Question about recreational footage and the news

[Droning on and on...]

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

In my entire life leveling an accusation of "playing word games" has never been a friendly thing to say, unless the two parties are very familiar with each other and can read non-verbal indications that they're just poking fun.

YMMV.

BTW, thank you for sharing the CAA scheme, I was unaware of the details. It seems very sensible. Especially juxtaposed against the braindead US system.

 

[Zbip57]

Again, sorry. It truly wasn't meant to be insulting.

It's an extension of what Vic said, that I'm looking at it the wrong way around.

Part 107 is less "restrictive" for holders of that licence, as it allows them to do stuff that recreational pilots are not permitted to do. But looking at it the other way around, Part 107 is more restrictive because recreational pilots are not allowed to do stuff unless they upgrade to a Part 107 licence. Hence my word-game comment.

Whether it's more or less restrictive depends on which side of the fence you're sitting on.

My only objection to § 44809 is the first clause making it apply only to recreational flights. Wouldn't the entire thing make way more sense if just that one clause was removed?

Yes, operate according to CBO rules, within VLOS, give way to manned aviation, fly only in Class G airspace, fly below 400', etc, etc. Each of those make perfect sense. Those are all justifiable limitations based on potential risk to safety. If you have a need to fly higher, farther, in controlled airspace, etc, then you need the full Part 107 qualifications. That makes sense too.

The FAA says people can be TRUSTed to fly safely under that simple set of limited regulations, but what possible justification is there for adding the bit that it must be only recreational?

If someone is flying safely over their own house, fully in respect of every other one of those § 44809 restrictions, why should the FAA even care whether you're taking photos or video of the scene only for your own fun versus for the purpose of looking at the shingles or rain gutters? If you can do it safely under those rules, it makes no difference whatsoever if you're doing it for your own benefit or for your neighbour, paid or not.

You can be TRUSTed to fly over your house taking pictures from every angle for your own fun, but can't post the photos for Real Estate purposes without a Part 107 licence. Why not?

Sure, there's a difference if you're shooting Real Estate photos of house located right next to a busy airport. There you'd need a Part 107 authorization. That makes sense. But if you're below 400' in Class G airspace?

Every other rule in those exemptions makes good sense with respect to safety. It's only that bit about recreational that's absurd. It has nothing at all to do with safety.

If you dropped just that one clause, "recreational", the result would be very similar to Canada's current two levels of regulations. Basic for simple operations away from people in Class-G airspace, and Advanced for more risky operations. It's purely about safety.

 

[mavic3usa]

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

Not questioning your result, no say you faked the response or anything; I honestly believe that's the reply you got from someone on the other end. But I thought I explain why someone should 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.

Maybe that's not a good enough reason to double-check and therefore, sure; let it stand. I'm happy to go along with that reply. Works for me.

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.

Wow, you sound like me. I've said it dozens of times in the past, the drones need to be treated like everything else. You don't need a commercial license to take a dslr and snap two dozen pictures at a wedding hosted in my own backyard and so why would you need a part 107 to fly a drone at a wedding in my own backyard and take two dozen pictures? I'm for that, I love that! That makes me happy!

I have a dozen posts (unless they've been deleted) where I go on and on about I should able to string up a small package and fly my drone to the other side of the property and drop it off..... You don't need a commercial license to delivery on your own property so why with a drone? If you want to fly a drone routinely around the property for surveillance instead of walking it or driving the 4x4....let's do it with a drone?

What confused me is the "ownership" thing and your own property which I understand but I saw no references, nothing about owning anything from the FAA but if that's now a factor, nice....I "own" alot. This changes everything. I can perform a whole bunch of missions for myself, that's for sure.

I have personally said the FAA will never go to court on this (and related), not because they'll lose but because it will set the table and that's why they heap on a dozen charges and super fines up to $50,000 so you won't fight it in court but plea agree to $100 fine and no push back and the FAA gets to keep their impressionable non-enforceable silly rules. As an activist, I've been hoping for the community to pull together and bite the bullet together and force the issue (in court) but that take a lot of time, money, coordination, patience, unity, and understanding and the community has none of that right now (bigger fish to fry) because they like it the way it is. That being said, if the FAA just caved in to some of this with your reply, I'll take it! TU

 

[Droning on and on...]

Wow, you sound like me.

Not really. To wit:

I've said it dozens of times in the past, the drones need to be treated like everything else. You don't need a commercial license to take a dslr and snap two dozen pictures at a wedding hosted in my own backyard and so why would you need a part 107 to fly a drone at a wedding in my own backyard and take two dozen pictures?

That's overly broad and therefore not what i was saying.

I was making a much narrower assertion, that using your own drone for any purpose that serves yourself exclusively is allowable under 44809. It has nothing to do with who owns the land beneath the mission. Filming someone else's wedding in your backyard still requires a 107, since you are providing the service for someone else.

