Part 107 required?
- Thread starter Nukeboyt
- Start date
- Status
To fly an ultralight you do not need a license, nor must the aircraft have an airworthiness certificate nor be registered with the FAA, but would be stupid to try and teach yourself to fly it so you should get proper training.
With that said, when you do leave the ground in your ultralight, you are still legally bound by all the laws that every other licensed pilot is bound by. So your argument comes crashing down. You must follow the laws that are in place by the FAA and airports that are not taking federal funds to help them out, can also ban you from taking off or landing at that airport if you are in an ultralight. Most don't do that but some do. It is not as simple as you seem to think.
Even the parachute can be an ultralight. Under the FAA definition, they do not call it an aircraft, it is an ultralight vehicle. So basically anything that takes to the air under power that weighs under, read that again, under 254lbs empty weight, has no more than a single seat and carries no more than five gallons of fuel (technically you are not even allowed to carry a spare fuel can with you, with any fuel in it) and makes the legally required minimum stall speed and max. straight and level flight speed under full power, is an Ultralight. Does not matter if it is a fixed wing, rotor wing, flex wing or parachute, if it meets those parameters, it is an ultralight. You still need to obey all the FAA air laws though.
Soarmax
Well-Known Member
I’m with you. It’s ALL about compensation.
I’ve got a private sel rating and a commercial glider rating. If I take someone up in a small plane I can let them do what ever I want. I can let them take the controls. Fly the plane. Even take off and and land if I want. I’m the Pilot in Command and bare complete responsibility for the flight. I can take Boy Scouts up for plane rides. I can do Search and Rescue for downed or lost aircraft. If needed, in the case of medical necessity, I can fly blood and medical supplies in times of emergency. I just can’t receive any payment. Not one Dime.
When I climb into the back seat of a Sailplane, we can soar up and down the Wasatch Range, over the High Uintas, or maybe the Grand Tetons and the Saw Tooth Range. You can pay me what you think it’s worth for a flight of a lifetime.
When you take your powered parachute up you have to abide by the laws set up for flying in the NAS. Also you can have a much better situational awareness when you are in the aircraft, compared to looking at a screen from a fixed position of a camera on board that UAV. Also, if you were to take a photo from your Powered Parachute and tried to sell it, you would be breaking the law because you do not have a commercial pilot license, so basically... No Change Here!
Last edited:
Did you want to say Except or Accept, those two words mean very different things and would completely change what your paragraph is conveying?
The cost of setting up, keeping records and running such a department with staff in such a giant organization as the FAA will, I am sure, far exceed the small amount of money they are actually taking in.
ac0j
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2017
- Messages
- 2,795
- Reactions
- 2,276
- Age
- 61
in a nutshell, the FAA leaves it to the discretion of the person with the Ultralight then?
We all agree that only an idiot would fly one without training, but we also know that they do it ALL THE TIME.
Without the FAA requiring a registration number, or a licence , or any restrictions on what the "intention" of any flight is.
My drone meets EVERY ONE of the ultralight regs. Less the single seat rule, which should be even a better reason to treat drones as ultralights.
Laws of AIRSPACE ONLY, The common sense ones.
It says nothing (that I could find) in the ultralight rules about photography or commercial use.
I typed it, you understood it. That my friend is "Affective" communication. Nit picking is not a trait to be proud of.
They are already set up. We are talking about the FAA. They have controlled aircraft and regulations for what 100 years? What setup are you talking about? Just the new drone web portal and an account to deposit the funds?
You wrote:
post: 576879, member: 35899"]in a nutshell, the FAA leaves it to the discretion of the person with the Ultralight then?
We all agree that only an idiot would fly one without training, but we also know that they do it ALL THE TIME.
Without the FAA requiring a registration number, or a licence , or any restrictions on what the "intention" of any flight is.
_________________________________________________________
The FAA does require an ultralight vehicle to fly in accordance to the laws that all other licensed pilots must abide by, but the FAA does not require a true ultralight to have an airworthiness certificate, nor annual inspection, nor registration, neither does it require the pilot to be licensed or have an aviation medical. There are plenty of cases of people trying to teach themselves to fly with many deaths and injuries resulting from such attempts. Is it possible? Yes, it has been done but not a lot of people are that stupid or are that lucky to survive such actions. I think you will find that most of those engaged in Ultralight flying have gone the sensible route and taken flying lessons to get where they are. There are still idiot, but trained, pilots out there of course in both ultralight and GA areas of flying. As for restrictions on what the "intention" of any flight is, what do you mean exactly? You can go up and fly around having fun with any intention you want. You still have to follow the same laws as any other licensed pilot does though concerning how, where you fly and what airspace you fly in and time of day.
