Question about recreational footage and the news

[mavic3usa]

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?"

Got it! See you in the next thread...or not. Up to you.

 

[Myetkt]

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?"

A couple of my favorites..

“Normally I don't advise anyone to go to the police for any reason”

“It's my job to see and recognize the invisible threats to the hobby and deal with them ahead of time so you don't have to.”

Actually I took the first one kinda personal, but I’ll get over it.

 

[Myetkt]

Got it! See you in the next thread...or not. Up to you.

Got a little to hot in the old kitchen huh..

 

[MS Coast]

You're nitpicking.

Post #43: "... 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."

It's not happening. Fiction presented as fact. There's a nit that needs picking. Proud to pick it.

 

[Zbip57]

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

I've been chewing on this comment.

I know we're not allowed to discuss American politics here, so I definitely won't go there, other than to say the entire world is watching. I did get heavily into a political discussion on another forum, a plumbing forum no less, and was told something quite similar. As a Canadian, I should butt out of the discussion, since this was an "American" plumbing forum.

I know Vic Moss is far more tactful than that, and I suspect that's not really what he's saying. I'm guessing he meant to say I'm lucky to be Canadian and thus unaffected by the FAA's continued struggles with their distinction between recreational vs non-recreational flight operations. As a Canadian, I do count my blessings every day. We also don't (yet) have any silly requirement for Remote ID.

Nonetheless, what the FAA does within the USA absolutely DOES matter to us here in Canada as I do sometimes travel to the USA. I've just given up on bringing any of my drones with me.

It was the FAA who first introduced the requirement for registration for model aircraft, as though that would somehow makes the skies safer from idiots flying drones. It was the FAA who came up with the idea that 250 grams was a reasonable criteria upon which to base the deciding criteria on whether your drone is heavy enough to require registration and stringent regulation, or whether its weight is of sufficiently inconsequential risk.

Those regulations, and others, were subsequently directly copied across most of the rest of the world, including here in Canada. Regulations imposed by the FAA tend to ripple outward across borders, rarely the other way around. So, even if Canada chooses to go a different route, it's unlikely for us to affect the way things are done within the USA.

But I'm still mystified why the FAA insists on retaining the distinction between recreational vs non-recreational operations, when that has nothing to do with safety.

The weight of a sub-250g drone is considered so inconsequential that it doesn't even need to be registered. But if you use the same harmless sub-250g drone to inspect your neighbour's roof (or your own?), or your neighbour's sailboat mast (or your own?), suddenly the drone needs to be registered and must carry a remote ID module and you must be Part 107 certified?!?

And nobody sees that as bonkers?

 

[Droning on and on...]

And nobody sees that as bonkers?

I'm puzzled why you say that.

I've explicitly said I agree with you. Others have implied in posts that this is a meaningless distinction.

What I've seen mostly in this thread is confusion, and people trying to answer what that regs are right now, not what they should be.

I think if you put the question directly to the community here in a dedicated thread, you'd find most of share your view. Multiple levels of certification based on drone weight, and mission requirements; escalating knowledge, skill, and testing requirements as the drone gets heavier and the mission requirements get more complex and require more skill.

I suspect few would disagree with this.

But that's not how it is right now, and that's what this thread was about.

 

[Zbip57]

I'm puzzled why you say that.
I've explicitly said I agree with you. Others have implied in posts that this is a meaningless distinction.
What I've seen mostly in this thread is confusion, and people trying to answer what that regs are right now, not what they should be.

That confusion could (should!) be very easily removed by deleting any reference to "recreational" from your regulations.

How often are questions posted in these forums asking for specific clarification whether it's permitted to fly higher than 400', or within controlled airspace, or beyond VLOS, or whatever, within the relaxed set of § 44809 exemptions, without full Part 107 qualification? Almost never, because those restrictions are all crystal clear and make perfect sense.

You are permitted to fly under this streamlined and relaxed set of rules because it's considered less of a risk to safety when operating within those important limitations. If you have a valid need to exceed those limitations, then you need the full Part 107 qualification. That makes sense.

But the questions posted almost always revolve around the confusion generated by whether the "intent" qualifies as "recreational" or not. The answers frequently result in even more confusion, not less, because everyone (even within the FAA) has different opinions.

The threshold of what people prefer to believe is or isn't "recreational" has absolutely no relevance on whether the flight can be conducted safely or not.

The question should be, "While staying under 400' in Class-G airspace within VLOS, do I require a full Part 107 licence or am I okay with just § 44809 if I want to fly my drone to the top of my sailboat's mast?"

If all that matters is whether it can be done safely, then the answer should be obvious. But the forum discussions always devolve into ridiculous arguments of whether you're flying just for fun or whether you're trying to accomplish something useful, as though that criteria is far more important than safety. It's completely absurd.

But that's not how it is right now, and that's what this thread was about.

The question asked by the original poster, was whether he can freely give away footage to a news outlet if it was recorded during a "recreational" flight. And here we are four pages later. Sheesh.

