Yep. Fines can be levied against anyone breaking the law. Doing part 107 work without a 107 license can actually get you into trouble. Believe it or not.
Seriously? This is illegal?
- Thread starter Bad Santa
- Start date
cameracamel
Well-Known Member
I believe Gitmo, is nice this time of the year..............
I've said this before but I'll repeat it again. Every drone pilot in the US requires a part 107 to fly a drone in the NAS regardless of what you do. However, there is an exception and it's commonly known as the recreational exception which means if you intend to fly purely for fun then you are allowed to do so without first obtaining a permit.
If you don't "qualify" for the exception, you need a part 107 license. If you fly a drone in the NAS but not under the exception and you don't have a part 107 license, then it is illegal to fly the drone. The situation turns into flying a drone without a drone license. It's not about capturing pictures or selling video footage or making money or illegal sharing and posting, etc. You *are* flying a drone without a license and at that point, there are probably at least a dozen other violations that go along with that.
When the fines add up, they will be (could be) BIG. As far as I know, there are no provisions to excuse or minimize those actions and there's only discretion involved at this point. Typically I've heard the FAA chooses to provide education as a remedy to such violations and often the rogue drone pilot is allowed to forgo the highest penalties as long as they don't fight or push back on the FAA and go along with the "out of court" recommendations. For example, if you fly in LAANC without an authorization then you are likely guilty of operating a drone without a part 107 license. Perhaps the fine would be $10,000 but if instead you (re)learn how to gain LAANC, retake the TRUST, and pay $100 fine and don't challenge our rules in federal court then we'll "waive' the $10,000 fine. Or, you can work on getting your part 107 instead. I think the choice is obvious.
If you don't "qualify" for the exception, you need a part 107 license. If you fly a drone in the NAS but not under the exception and you don't have a part 107 license, then it is illegal to fly the drone. The situation turns into flying a drone without a drone license. It's not about capturing pictures or selling video footage or making money or illegal sharing and posting, etc. You *are* flying a drone without a license and at that point, there are probably at least a dozen other violations that go along with that.
When the fines add up, they will be (could be) BIG. As far as I know, there are no provisions to excuse or minimize those actions and there's only discretion involved at this point. Typically I've heard the FAA chooses to provide education as a remedy to such violations and often the rogue drone pilot is allowed to forgo the highest penalties as long as they don't fight or push back on the FAA and go along with the "out of court" recommendations. For example, if you fly in LAANC without an authorization then you are likely guilty of operating a drone without a part 107 license. Perhaps the fine would be $10,000 but if instead you (re)learn how to gain LAANC, retake the TRUST, and pay $100 fine and don't challenge our rules in federal court then we'll "waive' the $10,000 fine. Or, you can work on getting your part 107 instead. I think the choice is obvious.
Droning on and on...
Well-Known Member
I disagree.
I posed a similar question to the FAA UAS help center regarding inspecting the mast of one's own sailboat for repairs under the recreational exemption.
The FAA advised this would not violate the rules if your were inspecting your own boat. The fact that this would be a for-hire activity were a third party do it for you, triggering the 107 provisions, didn't matter because it was your boat.
While I didn't ask, I suspect the answer would be the same inspecting the gutters on your own home. While I can’t say definitively this is the way the FAA would rule, were they interested in making a case out of roof self-inspection the boat-mast response would factor strongly in a court (if it came to that) in favor of the pilot.
I'd do it with an absolutely clear conscience I was compliant with regs.
Last edited:
If the original poster intended to launch a drone to inspect his gutters, he could do so or could have done so without sharing that information with the forum. But that wasn't his intent. Rather, it was to provoke a reaction by repeatedly asserting that such a mundane activity was "fun" and "entertainment" (wink-wink). Stir the pot and seek attention. Unfortunately, I and a few others took the bait and enabled him to succeed.
Whether or not we think it's legal for a recreational pilot to look at his or her own roof and gutters without violating FAA doesn't matter. We're not the final arbiters. The FAA is.
Right now, our freedom to use DJI drones for either recreational or commercial purposes is under assault and may be imperiled. Why give legislators more ammunition in their quest to ban DJI drones by pushing the boundaries of legality?
