Question about recreational footage and the news

[Zbip57]

You feel the regulations that 107 certified pilots fly under are much more strict than recreational pilots?

Um, you're not actually suggesting that passing the Part 107 exam is as easy as the "TRUST" test for recreational flights, are you?

What I'm saying is, it's ridiculous that you can fly over your sailboat for fun under the recreational exemptions, but people insist you require a full Part 107 licence to do the same flight if you "intend" to inspect the top of your sailboat's mast.

It's ridiculous that you can fly over your house for fun under the recreational exemptions, but require a full Part 107 certification if you "intend" to check your roof gutters.

It's ridiculous that you're allowed to subsequently sell the video footage of your recreational flight as long as the flight was originally "intended" to be recreational, but you require a Part 107 licence if you did the flight with the "intent" of being paid for the video footage.

 

[CadrePilot]

Where this gets ambiguous is, what constitutes "commercial intent" when flying?

Pretty clear if you're doing it for someone else, that has hired you. Whether you get paid, or get pizza and beer afterwards is irrelevant.

But what about a flight that, were you to hire someone, would be commercial, but you do it yourself? Like, inspect your roof for damage, then fix it yourself. Is that a commercial flight simply because others sell drone roof inspection services?

Wouldn't that make taking pretty pictures with my drone, framing them and hanging them on my wall a commercial activity because others take pretty pictures with their drones, frame them, and sell them to others to hang on their walls? We know this is definitely NOT the case.

Back to the roof. After seeing damage with my drone, purposely flying it to see if there is damage, but instead hire a roofer to fix it, does that transform my flight to find the damage into a commercial flight?

Seems a stretch to me.

It's not ambiguous. Was the intent of the flight recreational? That's the only question that matters. After that, you're free to do whatever you like with the imaged/video collected.
Would you inspect your roof for recreation? No. Part 107 required.
You need to forget the word "commercial". It's not part of the rules.

 

[Zbip57]

Imagine trying to find Class G to fly or you're grounded.

To fly a "Small Remotely Piloted Aircaft" (250g-25kg) in Canada requires registration and either a Basic or Advanced certificate. Basic is easier to achieve but has greater limitations, such as not allowed to fly within controlled airspace, greater separation from bystanders, etc. If you need to fly within controlled airspace then the more difficult Advanced certificate is required, with stricter rules and permissions applied.

Under 250g needs no registration or test, simply don't interfere with manned flight and don't be a hazard to people on the ground, i.e. the "Don't be stupid" rule.

Transport Canada doesn't care whether you're flying for fun or business. The same rules apply to everyone. All that matters is how heavy your drone is, and where it's being flown. That's a whole lot simpler and makes waaaaaaaay more sense than your endless nonsensical splitting of hairs over differences in "intent".

 

[Meta4]

Why are professional non-recreational pilots deemed to be so much more dangerous as to require stricter Part 107 qualifications, when untrained amateur hobbyists can be trusted to fly safely under the recreational exemptions?

It's just a hangover from the FAA's way of looking at anything that flies as an aeroplane and applying their rules etc from that perspective.
Before Part 107 appeared, you had to have a real aeroplane licence to be able to fly drones commercially.
You needed an actual pilot's licence to legally fly a simple estate shoot.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Um, you're not actually suggesting that passing the Part 107 exam is as easy as the "TRUST" test for recreational flights, are you?

Of course not. I was very deliberate with my language, but it still might not be clear. Here's a different way of putting it: Do you think the regulations governing operation of their drones to be much more restrictive than for recreational pilots?

There are much more strict requirements for registration, aviation knowledge, and some other differences around waivers, etc. Call these "ground-based" regulatory differences. I'm talking about what we endlessly argue about around here: Regulation of flight operations.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Vic Moss]

It's ridiculous to imply that different regulations deserve to be applied in those two cases "Intent" does not make one case more safe or dangerous than the other.

You're still looking at it wrong. There are default rules, set by Congress, which are 107 as established. 44809 made it simpler for rec operators. It's not about safe or unsafe, it's about default or recreational.

