not having fun while flying, then much more stringent rules should apply? It makes no sense.

 

[Lets Fly]

Everything I do with my drone is for fun, that's why I bought it. I can climb my ladder and check my roof no problem but using the drone is fun, and easier. The same goes for taking a sunrise picture over the ocean, I can ride the ten miles to do it from the beach or just go up 400 feet and take it from my house, also fun. Anything I do with my drone for MYSELF for fun should never require a separate license, and no one else can define my Idea of what fun is while flying. You want to make money with it, so be it get your 107, but leave the recreational flyers that are only enjoying the fun of flying alone.

 

[BobaFut]

I say this in the most positive way possible...no one cares. The FAA isn't coming after you because you took some photos of some roofs after a storm. Any quibbles with the way you're operating your drone in terms of recreational vs 107--at least as you describe it--is just extreme hair-splitting.

 

[Vic Moss]

One thought might be the FAA is probably busy doing other things besides watching for the homeowner that wants a few pictures of their own personal possessions. Like many other governmental organizations, likely overworked and underfunded.

Not "likely" underfunded. Definitely underfunded.

 

[djwak59]

I say this in the most positive way possible...no one cares. The FAA isn't coming after you because you took some photos of some roofs after a storm. Any quibbles with the way you're operating your drone in terms of recreational vs 107--at least as you describe it--is just extreme hair-splitting.

Exactly. I’m sure there’s bigger fish for the FAA to fry. My own opinion, I’m not piloting a 747 full of passengers, whose LIVES depend on my skills, over a major city. I’m flying a $900 drone at a park, or my OWN backyard. I’m NOT a professional aviator ( never was one either ), not a photographer, cartographer or anything else. I fly ‘cus I like the experience and challenge to get better at it. My opinion, if you’re flying a multi million dollar aircraft, you BETTER be aware of a book load of rules and follow them to the letter. $500-$1000 drone ? Common sense safety “should” be enough.