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

[Vic Moss]

Hi all,

Im still trying to keep frustration in chek over this faa wk safe space dji drone spy hate regs...appologize up front if I come across sideways at times... still really tikd about the investment I have in a three year old dji mavic 2 pro platform.

Have my 107 cert. Not that I care or it matters. It doesnt! Worthless...

All stems from EXTREME NEED for security at my biz location. Literally an hourly, daily challenge dealing with homeless drug addict thief losers, need for bvlos drone perimeter security flight ops on biz property.

Current remote security flight ops on property(32acres), point a ptz camera at drone viewing through internet while flying at 38 feet off ground on biz property "technically" meet vlos rules. Fly at night at times as Im not allowed to sleep or keep my sh#t from theft due to current climate. Security flight ops are always "an emergency" for many reasons. Large, hazardous in parts. Never know when a thief might get stuck to a garbage bag coated with Rodent glue.

Section of biz property required bvlos waiver which took about 6 months. Which if there was another way???

Long ramble, appologies, to explain current scenario, need, and classification.

Inquiry:
--- Any news on part 108 requirements and or exam release dates? Would be nice not to deal with waivers on private property flying 10-38 feet off ground.

---FYI, Law Enforcement are now flying drone bvlos night ops over cities, houses, people, moving cars, etc... from base ops all over the place... Im talkin miles away... someone splain that please?

---Anyone know of anyone that has hacked dji mavic 2 soft/firmware yet? Or who can? Anyone knows of anyone who has extensive knowledge in usb cellular modems?

Thanks

You need to start a new thread with this subject matter. Different subject that the OP./

 

[Ratfink11]

You need to start a new thread with this subject matter. Different subject that the OP./

Understood, thankyou

 

[Vic Moss]

Understood, thankyou

I wanted to answer your questions, but I didn't want to hijack this thread.

 

[brett8883]

All I can say is if

Technical answers:

1) 107, not recreational
2) 107, not recreational
3) 107, not recreational

I respect that you are very involved with the drone community, however, your answer seems off the mark to me and is at odds with the FAA’s official guidance.

I feel like you are saying if any flight has a specific purpose its not recreational and disqualifies it from 44809. Just because something completes as task doesn’t disqualify it from being recreational and having fun doesn’t have anything to do with it. If I fly my drone with the intent of taking photos to print out and display in my home would you call that non-recreational? Of course not. So why would someone flying to take pictures of their or their neighbors roof be any different?

In AC 91-57c the FAA defines “recreational” by defining what is not recreational:

2.2.1.1 Recreational purposes may not include activities such as flights for any compensation, monetary or otherwise, and flights related to or in furtherance of a business.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57C_FAA_Revised.pdf

Were the activities for compensation? No

Were the flights related to or in furtherance of a business? No.

It’s really not as complicated as this thread has made it out to be a feel like.

 

[Vic Moss]

All I can say is if

I respect that you are very involved with the drone community, however, your answer seems off the mark to me and is at odds with the FAA’s official guidance.

I feel like you are saying if any flight has a specific purpose its not recreational and disqualifies it from 44809. Just because something completes as task doesn’t disqualify it from being recreational and having fun doesn’t have anything to do with it. If I fly my drone with the intent of taking photos to print out and display in my home would you call that non-recreational? Of course not. So why would someone flying to take pictures of their or their neighbors roof be any different?

In AC 91-57c the FAA defines “recreational” by defining what is not recreational:

2.2.1.1 Recreational purposes may not include activities such as flights for any compensation, monetary or otherwise, and flights related to or in furtherance of a business.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57C_FAA_Revised.pdf

Were the activities for compensation? No

Were the flights related to or in furtherance of a business? No.

It’s really not as complicated as this thread has made it out to be a feel like.

I’m just telling you what the FAA would say. And that list is just examples, not all inclusive.

Ask the FAA yourself. [email protected]. Post the answer.

They’ll be back in the office on Monday.

 

[brett8883]

I’m just telling you what the FAA would say. And that list is just examples, not all inclusive.

Ask the FAA yourself. [email protected]. Post the answer.

They’ll be back in the office on Monday.

I’m honestly not sure that the people at the FAA help desk trump what is said in an AC but I will give it a try.

 

[Vic Moss]

I’m honestly not sure that the people at the FAA help desk trump what is said in an AC but I will give it a try.

Again, AC 91-57c isn’t an all inclusive list. Those are just examples. They don’t define by exclusion.

