Part 107 required?

[ac0j]

I don't think that your conclusion is justified. The non-recreational requirement doesn't arise from the act of taking photos and videos - it arises from the intent of the flight. It's the flight that is being regulated, not the photography.

After thinking on this, The simple act of NOT getting a part 107 proves that I have NO "intent" of doing commercial flights. So I build a web page, and fill it with my hobby stills and short videos and wait to see what happens, If I get some offers and make some money, I am good!
If someone asks me to take pictures for money I say NO, I am not in that buisness, but I would like to do that flight just to see what I can do. Then he really likes one of my photos, aaannnddd.....

 

[sar104]

I know you are an intelligent man, and very literal. But can you honestly say you agree with this when it comes to hobby drones? Really? Hardly comparable to commercial piloting as we know it. and the compensation will never be even close.

It's an interesting philosophical question - is it reasonable to require a higher level of certification to fly with the intention of making money or furthering a business? I see this primarily as an accommodation for recreational pilots, rather than as an unreasonable burden on those wishing to do commercial work. Turn the question around - how do you think it should work? Are you thinking that everyone should be Part 107, or that no one should need Part 107?

 

[sar104]

After thinking on this, The simple act of NOT getting a part 107 proves that I have NO "intent" of doing commercial flights. So I build a web page, and fill it with my hobby stills and short videos and wait to see what happens, If I get some offers and make some money, I am good!
If someone asks me to take pictures for money I say NO, I am not in that buisness, but I would like to do that flight just to see what I can do. Then he really likes one of my photos, aaannnddd.....

Right - and maybe that works for a while, but at some point it is going to be obvious that you are accepting work if you persist with that business model.

 

[ac0j]

It's an interesting philosophical question - is it reasonable to require a higher level of certification to fly with the intention of making money or furthering a business? I see this primarily as an accommodation for recreational pilots, rather than as an unreasonable burden on those wishing to do commercial work. Turn the question around - how do you think it should work? Are you thinking that everyone should be Part 107, or that no one should need Part 107?

I think registering toys is dumb. So no part 107 or 336. I think that should only apply to manned aircraft. I never flew rc fixed wing, was registration required for those?

 

[ac0j]

Right - and maybe that works for a while, but at some point it is going to be obvious that you are accepting work if you persist with that business model.

Obvious to who? Unless it nets 10’s of thousands of dollars regularly, no one would even notice.

 

[sar104]

I think registering toys is dumb. So no part 107 or 336. I think that should only apply to manned aircraft. I never flew rc fixed wing, was registration required for those?

These are unmanned aircraft that can fly and conflict with manned aircraft in the NAS, and the registration and training requirements all stem from that. By your argument, sport pilots shouldn't need to be registered or qualified either, since they are just flying for fun and their aircraft are, therefore, just toys. UAVs may be used as toys by some people, but are highly capable tools for others.

 

[sar104]

Obvious to who? Unless it nets 10’s of thousands of dollars regularly, no one would even notice.

The way it has already been noticed. People have been contacted and, in some cases pursued by the FAA, for flying for profit without Part 107. Websites effectively advertising services etc.

 

[ac0j]

These are unmanned aircraft that can fly and conflict with manned aircraft in the NAS, and the registration and training requirements all stem from that. By your argument, sport pilots shouldn't need to be registered or qualified either, since they are just flying for fun and their aircraft are, therefore, just toys. UAVs may be used as toys by some people, but are highly capable tools for others.

I was once told there wasn’t any requirements to fly an ultralight or powered parachute. No aircraft registration or license needed. Has that changed? If not, wouldn’t you agree that sort of makes all this drone stuff pointless doesn’t it?

 

[Bigbird48]

So I take a cell phone picture or a DSL pic from the 80th floor of a building over looking the city, I sell this picture for hundreds of dollars post the picture here and brag about it but don't tell anyone what I used to take the picture with. I'm sure most will assume I used a drone. So then someone calls the faa and complains. The faa see's I have a drone registered then what happens? Is the FAA really going to track down every photo that made money if it looks like it was taken with a drone.come on. I've taken many photos from bi planes and open helicopters with a regular camera and posted them on line.Never had the FAA knocking on my door. Seems like a pretty hard rule to enforce if your discrete about how you took your photos.

 

[sar104]

I was once told there wasn’t any requirements to fly an ultralight or powered parachute. No aircraft registration or license needed. Has that changed? If not, wouldn’t you agree that sort of makes all this drone stuff pointless doesn’t it?

