Part 107 required?

[ac0j]

I get that you except the regulations. I am arguing that the regulations are not fair and should be changed. It seems like the FAA saw a cash cow and took advantage of it.

 

[sar104]

I get that you except the regulations. I am arguing that the regulations are not fair and should be changed. It seems like the FAA saw a cash cow and took advantage of it.

The requirements came from congress, not the FAA, and I seriously doubt that the FAA is making any money at all on a $5 registration fee. The Part 107 test fee goes to the test centers.

 

[ac0j]

The requirements came from congress, not the FAA, and I seriously doubt that the FAA is making any money at all on a $5 registration fee. The Part 107 test fee goes to the test centers.

That doesn’t make them right. $5 times how many users? That’s quite a little money in fact.

 

[theDRONEranger]

I've been flying as recreational pilot, and posting some of my photos and videos on my FB page. I like to take pictures at local parks and landmarks. Recently, a local tourism promotion group (think Chamber of Commerce) expressed interest in using some of my photos on their web page. If I give them permission and I don't accept any compensation, will I be OK?

The Short answer is NO!, NOT OK!!! The photos/videos are commercialized and thus fall under the Part 107. I am 107, and my personal answer is I don't give a rat's a** what you do with it. Just because I am 107 does NOT infer I agree with all the rulings of the FAA. Nor does it mean that I am obligated to enforce the FAA rules and regulations upon others. I will, however, enforce the rules and regulations upon myself, so as NOT to give fodder to others (drone pilots or not) to cause problems upon myself.
I hold myself to the standards established and subscribe to the FAA and enforcement agencies to enforce their own laws. They do not pay me to be their police. Now, that being said and done, if I do observe someone acting as a PIC and performing in a clearly unsafe or immoral manner, then I am free to confront that PIC and amiably discuss the matter with him/her. And, hopefully, both of us could learn from the situation. Do I follow the rules??? Yes, I do. The majority of my flights (and my home, and favorite test flight park), are well within the 5 mile radius of Class C airspace, so yes, I will follow the rules as best I can. This also helps me to ensure when I am flying in an area, not of home range, I can rest assured I am flying legit. So, once again, the FAA does not pay me to enforce their rules upon others, so fly safe and have fun!

 

[sar104]

The Short answer is NO!, NOT OK!!! The photos/videos are commercialized and thus fall under the Part 107. I am 107, and my personal answer is I don't give a rat's a** what you do with it. Just because I am 107 does NOT infer I agree with all the rulings of the FAA. Nor does it mean that I am obligated to enforce the FAA rules and regulations upon others. I will, however, enforce the rules and regulations upon myself, so as NOT to give fodder to others (drone pilots or not) to cause problems upon myself.
I hold myself to the standards established and subscribe to the FAA and enforcement agencies to enforce their own laws. They do not pay me to be their police. Now, that being said and done, if I do observe someone acting as a PIC and performing in a clearly unsafe or immoral manner, then I am free to confront that PIC and amiably discuss the matter with him/her. And, hopefully, both of us could learn from the situation. Do I follow the rules??? Yes, I do. The majority of my flights (and my home, and favorite test flight park), are well within the 5 mile radius of Class C airspace, so yes, I will follow the rules as best I can. This also helps me to ensure when I am flying in an area, not of home range, I can rest assured I am flying legit. So, once again, the FAA does not pay me to enforce their rules upon others, so fly safe and have fun!

But your short answer is wrong. Retrospective use, even compensated, of material acquired on a recreational flight, is fine. The Part 101/107 distinction applies to the flight at the time it is flown, and the purpose of the flight (recreational or non-recreational) cannot change later for any reason. The FAA has made this point very clearly, and multiple times. It's disappointing that so many people still haven't read the regulations and interpretations and continue to propagate misinformation.

 

[sar104]

That doesn’t make them right. $5 times how many users? That’s quite a little money in fact.

I don't know the totals, but I doubt this has even covered their costs.

 

[ac0j]

I don't know the totals, but I doubt this has even covered their costs.

I realize you are pointing out what the rules actually ARE. I am not disagreeing with anything you have said, what I am trying to show that those rules are unneeded, unfounded, and an unnecessary load on the FAA. Until there are a few incidents that cause damage or harm beyond a bird strike, this is all a joke.
If you try to find out what UAV need registered on the FAA site, it goes as far as showing pictures of what needs registered and what doesnt. ALL pictures are of drone type configured aircraft. Not one reference to anything fixed wing, or RC helicopters save for a single comment buried within a generic paragraph.
They are picking on drones without any case history to justify the regulations. That is not how laws are supposed to be made.

 

[theDRONEranger]

But your short answer is wrong. Retrospective use, even compensated, of material acquired on a recreational flight, is fine. The Part 101/107 distinction applies to the flight at the time it is flown, and the purpose of the flight (recreational or non-recreational) cannot change later for any reason. The FAA has made this point very clearly, and multiple times. It's disappointing that so many people still haven't read the regulations and interpretations and continue to propagate misinformation.

But you are right!!! I was under the assumption the flight was initiated as venue and changed over to fun prior to flight completion.
The intent was NOT to propagate misinformation as, unfortunately, it did turn out to be so. I am not afraid in any way to admit a mistake on my part. I have read and reviewed the new changes, but unfortunately I have not committed them to a total recall. I thank you for pointing out my error and offering to place me back on the correct track. I attribute this to perhaps some nuclear radiation finally following the I-25 north and mixing with the MJ crops in CO.

 

[Bigbird48]

I don't know the totals, but I doubt this has even covered their costs.