In Canada, nobody cares whether I use my unregistered sub-250g Mavic Mini for fun or commercial jobs like Real Estate photos or whatever. The only requirement is that I don't interfere with manned flight or create a hazard to people or property on the ground.

Meanwhile, in the Land of the Free, where Free Speech is enshrined in your Constitution, you have people worried whether the FAA allows giving away video footage for free. It's absurd.

I suspect few would disagree with this.

Which is why I was surprised when Vic Moss wrote this:

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.
[...] In this case, "intent" certainly makes one flight more dangerous than another.

I know that them's the rule, and this is how you got there. But, WHY is it not about safe or unsafe? Isn't that the FAA's entire purpose?

The "intent" to have fun versus doing anything useful, has no bearing on whether a flight can be conducted safely within the parameters of all the other rules that actually do address safety.

 

[mavic3usa]

In the US, if flying a drone is going to be a hobby like skiing or fishing or jogging or painting then there has to be a path where no "license" or "permit" is involved and no training, signing of documents, required insurance, etc....otherwise, it's not purely recreational in nature. I suspect this may be the primary reason for why it is narrowly structured the way it is. What we are seeing is about a handoffs as they were able to make it without compromising safety (i.e. TRUST, CBO).

Part 107 is not a commercial drone license; it's a license to fly a drone for *anything* except recreational.

 

[Droning on and on...]

The "intent" to have fun versus doing anything useful, has no bearing on whether a flight can be conducted safely within the parameters of all the other rules that actually do address safety.

In my case, preaching to the choir.

 

[Droning on and on...]

In the US, if flying a drone is going to be a hobby like skiing or fishing or jogging or painting

Its not like skiing or fishing or jogging or painting, in some very significant ways. Those differences more than justify regulation.

then there has to be a path where no "license" or "permit" is involved and no training, signing of documents, required insurance, etc....otherwise, it's not purely recreational in nature.

B.S.

Another hobby of mine is (powerful) electric scooters. I have a Dualtron Thunder.

The fact I have to have a driver's license to ride it on public roads, am not allowed to take it on sidewalks, and myriad other regulations makes no difference to the hobby status of this pursuit.

Cars have always been a hobby as well. Think they're licensed and regulated? Should they not be so they can really be a hobby?

 

[mavic3usa]

Its not like skiing or fishing or jogging or painting, in some very significant ways. Those differences more than justify regulation.

Wow, let the nitpicking begin (again). I didn't say droning is like skiing. I'm not sure why you think flying a drone is like jogging or painting. I don't want to talk about that, the differences are obvious and irrelevant to my point. Anyway, back to my point:

I said droning is a hobby. There are thousands of hobbies in America. I'll spare you with some of these example hobbies are (because apparently that triggers you), use your imagination.

Here you go to clear up the "confusion:"

In the US, if flying a drone is going to be a hobby like skiing or fishing or jogging or painting then there has to be a path where no "license" or "permit" is involved and no training, signing of documents, required insurance, etc....otherwise, it's not purely recreational in nature.

I welcome your comments and feedback on what it takes to be a hobby; happy to hear your opinions on that but you have mine as well.

Personally I feel like true hobbies in America don't require permits or licenses otherwise they aren't hobbies. Not saying you can't have them (for commercial work or other reasons) but requiring a government license to have fun with a hobby isn't exactly a hobby and Congress agree with my opinion.

My opinion is not up for debate; not going to back this up (my call) which is the common goto for some of the nitpickers here; maybe I will later (if I choose) but first, we'll address my serious points (or not).

Cars have always been a hobby as well. Think they're licensed and regulated? Should they not be so they can really be a hobby?

Welcome to debate this elsewhere but in the context which I used it, driving a car is not a hobby so it's ok to have and probably needs government licensing and regulating to a large degree. Cars as a hobby is a broad statement. The hobby with cars that I am aware of like painting cars and repairing cars and similar don't always require a government license. Yes there are aspects of painting and repairing cars that may require permitting (especially when it comes to commercial work) and that's ok (never said it was not ok to have some; just not all). But in my opinion to be a hobby, there has to be a permit-free alternative. 100% government permitting is not a hobby. My point again if you live in America and you think you have a hobby and you are prohibited from having fun with it unless you get a government license then it's not a hobby. If you have fun doing something and your permit is revoked or suspended by the government so you can no longer do it, it's not a hobby.

Driving a vehicle on a public roadway is not a hobby in my definition and in my posts. Feel free to change up the definition to whatever feels good to you in your own posts but in my posts, it's stands (NOT a hobby). If you want to nitpick some edge case or corner case in a small town in western Nebraska where you don't need a license to drive a farm tractor on the highway after midnite....go for it, have fun with it. Everything has exceptions, post them here for entertainment if you wish.

There is no recreational component to flying a drone in the US airspace as a hobby if it is 100% government licensed (i.e. there has to be at least a path to enjoy it without a permit) and thank goodness we have that. I'm going to do whatever I can to keep it that way knowing there are folks who would prefer *everyone* to get a government license to fly a drone.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I knew it was a mistake to respond to someone with their own personal, private vocabulary.

From here on, I will not make that mistake again, as hard as it may be.