No - if that were the case I'd argue that it indicates that there is clearly a need for more regulation of those activities.

 

[Bigbird48]

I was once told there wasn’t any requirements to fly an ultralight or powered parachute. No aircraft registration or license needed. Has that changed? If not, wouldn’t you agree that sort of makes all this drone stuff pointless doesn’t it?

https://www.usua.org/Rules/faa103.htm for ultra lights interesting seems drone have more rules LOL

 

[ac0j]

So I take a cell phone picture or a DSL pic from the 80th floor of a building over looking the city, I sell this picture for hundreds of dollars post the picture here and brag about it but don't tell anyone what I used to take the picture with. I'm sure most will assume I used a drone. So then someone calls the faa and complains. The faa see's I have a drone registered then what happens? Is the FAA really going to track down every photo that made money if it looks like it was taken with a drone.come on. I've taken many photos from bi planes and open helicopters with a regular camera and posted them on line.Never had the FAA knocking on my door. Seems like a pretty hard rule to enforce if your discrete about how you took your photos.

My point is, who would do the reporting in the first place? A disgruntled part 107 pilot that is mad you did it and he didn’t? I hope the FAA is wasting funds paying FAA employees to surf the web looking for possible violations. How would they know if the photo was or was not a taken by a 107 pilot?

 

[ac0j]

No - if that were the case I'd argue that it indicates that there is clearly a need for more regulation of those activities.

I am pretty sure that was the case last time I checked. I had a farmer friend that wanted me to help him assemble an ultralight. He got the parachute instead and flew it all the time.
Also. What about the fixed wing RC question. Do those require registration?
Thank you for you patience!

 

[sar104]

My point is, who would do the reporting in the first place? A disgruntled part 107 pilot that is mad you did it and he didn’t? I hope the FAA is wasting funds paying FAA employees to surf the web looking for possible violations. How would they know if the photo was or was not a taken by a 107 pilot?

Surely you have been following this topic closely enough - even just on these forums - to have seen how this works. There have been numerous cases of pilots getting reported to the FAA by competitors. It's also clear that the FAA has been watching for suspected violations, and contacting people directly to determine whether they were in compliance.

 

[ac0j]

https://www.usua.org/Rules/faa103.htm for ultra lights interesting seems drone have more rules LOL

Thank you. That is exactly my point!

 

[ac0j]

Surely you have been following this topic closely enough - even just on these forums - to have seen how this works. There have been numerous cases of pilots getting reported to the FAA by competitors. It's also clear that the FAA has been watching for suspected violations, and contacting people directly to determine whether they were in compliance.

I know what they are trying to do, I wonder why they bother when they don’t care if I take my camera to 1000 feet on a powered parachute.

 

[sar104]

I am pretty sure that was the case last time I checked. I had a farmer friend that wanted me to help him assemble an ultralight. He got the parachute instead and flew it all the time.
Also. What about the fixed wing RC question. Do those require registration?
Thank you for you patience!

I was never part of the RC community, and I don't know the history of that requirement. They are now required to register but I don't know how this worked before the special rule.

 

[mannok77]

I thought if you flew recreational and then a youtube channel used that recreational footage and published it, you may be required to be 107. I don't know if it matters if it is your youtube channel or not. This doesn't make sense to me, but some people interpret otherwise. Understand that unless it is explicitly in writing or has a prior precedent you really don't know. Meaning, it may take someone going to court and fighting it to create a precedent. I recommend keeping youtube publishings anonymous as I know the FAA, NPS, etc. is using youtube to find and convict drone operators.

 

[sar104]

I know what they are trying to do, I wonder why they bother when they don’t care if I take my camera to 1000 feet on a powered parachute.

Again - pointing out loopholes in the law doesn't generally make a cogent argument for anything other than closing the loopholes.

 

[sar104]

I thought if you flew recreational and then a youtube channel used that recreational footage and published it, you may be required to be 107. I don't know if it matters if it is your youtube channel or not. This doesn't make sense to me, but some people interpret otherwise. Understand that unless it is explicitly in writing or has a prior precedent you really don't know. Meaning, it may take someone going to court and fighting it to create a precedent. I recommend keeping youtube publishings anonymous as I know the FAA, NPS, etc. is using youtube to find and convict drone operators. Now I know ac0j needs the last word. Go!

The FAA has been quite clear on this point. Subsequent use of material acquired during recreational flight does not invalidate the original intent of the flight or its protection under the special rule.