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

[Starz]

those who don't have a part 107 don't have the ability to make that choice

There are some in this country that don’t feel the need to make the choice between the two options. Thankfully, the recreational aspect covers that need.
Ultimately, the suits and ties will be the final decision makers if an incorrect decision has been made and reported to the appropriate agency. I take part in this hobby for enjoyment, not decision making dilemmas.
This kind of discussion could go on and on, but the results will not change. The confusion will remain.

 

[Starz]

And still fun reading what you two provide!

 

[brett8883]

@Vic Moss I found some more official FAA guidance on the definition of strictly for recreational purposes” that can be helpful. Now this guidance is reference to the previous law, section 336, which has been repealed. However, that old law also used the recreational term and so, this guidance is still directly relevant to our discussion.

Essentially it is saying that, because Congress didn’t elaborate on the meaning of “recreational” so the FAA will look at the plain language meaning as well as previous definitions the FAA has given for recreational aircraft. The FAA previously defined recreational use in 14 CFR 61.101 as one that is not for compensation or hire and is not in the furtherance of a business. So that is where the definition comes from in the AC.

If this is no longer the FAAs guidance, they need to update it and make us aware of it, however, since the current AC has the same language it should be clear that this is the definition the FAA is using. If inspecting a roof is not for hire, not for compensation, and not in furtherance of a business it should qualify for the exception according to this, the AC, and 14 CFR 61.101 which all say the same thing.

Link to source in the Federal Register

 

[mavic3usa]

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

The problem with that is it requires an evaluation beyond the intent of the flight when the drone first takes off. It has always been my assertion that we look at what's the thinking of the pilot when he takes off from the flight and it doesn't depend on the disposition of that footage (resulting from the flight) later. I think it isn't very easy to always determine what the pilot is thinking (in some cases it's obvious) but now we have to determine someone else's thinking as well? That's going to bit too far don't you think? If I knew the person receiving my footage was furthering a business, I need a part 107 and if I didn't know the person receiving my footage was furthering a business, no part 107 needed? Shall I just fly my drone and disavow any knowledge of what the recipients are actually doing with my footage? Too much focus on video/photo rather than on the flight itself.

Imagine if I had no business to further but I wanted to have a nice drone business one day so for now, can I just go out and fly around the neighborhood taking videos and photos of homes and practicing so I get better at it? No part 107 needed because I don't yet have a business to further, I'm not getting paid, I'm having fun, I'm learning? Can I fly thru new homes and taking neighborhood photos and similar stuff until I get good at it to one day create a business...and get my part 107 then? In the meantime, my product goes nowhere, I'm not getting paid, no business is being promoted, etc.

 

[brett8883]

The problem with that is it requires an evaluation beyond the intent of the flight when the drone first takes off. It has always been my assertion that we look at what's the thinking of the pilot when he takes off from the flight and it doesn't depend on the disposition of that footage (resulting from the flight) later. I think it isn't very easy to always determine what the pilot is thinking (in some cases it's obvious) but now we have to determine someone else's thinking as well? That's going to bit too far don't you think? If I knew the person receiving my footage was furthering a business, I need a part 107 and if I didn't know the person receiving my footage was furthering a business, no part 107 needed? Shall I just fly my drone and disavow any knowledge of what the recipients are actually doing with my footage? Too much focus on video/photo rather than on the flight itself.

You said the Realtor asked you to take photos that you knew would be used to sell a home which is clearly a commercial purpose in furtherance of a business.

If you were just messing around with your neighbor and they asked you to take some photos of their home, that would be recreational.

If you are asking what happens if you are just messing around with your neighbor they ask you to take some photos just for fun and then your neighbor goes behind your back and uses the photos for commercial purposes without your knowledge or consent? Well you better hope the FAA believes you. In a practical sense the optics of that situation are not good. I’d avoid putting yourself in that situation.