What you legally can not do, is fly where you are not allowed, over places that you are not allowed to fly over, at altitudes you are not allowed to fly at and of course you are also not allowed to use any ultralight for commercial use because the FAA never created a commercial use for ultralight flight. Same in GA you can not have a private pilot license and fly commercially, as in go up and take photos you intend to sell or accept money for taking someone for a flight for example, not legally. Though some people do actually do it, it does not make it legal.
You also wrote:
My drone meets EVERY ONE of the ultralight regs. Less the single seat rule, which should be even a better reason to treat drones as ultralights.
______________________________________________
Answer: NO, no no, because you have four engines and an ultralight can only be single engine and even if you find a loophole, as you rightly pointed out, it is a vehicle designed to carry a single person and is not allowed to fly without a person at the controls, so you are not even close. Nice try though.
You also wrote:
Laws of AIRSPACE ONLY, The common sense ones.
It says nothing (that I could find) in the ultralight rules about photography or commercial use.
_________________________________________________________
Answer: You need to understand manned aviation a little better, there are exact laws that pertain to commercial use of an aircraft, the pilot MUST be a commercial pilot, to carry out commercial operations, such as photography to be sold, or flights for hire, as in being paid to take someone flying. There is absolutely no commercial application allowed with an ultralight, it is clear as day and if you still think it is possible, just call your local FAA office and they will make it perfectly clear to you that you can not, and I'll say it again for you, can not use an ultralight for any commercial application. It is common knowledge to any real pilot, as in one who sits in the aircraft and controls it in flight.
You also wrote:
I typed it, you understood it. That my friend is "Affective" communication. Nit picking is not a trait to be proud of.
_________________________________________________
I understood what you typed but was not sure what you meant, that is why I asked, since you could use both words in a response such as yours, but the words in question would have very different meanings. Not making things clear with the words you choose, when you respond to a post, is possibly not a trait to be proud of. Nit picking has nothing to do with it, it was clarification requested, not nit picking, I believe you misinterpreted.
You also wrote:
They are already set up. We are talking about the FAA. They have controlled aircraft and regulations for what 100 years? What setup are you talking about? Just the new drone web portal and an account to deposit the funds?
___________________________
What? You think there is only a web portal and an account set up? You don't think there are staff assigned to do that work and keep records, flie reports and monitor that sector? I think you will be surprised how big that section of the FAA is becoming, and surprised to learn that people doing other jobs for the, as you put it "100 years" have enough to do carrying out their assigned duties, which for the last 100 years had nothing to do with drones. Hopefully you understand and can appreciate this a little more now.
Last edited:
AMann
Well-Known Member
I first asked the same thing thinking I did, but learned that no, you don’t, unless they give you doughnuts, but only the ones with sprinkles on them. And definitely yes if it comes with good coffee.
If you didnt go there trying to sell your photos that you really only took for fun in the first place, then you are OK. If you are worried about it, you could just ask for a thank you letter from them for the free photos you gave them.
If you didnt go there trying to sell your photos that you really only took for fun in the first place, then you are OK. If you are worried about it, you could just ask for a thank you letter from them for the free photos you gave them.
So it sounds, things are a bit overheated when it comes to taking pics in the US.
Here in Germany you only need a license to fly, if your bird is over 2kg in weight (More than the usual Mavic, Phantom or similar).
And yes, you can sell your pics as long as you have the mechanism in place to give the taxmans their fair share.
Of course we have pretty strict (sometimes ridiculous) flight restrictions, which anyone has to adhere to though.
I do not understand that 107 thing in the US. Why should a pro operator need to have more knowledge than the amateur flying the same bird???
Now the (a bit hypothetical) question, what happens when I cruise on my, in Germany registered, sailboat to the US and would have a YouTube channel generating a small bit of income from documenting my cruise. Especially if I'd use my drone to document this.
Let's assume I am NOT filming for other people or businesses.
Is the drone license treated similar to a captains license?
If your country of citizenship does not require you legally to have one you are not required to have one. On boats you are always bound by the legal requirements of the country of registration/captains citizenship.
Do I need a 107 license then?
Here in Germany you only need a license to fly, if your bird is over 2kg in weight (More than the usual Mavic, Phantom or similar).
And yes, you can sell your pics as long as you have the mechanism in place to give the taxmans their fair share.
