Part 107 gray area?

[Letmein]

The real root... insurance. Not recreational... BOOM insurance goes through the roof. I'm part 107... got the company to buy the drone AND the insurance!

 

[Deleted member 135749]

Part 107 states as furtherment of a business even if its a client side business or your business or even collecting payment.

Pretty much if you are flying for someone else's benefit or your benefit its considered furtherment of a business the only exception is flying for public service(police, fire fighter, search party etc.)

However there is a section (PL 115-254, Section 350) that may allow an exception if you aren't being paid to use it for curricular activities search up PL 115-254, Section 350 to read further on it.

 

[Vic Moss]

Part 107 states as furtherment of a business even if its a client side business or your business or even collecting payment.

Pretty much if you are flying for someone else's benefit or your benefit its considered furtherment of a business the only exception is flying for public service(police, fire fighter, search party etc.)

However there is a section (PL 115-254, Section 350) that may allow an exception if you aren't being paid to use it for curricular activities search up PL 115-254, Section 350 to read further on it.

No. This is a common misconception.

"Furtherance of business" is never mentioned in any 107 wording. Or even in any 349 Recreational working.

This is a left over semi-definition from the old 333 Exemption days. And it's from a summary, not the definition. We should quit using it as a definition of 107.

 

[Deleted member 135749]

No. This is a common misconception.

"Furtherance of business" is never mentioned in any 107 wording. Or even in any 349 Recreational working.

This is a left over semi-definition from the old 333 Exemption days. And it's from a summary, not the definition. We should quit using it as a definition of 107.

Thats a quick and easy way to explain it either way I provided an answer to his question which was asking about educational use which I provided the section of law that he/she can read through

 

[My Drone Adventures]

The crux is the intent. I fly my quad soley for recreational activities that I enjoy. I at times post some of those flights on YouTube so others can see an interesting area that my family visited.

Because I let someone else view my flight does not make it a 107 flight as I am not doing it for commercial activities, not for furtherance of a business, and as stated for recreational purposes.

Sometimes it is easy to go a stray in over analyzing the CFR. The FAA has been very clear over the years, even with the change rules, that intent and “monetary value” not money is the main considerations.

As other‘s said it is really the intent. If you are out filming a whale migration for enjoyment and see the Lochness Monster, yes you have the right to share, but not gain any monies from it.

 

[My Drone Adventures]

Yes, 100% 107 required.

Your first scenario is not 107, "I report anything I see to them", may not be a 107 flight. If you're out flying for recreation, and just happen to see something, it's not a 107 flight.

However, the second scenario, "... and follow up if requested" most definitely is a 107 flight. No question.

The original intent of the flight is the determining factor.

This article should answer any questions. I wrote it exactly for situations like this.

Hobby v. 107: Unscrambled

Why does it seem so difficult for some people to understand the very marked difference between the FAA’s “hobby” rules and “commercial”…

medium.com

Thanks, Vic but unless you are a lawyer and have trial experience in this subject, I will stick with the published FAA guidance. Even if the FAA guidance is outdated, it is a reasonable defense rather then saying “I read this on the internet from a non-FAA site.”

 

[Kyle76]

As other‘s said it is really the intent. If you are out filming a whale migration for enjoyment and see the Lochness Monster, yes you have the right to share, but not gain any monies from it.

I disagree with this. If you are not Part 107, flying purely recreationally and happen to catch the Loch Ness Monster on your footage, then my understanding is that you absolutely could make money from your good fortune. You did not initiate your flight for anything other than recreation.

 

[My Drone Adventures]

I disagree with this. If you are not Part 107, flying purely recreationally and happen to catch the Loch Ness Monster on your footage, then my understanding is that you absolutely could make money from your good fortune. You did not initiate your flight for anything other than recreation.

Once you sell the product, it is a commercial activity. Therefore they could say you needed to be certified. Doubt they would as they as not as evil as people want to make them out to be, but I for sure would ask legal counsel and the FAA before taking any money. ?

 

[PhantomFandom]

If you are out filming a whale migration for enjoyment and see the Lochness Monster, yes you have the right to share, but not gain any monies from it.

Sorry but that is completely wrong. If at the time you were flying strictly for recreation then the flight was, is, and always will be recreational in nature. If you do indeed spot something spectacular, you can after the fact use it for whatever reason you wish. You can sell it, you can make a major motion picture from it, you can write a book with pictures from the flight, you can make millions of dollars in royalties, and the flight still remains recreational.

Monetary gain is not a determining factor for recreational flight. It is the intent of the flight at AT THE TIME OF THE FLIGHT. Your intent in this case was just to have fun and see some whales. That's it. Period. What happens after the flight is of no concern to the FAA.

 

[Kyle76]

Once you sell the product, it is a commercial activity. Therefore they could say you needed to be certified. Doubt they would as they as not as evil as people want to make them out to be, but I for sure would ask legal counsel and the FAA before taking any money. ?

I’m not sure you can retroactively apply a commercial designation to a non-commercial activity. If I give someone a ride when his car breaks down and he decides to pay me upon exiting my vehicle for going out of my way, am I a professional driver?

