Question about drone pilot license (do i need it?)

[Meta4]

Well, you can do it your way.

Understanding what's factual and what's fiction?
Not spreading misinformation or perpetuating myths?
That's always a good way to go.

The fact that you go on and on in a forum does not make you right. This is one area where repeating inaccurate info ad nauseum won’t make it right in the end.

Reconsidering that now?

 

[Fat Pappy]

Understanding what's factual and what's fiction?
Not spreading misinformation or perpetuating myths?
That's always a good way to go.

Reconsidering that now?

Nope. I think your Interpretation is inaccurate.

 

[sar104]

Nope. I think your Interpretation is inaccurate.

One criterion that the FAA seems (quite reasonably) to be using is whether or not the YouTube channel is monetized (easily identified by the presence of ads).

The video example posted previously is a monetized channel, and the owners are, by their own admission, flying to generate material for use on that channel. That's clearly not recreational use, and falls squarely under 14 CFR Part 107.

But there are also non-monetized channels containing material that, for various reasons, may clearly be from non-recreational flights. For example, a YouTube video promoting a business would generally fall into that category. That would also require Part 107.

However, most people posting personal videos on YouTube are doing it solely to share with friends; there is no intent to make money and, equally if not more importantly, their flights are purely recreational. Those flights are covered by 49 U.S.C §44809 (Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft).

 

[Fat Pappy]

One criterion that the FAA seems (quite reasonably) to be using is whether or not the YouTube channel is monetized (easily identified by the presence of ads).

The video example posted previously is a monetized channel, and the owners are, by their own admission, flying to generate material for use on that channel. That's clearly not recreational use, and falls squarely under 14 CFR Part 107.

But there are also non-monetized channels containing material that, for various reasons, may clearly be from non-recreational flights. For example, a YouTube video promoting a business would generally fall into that category. That would also require Part 107.

However, most people posting personal videos on YouTube are doing it solely to share with friends; there is no intent to make money and, equally if not more importantly, their flights are purely recreational. Those flights are covered by 49 U.S.C §44809 (Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft).

I agree with your assessment of the intent but whether the FAS foes may be a different matter. Where it gets grey is let’s say your church wants some aerial footage or stills. You agree to shoot that content. The church will use them on its web site. Do you need a 107?

How about if your neighbor asks you to look at his roof and gutters after a storm. You do it for free do you need a 107?

In both of the above cases you are clearly not doing it for the money, but it would be hard to argue it was just for fun. I simply got the license to avoid dealing with stuff like this.

 

[sar104]

I agree with your assessment of the intent but whether the FAS foes may be a different matter. Where it gets grey is let’s say your church wants some aerial footage or stills. You agree to shoot that content. The church will use them on its web site. Do you need a 107?

How about if your neighbor asks you to look at his roof and gutters after a storm. You do it for free do you need a 107?

In both of the above cases you are clearly not doing it for the money, but it would be hard to argue it was just for fun. I simply got the license to avoid dealing with stuff like this.

Those are not grey areas at all - they all clearly fall under Part 107. The test is simple - is the flight recreational? It doesn't matter whether you are doing it for free, as a volunteer, or just for a friend or neighbor - if it is not a recreational flight then it is a Part 107 flight.

Now is the FAA going to come after you for checking a neighbor's gutters - almost certainly not - unless a local licensed gutter inspector finds out, gets annoyed that you are taking business from him, and complains.

 

[Fat Pappy]

Those are not grey areas at all - they all clearly fall under Part 107. The test is simple - is the flight recreational? It doesn't matter whether you are doing it for free, as a volunteer, or just for a friend or neighbor - if it is not a recreational flight then it is a Part 107 flight.

Now is the FAA going to come after you for checking a neighbor's gutters - almost certainly not - unless a local licensed gutter inspector finds out, gets annoyed that you are taking business from him, and complains.

I agree those missions fall under 107, but the average Joe who gets a drone for fun probably would not even think about this as needing a license. They would be wrong, but not intentionally breaking the law. Yes, I understand the ignorance of the law argument, but I also understand that if you tried to read all the laws that apply to you, you would never finish.

I got my 107 license for situations like the above. I also plan to take an Alaska trip and post video & stills to a YouTube channel. I don’t have any ambition to monetize the channel or even put in the effort it takes to have a commercially successful channel. THBS, I have little faith some FAA rep trying to make a name for himself might not try to argue that I am building my brand and, even though not monetized, accumulating goodwill is an activity with a purpose other than purely recreational. This argument goes away with the license. The cost and time to get the license is de minimus compared to any hassles it avoids. .