 

[mavic3usa]

All I can say is if

I respect that you are very involved with the drone community, however, your answer seems off the mark to me and is at odds with the FAA’s official guidance.

I feel like you are saying if any flight has a specific purpose its not recreational and disqualifies it from 44809. Just because something completes as task doesn’t disqualify it from being recreational and having fun doesn’t have anything to do with it. If I fly my drone with the intent of taking photos to print out and display in my home would you call that non-recreational? Of course not. So why would someone flying to take pictures of their or their neighbors roof be any different?

In AC 91-57c the FAA defines “recreational” by defining what is not recreational:

2.2.1.1 Recreational purposes may not include activities such as flights for any compensation, monetary or otherwise, and flights related to or in furtherance of a business.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57C_FAA_Revised.pdf

Were the activities for compensation? No

Were the flights related to or in furtherance of a business? No.

It’s really not as complicated as this thread has made it out to be a feel like.

I get what you are saying and I might even agree with some of what you are suggesting but unfortunately, that isn't the way it is...for now. And, I'm not happy either. I've often said we were handed a disservice on many of the drone rules and it isn't always about safety and I wish it were different. In fact, many other countries don't see it the same way as the FAA; in many countries you don't need a "part 107 commercial" drone license to fly a drone to take pictures of your local church picnic so you can post the stills on the church bulletin board. If you can take pictures of birds in your own backyard and fill you website with photos of birds on the ground without a permit, you should be able to lift your camera 25 feet high and do the same thing.

So I'm going to exaggerate and use some hyperbole and a little bit of drama to help make it clear how I feel:

Every single UAV drone flight that lifts off from the ground is covered under part 107 unless and until you qualify for an exemption. Recreational drone flying is not a real hobby or a real sport or even a thing in America. It's an exception. And you get that exception "when and if the government decides you get it." And so far, they are saying you get it when "when your intent at liftoff is to have fun and fly recreationally." In my mind, this is vague and could mean anything which basically means if could mean nothing; you could be flying under part 107 without you even knowing it (and that could be disastrous for anyone who doesn't have a part 107).

People will tell you, this is way Congress wanted it. And this is the way the FAA implemented it. So it must be good because they wouldn't have done it unless it promotes safety. And I say we should sue (not that we have a different country) and see if we can get this changed; at a minimum because it may help prevent a good person from having their life destroyed. We can't depend on discretion and leniency and education and plea bargains forever. That's no way to live in freedom. Maybe this used to work but we need to evolve because times are changing.

 

[brett8883]

I get what you are saying and I might even agree with some of what you are suggesting but unfortunately, that isn't the way it is...for now. And, I'm not happy either. I've often said we were handed a disservice on many of the drone rules and it isn't always about safety and I wish it were different. In fact, many other countries don't see it the same way as the FAA; in many countries you don't need a "part 107 commercial" drone license to fly a drone to take pictures of your local church picnic so you can post the stills on the church bulletin board. If you can take pictures of birds in your own backyard and fill you website with photos of birds on the ground without a permit, you should be able to lift your camera 25 feet high and do the same thing.

So I'm going to exaggerate and use some hyperbole and a little bit of drama to help make it clear how I feel:

Every single UAV drone flight that lifts off from the ground is covered under part 107 unless and until you qualify for an exemption. Recreational drone flying is not a real hobby or a real sport or even a thing in America. It's an exception. And you get that exception "when and if the government decides you get it." And so far, they are saying you get it when "when your intent at liftoff is to have fun and fly recreationally." In my mind, this is vague and could mean anything which basically means if could mean nothing; you could be flying under part 107 without you even knowing it (and that could be disastrous for anyone who doesn't have a part 107).

People will tell you, this is way Congress wanted it. And this is the way the FAA implemented it. So it must be good because they wouldn't have done it unless it promotes safety. And I say we should sue (not that we have a different country) and see if we can get this changed; at a minimum because it may help prevent a good person from having their life destroyed. We can't depend on discretion and leniency and education and plea bargains forever. That's no way to live in freedom. Maybe this used to work but we need to evolve because times are changing.

I understand all of that, we are essentially talking about the definition of the word "recreational" but the FAA has never defined it as narrowly as has been discussed here. You can have fun and enjoyment (recreation) while also doing something productive.

If I go out fishing are you saying it is not recreational unless I throw the fish back? If I keep it and eat it (therefore doing something of value to myself) I am no longer a recreational fisherman? What if I give a fish to my neighbor? I understand the second I go out with the intention to SELL the fish its no longer a recreational purpose but until then it recreational.