 

[PhantomFandom]

Once you sell the product, it is a commercial activity. Therefore they could say you needed to be certified.

Again incorrect. Nowhere in the regulations does it mention anything about commercial activity or selling the product for monetary gain. Especially in your example it is clear that it was recreational since there was no way for the RPIC to know what was about to transpire.

 

[My Drone Adventures]

Sorry but that is completely wrong. If at the time you were flying strictly for recreation then the flight was, is, and always will be recreational in nature. If you do indeed spot something spectacular, you can after the fact use it for whatever reason you wish. You can sell it, you can make a major motion picture from it, you can write a book with pictures from the flight, you can make millions of dollars in royalties, and the flight still remains recreational.

Monetary gain is not a determining factor for recreational flight. It is the intent of the flight at AT THE TIME OF THE FLIGHT. Your intent in this case was just to have fun and see some whales. That's it. Period. What happens after the flight is of no concern to the FAA.

Sorry that would not stand up in court. Of I had no intent to turn it into the Ken Burns Video collection, 20 minutes after my flight, it was solely for recreational purpose, but I saw something cool so I wanted to cash in. Nice try.

 

[My Drone Adventures]

Again incorrect. Nowhere in the regulations does it mention anything about commercial activity or selling the product for monetary gain. Especially in your example it is clear that it was recreational since there was no way for the RPIC to know what was about to transpire.

Maybe you should look at the FAA’s website, you know the people that would charge you with the federal crime.

Are you flying for business, a commercial
enterprise, non-profit work, or for
educational purposes (flying and
classroom instruction)?

 

[PhantomFandom]

Sorry that would not stand up in court. Of I had no intent to turn it into the Ken Burns Video collection, 20 minutes after my flight, it was solely for recreational purpose, but I saw something cool so I wanted to cash in. Nice try.

Sorry but nice try for you in this case. There is no way that you can claim the intent of the flight was other than recreational if you had no way of knowing about this incredible spotting in advance. If I am flying my UAS and film a meteor impact from 400 feet up, I can then go ahead and sell it without any consequence. OK I am Part 107 anyway but a non 107 pilot could do the same. There was no intent at the time of the flight.

 

[PhantomFandom]

Maybe you should look at the FAA’s website, you know the people that would charge you with the federal crime.

Maybe you should take that same advice and do the same? The only thing the regulations say about being exempt to Part 107 (other than the actual flight regulations; VLOS, max altitude etc) is that you "1. Fly only for recreational purposes". It has been stated and interpreted by the FAA repeatedly that it is the intent of the light at the time of the flight. In your example the RPIC had no other intent other than enjoying the whale watching. What happens after the flight is irrelevant if the flight's intent was strictly for recreation.

 

[My Drone Adventures]

Again incorrect. Nowhere in the regulations does it mention anything about commercial activity or selling the product for monetary gain. Especially in your example it is clear that it was recreational since there was no way for the RPIC to know what was about to transpire.

May be I will explain how the “laws” work. The legisature creates the law, then the governing agency passes rules on how to enforce the actual law passed. Then as they didn’t get the rule right the lawyers make “case law” by having the judicial system make rulings on the intent and interpretation of said rules and laws.

It is a very complicated and convoluted mess, but needed nontheless. Unfortunately that is the part missing from the School House Rock’s I’m just a Bill video.

 

[My Drone Adventures]

Maybe you should take that same advice and do the same? The only thing the regulations say about being exempt to Part 107 (other than the actual flight regulations; VLOS, max altitude etc) is that you "1. Fly only for recreational purposes". It has been stated and interpreted by the FAA repeatedly that it is the intent of the light at the time of the flight. In your example the RPIC had no other intent other than enjoying the whale watching. What happens after the flight is irrelevant if the flight's intent was strictly for recreation.

Oh I have read and watched their podcasts/webinar, as I make sure I am always on the correct side of the rules.

I guess we should agree to disagrees as I know what I have been told and you don’t.

 

[PhantomFandom]

May be I will explain how the “laws” work. The legisature creates the law, then the governing agency passes rules on how to enforce the actual law passed. Then as they didn’t get the rule right the lawyers make “case law” by having the judicial system make rulings on the intent and interpretation of said rules and laws.

It is a very complicated and convoluted mess, but needed nontheless. Unfortunately that is the part missing from the School House Rock’s I’m just a Bill video.

You don't need to mansplain anything to me about how the laws work. Thank you for your offer though. I think I will stick with the actual law as it is written.

You can go ahead and keep making stuff up but it does not change the fact that you are wrong.

 

[PhantomFandom]

Oh I have read and watched their podcasts/webinar, as I make sure I am always on the correct side of the rules.

I guess we should agree to disagrees as I know what I have been told and you don’t.

In this very specific example you would still be on the safe side of the law since you would not sell your video. However your interpretation of the laws is still incorrect.

 

[My Drone Adventures]

You don't need to mansplain anything to me about how the laws work. Thank you for your offer though. I think I will stick with the actual law as it is written.

You can go ahead and keep making stuff up but it does not change the fact that you are wrong.

Not making up anything. I research and review the regulators rules and guidance. Have a great day!!