Part 107 requirement question

[akdrone]

If Part 107 requires you to be flying for "fun" as was mentioned in another thread, does that include involved or complex planned videos that are not done with any commercial intent? I have a video I'd like to do about gravel pits, flying over many of the local gravel pits that are used for construction projects, comparing them and commenting on their importance and methodology. It is purely for my own enjoyment although I will of course post it to the net. I do not have enough followers that it would be monetized in any way. I think it would be no different than many of the videos I see, albeit a somewhat odd subject, but these rules do get a bit tricky and inasmuch as I have not yet decided how to handle the idea of whether I'm going to ask for "permission" from the owners of the pits, I want to know I'm on firm ground with the F.A.A. in all regards.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Your in Alaska , its for your own enjoyment , your going to ask the owners for permission , not fly over people is all pretty standard for not needing a 107 permit.

If however you call the FAA an ask them about this , they will tell you that you are on a slippery slope because you are filming a business and plan on posting it to the net. They will advise you to get the 107 but they will also tell you that you should be ok .

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain, Land on the Water .

 

[BigAl07]

If you're intent is purely for "Enjoyment" then you're good to go as long as you follow all rules for Recreational UAS Operations.

It's a VERY good idea (although maybe not a requirement ) to get permission from the owners. The FAA is only concerned with the FLIGHT but it's a good idea to reach out to them and get their permission. Just know, if they mention doing it for them you are then skating on thin ice in regards to honest intent.

 

[BigAl07]

Your in Alaska , its for your own enjoyment , your going to ask the owners for permission , not fly over people is all pretty standard for not needing a 107 permit.

If however you call the FAA an ask them about this , they will tell you that you are on a slippery slope because you are filming a business and plan on posting it to the net. They will advise you to get the 107 but they will also tell you that you should be ok .

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain, Land on the Water .

That's NOT slippery slope and the FSDO isn't going to "correctly" state that. If you are making the video for yourself and not intending to support/promote any of the companies then you're good to go as long as you follow all aspects of ~44809.

 

[Phantomrain.org]

That's NOT slippery slope and the FSDO isn't going to "correctly" state that. If you are making the video for yourself and not intending to support/promote any of the companies then you're good to go as long as you follow all aspects of ~44809.

Understood < Next time I talk to the FAA agent and they use that term on me " Slippery Slope " im going to record it.
I hear this all the time from my phone calls followed by its best to get your 107 . I think thats there go to saying.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain.

 

[66427cobra]

I note that North Pole, AK is between Eielson AFB and Fairbanks Int'l Airport. Both have surrounding altitude restrictions which require FAA authorization before you can fly in their airspace. Belos is a link to the grid maps where you can find this info. Just type in your location in the search box.

ArcGIS Web Application

faa.maps.arcgis.com

If you look at the grid map you will see that there are areas where the maximum allowed altitude is 0 (zero) feet above ground level (AGL). If you want to fly in those areas you need special permission beyond the quick LAANC approval. Unless regs have changed recently (which they do) you will only get approval for a 0 ft. AGL area if you have your Part 107 certificate. Pretty sure you won't get approved flying under the recreational category.

I welcome any corrections/comments if I am off base on this.

 

[sar104]

If Part 107 requires you to be flying for "fun" as was mentioned in another thread, does that include involved or complex planned videos that are not done with any commercial intent? I have a video I'd like to do about gravel pits, flying over many of the local gravel pits that are used for construction projects, comparing them and commenting on their importance and methodology. It is purely for my own enjoyment although I will of course post it to the net. I do not have enough followers that it would be monetized in any way. I think it would be no different than many of the videos I see, albeit a somewhat odd subject, but these rules do get a bit tricky and inasmuch as I have not yet decided how to handle the idea of whether I'm going to ask for "permission" from the owners of the pits, I want to know I'm on firm ground with the F.A.A. in all regards.

Just to avoid any confusion - it's the recreational exemption, 49 U.S.C. 44809 that requires you to be flying for fun. Part 107 covers all flights, irrespective of intent.