Of course we have pretty strict (sometimes ridiculous) flight restrictions, which anyone has to adhere to though.
I do not understand that 107 thing in the US. Why should a pro operator need to have more knowledge than the amateur flying the same bird???
Now the (a bit hypothetical) question, what happens when I cruise on my, in Germany registered, sailboat to the US and would have a YouTube channel generating a small bit of income from documenting my cruise. Especially if I'd use my drone to document this.
Let's assume I am NOT filming for other people or businesses.
Is the drone license treated similar to a captains license?
If your country of citizenship does not require you legally to have one you are not required to have one. On boats you are always bound by the legal requirements of the country of registration/captains citizenship.
Do I need a 107 license then?
Do not be confused by all the intentionally confusing posts about requiring a license to take photos. The license is simply required to fly a drone other than recreationally, although that is about to change too. The disparity in requirements between recreational and non-recreational in the US arose because, in 2012, Congress decided to exempt recreational flying from regulation. They have no seen the error in that approach, and just reversed that decision.
You will be fine using your drone on your boat in the US provided that it does not take off, except indoors. Once it has taken off and entered US Airspace then it is subject to US aviation law.
Thanks, but, obviously it would be the intention to flight also in the US in line with local flight restrictions.
Still, I am unclear how that 107 thing can be applied to foreign aircraft flown by foreign pilots for the benefit of a foreign person.
Pretty sure someone with a foreign pilot license flying into the US does not need to retake their exam.
So, how does that apply to drones?
Still, I am unclear how that 107 thing can be applied to foreign aircraft flown by foreign pilots for the benefit of a foreign person.
Pretty sure someone with a foreign pilot license flying into the US does not need to retake their exam.
So, how does that apply to drones?
From Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Frequently Asked Questions
I'm a foreign national and want to fly my UAS in the U.S. on vacation. Do I have to register before flying?
If you are a foreign national and you are not eligible to register your sUAS in the United States there are two ways for you to operate. If you want to operate your UAS exclusively in accordance with the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, you may complete the process provided in the web-based registration portal for section 336 aircraft. The agency will consider the certificate that is issued to be a recognition of ownership rather than a certificate of U.S. aircraft registration. These conditions are consistent with and impose no greater burden than the requirements imposed on U.S. citizens conducting model aircraft operations in the U.S.
Alternatively, if you want to operate your UAS for commercial purposes, you must register your UAS in the country in which you are eligible to register and obtain operating authority from the Department of Transportation.
For more information and guidance regarding authorities for non-U.S. citizens, please contact the Department's Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division.
I'm British with a pilot's license for private use, so British PPL. If I fly to the USA, I just fill out the documents to enter the US airspace when I make out my flight plan. I can fly around the US on my British license before departing to the UK. I must follow all us laws related to flying in US airspace.
Now, if I wanted to take a few people for a flight when back in the UK and they wanted to pay me something, anything at all, for the fun of going flying with me, I can not legally accept that. If I wanted to take a few photos of someone's farm and sell it to the farmer in the UK, I could not legally do that without a commercial license. If I flew to the USA again and then while flying around the US, I took some people for a flight and they wanted to pay me to help out with fuel costs, or just give me money as a thank you for taking them flying, I would not be allowed to do that, again because a commercial license is need to do that, same thing with taking photos with the intention of selling them, it is not allowed. I can, however, take people flying all day long, both in the UK and in the US, when it is just for fun with no compensation being exchanged.
Those rules/laws are in place to protect the people who put forward the effort of taking the time and money to get their commercial license. They (commercial licensed pilots) can do that but I can not. Do people still do that who just have private pilot licenses? Yes it does go on and always has gone on, but most of the time, it never comes to light so no one gets prosecuted and most people are not thinking they are running a commercial operation. If they were found out about, doing that, then yes they would be open to prosecution. As innocent as the thing might seem to all concerned, of just splitting fuel, as is often done in groups driving in a car, it is legally not allowed in flying but many do it anyway.
The whole FAA Part 107 thing, is for those who wish to make money from their drone flying. And in order to take money they need to have the Part 107 and because of that, are expected to better know the rules and regulations of flying a drone and therefore, are expected to demonstrate that knowledge through taking a test.
I believe the German CAA, has the same rules about flying for fun and flying as a commercial operation when it comes to taking photos from your aircraft with the intention of selling them. I think you may have to have a commercial license to take and sell your photos. I was just in Germany in June and I know you have quite strict laws about drone flying.