As far as differences, 107 rules allow you to fly in more places, as well as fly outside established rules. 44809 was created in order to have an easier avenue of flight, albeit with more restrictions than 107 (CBO Safety Guidelines). 44809 requires less education since there are less responsibilities.

In this case, "intent" certainly makes one flight more dangerous that another. My 107 flights that can take place 2 miles away from me are much more risky than the 44809 rules which require VLOS at all time. Same thing about flying in a 0 Grid in controlled airspace, or even on airport property. Again, more risky, requiring more training. 44809 does not allow operators to operate in either of those scenarios. And since they aren't (or at least aren't supposed to be) partaking in the more risky flights, they don't need the more advances (& more expensive) training.

 

[ryguy80]

I think I would argue this is Part 107 work as this was service provided for someone else. Volunteer work for another organization, if you aren't compensated, could fall under Goodwill.

I don't think intent of what you are doing with the media factors into the equation. I mean I could declare every flight is for my purposes at time of flight and then turn around after the fact and sell footage to an organization. To me, that's still Part 107 work.

Recreational Flyers & Community-Based Organizations | Federal Aviation Administration

Did your drone registration expire or does it expire soon? The DroneZone is the FAA's official website for registration. If you are having trouble logging into the DroneZone, you may need to reset your password (PDF).

www.faa.gov

 

[mavic3usa]

I think I would argue this is Part 107 work as this was service provided for someone else. Volunteer work for another organization, if you aren't compensated, could fall under Goodwill.

I don't think intent of what you are doing with the media factors into the equation. I mean I could declare every flight is for my purposes at time of flight and then turn around after the fact and sell footage to an organization. To me, that's still Part 107 work.

Recreational Flyers & Community-Based Organizations | Federal Aviation Administration

Did your drone registration expire or does it expire soon? The DroneZone is the FAA's official website for registration. If you are having trouble logging into the DroneZone, you may need to reset your password (PDF).

www.faa.gov

You could do that, I think you could declare your intent to be recreational and then fly off and go do whatever you want (commercial or otherwise) with your drone but I believe your true intent could be judged by the totality of the situation in terms of what you've done during this flight as well as other flights (looking at the big picture) i.e. there's a little more to it than just a declaration of intent.

But yes, the type of flight is based on your intent for that particular singular flight but ultimately your flight could be determined to be under part 107 based on other factors that happened during that flight. For example, if you return from your "recreational" flight and you've captured footage that looks very similar to all the earlier footage you captured during your previous part 107 flights, that might be suspect.

More importantly, for example, if you "declare" this is a recreational flight and you intend to fly for fun and end up flying your drone to 450 feet AGL, then you could lose (or not qualify) for the recreational "exemption" (I'm using that phrase loosely) and your flight could be considered non-recreational and subject to part 107 which could get hairy.

 

[Zbip57]

Before Part 107 appeared, you had to have a real aeroplane licence to be able to fly drones commercially.

We went through a similar phase here. Originally our rule for "model aircraft" was simply don't be a hazard to manned aircraft or to people or property on the ground. But the definition of "model aircraft", as in the USA, included the wording that they were for recreational use. In Canada, any commercial use of remotely controlled aircraft required a full Special Flight Operations Certificate (SFOC) from Transport Canada.

The SFOC application and approval process was lengthy and cumbersome. With the advent of easy-to-fly drones, Transport Canada didn't have the manpower to handle all the SFOC applications. The regulations eventually changed, removing the artificial distinction between recreational vs commercial operation of remotely piloted aircraft.

If you fly, these are the rules. We don't care WHY you're flying. All that matters is WEIGHT class, WHERE you're flying, that you fly SAFELY while you're flying.

And of course, like your AMA, our Model Aeronautics Association of Canada (MAAC) protested that they didn't need new regulations. MAAC was issued an official exemption, provided they continued to operate safely by their own club rules under some other Transport Canada prescribed conditions.

