Part 107 gray area?

[Lets Fly]

Sorry but you are not correct here at all. The exception for recreational flights has NOTHING to do with value. Nothing at all.

Just one very simple example that I can give you. If you decide to film an event for a non-profit organization with the intent of giving it to them at NO COST, then it is a Part 107 flight. You receive no value in this example but it is still a Part 107 flight because you are doing it for someone else.

If I fly and take pictures for myself, and decide to give them to a non profit organization that's not using them for profit I don't need a 107.

 

[Thomas B]

If I fly and take pictures for myself, and decide to give them to a non profit organization that's not using them for profit I don't need a 107.

True but it’s because of the intent of the flight originally and has nothing to do with who you transferred the images to nor their intended use of them

 

[Lets Fly]

But it's true.

Will the FAA come after you for doing that? Of course not. But if you use it in your gutter cleaning business, they might.

Gutter cleaning business yes, but if I look at my own house and then call a gutter guy, no.

 

[PhantomFandom]

If I fly and take pictures for myself, and decide to give them to a non profit organization that's not using them for profit I don't need a 107.

Completely different than my example. In my example I flew the mission with the intent that I was flying for them and going to give them the footage. That is indeed part 107. Doesn't matter if they use them for profit or not.

In your example you flew and took pictures for yourself without any intent of giving them to the non-profit. That makes it recreational. If you later decide to give them to the non-profit that is perfectly legal. It is the intent at the time of the flight that matters.

 

[theDRONEranger]

Maybe I didn't say that as well as I could have. I report anything I see to them and follow up if requested. I grew up on and in the ocean, and have spent half my life on it.

No, no, no!

 

[Richiebricker]

I spend most of my flying over the ocean. Mostly for profit, but I also work with a local university. If I'm doing marine surveys, but really enjoy doing it, does this constitute a part 107 flight?
I am a part 107 pilot, but it affects my insurance.

people are confused because there are some fn stupid rules in there. Im not allowed to take a photo of my church and then give it to anyone at the church. But i can give em 100s taken from a ladder with my dslr camera. I can however take a photo with a drone and give it away if The Drone is on the ground and the motors havnt started because there is no flight. But what if i place my drone on top of a ladder? this might constitute "flight". This rule or law is fn stupid! Im not alowed to help my own church because theres a possibility that someone could make a buck from my church. I can take a photo of my nieghbors house if requested as long as he doesnt use it for any real estate purposes

 

[Vic Moss]

people are confused because there are some fn stupid rules in there. Im not allowed to take a photo of my church and then give it to anyone at the church. But i can give em 100s taken from a ladder with my dslr camera. I can however take a photo with a drone and give it away if The Drone is on the ground and the motors havnt started because there is no flight. But what if i place my drone on top of a ladder? this might constitute "flight". This rule or law is fn stupid! Im not alowed to help my own church because theres a possibility that someone could make a buck from my church. I can take a photo of my nieghbors house if requested as long as he doesnt use it for any real estate purposes

The rules are very simple. If it's 100% for recreation, it's a recreational flight. If it's not 100% recreational, it's a 107 flight. Black and white. That simple.

 

[Richiebricker]

No, please read my article linked above.

Yeah, If anyone can make a dollar, then a drone pilot must hire another drone pilot to take pics of his home, church, rock band, youtube video, basically any thing a drone pilot can do and wants to do because as the expert says- I might get value from showing my hobby video to my wife and children

 

[Thomas B]

People seem to be evasive, not stupid...
Recommend registering your complaint with FAA.

 

[PhantomFandom]

people are confused because there are some fn stupid rules in there.

The regulations may indeed be stupid but they really are not all that complicated. It's people who are making them complicated and who try to come up with all different ways of saying they don't need a Part 107 certificate. All while the test is super simple to take and to pass. It takes less effort to pass the test than it does trying to come up with ways of getting around the requirement.

Im not allowed to take a photo of my church and then give it to anyone at the church. But i can give em 100s taken from a ladder with my dslr camera.

True and 2 totally different things. You are not risking lives or aircraft when standing on a ladder. When flying you are now part of the NAS and that carries additional responsibilities

I can however take a photo with a drone and give it away if The Drone is on the ground and the motors havnt started because there is no flight. But what if i place my drone on top of a ladder?

