Recreation or Part 107 ?????

[bobmoore1954]

Here's a hypothetical situation, would this be recreational flying (44809) or Part 107 flying?

There's a club of drone enthusiasts in a community with an HOA. Arguably, organized flying within the club is for fun. But what if they fly to take photos and video of community landscaping for use by the HOA for the purpose of assessing the condition of landscaping. Would this fall under 44809 or Part 107.

I think the answer is pretty clear (it's Part 107), but I would like to hear other's opinions.

 

[mobilehomer]

107 all the way.

 

[Vic Moss]

100% 107.

49 USC 44809 are the rules to fly under the recreational exception. The first limitation (of 8) that must be met is : "(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes."

That is not a reactional flight, so it must be flown under 107 rules.

 

[Rich QR]

You can't perform recreation for others.

How strictly should you interpret the phrase "strictly for recreational purposes"? Consider that Congress DID insert the word "strictly" into that phrase.

Here's another opinion that you've described a Part 107 flight.

 

[drhitch54]

Interesting thread.....If you go to the Litchi app's web site, they host a library of thousands of drone flights, most of which appear to be posted by recreational flyers. Now, if that YouTu8be video is then viewed by the property owner (e.g. school campus, lakefront park, etc) the original pilot and footage is still considered "recreational" even if the 3rd-party viewer uses the video and knowledge for some other purpose?

 

[okw]

Interesting thread.....If you go to the Litchi app's web site, they host a library of thousands of drone flights, most of which appear to be posted by recreational flyers. Now, if that YouTu8be video is then viewed by the property owner (e.g. school campus, lakefront park, etc) the original pilot and footage is still considered "recreational" even if the 3rd-party viewer uses the video and knowledge for some other purpose?

It only matters what the intention was at the time of the flight. As long as it was "recreational" at the time of the flight, you can do anything with the photos/video at a later date and that won't change the original intention.

 

[BigAl07]

Interesting thread.....If you go to the Litchi app's web site, they host a library of thousands of drone flights, most of which appear to be posted by recreational flyers. Now, if that YouTu8be video is then viewed by the property owner (e.g. school campus, lakefront park, etc) the original pilot and footage is still considered "recreational" even if the 3rd-party viewer uses the video and knowledge for some other purpose?

Keep in mind that the FAA is about Flight Safety and FAA rules & regulations only pertain to flights outside and ONLY to the flights.

As noted already, what happens after the flight is of no concern to the FAA but the intent/reason for the flight. It seems confusing but when you look at it at it's most basic concept it's much easier to understand.

 

[Rich QR]

Keep in mind that the FAA is about Flight Safety and FAA rules & regulations only pertain to flights outside and ONLY to the flights.

As noted already, what happens after the flight is of no concern to the FAA but the intent/reason for the flight. It seems confusing but when you look at it at it's most basic concept it's much easier to understand.

That's absolutely correct. But it's also worth repeating that if a pattern starts to appear where a particular operator repeatedly makes "strictly recreational" flights, and then makes non-recreational use of the footage, eventually the repeated pattern may cause the authorities to question whether the flights were genuinely "strictly recreational" after all.

How much repetition does it take? I don't know. How strictly do you have to interpret the phrase "strictly recreational"? I don't know that, either.

 

[Ty Pilot]

How much repetition does it take? I don't know. How strictly do you have to interpret the phrase "strictly recreational"? I don't know that, either.

Seems pretty clear to me when one understands the definition of 'strictly'

 

[lookout]

I don't quite understand what intent of flight has to do with uncontrolled airspace. As long as you aren't interfering with controlled airspace, the FAA shouldn't really care what you are doing with your quad. Enroute airspace is above what quads are allowed to fly at for the most part.

If you file a waiver in controlled airspace, the FAA is gonna look at your plan real close for possible problems, and those jurisdictions of airspace are clearly documented.

 

[Vic Moss]

You can fly in controlled airspace under recreational or recreational or 107. Recreational can’t fly at night or above limits, but that’s it.

And it’s not a waiver, it’s an Airspace Authorization. Recreational can’t apply for waivers either.

And the reason for the recreational restrictions is that there is no safety training for recreational operators. And no CBO safety guidelines.

This may change once FAA crafted CBO guidelines are published.