That resulted in a similar (sort of) situation where the rules applied equally to everyone except MAAC members operating under their own rule set, which is (sort of) comparable to the USA with Part 107 versus Recreational Exemptions use.

Ultimately that MAAC exemption was revoked as a result of some MAAC member clubs not abiding by the set conditions. The Transport Canada regulations now apply equally to everyone, including MAAC members.

Which brings me to this...

Here's a different way of putting it: Do you think the regulations governing operation of their drones to be much more restrictive than for recreational pilots?

If we're playing word games, then no. Part 107 qualified pilots are allowed to operate in conditions not available to recreational pilots. So in that sense alone the regulations are less "restrictive" for holders of a Part 107 licence than they are for Recreational pilots.

And what many people seem to ignore, or are not aware of, is that the Recreational exemption does not remove the need to abide by any regulations. Recreational flyers are required under § 44809(a)(2) to follow the rules set by your "Community Based Organization" (i.e. AMA, or whatever), even when you're flying at home and not actually flying at an AMA field.

You're still looking at it wrong. [...], "intent" certainly makes one flight more dangerous that another. [1] My 107 flights that can take place 2 miles away from me are much more risky than the 44809 rules which require VLOS at all time. [2] Same thing about flying in a 0 Grid in controlled airspace, or even on airport property. Again, more risky, requiring more training. 44809 does not allow operators to operate in either of those scenarios.

Nope.

You've provided two examples about WHERE you need to fly, and have nothing to do with "intent" or the difference between recreational vs non-recreational.

We have similar differences in the required level of training. If I need to fly on airport property within controlled airspace, I am required to abide by the higher standards requirements set for Advanced Operations. If I never have the need to fly in controlled airspace, the simpler Basic Operations certificate is adequate. In either case, it makes no difference whatsoever whether the intent of the flight is for my own fun or for business.

And since they aren't (or at least aren't supposed to be) partaking in the more risky flights, they don't need the more advances (& more expensive) training.

When you fly your drone, as you say, "2 miles away from me", the level of risk is no different whether you're doing it just for fun or for business. If you want to fly your drone BVLOS 2 miles away, you need to comply with Part 107, whether it's for fun or business. That's fine. The same level of risk should require the same level of regulation.

What I find ridiculous is the other stuff that comes up again and again in these forums, and that's the bit in the exemptions, § 44809(a)(1): "The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes." This has no bearing on the level of risk.

If you're not flying your drone 2 miles away, and you're not flying in controlled airspace, you're allowed to fly over your house or over your sailboat just for fun as long as you abide by the less onerous Recreational Exemptions. But people keep insisting you need a full Part 107 if you want to check for leaves in your roof gutters or you want to check the top of your sailboat's mast, because that's not a recreational activity.

The "intent" to have idle fun versus the "intent" to do something useful with your drone should NOT be the determining factor deciding which level of regulations apply. It's ridiculous.

 

[Vic Moss]

The "intent" to have idle fun versus the "intent" to do something useful with your drone should NOT be the determining factor deciding which level of regulations apply. It's ridiculous.

I guess it doesn't matter since you're in Canada.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Okay, got my answer from the FAA UAS Support Center. Given the direction this discussion was going, I was surprised. Here's the question, and the answer I recieved:



This is how I thought it was... all personal activity with your drone is classified as "recreational", even if you're performing a service for yourself that's not recreational in intent.

At least that's how I interpret the above.

 

[MARK (LI)]

From the horse's mouth, so to speak...thank you for reaching out to them and getting back with that
......I hope I remember where this post is, because this subject is bound to come up again

 

[Vic Moss]

Okay, got my answer from the FAA UAS Support Center. Given the direction this discussion was going, I was surprised. Here's the question, and the answer I recieved:

View attachment 177791
View attachment 177792
This is how I thought it was... all personal activity with your drone is classified as "recreational", even if you're performing a service for yourself that's not recreational in intent.

At least that's how I interpret the above.

Glad to see them relaxing that aspect. In the past the questions were about checking your gutters. They always answered it's not recreational. Sounds like they are looking at the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law.