While the Support Center did not make the more general statement above but addressed the specific case of inspecting the mast myself on my own boat, I think the more general DIY interpretation reasonable.

 

[MS Coast]

... that's why they heap on a dozen charges and super fines up to $50,000 so you won't fight it in court but plea agree to $100 fine and no push back and the FAA gets to keep their impressionable non-enforceable silly rules.

Where have you seen this happen? Recreational or Part 107 pilots? When? How did you learn of the cases? Where can we read about them?

Can you point us to references for a couple of these cases where the FAA filed a dozen charges against a drone pilot and threatened large fines to force them to plead guilty and pay a $100 fine?

 

[mavic3usa]

I was making a much narrower assertion, that using your own drone for any purpose that serves yourself exclusively is allowable under 44809. It has nothing to do with who owns the land beneath the mission. Filming someone else's wedding in your backyard still requires a 107, since you are providing the service for someone else.

While the Support Center did not make the more general statement above but addressed the specific case of inspecting the mast myself on my own boat, I think the more general DIY interpretation reasonable.

Oh ok, as long as I film my own wedding and it can be anywhere else like at the church? Can I share it with anyone else or does it have to "serve myself exclusively?"

 

[mavic3usa]

Where have you seen this happen? Recreational or Part 107 pilots? When? How did you learn of the cases? Where can we read about them?

Can you point us to references for a couple of these cases where the FAA filed a dozen charges against a drone pilot and threatened large fines to force them to plead guilty and pay a $100 fine?

One issue at a time, please. Can't focus on both; I'm just trying to understand the FAA answer (which we are allowed to question). It's a positive answer but if it had been negative, I think we still should be able to question it. Trying to figure out the FAA recreational vs. part 107 question and make sure I understand it fully before I go out and change the way I fly as a recreational pilot. Once I'm there, I'll try to get back to these non-serious off-topic questions nitpicking if by then the thread is still open to your squabbling and your attempts to derail the conversation. I made this statement about my thoughts on the FAA before and you (or someone) asked these same questions and I answer it then so not sure why it keeps getting asked; it's the same answer. Maybe just refer to the other thread in the meantime. I'm working on this; just please ignore my assertions/opinions for now. Maybe ask something on topic like where have I heard the FAA say inspecting your own roof requires a part 107.

 

[MS Coast]

Once I'm there, I'll try to get back to these non-serious off-topic questions nitpicking if by then the thread is still open to your squabbling and your attempts to derail the conversation.

Easy there, now.

I'm seriously interested in understanding the nitty-gritty of your reports that the FAA is piling up charges and threatening enormous fines against drone pilots. I'm not squabbling with you, just asking for examples and details so that I can dig into the facts myself.

If you see that as off topic and derailing the conversation, please start a new thread and make your case. I'll stay tuned.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Oh ok, as long as I film my own wedding and it can be anywhere else like at the church? Can I share it with anyone else or does it have to "serve myself exclusively?"

An issue was raised about using a drone for one's own, personal work. I asked the FAA. I posted the answer here.

Your interrogation goes far and wide from what I asked the FAA.

You're questions are better asked of the FAA, or your Congressman.

 

[mavic3usa]

If you see that as off topic and derailing the conversation, please start a new thread and make your case. I'll stay tuned.

As I mentioned, I've started a thread on it before and/or I chimed in on it when it's relative to someone else's post in as much details as I had at the time so maybe you should start a new topic, ask the questions, and I'll jump in if appropriate.

Otherwise, sure I'll be happy to start another topic later (currently got alot of activity to tend to in the many current threads already) *or* the next time you read my comments about the FAA cases and rulings and you have questions, happy to address them in the thread about the FAA court case. It will read something like this (but not exactly) hypothetical: "Authorities charge pilot with 6 crimes for flying his drone near a rock concert, the fines could reach up to $50,000." Six months later, victim says "I can't talk about it but I plead guilty and paid $200 fine...." My comment goes along the line of "those were bogus charges to begin with but when faced with a federal trial and $50,000 fine, of course you're going to plea out to $200 and education." And then I would go on to comment something along the lines "Another missed opportunity to take the FAA to court to get a ruling whether flying a drone in a Best Buy parking lot doing circles on football Sunday near the stadium warrants a flying without a part 107 license charge." Seems to me the FAA is [mis]using the process to avoid..... We don't get the legal answer, not sure how to prove it but we'll work on that when you dive in the next time, the appropriate time this comes up; don't forget. Several options I threw out for you.

In this thread I'd like to focus a bit more on [new found] characteristics of recreational drone flight because, as a law-abiding citizen, I'm about to expand my horizons. Maybe all those youtubers and others flying their drones were right after all.

 

[mavic3usa]

You're questions are better asked of the FAA, or your Congressman.

You are right, no problem. Thanks for asking the original question to the FAA; very insightful.