Same thing. If the UAS is NOT flying then do whatever you wish with it and the resulting footage. At that point it is just a gimbal stabilized camera.

Im not alowed to help my own church because theres a possibility that someone could make a buck from my church.

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with making a buck. Again another misrepresentation of the regulations.

I can take a photo of my nieghbors house if requested as long as he doesnt use it for any real estate purposes

FALSE. It he neighbors request you to fly and take pictures for them, then it is a Part 107 mission regardless of what they do with those pictures. You are not flying under recreational rules if you are flying for someone else.


.

 

[Richiebricker]

I agree that people spend alot of time making up excuses to not take the test, but not because they dont want to be a legal 107 flyer, but alot of people are afraid of tests. Those maps look a lil intimidating when ya first see one. some, Im sure, are just spouting off cause theyre angry that the Federal Government is regulating what has to be one of the safest hobbies, Safer than sewing with those sharp *** scissors my mom wont let me use and definatley safer than Axe Throwing. I once knew these people that would strap long skinny pieces of wood to there feet to slide down a mountain at great speeds

 

[My Drone Adventures]

Please anyone asking if they can or should register as 107 to do a flight, please email the FAA at [email protected] or talk to a lawyer. There is a lot of personal options here that may or not be based on factual information.

Here is an example of the FAA’s clear guidance that runs contrary to some of the stated options:

“Recreational or hobby UAS or drone use is flying for enjoyment and not for work, business purposes, or for compensation or hire.” Last updated in April of 2020.

Whlie the law may have elected to utilize recreational, the FAA’s job is to interpret the laws intent, implement administrative rules, and then enforce those rules. The above example is the regulatory body interpreting the legislation for practical use.

Notice the retention of “compensation”, “business“, and “hire”.

(This is not legal advise, but a suggestion from a person who’s day job it to interpret, implement, and enforce local, state, and federal ordinances, rules, and statutes for the guberment...)

 

[JohnLietzke]

If you are flying and not using an unmanned aircraft owned and operated by an employee or student of a university you do need a Part 107 as you would be acting as a volunteer and/or independent researcher.

Here is the relevant Federal Law applying to Institution of Higher Eduction.

FAA Educational Users

– Institutions of Higher Education. There is also a statutory provision (PL 115-254, Section 350) that distinguishes some educational and research uses of drones by institutions of higher education as recreational in nature. The FAA intends to publish specific implementation guidance for Section 350 later this year.

FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018

SEC. 349. EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED RECREATIONAL OPERATIONS OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 448 of title 49, United States Code, as added by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the following:49 USC 44801 prec.