Whether or not we think it's legal for a recreational pilot to look at his or her own roof and gutters without violating FAA doesn't matter. We're not the final arbiters. The FAA is.
Right now, our freedom to use DJI drones for either recreational or commercial purposes is under assault and may be imperiled. Why give legislators more ammunition in their quest to ban DJI drones by pushing the boundaries of legality?
Max Headroom
Well-Known Member
Please re-read what i posted above.
I never mentioned showing them the video as it has already been covered in the thread, i said you take the video yourself "then you call in a person because you need work doing" it cannot be illegal, I never mentioned showing him/her the video.
Sorry that's not true.
Legal or illegal drone flights are not based on who gets to see the video or based on when they see it before or after the work or anything of the kind. Not based on who you call, when you call them, what you found out from the video....none of that.
Intend to fly the video for recreational purposes, fly, and then land the drone....it's a legal recreational flight: *FOREVER (regardless what happens after that).
*FOREVER until the FAA tells you otherwise.
As long as the contractor doesnt use the video as a basis for his bid. and your INTENT was not to make the video for that purpose. Most if not all contractors will use a latter and see with their own eyes before giving a price. If the contractor does that even after viewing the video then the video did not provide a service, and thats fine.
If you do the work yourself the point is mute BUT I am giving a definition here. I am simply giving my interpretation of the law.
No person or entity may "gain" anything from your flight ( money, Services, etc..) unless you hold a part 107 cert.
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
This is from FAA Drone Zone
...However back in September @Droning on and on... submitted an inquiry regarding this subject to the FAA and was informed that doing your own inspection would be OK
it was in this thread Same restrictions for <250 g which seems to have been redacted and that portion is missing
...However back in September @Droning on and on... submitted an inquiry regarding this subject to the FAA and was informed that doing your own inspection would be OK
it was in this thread Same restrictions for <250 g which seems to have been redacted and that portion is missing
IMHO, don't always "trust" what you receive in an email from the FAA (or any government agency) because you don't know for sure if they understand the context of your question or even if you are getting the legal (correct) answer. Not sure why all of a sudden we believe government employees are all-knowing and experts on the subject matter; plenty of times these agencies have provided incorrect answers. If you got that email, maybe you can rely on it but the rest of us who didn't get that email....we cannot. The good news is they're not going to slam you amidst the confusion; this is not that big of a deal.
Ultimately I think the Note in the previous post makes a good point:
Photos to help sell a property or service: Commercial
Photos of a property: Not necessarily commercial
Taking pictures of a h.s. football game for the school's website: Commercial
Taking pictures of a h.s. football game for yourself and the family: Not necessarily commercial
Volunteering to use your drone to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit: Commercial
Using your drone to survey a coastline: Not necessarily commercial
which could mean:
Using your drone to inspect and capture photos of your neighbors roof to assist the contractor: Commercial
Using your drone to inspect and capture photos of your neighbors roof: Not necessarily commercial
Devil is in the details, I guess.
Ultimately I think the Note in the previous post makes a good point:
Photos to help sell a property or service: Commercial
Photos of a property: Not necessarily commercial
Taking pictures of a h.s. football game for the school's website: Commercial
Taking pictures of a h.s. football game for yourself and the family: Not necessarily commercial
Volunteering to use your drone to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit: Commercial
Using your drone to survey a coastline: Not necessarily commercial
which could mean:
Using your drone to inspect and capture photos of your neighbors roof to assist the contractor: Commercial
Using your drone to inspect and capture photos of your neighbors roof: Not necessarily commercial
Devil is in the details, I guess.
hiflyer201
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2018
- Messages
- 2,724
- Reactions
- 2,153
This is exactly why I rarely look at the forum.
What a lot of nonsense
What a lot of nonsense
MARK (LI)
Well-Known Member
So, what I'm gathering is there's people on both sides of the argument.
Which is exactly what a debate is.
Why some think it's a pointless topic is beyond me.
I appreciate all who participate in the debate.
Which is exactly what a debate is.