 

[sar104]

I agree those missions fall under 107, but the average Joe who gets a drone for fun probably would not even think about this as needing a license. They would be wrong, but not intentionally breaking the law. Yes, I understand the ignorance of the law argument, but I also understand that if you tried to read all the laws that apply to you, you would never finish.

I got my 107 license for situations like the above. I also plan to take an Alaska trip and post video & stills to a YouTube channel. I don’t have any ambition to monetize the channel or even put in the effort it takes to have a commercially successful channel. THBS, I have little faith some FAA rep trying to make a name for himself might not try to argue that I am building my brand and, even though not monetized, accumulating goodwill is an activity with a purpose other than purely recreational. This argument goes away with the license. The cost and time to get the license is de minimus compared to any hassles it avoids. .

Getting qualified under Part 107 is certainly a fine idea. But you have really misjudged how the FAA works if you are worried about them being out to get you.

 

[BigAl07]

I agree those missions fall under 107, but the average Joe who gets a drone for fun probably would not even think about this as needing a license. They would be wrong, but not intentionally breaking the law. Yes, I understand the ignorance of the law argument, but I also understand that if you tried to read all the laws that apply to you, you would never finish.

I got my 107 license for situations like the above. I also plan to take an Alaska trip and post video & stills to a YouTube channel. I don’t have any ambition to monetize the channel or even put in the effort it takes to have a commercially successful channel. THBS, I have little faith some FAA rep trying to make a name for himself might not try to argue that I am building my brand and, even though not monetized, accumulating goodwill is an activity with a purpose other than purely recreational. This argument goes away with the license. The cost and time to get the license is de minimus compared to any hassles it avoids. .

So let's get this straight... you honestly think that an FAA Rep would be "making a name for themselves" by doing their job? You clearly don't understand how it works and to be honest, many of your posts on this subject are very misleading.

Thank you @sar104 for being a voice of reason and logic. I commend you for your persistence and determination.

 

[Fat Pappy]

So let's get this straight... you honestly think that an FAA Rep would be "making a name for themselves" by doing their job? You clearly don't understand how it works and to be honest, many of your posts on this subject are very misleading.

Thank you @sar104 for being a voice of reason and logic. I commend you for your persistence and determination.

In the main, no. THBS, every large organization has a few rogues that go off the rails. Even if things are eventually righted, why go through the hassle?

Let’s say I build up several years worth on travel videos. At the time they were taken, they were for fun and personal use. Then, years down the road, after several folks like them, I make a channel, use those photos and make a business out of it. I would expect that the FAA would impute intent back to the start, and, frankly, it would be hard to argue with, even though it’s untrue. With a 107 license, it’s a non issue and an argument avoided. Cheap insurance.

ETA: in your response you indicate the FAA agent Is “doing their job” when he imputes a “building of a brand” simply by posting personal travel videos to YouTube. This level of confusion, or lack of clarity is why I got the license so the issue is removed.

 

[Thomas B]

In the main, no. THBS, every large organization has a few rogues that go off the rails. Even if things are eventually righted, why go through the hassle?

Let’s say I build up several years worth on travel videos. At the time they were taken, they were for fun and personal use. Then, years down the road, after several folks like them, I make a channel, use those photos and make a business out of it. I would expect that the FAA would impute intent back to the start, and, frankly, it would be hard to argue with, even though it’s untrue. With a 107 license, it’s a non issue and an argument avoided. Cheap insurance.

ETA: in your response you indicate the FAA agent Is “doing their job” when he imputes a “building of a brand” simply by posting personal travel videos to YouTube. This level of confusion, or lack of clarity is why I got the license so the issue is removed.

Great... but all responses to your posts are spot on. Just let it go @Fat Pappy

 

[Ixlr8a67]

It's the intent of the flight. Here is a good article that explains it in more detail. Section 44809 vs. Part 107 – Are You Flying Recreationally or Commercially? - Pilot Institute

The way to look at it I was taught was "If it is going to have the potential to make anyone money, directly or indirectly, it's 107".

Hope this helps.

 

[sar104]

It's the intent of the flight. Here is a good article that explains it in more detail. Section 44809 vs. Part 107 – Are You Flying Recreationally or Commercially? - Pilot Institute

The way to look at it I was taught was "If it is going to have the potential to make anyone money, directly or indirectly, it's 107".

Hope this helps.