Sometimes I think we just get into an echo chamber. People say things, it gets passed on to the next guy, and then all of a sudden people think it's Gospel and nobody ever goes back to check the source material.

The source material, the old OFFICIAL guidance from the FAA until October 2022 was:

"7.1.1 The Aircraft is Flown Strictly for Recreational Purposes. Any use of unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes must be conducted under part 107 or other applicable FAA regulations. "
-https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/Editorial_Update_AC_91-57B.pdf

Then in October of 2022 the official FAA guidance was updated to: "...Recreational purposes may not include activities such as flights for any compensation, monetary or otherwise, and flights related to or in furtherance of a business."
-

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57C_FAA_Revised.pdf

The FAA has never said that just doing something productive no longer makes it a recreational purpose nor does that make sense or how the term is used in other contexts. If someone finds any official guidance from an official FAA channel that says let me know but I guarantee somebody just made that up one day and we all just went with it.

 

[mavic3usa]

I understand all of that, we are essentially talking about the definition of the word "recreational" but the FAA has never defined it as narrowly as has been discussed here. You can have fun and enjoyment (recreation) while also doing something productive.

If I go out fishing are you saying it is not recreational unless I throw the fish back? If I keep it and eat it (therefore doing something of value to myself) I am no longer a recreational fisherman? What if I give a fish to my neighbor? I understand the second I go out with the intention to SELL the fish its no longer a recreational purpose but until then it recreational.

Sometimes I think we just get into an echo chamber. People say things, it gets passed on to the next guy, and then all of a sudden people think it's Gospel and nobody ever goes back to check the source material.

The source material, the old OFFICIAL guidance from the FAA until October 2022 was:

"7.1.1 The Aircraft is Flown Strictly for Recreational Purposes. Any use of unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes must be conducted under part 107 or other applicable FAA regulations. "
-https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/Editorial_Update_AC_91-57B.pdf

Then in October of 2022 the official FAA guidance was updated to: "...Recreational purposes may not include activities such as flights for any compensation, monetary or otherwise, and flights related to or in furtherance of a business."
-

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57C_FAA_Revised.pdf

Again I agree with you mostly.

If you said I intend to fly my drone just to have fun and you lift off with the recreational flight and along the way, you see the river....and you see a fish. You catch the fish (or whatever). It's a recreational flight because your only intent when you lift off was to have fun.

If you said I intend to fly my drone down near the right and grab a fish and you take off and fly in the direction of the river....not purely recreational.

I don't like this. For two reasons. First, recreational is for fun only and non-recreational is for fun + [anything else] where [anything else] is exactly that. You are wide open. If someone see you doing [anything else] then you are open to scrutiny. Second, just because there is little to no enforcement doesn't mean we are free to do that [anything else]. I think it's risky. And I think it's unfair when so many are breaking the rules but then again, we all know these rules are meant to apply to the honest, law-abiding drone flyers only.

The FAA has never said that just doing something productive no longer makes it a recreational purpose nor does that make sense or how the term is used in other contexts. If someone finds any official guidance from an official FAA channel that says let me know but I guarantee somebody just made that up one day and we all just went with it.

I don't know how to answer this part. But it seems like you are suggesting this is an either/or scenario and that might be the confusion. It's not a matter of "doing something" or "doing something productive" that changes the determination of the flight. Think of this way: Your flight is a commercial part 107 flight. What do you plan to do to make that flight become the "exception" as in a recreational flight? If you can't answer "I plan to fly strictly having fun" or something along those lines, it's a part 107 flight regardless how production or unproductive it is....or any of the other characteristics of a flight. I might be wrong but I find the "exception" to be borderline ridiculous and I think it doesn't serve the drone community well.

 

[brett8883]

If you said I intend to fly my drone down near the right and grab a fish and you take off and fly in the direction of the river....not purely recreational.

That is purely recreational I can assure you. Even @Vic Moss would agree I’m sure.

Look up the dictionary definition of recreation. You seem to be using it interchangeably with the word “enjoyment” but that’s not quite right. Recreation is “any activity done for enjoyment when one is not working”-Oxford dictionary. So as long as you aren’t catching the fish for a job, ie you aren’t being compensated and it’s not in furtherance of a business, you enjoy it, ANY activity is recreational.