Why some think it's a pointless topic is beyond me.
I appreciate all who participate in the debate.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2016
- Messages
- 29,284
- Reactions
- 32,700
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Site
- mavichelp.com
People will undoubtedly debate this, but rules are rules.
This isn’t a recreational flight, though realistically, the FAA is unlikely to spend even a minute of their efforts on enforcing it. They have far bigger fish to fry.
agreed but that's the problem IMO: when the FAA ignores this, we have flyers of all types and stripes and it's going to cause everyone to draw their own conclusions because we are all unique. Nobody ever says "that's the law but I'll never obey it" and as a result they back into it by saying "I won't obey it and this is why the FAA gives us a pass." Imagine if the rules on the road with cars were this confusing.
Fine for now but ultimately this is going to come back to bite us. FAA, if you're not going to spend "even a minute of effort on it," then drop it or change it....but get it off the books. I agree the FAA is too big and too busy to manage [recreational] drones. Turn it over to someone else with the time and the smarts to do it right, please. Otherwise consumer drones will end up where the airlines are today...stuck in the 1970s. This tech curve we are currently enjoying with drones will get bent like a pretzel when DJI eventually hits up against a brick wall.
IMHO
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2016
- Messages
- 29,284
- Reactions
- 32,700
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Site
- mavichelp.com
This is how many rules work, whether drone-related or not. If they were as specific as you’d like, enforcing them would be even more challenging.
Since you’re in the US, this probably isn’t really a surprise. We see similar rules everywhere -- like having to come to a full stop at a stop sign even if no other cars are around. Are you likely to get a ticket for rolling through? Probably not.
I'm ok with discretion because it is needed and if that's the FAA angle then that's fine. I hope that is what we are dealing with here.
Forgive me for what I'm about to say but this is the reality I've come to realize.
Some rules are made, simply, to create a line that's intended to be crossed.
Why? Because the REAL offense is further from the line. But people WILL cross the line. No matter what line there is, someone will cross it. In fact, a LOT of people will cross it. It's human nature to cross lines. Maybe Darwinism is at play but it's a reality.
This is why I am so against some laws, that everyone breaks, being loosened. Because as soon as you loosen the law, someone will cross the new threshold.
A couple of examples.
Legal weed. It used to be you'd almost never see someone smoking weed in their car. Weed was made legal in many areas and now people smoke it while driving, in the open.
Or speeding. If the speed limit is 55, people will go 65. If it's 65, people will go 75.
There's hundreds of examples available.
And then there's people who say "Obey all laws", well, except the ones they break (like speeding).
I have yet to figure out why there's a law that says it's legal to fly recreationally but one needs a license to fly for a profit. Neither is safer than the other. So, it's easy to conclude the law isn't about safety at all. It's about some sort of controlling what a person can and can't do.
That one law, IMHO, should have nothing to do with the FAA since it's not about safety.
Some rules are made, simply, to create a line that's intended to be crossed.
Why? Because the REAL offense is further from the line. But people WILL cross the line. No matter what line there is, someone will cross it. In fact, a LOT of people will cross it. It's human nature to cross lines. Maybe Darwinism is at play but it's a reality.
This is why I am so against some laws, that everyone breaks, being loosened. Because as soon as you loosen the law, someone will cross the new threshold.
A couple of examples.
Legal weed. It used to be you'd almost never see someone smoking weed in their car. Weed was made legal in many areas and now people smoke it while driving, in the open.
Or speeding. If the speed limit is 55, people will go 65. If it's 65, people will go 75.
There's hundreds of examples available.
And then there's people who say "Obey all laws", well, except the ones they break (like speeding).
I have yet to figure out why there's a law that says it's legal to fly recreationally but one needs a license to fly for a profit. Neither is safer than the other. So, it's easy to conclude the law isn't about safety at all. It's about some sort of controlling what a person can and can't do.
That one law, IMHO, should have nothing to do with the FAA since it's not about safety.
Similar threads
- Locked
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
-
-
does anyone have kml / kmz / wpml /waylines mission with panoshot that you can share?
- Started by Lilith5th
- Replies: 0
Forum statistics