Imagine if I had no business to further but I wanted to have a nice drone business one day so for now, can I just go out and fly around the neighborhood taking videos and photos of homes and practicing so I get better at it? No part 107 needed because I don't yet have a business to further, I'm not getting paid, I'm having fun, I'm learning? Can I fly thru new homes and taking neighborhood photos and similar stuff until I get good at it to one day create a business...and get my part 107 then? In the meantime, my product goes nowhere, I'm not getting paid, no business is being promoted, etc.

That sounds ok to me. That’s basically what I did. Btw Flying inside a home is not under the regulatory authority of the FAA so you can fly indoors for commercial purposes till your heart’s content. Part 107 only applies to drones operating in the national airspace.

 

[mavic3usa]

^Cool so it's almost for sure the general flying public is going to be confused and that's too bad because the penalties can be really high if you make a mistake. Not for you of course because you have a part 107. You actually cannot get in trouble for any of this. I'm talking about the recreational flyer who unknowingly engages in "non-recreational" activity without a part 107 license. Probably the reason why this is rarely enforced. It never gets adjudicated which means it will always remain vague.

The other big one is "you cannot post a drone video on a monetized youtube channel without having a part 107" what do you think about that?

 

[brett8883]

The other big one is "you cannot post a drone video on a monetized youtube channel without having a part 107" what do you think about that?

depends on the circumstances but probably requires part 107

 

[brett8883]

So update: at the direction of @Vic Moss, I reached out to the FAA help desk and asked the OPs question and here is the response.

I responded back, thanked this person, and I very respectfully pointed out that different guidance, “not for compensation, monetary or otherwise and not in the furtherance of a business” is given in AC-57C. I mentioned that it seemed that language was coming from part 61 which defines recreational use of an airplane. I asked how I could rectify the difference between what he is saying and what the FAA has published in AC-57C and this is the response:

 

[mavic3usa]

Thanks for sorting that out. Unfortunately it will always be confusing for those who do not have part 107. There's too much "subjectivity" with this issue relative to the consequences and hopefully one day we can get this changed without having to submit to getting a part 107 license. We cannot depend on discretion and "highly likely" the FAA will come down on you.

 

[MS Coast]

We can depend on discretion and "highly likely" the FAA will come down on you.

That's completely at odds with what's going on in the real world.

The FAA has been remarkably lenient with violations of drone regulations. Their prevailing approach is education rather than punishment. Further action and fines have been reserved only for egregious violations and repeat offenders.

 

[mavic3usa]

Thanks for sorting that out. Unfortunately it will always be confusing for those who do not have part 107. There's too much "subjectivity" with this issue relative to the consequences and hopefully one day we can get this changed without having to submit to getting a part 107 license. We cannot depend on discretion and "highly likely" the FAA will come down on you.

That's completely at odds with what's going on in the real world.

The FAA has been remarkably lenient with violations of drone regulations. Their prevailing approach is education rather than punishment. Further action and fines have been reserved only for egregious violations and repeat offenders.

Typo corrected above. Telling people (or demonstrating) you'll *maybe* go easy on them for the first violation only allows the confusing rules and regulations to remain in place, unadjudicated. I'm not a big fan of the whole shock treatment; it sends a bad message to the public and to the drone community.

 

[MS Coast]

Typo corrected above. Telling people (or demonstrating) you'll *maybe* go easy on them for the first violation only allows the confusing rules and regulations to remain in place, unadjudicated. I'm not a big fan of the whole shock treatment; it sends a bad message to the public and to the drone community.

Shock treatment? Demonstrating that you (no maybe about it) go easy on first violators is wrong?

Did you read the FAA letter posted here last week? Very mild.

My friend's nephew flew his new DJI drone over a college stadium during a game with about 80,000 people in attendance. He received a letter from the FAA. He wrote back saying that he'd make a mistake out of ignorance and had learned the regulations. End of story.

Shocking, ain't it? The FAA is not the scary boogeyman lurking in the bushes and eagerly waiting to haul you away to prison if you peep into your neighbor's gutters.