I currently fly an old MPP with add on RID module, but sometimes I am not allowed to take off due to the drone location. Do those same restrictions apply to drones under the 250 g threshold, such as a Mavic Mini? For example, if I want to fly up and inspect the top of my sailboat mast which is only 50 feet high.
Same restrictions for <250 g
- Thread starter Pieter Einthoven
- Start date
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
I am not sure what you mean that you can't launch because of drone location....however performing a survey on the mast of your sailboat is considered to be other than recreational and would require you to posses 107 certification, no matter what drone you use or is weight.
If you mean that DJI will not let you take off, that is DJI's geo fencing.
DJI is not the FAA and DJI's geo fencing may or may not be accurate if you are allowed to fly there.
To answer your question.
The drone not taking off is most likely DJI geofencing (Assumption due to lack of information).
As MARK stated, if you want to be technical about it, you need a Part 107 to inspect your mast.
DJI is not the FAA and DJI's geo fencing may or may not be accurate if you are allowed to fly there.
To answer your question.
The drone not taking off is most likely DJI geofencing (Assumption due to lack of information).
As MARK stated, if you want to be technical about it, you need a Part 107 to inspect your mast.
If you photograph or video your boats mast and then give that video to a "repairman" to quote you a price for repairs. THEN you are generating value for the inspector ( by not having to inspect visually) and your flight would be considered a part 107 flight. The same applies to roofs and such I think. Inspect all you want yourself BUT I think if you get an estimate from a roofer based on your video you would need to be part 107 cert. ?? Its pretty grey really.
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
If you fly up and take a picture of the mast because you want a picture of a mast to hang on your wall, or to show your friends ...that is recreational....if you are going up to see if it is damaged, or needs paint, or if a bird nested, whether the conditions exist, or not...it is commercial use and you need 107
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure that's true, Mark.
I'm pretty sure you can use a drone to inspect your own property without a 107, because there's no commercial transaction taking place, no money being exchanged for the value of the service.
Just as you don't need a 107 to produce and post drone videos for fun, or blow up and frame some exceptional picture you took and hang it on your wall.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
Well, I still disagree. Gonna ask the UAS help folks at the FAA. I'll post the response.
This discussion pops up from time to time.
I really do not see this ever being a problem unless you are violating other rules.
I really do not see this ever being a problem unless you are violating other rules.
If one of your friends admiring your great photography notices a crack in your mast is it now all of a sudden a part 107 flight? I think if you got a quote to fix the mast based solely on the picture or video it would be a commercial flight. If the person climbs a latter for a better look and then gives you an estimate that would be different.
ALSO if your intent is to take pics of your boat and not to "inspect" the boat and then upon examination of the pic you notice Damage thats a different thing still....Its all about INTENT.
Last edited:
^I agree with the INTENT part. If you are in the US then every single flight from your drone requires part 107 in order to be legal. However, there's are exceptions and here's one of them: If you intend to take off and fly your drone for fun for recreational purposes then you don't need part 107. Anything other than that, part 107 is required.
To answer your question more specifically, if you drone won't take off for the reason your mentioned, lightening it to under 250 won't change that. Whatever restrictions apply your heavy drone also apply to your light drone (except registration).
To answer your question more specifically, if you drone won't take off for the reason your mentioned, lightening it to under 250 won't change that. Whatever restrictions apply your heavy drone also apply to your light drone (except registration).
You folks are just showing how extremely pedantic you can be.
The Taliban would be more lenient in their interpretation.
It's amazing how often this nonsense shows up here.
Last edited:
My question was really about the geo-fencing part (or whatever else is the cause of the DJI Go4 app not letting me takeoff). I assume the same thing happens with smaller drones but was not sure.
Thanks for answering my original question
Did learn a lot more about possibly needing a 107 license as well!
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
The part in red italics is not what I said.....if you fly and inadvertently see something out of order when reviewing the flight, or just happen to capture some newsworthy event and wind up providing it to a news agency for their use ...as long as the purpose of the flight was to just go flying...that is fine.... If you go up with the intent of examining the mast for maintenance ....or you roof...or your neighbor's, or church's stuff it is commercial....you can disagree, but if you get asked a question of this nature on the 107 test and answer it any other way it will be marked as wrong.
Last edited:
I quoted two different members and their names are clearly shown in my post.
The hypothetical scenario of checking your own roof, that always shows up here, or this new one of checking the masthead of your yacht, matters not at all to anyone except a few Drone Taliban lawyers here on the forum.
They seem to think that you can only fly around in aimless circles, but if you dare use the drone to look at a roof or masthead, that's somehow verboten.
It would be hard to make up something so ridiculous.
YOU CAN.....................As long as the INTENT of your flight does NOT have a commercial purpose.
You can: Check your own property for damage to your hearts content BUT if the INTENT of your flight was to photograph the roof to receive an estimate for the work to be done. You are generating a profit for the Roofer and that falls under part 107.
Did I get that right or should I ask the other "Drone Taliban lawyers" on the forum.
We are in a debate about part 107 rules. If you know or have a different opinion state it clearly and concisely and I will either agree or disagree. NO ONE is saying that the drone police will be diving from the bushes, we are just debating the rules that's all. I nor none of the others claims to be a Drone Know-it-all. we simply state our views and ideas.
You may join in with your ideas if you like.....just don't dress them up in name calling and ridicule.