The FAA representatives often tends towards the position that flying for fun excludes flying with the intent to capture material for other reasons, even if those reasons are, themselves, recreational. However, they have constrained themselves somewhat with their own statements and examples over the years, many of which have changed over time. For example, back under the special rule, they gave some examples of recreational flights that included the following:

• Taking photographs with a model aircraft for personal use.
• Viewing a field to determine whether crops need water when they are grown for personal enjoyment.

Now they make the following statement on the FAA website:

Note: Non-recreational purposes include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections, or taking pictures of a high school football game for the school's website. Goodwill or other non-monetary value can also be considered indirect compensation. This would include things like volunteering to use your drone to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit organization. Recreational flight is simply flying for fun or personal enjoyment.​

Those examples would support your flights as defensibly recreational.

 

[akdrone]

I note that North Pole, AK is between Eielson AFB and Fairbanks Int'l Airport. Both have surrounding altitude restrictions which require FAA authorization before you can fly in their airspace. Belos is a link to the grid maps where you can find this info. Just type in your location in the search box.

ArcGIS Web Application

faa.maps.arcgis.com

If you look at the grid map you will see that there are areas where the maximum allowed altitude is 0 (zero) feet above ground level (AGL). If you want to fly in those areas you need special permission beyond the quick LAANC approval. Unless regs have changed recently (which they do) you will only get approval for a 0 ft. AGL area if you have your Part 107 certificate. Pretty sure you won't get approved flying under the recreational category.

I welcome any corrections/comments if I am off base on this.

There may be some 0Ft restrictions nearby Eielson AFB or at the Army base. I live in an altitude restricted area but getting clearance is reasonably quick and easy.

 

[akdrone]

Just to avoid any confusion - it's the recreational exemption, 49 U.S.C. 44809 that requires you to be flying for fun. Part 107 covers all flights, irrespective of intent.

The FAA representatives often tends towards the position that flying for fun excludes flying with the intent to capture material for other reasons, even if those reasons are, themselves, recreational. However, they have constrained themselves somewhat with their own statements and examples over the years, many of which have changed over time. For example, back under the special rule, they gave some examples of recreational flights that included the following:

• Taking photographs with a model aircraft for personal use.
• Viewing a field to determine whether crops need water when they are grown for personal enjoyment.

Now they make the following statement on the FAA website:

Note: Non-recreational purposes include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections, or taking pictures of a high school football game for the school's website. Goodwill or other non-monetary value can also be considered indirect compensation. This would include things like volunteering to use your drone to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit organization. Recreational flight is simply flying for fun or personal enjoyment.​

Those examples would support your flights as defensibly recreational.

Thanks. All the information is appreciated. I think I finally have a pretty clear understanding.

 

[JimSteadman]

Just to avoid any confusion - it's the recreational exemption, 49 U.S.C. 44809 that requires you to be flying for fun. Part 107 covers all flights, irrespective of intent.

The FAA representatives often tends towards the position that flying for fun excludes flying with the intent to capture material for other reasons, even if those reasons are, themselves, recreational. However, they have constrained themselves somewhat with their own statements and examples over the years, many of which have changed over time. For example, back under the special rule, they gave some examples of recreational flights that included the following:

• Taking photographs with a model aircraft for personal use.
• Viewing a field to determine whether crops need water when they are grown for personal enjoyment.

Now they make the following statement on the FAA website:

Note: Non-recreational purposes include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections, or taking pictures of a high school football game for the school's website. Goodwill or other non-monetary value can also be considered indirect compensation. This would include things like volunteering to use your drone to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit organization. Recreational flight is simply flying for fun or personal enjoyment.​

Those examples would support your flights as defensibly recreational.

So you fly your drone over the city park to take photos of the Christmas decorations and then you post them on the community facebook page. You get lots of likes, and eventually someone wants to purchase a copy of one of those photos. Seems to me that the purpose of the flight was recreational and that recreational purpose is not eliminated by a subsequent sale of a photo. Do you interpret the rules differently?

 

[Tomk_]

So you fly your drone over the city park to take photos of the Christmas decorations and then you post them on the community facebook page. You get lots of likes, and eventually someone wants to purchase a copy of one of those photos. Seems to me that the purpose of the flight was recreational and that recreational purpose is not eliminated by a subsequent sale of a photo. Do you interpret the rules differently?

That is correct.