‘‘§44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:
‘‘(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.
‘‘(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration.
‘‘(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co- located and in direct communication with the operator.
‘‘(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft.
‘‘(5) In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authoriza- tion from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.
‘‘(6) In Class G airspace, the aircraft is flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.
‘‘(7) The operator has passed an aeronautical knowledge and safety test described in subsection (g) and maintains proof of test passage to be made available to the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.
‘‘(8) The aircraft is registered and marked in accordance with chapter 441 of this title and proof of registration is made available to the Administrator or a designee of the Adminis- trator or law enforcement upon request.
‘‘(b) OTHER OPERATIONS.—Unmanned aircraft operations that
do not conform to the limitations in subsection (a) must comply with all statutes and regulations generally applicable to unmanned aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems.
‘‘(c) OPERATIONS AT FIXED SITES.—
‘‘(1) OPERATING PROCEDURE REQUIRED.—Persons operating
unmanned aircraft under subsection (a) from a fixed site within Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, or a community-based organization conducting a sanctioned event within such airspace, shall make the location of the fixed site known to the Administrator and shall establish a mutually agreed upon operating procedure with the air traffic control facility.
‘‘(2) UNMANNED AIRCRAFT WEIGHING MORE THAN 55 POUNDS.—A person may operate an unmanned aircraft weighing more than 55 pounds, including the weight of any- thing attached to or carried by the aircraft, under subsection (a) if—
‘‘(A) the unmanned aircraft complies with standards and limitations developed by a community-based organiza- tion and approved by the Administrator; and
‘‘(B) the aircraft is operated from a fixed site as described in paragraph (1).
‘‘(d) UPDATES.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in consultation with
government, stakeholders, and community-based organizations, shall initiate a process to periodically update the operational parameters under subsection (a), as appropriate.
‘‘(2) CONSIDERATIONS.—In updating an operational param- eter under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider— ‘‘(A) appropriate operational limitations to mitigate risks to aviation safety and national security, including risk to the uninvolved public and critical infrastructure; ‘‘(B) operations outside the membership, guidelines,
and programming of a community-based organization;
‘‘(C) physical characteristics, technical standards, and
classes of aircraft operating under this section;
‘‘(D) trends in use, enforcement, or incidents involving
unmanned aircraft systems;
‘‘(E) ensuring, to the greatest extent practicable, that
updates to the operational parameters correspond to, and leverage, advances in technology; and
‘‘(F) equipage requirements that facilitate safe, effi- cient, and secure operations and further integrate all unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system.
‘‘(3) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed as expanding the authority of the Administrator to require a person operating an unmanned aircraft under this section to seek permissive authority of the Administrator, beyond that required in subsection (a) of this section, prior to operation in the national airspace system.
‘‘(e) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue an enforcement action against a person operating any unmanned aircraft who endangers the safety of the national airspace system.
‘‘(f) EXCEPTIONS.—Nothing in this section prohibits the Administrator from promulgating rules generally applicable to unmanned aircraft, including those unmanned aircraft eligible for the exception set forth in this section, relating to—
‘‘(1) updates to the operational parameters for unmanned aircraft in subsection (a);
‘‘(2) the registration and marking of unmanned aircraft;
‘‘(3) the standards for remotely identifying owners and operators of unmanned aircraft systems and associated unmanned aircraft; and
‘‘(4) other standards consistent with maintaining the safety and security of the national airspace system.
‘‘(g) AERONAUTICAL KNOWLEDGE AND SAFETY TEST.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation with manufacturers of unmanned aircraft systems, other industry stakeholders, and community-based organizations, shall develop an aeronautical knowledge and safety test, which can then be administered electronically by the Administrator, a community-based organization, or a person designated by the Administrator.
‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The Administrator shall ensure the aeronautical knowledge and safety test is designed to ade- quately demonstrate an operator’s—
‘‘(A) understanding of aeronautical safety knowledge; and
‘‘(B) knowledge of Federal Aviation Administration regulations and requirements pertaining to the operation of an unmanned aircraft system in the national airspace system.
‘‘(h) COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION DEFINED.—In this sec- tion, the term ‘community-based organization’ means a membership- based association entity that—
‘‘(1) is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
‘‘(2) is exempt from tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
‘‘(3) the mission of which is demonstrably the furtherance of model aviation;
‘‘(4) provides a comprehensive set of safety guidelines for all aspects of model aviation addressing the assembly and oper- ation of model aircraft and that emphasize safe aeromodelling operations within the national airspace system and the protec- tion and safety of individuals and property on the ground, and may provide a comprehensive set of safety rules and programming for the operation of unmanned aircraft that have the advanced flight capabilities enabling active, sustained, and controlled navigation of the aircraft beyond visual line of sight of the operator;
‘‘(5) provides programming and support for any local charter organizations, affiliates, or clubs; and
‘‘(6) provides assistance and support in the development and operation of locally designated model aircraft flying sites. ‘‘(i) RECOGNITION OF COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS.—In
collaboration with aeromodelling stakeholders, the Administrator shall publish an advisory circular within 180 days of the date of enactment of this section that identifies the criteria and process required for recognition of community-based organizations.’’.
(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—
(1) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for chapter 448 of title 49, United States Code, as added by this Act,
is further amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘44809. Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft.’’.
(2) REPEAL.—Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) and the item relating to that section in the table of contents under section 1(b) of that Act are repealed.

FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018

SEC. 350. USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS AT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

(a) EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH PURPOSES.—For the purposes of section 44809 of title 49, United States Code, as added by this Act, a ‘‘recreational purpose’’ as distinguished in subsection (a)(1) of such section shall include an unmanned aircraft system operated by an institution of higher education for educational or research purposes.
(b) UPDATES.—In updating an operational parameter under subsection (d)(1) of such section for unmanned aircraft systems operated by an institution of higher education for educational or research purposes, the Administrator shall consider—
(1) use of small unmanned aircraft systems and operations at an accredited institution of higher education, for educational or research purposes, as a component of the institution’s cur- ricula or research;
(2) the development of streamlined, risk-based operational approval for unmanned aircraft systems operated by institu- tions of higher education; and
(3) the airspace and aircraft operators that may be affected by such operations at the institution of higher education.
(c) DEADLINE FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURES AND STAND-
ARDS.—Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may establish regulations, procedures, and standards, as necessary, to facilitate the safe operation of unmanned aircraft systems oper- ated by institutions of higher education for educational or research purposes.
(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The term ‘‘institu-
tion of higher education’’ has the meaning given to that term by section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
(2) EDUCATIONAL OR RESEARCH PURPOSES.—The term ‘‘edu- cation or research purposes’’, with respect to the operation of an unmanned aircraft system by an institution of higher education, includes—
(A) instruction of students at the institution;
(B) academic or research related uses of unmanned aircraft systems that have been approved by the institution, including Federal research;
(C) activities undertaken by the institution as part of research projects, including research projects sponsored by the Federal Government; and
(D) other academic activities approved by the institu- tion.
(e) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—
(1) ENFORCEMENT.—Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue an enforcement action against a person operating any unmanned aircraft who endangers the safety of the national airspace system.
(2) REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS.—Nothing in this section prohibits the Administrator from promulgating any rules or standards consistent with maintaining the safety and security of the national airspace system.

 

[Kyle76]

Safer than sewing with those sharp *** scissors my mom wont let me use and definatley safer than Axe Throwing. I once knew these people that would strap long skinny pieces of wood to there feet to slide down a mountain at great speeds

Safer than axe throwing? Haha! That’s not saying much. ? FAA drone regulations are most definitely NOT government overreach. Our little aircraft may not seem capable of much more harm than a cut finger or chipping some car paint, but the fact is that under the right circumstances they can bring down a manned aircraft with catastrophic damage to passengers and those on the ground. I wouldn’t want a doctor who can’t pass his medical exam because the material is too intimidating. There really is no gray area here, and the burden is on the operator to prove whether a flight is recreational or not. The standards are quite clear.

 

[PhantomFandom]

I wouldn’t want a doctor who can’t pass his medical exam because the material is too intimidating. There really is no gray area here, and the burden is on the operator to prove whether a flight is recreational or not. The standards are quite clear.

Well said. I seems those that do not want to take the exam simply brush it off as operating a toy or that there are no possibly serious consequences. Fact of the matter is that it's not like running with scissors, or throwing axes, or even speeding on a freeway. That is because you are in the NAS with manned aircraft. Also remember that the UAS we fly are covered by the same regulations as any such craft up to 55 pounds. That's a seriously dangerous piece of equipment flying under the control of those who don't care enough to learn the regulations and the NAS.

Yes I can see the personal attacks coming already but...perhaps if you cannot pass a very simple exam that covers crucial airspace information then you should not be operating an aircraft of any kind. It also leads to another point. Most people in that category say they are just not good at taking tests. Well if you are not good at retaining critical information, you are not good at figuring things out under pressure, and can't do things under a time constraint then you probably don't have what it takes to fly a UAS. There will be times while flying that you will need to do those things and freezing up under pressure is not an option.

 

[JohnLietzke]

I am not a lawyer. As a matter of fact, I have an art degree.

But when it comes to FAA regulations, I am an expert. To the point where many in the FAA, from those in D.C. to my local Class B tower, reach out to me for questions or to help other drone owners understand the rules. I'm part of the FAA Safety Team (FAAST) as a Drone Pro.

I work with local and state official when they are drafting UAS ordinances and regulations. And as far as trail experience, I was an expert witness for Dr. Singer in Singer v. Newton (MA) when he sued the city of Newton, MA for over arching drone laws. Newton lost.

I know my stuff.

And that article you seem to want to ignore was proofed by two of my FAA contacts (including the FAA's "Drone Guy") before I published it.

And in another of your posts, you are incorrect.

You state "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."

While the first sentence is correct, the second is 100% wrong. Intent is always the determining factor in the decision to fly under 107 rules or 44809. However, it is perfectly legal to sell imagery taken during a 44809 flight.