 

[mavic3usa]

The "intent" to have idle fun versus the "intent" to do something useful with your drone should NOT be the determining factor deciding which level of regulations apply. It's ridiculous.

for those TL;DR...... Bravo!

 

[Zbip57]

This is how I thought it was... all personal activity with your drone is classified as "recreational", even if you're performing a service for yourself that's not recreational in intent.

The fact that everyone (including the FAA) seems to have their own differing interpretations highlights even more strongly the fact that this is a ridiculous distinction.

So it's only okay if it's "your own boat"???

What if it's your father's boat? Or what if it actually is your own boat, but only your son/daughter nephew/niece, uncle/aunt, or guest knows how to fly the drone?

How is it any more dangerous, requiring a higher level of regulation, if you're sitting on your own boat using your drone to inspect your own mast for damage, versus sitting on the next dock on your neighbour's boat doing the exact same flight to inspect his mast for damage?

It's a ridiculous distinction no matter how you look at it!

 

[mavic3usa]

I suggest someone reach out to FAA and double-check. A government agency giving an answer is not unheard of, it's not unusual (ala see the huge mistake the CAA made recently). Pretty sure I've heard them say inspecting your own roof requires part 107 but that was awhile ago.

If this is true, then this is huge. Yet we cannot depend on the spirit of the law otherwise there are quite a few other places the spirit of the law could apply and I'm not sure they want that (i.e. searching the woods for my own dog not another person's dog, capturing my commentary for my own personal blog not a commercial blog, taking real estate photos of my own house so I can sell the house later, following my own kid during the soccer game not following "the team", or picking up my own meals from the nearby cafe not meals for the family. This doesn't even go into the spirit of the law when it comes to AGL or takeoff weight, etc. Would love for this to be true but having the FAA say it aloud is a bit different up to this point.

 

[Droning on and on...]

If we're playing word games, then no.

Gosh, man, can you engage in a friendly conversation without insults?

No games were being played. Simply put, I was thinking of flight operations when I read your statement, you were thinking of the other stuff. Misunderstanding. Cleared up. As simple, and ordinary as that. I'm not trying to play "gotcha".

 

[Droning on and on...]

What if it's your father's boat? Or what if it actually is your own boat, but only your son/daughter nephew/niece, uncle/aunt, or guest knows how to fly the drone?

Don't know... why don't you ask them?

I'm satisfied with the answer I got, for my purposes.

 

[Zbip57]

Gosh, man, can you engage in a friendly conversation without insults?

That really wasn't intended to be insulting. I apologize if you thought it was.

I don't have a problem with two levels of regulation, based on the degree of risk. If you need to fly BVLOS or within controlled airspace, or inspect towers taller than 400', it makes sense that you need a higher level of training and qualification. And it makes sense that a more lenient level of regulation should be adequate for less risky and simpler operations.

But it makes no sense whatsoever that the determining factor between those two levels of regulation should be whether you're merely having fun or whether you're doing something useful that's of any benefit to humanity.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I suggest someone reach out to FAA and double-check.

Why? If you don't trust my result, why don't you submit an inquiry?

If this is true, then this is huge.

Not really. It's consistent with the general treatment of DIY projects, tasks, etc. Across our code. We don't require people to get a contractor's license to remodel a bathroom themselves. Or a business license to do anything they could hire someone to. Myriad other examples.

This basic "common law" treatment of working with one's own property, really a part of "property rights".

And it's why I've been focusing on what constitutes "commercial" use of a drone, even though as Vic has clearly pointed out, the wording of 44809 focuses on recreational intent.

Pure speculation: I'm guessing the FAA realizes they would likely lose a suit over them disciplining a pilot for inspecting his own roof with his drone if taken to a jury. That's my belief, and I think the FAA thinks that too.

So I expect actual wording of 44809 notwithstanding, any personal use of a drone likely is viewed as falling under 44809, even if the purpose is for something other than "fun". The key point in the answer above seems to be whether or not the pilot is performing the mission for themselves, or someone else.