 

[BigAl07]

So you fly your drone over the city park to take photos of the Christmas decorations and then you post them on the community facebook page. You get lots of likes, and eventually someone wants to purchase a copy of one of those photos. Seems to me that the purpose of the flight was recreational and that recreational purpose is not eliminated by a subsequent sale of a photo. Do you interpret the rules differently?

Just because someone finds value and wants to purchase an item doesn't make you Part 107 no more than someone wanting to purchase your home (that isn't for sale) makes you a Realtor.

INTENT of the flight!!

 

[sar104]

So you fly your drone over the city park to take photos of the Christmas decorations and then you post them on the community facebook page. You get lots of likes, and eventually someone wants to purchase a copy of one of those photos. Seems to me that the purpose of the flight was recreational and that recreational purpose is not eliminated by a subsequent sale of a photo. Do you interpret the rules differently?

No, as stated by @BigAl07, if the flight was recreational then that's all that matters. Subsequent unplanned commercial use of photos or videos captured during the flight doesn't change the intent at the time of the flight and is fine.

The point that causes so much confusion here is that it is never the use or sale of photos/video acquired during a flight claimed to be conducted under the recreational exemption that is illegal. The photos or video are only relevant in that they may demonstrate that the flight wasn't really recreational in the first place - and that would make the flight illegal.

 

[Rubenc87]

New to the site and am just spending my time reading up on some of these threads that are very helpful. Learning a lot here. Thanks

 

[Rich QR]

So you fly your drone over the city park to take photos of the Christmas decorations and then you post them on the community facebook page. You get lots of likes, and eventually someone wants to purchase a copy of one of those photos. Seems to me that the purpose of the flight was recreational and that recreational purpose is not eliminated by a subsequent sale of a photo. Do you interpret the rules differently?

I believe your interpretation is correct.

But if you realize that you found a market and attempt to repeat the feat, it becomes harder to argue that your intentions at the time of launch are "strictly recreational". Each time you repeat it, it becomes harder to argue. As soon as a flight is not "strictly recreational", it requires a Part 107 license. How strictly should you interpret the word "strictly"? Good question.

 

[shizack2000]

Getting right diwn to it, any drone video or picture posted to social media is 107. It is considered "furthering a brand" whether money is exchanged or not.
Will you get in trouble? Probably not. If in the extremely unlikely event you are called out on it by the FAA, they will most likely just tell you why it was incorrect. They only tend to prosecute for flagrant violations or an ongoing pattern of transgression.
This was from an interview with an FAA agent on Alien Drones's YouTube channel.
He also said they don't scour social media for violations but they do investigate most to all reports.

 

[BigAl07]

Getting right diwn to it, any drone video or picture posted to social media is 107. It is considered "furthering a brand" whether money is exchanged or not.
Will you get in trouble? Probably not. If in the extremely unlikely event you are called out on it by the FAA, they will most likely just tell you why it was incorrect. They only tend to prosecute for flagrant violations or an ongoing pattern of transgression.
This was from an interview with an FAA agent on Alien Drones's YouTube channel.
He also said they don't scour social media for violations but they do investigate most to all reports.

Posting on your Social Media is not furtherance of a business unless it's a business account. You took the information out of context.

Also they actually DO go onto social media and forums (including this one) occasionally. We have a member who got the email, phone call, and Certified Letter to prove it. While it's probably not in their "Job Description" I can tell you with 100% certainty that the FAA does browse online content looking for blatant violations.

 

[heightened_imagery]

Posting on your Social Media is not furtherance of a business unless it's a business account. You took the information out of context.

What constitutes it being a business account?

 

[BigAl07]

What constitutes it being a business account?

Are you promoting a product, service, company, industry . . . or are you just blogging about your recreation.

Even a business account could have aerial content that is not promoting in any way. As Part 107 Operators we are also allowed to fly Recreationally and have fun and we could post something purely recreational and it not be Commercial in nature. It's up to the FAA to prove otherwise but most of the time we are our own worst enemies when it comes to content etc. It's usually not a One-Off event and most people who are blatantly violating do so repeatedly and provide plenty of evidence to prove as such. Case in point the guy up in you neck of the woods who flew over the NFL stadium.... he pretty much served himself a platter of UH OH with his content.

 

[heightened_imagery]

That makes sense. Thanks as usual @BigAl07!