That was another very long-winded attempt to clarify what is really not a complicated question, and it actually failed to achieve its goal, falling into the strangely common trap of assuming that "recreational" and "commercial" are both mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. The former is true; the latter is not.

If the intent of a flight is commercial - generally taken to mean in furtherence of a business - then it certainly is not recreational. But the terms commercial and business appear nowhere in either 14 CFR Part 107 or in 49 U.S.C §44809, and for good reason. There are plenty of use cases for UAVs that are clearly not commercial, but are also not recreational. A lot of volunteer work falls into the non-commercial category (provided that it is not simply unpaid work supporting a business) but is also clearly not recreational flight and thus falls under Part 107. One of the early examples that came up in this context was volunteer search and rescue, which led the FAA to issue a number of warnings that it did not fall under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.

Similarly, the frequently asked questions about taking aerial photos and video for churches/schools/sports clubs etc. all have the same answer - that's not flying for fun, it's flying for a specific purpose beyond personal enjoyment, and falls under Part 107.

And that's the actual test here - are you flying purely for your own personal enjoyment? If so, then the recreational exception applies. If not, then the flight falls under Part 107. There are very few examples that are not readily determined by simply answering that question.

 

[baddog]

I did and despite the video taking such a long time, it's unclear whether they really needed to get their Part 10 or not7.
It's quite possible that they were dealing with an overzealous FAA person who wasn't sure about the rules themselves.
During the video he says "If you intend to put your footage in a video then you need a commercial licence".
That is not true.
Posting videos to Youtube does not mean you need 107.

The couple in the video distinctly mention, several times that, if you put your video on Youtube and you monetize your content, you need a Part 107 because you are drawing funds from it, however small the amount might be.

Even if the content on youtube was not monetizing directly from the drone footage but was simply to drive viewers to your website, where you do sell and/or promote yourself in any aspect, like selling travel books. That is commercial work and will require a part 107 certificate.

 

[Meta4]

The couple in the video distinctly mention, several times that, if you put your video on Youtube and you monetize your content, you need a Part 107 because you are drawing funds from it, however small the amount might be.

They said a number of things that aren't correct.
Fortunately the FAA is a bit more sensible than that.

 

[Ditchdoc]

FAA does not care about intent, only results. If your video shows up in public, promoting a company that makes money, regardless if you were paid or not, your video and thus you, are considered a commercial endeavor and you need a license. Will you be 'caught'? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how bored an FAA employee is working from home under COVID is while surfing the web for non-complient drone videos.

 

[Meta4]

Depends on how bored an FAA employee is working from home under COVID is while surfing the web for non-complient drone videos.

Some people have a weird idea of how the FAA works.
With many thousands of licensed 107 pilots out there, do you really think FAA people are checking each bit of aerial video, to see if it was done by a 107 holder?
How would they know?
FAA personnel have plenty of better uses for their time.

 

[sar104]

FAA does not care about intent, only results. If your video shows up in public, promoting a company that makes money, regardless if you were paid or not, your video and thus you, are considered a commercial endeavor and you need a license. Will you be 'caught'? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how bored an FAA employee is working from home under COVID is while surfing the web for non-complient drone videos.

You have it exactly backwards - the applicability of 49 U.S.C §44809 is determined purely by intent.

Some people have a weird idea of how the FAA works.
With many thousands of licensed 107 pilots out there, do you really think FAA people are checking each bit of aerial video, to see if it was done by a 107 holder?
How would they know?
FAA personnel have plenty of better uses for their time.

Definitely. There's a lot of projection going on.

 

[Deleted member 137163]

Threads like this or should I say dragged out "digging ones heals in" usually make me take a day or 2 off from the Forum ha ha! I will leave it at that. Actually I would say end the insanity and close this one until the next time

 

[DoomMeister]

Threads like this or should I say dragged out "digging ones heals in" usually make me take a day or 2 off from the Forum ha ha! I will leave it at that. Actually I would say end the insanity and close this one until the next time

That is the reason there is an Ignore Thread button at the top of the page. As long as rules are not being broken, it is not justifiable to close the thread in most cases.

 

[Deleted member 137163]

That is the reason there is an Ignore Thread button at the top of the page. As long as rules are not being broken, it is not justifiable to close the thread in most cases.

DoomMeister, thanks for your work as Moderator!! You are more than correct in your response. I guess you have to appreciate the passion on each side of issues. Of course I was the one that continued to get deeper into the thread and frustrate myself so my fault! I honestly have never been a forum guy in the past and did not know about the IGNORE BUTTON. Great concept and I will use it. I appreciate your feedback and guidance.