If I wanted to fly for an extended period of time in the US with my British PPL, then I would in fact, have to take a new written test in the US, then also pass a check ride and get an endorsement in my UK license stating that I was now legal to fly in the US.
Last edited:
Thx.
No, thankfully in Germany a German drone operator is free to use images commercially as long as the taxman gets his share and the bird is below 2kg.
Apart from the type of insurance no distinction between commercial and not commercial below 2kg.
Commercial insurance is needed for commercial work.
You can buy commercial insurance on a per day base (about 10€).
Things might differ if you want to fly for public projects (railroad services or the like).
Above 2kg any pilot needs a license, private and commercial.
At some locations you need to get flight permissions before take off. There is a great app from Deutsche Flugsicherung DFS indicating where you are allowed to fly.
No, thankfully in Germany a German drone operator is free to use images commercially as long as the taxman gets his share and the bird is below 2kg.
Apart from the type of insurance no distinction between commercial and not commercial below 2kg.
Commercial insurance is needed for commercial work.
You can buy commercial insurance on a per day base (about 10€).
Things might differ if you want to fly for public projects (railroad services or the like).
Above 2kg any pilot needs a license, private and commercial.
At some locations you need to get flight permissions before take off. There is a great app from Deutsche Flugsicherung DFS indicating where you are allowed to fly.
Last edited:
ac0j
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2017
- Messages
- 2,795
- Reactions
- 2,276
- Age
- 61
You dont seem to understand my line of thought. It is NOT that I dont know what the FAA expects. That is clear to me. It is just over reaching when applied to flying toy cameras. I know people dont like the term toy, but a toy it is. people are just using them professionally.
Rc airplanes went unregulated and without issues for many years, until drones came into play. Before there was even ONE claim of near miss or collision, everything is regulated like manned aircraft? And they lumped in all flying RC toys to boot.
When the FAA says my INTENT has to be either commercial or recreational before I fly BUT, they then say the RESULTS of the recreational flight are not subject to the commercial rules. (in so many words.) That makes NO sense. And is unenforceable. That is what I am saying.
The device will record audio of the pilot so if one says "this is a recreation flight for fun, there is no intent to use its result commercially" on the flight recording. That proves intent.
In the cases that the FAA is reported to be pursuing, the people are ADVERTISING aerial photography. So let them be called commercial.
Not flying around aircraft or airports, or over crowds should be common sense. That is pretty much all they are asking of ultralights and the like. That is all they need to ask of drone pilots.
Their registration of either 336 or 107, or anything else, is NOT preventing anything, and never will.
it is a waste of time and resources. Aircraft damage should be covered by insurance like car damage, death should be treated the same way. It wont add a noticeable amount to airplane insurance because IT ALMOST NEVER HAPPENS! And the couple documented times it has occurred it was without serious damage.
I KNOW how it is, I am saying its STUPID and saying why I think so.
Ahhh, I was meaning that if you were flying an aircraft yourself, not a drone. However, that is good to know that you can do it with an under 2 kilo drone, gut fuer euch Deutsche, schade fur uns! Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks for the tip about DFS, that will be a great help the next time I'm over there. Do you know if there is anything similar for Austria?
Ohhh I'm with you 100% on the toy thing but regulating it like a real aircraft, the problem lies, I believe, in the fact that they have become so simple to fly. That means anyone can go out and fly it now and some of those or possibly many of those people are inadvertently or blatantly breaking the laws whether they are aware of them or not.
Therefore the FAA are being forced to get some regulation as early as possible in order to control those involved in the boom in this sector of flying, before it gets so massive and out of hand, it would be impossible to try and regulate it. On one side I have to agree that something has to be done to curb the idiots out there, but on the other hand, I wish we still had all the freedom to fly where we wanted about 4-5 years ago. Again, a difficult thing to find a happy medium.
In the past R/C aircraft required skill and training to fly well and in general, anyone who invested that sort of time and expense, were generally more careful and thoughtful of others and the rules, because to be that dedicated, you learned to respect those things.
It is a bit like photography today. In the old days you had to know a lot about photography in order to get a well exposed sharp photo, plus the cost of the film and developing and printing as well as the time factor, it meant a pro was dedicated to become good/better and had a skill set to show for it. Today, everyone who owns a camera seems to think they are or can be a pro photographer because the bloody cameras are, in general, so good at auto focusing and auto exposure, and these people want to sell their services, as crap as about 80% of them appear to be when you see work that is posted of their portfolios. Yes it may be a well exposed and sharp image but it is crap in composition, posing of the people and choice of depth of field etc.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