 

[MS Coast]

As I mentioned, I've started a thread on it before and/or I chimed in on it when it's relative to someone else's post in as much details as I had at the time so maybe you should start a new topic, ask the questions, and I'll jump in if appropriate.

Otherwise, sure I'll be happy to start another topic later (currently got alot of activity to tend to in the many current threads already) *or* the next time you read my comments about the FAA cases and rulings and you have questions, happy to address them in the thread about the FAA court case. It will read something like this (but not exactly) hypothetical: "Authorities charge pilot with 6 crimes for flying his drone near a rock concert, the fines could reach up to $50,000." Six months later, victim says "I can't talk about it but I plead guilty and paid $200 fine...." My comment goes along the line of "those were bogus charges to begin with but when faced with a federal trial and $50,000 fine, of course you're going to plea out to $200 and education." And then I would go on to comment something along the lines "Another missed opportunity to take the FAA to court to get a ruling whether flying a drone in a Best Buy parking lot doing circles on football Sunday near the stadium warrants a flying without a part 107 license charge." Seems to me the FAA is [mis]using the process to avoid..... We don't get the legal answer, not sure how to prove it but we'll work on that when you dive in the next time, the appropriate time this comes up; don't forget. Several options I threw out for you.

In this thread I'd like to focus a bit more on [new found] characteristics of recreational drone flight because, as a law-abiding citizen, I'm about to expand my horizons. Maybe all those youtubers and others flying their drones were right after all.

I'll be interested in any non-hypothetical cases of the FAA issuing excessive fines for drone regulation violations.

From what I know, the FAA has been extraordinarily lenient with one-time offenders and have issued monetary fines only in cases where there were repeated, egregious, and blatant violations.

 

[mavic3usa]

I'll be interested in any non-hypothetical cases of the FAA issuing excessive fines for drone regulation violations.

From what I know, the FAA has been extraordinarily lenient with one-time offenders and have issued monetary fines only in cases where there were repeated, egregious, and blatant violations.

Cool, see you in the next thread when we have a real non-hypothetical example to discuss to avoid any confusion:

We agree.

my little hypothetical example: "Authorities charge pilot with 6 crimes for flying his drone near a rock concert, the fines could reach up to $50,000." <-Excessive

my little hypothetical example: ... plea out to $200 and education." <-Lenient outcome

 

[MS Coast]

Cool, see you in the next thread when we have a real non-hypothetical example to discuss to avoid any confusion:

We agree.

Well, don't raise the alarm until there's a real, non-hypothetical wolf. And don't get excited when news stories mention maximum fines. And note that those maximum fines are set by Congress, not by the FAA.


Neither one is real.

 

[Myetkt]

Cool, see you in the next thread when we have a real non-hypothetical example to discuss to avoid any confusion:

We agree.

Translation, mods please close this thread down before I actually have to back up the BS I say.

 

[mavic3usa]

Well, don't raise the alarm until there's a real, non-hypothetical wolf. And don't get excited when news stories mention maximum fines. And note that those maximum fines are set by Congress, not by the FAA.

View attachment 177803
Neither one is real.

You're nitpicking.

 

[mavic3usa]

Translation, mods please close this thread down before I actually have to back up the BS I say.

No, I vote we keep this thread open. You can discuss and talk in more than one thread at a time on different topics. Go over there, somewhere else, I'll be over there if you need me. Anyone who wants to keep discussing "Question about recreational footage and the news" or related, feel free to keep going. Someone tried to get me to go into something about FAA case evidence and I had to shut that down in a few posts; minor distraction.

 

[Myetkt]

No, I vote we keep this thread open. You can discuss and talk in more than one thread at a time on different topics. Go over there, somewhere else, I'll be over there if you need me. Anyone who wants to keep discussing "Question about recreational footage and the news" or related, feel free to keep going. Someone tried to get me to go into something about FAA case evidence and I had to shut that down in a few posts; minor distraction.

Translation, please Myetkt I can’t back up what I say so I’m done with this thread.

 

[mavic3usa]

Translation, please Myetkt I can’t back up what I say so I’m done with this thread.

Nah, I'm still here. Waiting to hear more about part 107 vs. recreational.

Thinking about rescinding my offer to participate in a future thread on the topic since you're not taking this seriously. We're about to get DJI banned and all you and a few other care about and want to do is nitpick and play games.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Your nitpicking.

Not really. You're hypotheticals are so far fetched as to lack credibility without some real example. As such people are dismissive of your arguments, and you're not convincing anyone.

Similar to this: "So, I stepped out on the back deck, started flapping my arms real fast, and what d'ya know, I took off! Flapped harder, and started really climbing. Did I mention I can sense barometric pressure? Well I can, and ya know, I flew right up to 500ft.

After a Precision Landing, the whole thing got me thinking... How is this handled in the regs? Does the 400' ceiling apply in this case? It was a purely recreational flight, and I was VLOS the entire time. What do you all think?"