Last edited:
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
Agree.
Where we disagree is in the classification of personal activity being defined as commercial activity. I think it's not, and simply using the information you gather using your drone to engage in a completely separate commercial transaction (i.e. repair by a professional) doesn't transform the personal, non-contracted, non-business, non-compensated drone flight commercial.
If it does, then you owe income taxes for the value of the flight whether you paid yourself or not.
Again, I must disagree. The Roofer makes the same money whether your roof is repaired because you found damage climbing up there with a ladder, or inspect it with a drone. The Roofer gains nothing of value because a drone was used.
I've asked the UAS help center... I'll let everyone know what they say.
Last edited:
Here's another hypothetical example.
I program my drone to fly the EXACT SAME daily waypoint route (always within line-of-sight) around the shoreline of our small lake. Just for "fun" I intend to make a timelapse video combining the footage to illustrate the yearly progression of change of season.
It's the EXACT SAME hands-free flight repeated daily recording video each time. Then this:
But in #3, even though it's still the same flight, I deliberately plan to closely study the video afterwards with the intent of searching for evidence of the lost kayak. So it's not purely recreational, thus full Part 107 is required?
In #4, even though it's again the exact same flight, I deliberately "intend" to earn that case of beer as compensation. Part 107 required.
In #5, due to my many previous successes, I have now turned my daily flights into a profitable business.
However, each flight is exactly the SAME! It's the exact same hands-free, pre-programmed, waypoint flight in every case. The purpose of each flight, regardless of my "intent", has ZERO effect on the safe execution of each flight.
The risk is exactly the same in EACH case! As long as I am watching the drone line-of-sight as it flies the exact same path every day, and I'm always ready to resume control if required, WHY should it matter one iota to anybody (other than for taxation purposes) whether I'm doing this just for fun or for fruitful compensation?
There is ZERO difference in safety. If it's considered safe enough to be conducted under the recreational exemptions, WHY should more regulation be required if the EXACT SAME flight is repeated for a useful purpose??? It's a ridiculous distinction.
In Canada, there is no such distinction. If you fly a drone, here are our regulations. The SAME regs apply regardless of whether you're having fun or not, or whether you're earning money or not. The only distinctions are based on how heavy your drone is and where you plan to fly it (controlled vs uncontrolled airspace).
I program my drone to fly the EXACT SAME daily waypoint route (always within line-of-sight) around the shoreline of our small lake. Just for "fun" I intend to make a timelapse video combining the footage to illustrate the yearly progression of change of season.
It's the EXACT SAME hands-free flight repeated daily recording video each time. Then this:
- A normal uneventful every day "fun" recreational waypoint flight.
- Subsequently studying the video, one day I discover a RED canoe stranded in the bullrushes and send out an email to the lake association, and receive compensation in the form of grateful thanks and a pat on the back from the owner of the lost canoe.
- Another neighbour, hearing I do the same flight every day, asks me to keep a lookout for his lost BLUE kayak. It's the same "fun" hands-free waypoint flight as always, studying the video only after landing, spot the blue kayak, again my neighbour thanks me.
- Yet another neighbour, hearing of this success, offers me a case of beer if I can find his lost GREEN paddle board. Exact same hands-free flight. I watch the drone line-of-sight as usual and only study the video after landing. Bonus, I successfully earn a case of beer for locating my neighbour's lost paddle board.
- I actively advertise my services to the lake association, conducting the exact same hands-free daily waypoint flight, always watching the drone line-of-sight ready to take control if ever needed, only subsequently studying the recorded video for lost boats, animals, or missing neighbours who might turn up floating in the lake, and steadily earn myself a reputation and fortune in currency, free trips to Hawaii, sexual favours, whatever...
But in #3, even though it's still the same flight, I deliberately plan to closely study the video afterwards with the intent of searching for evidence of the lost kayak. So it's not purely recreational, thus full Part 107 is required?
In #4, even though it's again the exact same flight, I deliberately "intend" to earn that case of beer as compensation. Part 107 required.
In #5, due to my many previous successes, I have now turned my daily flights into a profitable business.
However, each flight is exactly the SAME! It's the exact same hands-free, pre-programmed, waypoint flight in every case. The purpose of each flight, regardless of my "intent", has ZERO effect on the safe execution of each flight.
The risk is exactly the same in EACH case! As long as I am watching the drone line-of-sight as it flies the exact same path every day, and I'm always ready to resume control if required, WHY should it matter one iota to anybody (other than for taxation purposes) whether I'm doing this just for fun or for fruitful compensation?
There is ZERO difference in safety. If it's considered safe enough to be conducted under the recreational exemptions, WHY should more regulation be required if the EXACT SAME flight is repeated for a useful purpose??? It's a ridiculous distinction.
In Canada, there is no such distinction. If you fly a drone, here are our regulations. The SAME regs apply regardless of whether you're having fun or not, or whether you're earning money or not. The only distinctions are based on how heavy your drone is and where you plan to fly it (controlled vs uncontrolled airspace).
Agreed and unfortunately in the US, part 107 has nothing to do with the flight characteristics or the safety aspects of the flight. In your examples, all of your [US] flights require a part 107 except for #1 and #2 because:
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
Canadian Basic Operations Licence in Europe
- Started by GhostRider2024
- Replies: 1
-
-
Forum statistics