BTW This is exactly the FAA says. Don’t take my word for it. I linked directly to the official FAA source that says that. All this stuff about enjoyment++ and all that, the FAA doesn’t say that, Congress doesn’t say that, that’s not the dictionary definition of it. Somebody on here just made that bs up. Congress did good for us for once. Enjoy it

 

[brett8883]

Again, AC 91-57c isn’t an all inclusive list. Those are just examples. They don’t define by exclusion.

Please show me some current official document that says something other than can’t be for compensation or in furtherance of a business and I’ll eat my foot and be happy to do it.

 

[mavic3usa]

That is purely recreational I can assure you. Even @Vic Moss would agree I’m sure.

Look up the dictionary definition of recreation. You seem to be using it interchangeably with the word “enjoyment” but that’s not quite right. Recreation is “any activity done for enjoyment when one is not working”-Oxford dictionary. So as long as you aren’t catching the fish for a job, ie you aren’t being compensated and it’s not in furtherance of a business, you enjoy it, ANY activity is recreational.

BTW This is exactly the FAA says. Don’t take my word for it. I linked directly to the official FAA source that says that. All this stuff about enjoyment++ and all that, the FAA doesn’t say that, Congress doesn’t say that, that’s not the dictionary definition of it. Somebody on here just made that bs up.

One more time, agreement. For sure on the furtherance of business and unfortunately I cannot agree with you on the compensation piece since I believe it matters not whether you are compensated or not. Even in the literal sense of the word as in compensation = some sort of gain....it just doesn't matter. Because....then people will argue "profit" and then it gets into the weeds. If you fly your drone for [free] charity and you fly for something other than recreational, you need a part 107.

Notice what I said, I didn't use the word "enjoyment" etc, those are your words. I don't think they matter as much as you do. What I think matters is "anything else besides recreational = part 107 needed." That could means sad, mad, happy, glad, enjoy, not enjoy,....whatever. Let's not bring the dictionary into this because the dictionary doesn't count. What counts is what the FAA decides. And I don't like that. Is it possible for you to bring the dictionary into court and challenge your civil penalties? For sure, but we shouldn't have to. And that's where you and I agree (that you would probably win) but I guarantee you would never get [to] there; it will never come to that.

The part where you suggest "job" is accurate in the sense that it's part 107 but because 44809 is the exception, it means part 107 likely covered other activities that are even not "job" related. You can't put job into part 107 and non-job into 44809 because part 107 an 44809 are not equal like that; 44809 is a subset of part 107. As soon as you understand that, you might want to rethink this:

Congress did good for us for once.

...because Congress screwed us for sure on this one (and are about to again); we haven't got to that part of this debacle yet. Let me know when you want to know how!

 

[brett8883]

One more time, agreement. For sure on the furtherance of business and unfortunately I cannot agree with you on the compensation piece since I believe it matters not whether you are compensated or not. Even in the literal sense of the word as in compensation = some sort of gain....it just doesn't matter. Because....then people will argue "profit" and then it gets into the weeds. If you fly your drone for [free] charity and you fly for something other than recreational, you need a part 107.

It’s a gray area for sure but I think it’s easier to just call a charity a business and therefore flying for a charity, even if doing so for free, to be in furtherance of a business and therefore requires a part 107 license but that example is a mirky one I’ll admit.

Notice what I said, I didn't use the word "enjoyment" etc, those are your words. I don't think they matter as much as you do. What I think matters is "anything else besides recreational = part 107 needed." That could means sad, mad, happy, glad, enjoy, not enjoy,....whatever.

Agreed but we seem to not agree on what recreational means.

Let's not bring the dictionary into this because the dictionary doesn't count. What counts is what the FAA decides. And I don't like that. Is it possible for you to bring the dictionary into court and challenge your civil penalties? For sure, but we shouldn't have to. And that's where you and I agree (that you would probably win) but I guarantee you would never get [to] there; it will never come to that.

You keep saying that I’m saying something other than what the FAA is means. I’m literally copying and pasting to you verbatim what the FAA is saying what they mean. I’ll post a picture since you seem to not believe me. The FAA is saying that it has decided that unless you are flying for compensation or in the furtherance of a business the flight is recreational. If you want to apply some other meaning to the term “recreational” other than what the FAA says it means you risk getting in trouble with the FAA.

The part where you suggest "job" is accurate in the sense that it's part 107 but because 44809 is the exception, it means part 107 likely covered other activities that are even not "job" related. You can't put job into part 107 and non-job into 44809 because part 107 an 44809 are not equal like that; 44809 is a subset of part 107. As soon as you understand that, you might want to rethink this:

I am a part 107 remote pilot certificate holder if this clears some things up here. When I am at work doing working for a client I have to use part 107 rules only. However, when I go home I can use either rule set. So if I was to look at my own roof I could choose to fly under part 107 or 44809 rules. Does that make more sense?