There are a lot of drones in the United States -- and the number is growing rapidly. More than 770,000 U.S. drone registrations have been filed in about 15 months, the Federal Aviation Administration's Michael Huerta said at a conference on Monday.
So 5 dollars times 770000 is over 3 million dollars just from drone users, not to mention all the fixed wing fee's they collect. Hey might not come close to covering cost but it sure helps

 

[prb]

What about school teachers' use of drone photos and videos taken by a recreational, non-107 pilot without any original intent for others to use them?

Or what if the photos and videos were taken expressly for the purpose of later educational use by others?

In each case, there is no money involved.

Seems like a gray area to me. . . .

 

[theDRONEranger]

https://www.transportation.gov/site...4496/faa-fy2019cj-budgetfinal508compliant.pdf
2019 FAA Budge request

 

[sar104]

There are a lot of drones in the United States -- and the number is growing rapidly. More than 770,000 U.S. drone registrations have been filed in about 15 months, the Federal Aviation Administration's Michael Huerta said at a conference on Monday.
So 5 dollars times 770000 is over 3 million dollars just from drone users, not to mention all the fixed wing fee's they collect. Hey might not come close to covering cost but it sure helps

Thanks for posting the numbers. I'm sure it does help. The question was whether the FAA was simply doing this to make money, and I think it's quite clear that they are not.

 

[theDRONEranger]

We must remember that the FAA is only but a singular entity of the DOT is only but a singular entity of the GOV. As such, there will most assuredly be written into the passages requests for new policies and regulations. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that some little D**kh**d most likely wishes to make a name in hopes of upward promotion. "Well, we have many more drones than what we anticipated and so now we have to figure how to make it more difficult for them to fly. Hummmm, maybe I could slide this into the bill and hopefully, it passes as is, and I get promoted!" Not at all unheard of within the GOV.
The thing is, once the government has control of something, it is very most likely the control will never lessen.

 

[sar104]

What about school teachers' use of drone photos and videos taken by a recreational, non-107 pilot without any original intent for others to use them?

Or what if the photos and videos were taken expressly for the purpose of later educational use by others?

In each case, there is no money involved.

Seems like a gray area to me. . . .

There is really very little gray here. Part 101 requires the intent of the flight to be recreational. After the flight is complete, the subsequent use of material (unplanned at the time of the flight) doesn't change the intent. And this has nothing to do with compensation except to the extent that if you accept a commission to take aerial images then you have clearly not satisfied the Part 101 eligibility requirements.

Educational use is addressed in a 2016 FAA memorandum.

 

[Bigbird48]

Thanks for posting the numbers. I'm sure it does help. The question was whether the FAA was simply doing this to make money, and I think it's quite clear that they are not.

I agree we all know the FAA needs funding heres were they get most of their money to run the FAA
AATF History
•
Created
by the Airport and Airway Development and Revenue Act
of 1970 to finance aviation
programs
–
Revenues
are derived from aviation-
related excise taxes on
passengers,
cargo, and
fuel
–
Provides
funding for capital improvements to the U.S. airport
and airways system
•
Provides the majority of funding for the Federal
Aviation
Administration
–
80.10%
in FY 2014
–
92.77%
in FY 2015
–
87.79%
in FY 2016
–
94.80% in FY 2017
–
86.89% in FY 2018

 

[ac0j]

There are a lot of drones in the United States -- and the number is growing rapidly. More than 770,000 U.S. drone registrations have been filed in about 15 months, the Federal Aviation Administration's Michael Huerta said at a conference on Monday.
So 5 dollars times 770000 is over 3 million dollars just from drone users, not to mention all the fixed wing fee's they collect. Hey might not come close to covering cost but it sure helps

According to an article I found as of 1-2018 there were over 1,000,000 drones registered and an additional 1,500,000 expected to be added this year. Crazy.

 

[prb]

There is really very little gray here. Part 101 requires the intent of the flight to be recreational. After the flight is complete, the subsequent use of material (unplanned at the time of the flight) doesn't change the intent. And this has nothing to do with compensation except to the extent that if you accept a commission to take aerial images then you have clearly not satisfied the Part 101 eligibility requirements.

Educational use is addressed in a 2016 FAA memorandum.

My quick reading of that memo, which I recall having seen before, is that it focuses on courses teaching something about UASs or uses them in classes.

Expanding the issue a little: I don't see anything in the memo about using videos or photos that were expressly taken, without any monetary compensation, to enhance students' education--for example, of historic or hard-to-reach locations that could enhance K-12 students' social studies.

 

[sar104]

My quick reading of that memo, which I recall having seen before, is that it focuses on courses teaching something about UASs or uses them in classes.

Expanding the issue a little: I don't see anything in the memo about using videos or photos that were expressly taken, without any monetary compensation, to enhance students' education--for example, of historic or hard-to-reach locations that could enhance K-12 students' social studies.

Agreed. That's pretty much all they have said on educational uses though.

 

[JManges]

I've been flying as recreational pilot, and posting some of my photos and videos on my FB page. I like to take pictures at local parks and landmarks. Recently, a local tourism promotion group (think Chamber of Commerce) expressed interest in using some of my photos on their web page. If I give them permission and I don't accept any compensation, will I be OK?

Since you describe yourself as a recreational pilot and had no intention of selling your photographs at the time you took them, I'd say you are in the clear. Especially since you are not receiving compensation for them.

 

[CenlaUAS]

I've been flying as recreational pilot, and posting some of my photos and videos on my FB page. I like to take pictures at local parks and landmarks. Recently, a local tourism promotion group (think Chamber of Commerce) expressed interest in using some of my photos on their web page. If I give them permission and I don't accept any compensation, will I be OK?

My take is since the FAA is going to require even recreational flyers to take knowledge and safety tests to operate you might as well go get your 107 and make some money.