In the FAA's resource library you'll find a memo titled "Media Use of UAS" (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/Data/interps/2015/Williams-AFS-80 - (2015) Legal Interpretation.pdf). While the language is outdated and it deals specifically with media, it has also been used buy the FAA to allow imagery from hobby flights to be sold after that flight. The FAA is very clear on this.

You mentioned a few times that you research and review FAA guidance. While that is also a good idea, you should keep yourself open to learning from those with more knowledge than you. And as far as "published FAA guidance", everything I've stated above is published. As is my article. Although technically not an FAA article, as mentioned, is was FAA vetted.

I also write for the FAA's blog.

Make sure you understand who you're disagreeing with.

Vic,

Are you an employee of the FAA?

From a reasonable persons perspective your comments maybe interpreted as you are representing yourself as bona fide of the FAA. If you are not an employee of the FAA you would then be volunteer or subcontractor with the FAASTeam. While you may have a great deal of experience and knowledge and written articles, not at behest of the FAA, does not give you the authority to speak on behalf of the FAA.

You most certainly have the right to share your opinions but using your association with FAASTeam in conjunction with your opinion and personal interpretation of a hypothetical situations in the manner in which you have conveys an intimation of FAA Authority.

The threshold for an expert witness in Massachusetts as with many other States is low.
Article VII: Opinion and expert evidence

The case of Singer v. Newton pertained to conflicting legislation which attempted to supersede Federal regulations. Preemptive jurisdiction infringement was the basis for the civil suit.

You mentioned a few times that you research and review FAA guidance. While that is also a good idea, you should keep yourself open to learning from those with more knowledge than you. And as far as "published FAA guidance", everything I've stated above is published. As is my article. Although technically not an FAA article, as mentioned, is was FAA vetted.

Citing your own personal article and then condemning the person for not using it as a resources is gosh. It is neither official nor approved material by the FAA.

Make sure you understand who you're disagreeing with.

Your statement is arrogant, self righteous and condescending. Those type of indignant statements erode your credibility and inevitably cause people to disregard your information.

 

[Vic Moss]

Vic,

Are you an employee of the FAA?

From a reasonable persons perspective your comments maybe interpreted as you are representing yourself as bona fide of the FAA. If you are not an employee of the FAA you would then be volunteer or subcontractor with the FAASTeam. While you may have a great deal of experience and knowledge and written articles, not at behest of the FAA, does not give you the authority to speak on behalf of the FAA.

You most certainly have the right to share your opinions but using your association with FAASTeam in conjunction with your opinion and personal interpretation of a hypothetical situations in the manner in which you have conveys an intimation of FAA Authority.

The threshold for an expert witness in Massachusetts as with many other States is low.
Article VII: Opinion and expert evidence

The case of Singer v. Newton pertained to conflicting legislation which attempted to supersede Federal regulations. Preemptive jurisdiction infringement was the basis for the civil suit.


Citing your own personal article and then condemning the person for not using it as a resources is gosh. It is neither official nor approved material by the FAA.


Your statement is arrogant, self righteous and condescending. Those type of indignant statements erode your credibility and inevitably cause people to disregard your information.

I am not an employee of the FAA, and never claim as much. If someone misinterprets my statements as having FAA authority, that would be a perception issue on their end. As a matter of fact, I've very careful about not representing any of my opinions as being from the FAA.

And nothing in my post is arrogance. Don't confuse facts with arrogance. Bluntness certainly, but not arrogance. In my many dealings with drone operators and pilots, sometimes bluntness is necessary.

If you disagree with my statements, you're free to not read them. Nothing I wrote is incorrect. Everything I wrote was geared towards someone who needed to be reminded that some people are knowledgable and in fact do know what they are talking about.

As far as eroding my credibility, I'm not worried about that at all. Nor am I gauche in citing my own article. As mentioned, I had the my contacts in the FAA read it and check the accuracy before I published it. Gauche would be mentioning who inside the FAA vetted it. It's a good article, and people should read it if they have any confusion about the differences in 44809 and 107.

Enjoy our weekend, and fly safe.

 

[Thomas B]

Please take things down a notch so this thread doesn’t have to be closed