 

[mavic3usa]

I am a part 107 remote pilot certificate holder if this clears some things up here. When I am at work doing working for a client I have to use part 107 rules only. However, when I go home I can use either rule set. So if I was to look at my own roof I could choose to fly under part 107 or 44809 rules. Does that make more sense?

Yep, definitely makes more sense.

When you take off, for sure you get to decide whether your fly under part 107 or 44809. Unfortunately those who don't have a part 107 don't have the ability to make that choice.

 

[jsflyrv]

FAA and congress did not just sit down and make this up on their own. They had input from the drone community and much of this nonsense came from the drone communities wanting to profit from part 107 and squeeze the recreational flyer out of even checking his neighbors roof because that would cut into part 107s profits.

 

[brett8883]

Yep, definitely makes more sense.

When you take off, for sure you get to decide whether your fly under part 107 or 44809. Unfortunately those who don't have a part 107 don't have the ability to make that choice.

Exactly. If you don’t have a part 107 then you CAN’T use a drone to look at a roof for a job, any form of compensation, or in furtherance of a business. However, as is the case with the OP, you CAN use a drone to look at your roof or your neighbors roof just for fun by following 44809 rules. Do you see the difference now?

The OP wasn’t looking at his roof or his neighbor’s roof for a job, for compensation, or “in furtherance of a business.” It was just for fun. Therefore, this should be considered a recreational purpose and qualifies for the 44809 exemption, provided all the other statutory requirements for the exception are met.

For a job, compensation, or in furtherance of a business=Part 107 only

For fun, not for a job, not being compensated, not in furtherance of a business= 44809 (part 107 pilots can choose part 107 rules in this case if they want)

The gray area is flying for free for a charity. My gut tells me that when we talk about a “charity” what we really mean is a non-profit business. Therefore flying for them is in “furtherance of a business” even if there’s no compensation and therefore requires a Part 107. At the same time, I really don’t know and I don’t want to be the guy making up stuff so I’m just going to say I don’t know about that one.

 

[mavic3usa]

For a job, compensation, or in furtherance of a business=Part 107 only

For fun, not for a job, not being compensated, not in furtherance of a business= 44809 (part 107 pilots can choose part 107 rules in this case if they want)

That's fine if you think that, here's what I think:

For a job, compensation, or in furtherance of a business, or anything else beside just having fun or recreational =Part 107

For fun only= 44809

See the subtle difference between what you and i believe?

 

[mavic3usa]

The gray area is flying for free for a charity. My gut tells me that when we talk about a “charity” what we really mean is a non-profit business. Therefore flying for them is in “furtherance of a business” even if there’s no compensation and therefore requires a Part 107. At the same time, I really don’t know and I don’t want to be the guy making up stuff so I’m just going to say I don’t know about that one.

In furtherance of a business is just an example of what a part 107 operation might look like. It's not the only requirement and it's not a hard requirement meaning as long as you are NOT in furtherance of a business then you are not required to have a part 107; that isn't true.

For example, someone comes up to you and says they are selling the home next door and they see you have a drone and they would like you to fly around their property and take pictures and videos of the home and the backyard and give it to them (for free) so they can use it for their online listing to sell their home. Part 107 or not? You're not getting paid, you don't have a drone business, you're not furthering anything, you're doing the neighbor a favor, you've never done this before but you plan to have a whole lot of fun doing it.

 

[brett8883]

That's fine if you think that, here's what I think:

For a job, compensation, or in furtherance of a business, or anything else beside just having fun or recreational =Part 107

For fun only= 44809

See the subtle difference between what you and i believe?

For fun, not for a job, not being compensated, not in furtherance of a business ie “recreational.” If all of these things are true simultaneously=44809 (part 107 pilots can choose part 107 rules in this case if they want)

Anything else= Part 107 only

How about that? I can tell you had your coffee this morning because you brought your A game. I like it!

For example, someone comes up to you and says they are selling the home next door and they see you have a drone and they would like you to fly around their property and take pictures and videos of the home and the backyard and give it to them (for free) so they can use it for their online listing to sell their home. Part 107 or not? You're not getting paid, you don't have a drone business, you're not furthering anything, you're doing the neighbor a favor, you've never done this before but you plan to have a whole lot of fun doing it.

That would be in furtherance the person’s business that is selling the home and would require a part 107.