Seriously? This is illegal?

[Cafguy]

Huge fines if the FAA or IRS find out that you looked at your gutters or gave a photo to a charity?

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.

 

[cameracamel]

Ignore all the noise. You're fine. FAA is not going to come and take you to a black site. LOL.

I believe Gitmo, is nice this time of the year..............

 

[mavic3usa]

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.

 

[Striperking59]

Huge fines if the FAA or IRS find out that you looked at your gutters or gave a photo to a charity?
If you committed the thought crime of failing to fill your mind with strict recreational thoughts before flying?

Come back down to earth sometime.

Well Santa, you got what you were fishing for lol

 

[Droning on and on...]

If that is your intent Then you are good to go who knows you may review your video and see something that needs repair you are still solid..
IF your intent was to fly your Drone in order to inspect your gutters and downspouts for repairs well...you need a part 107 to do that. Its that simple really. to clarify If you video your gutters with the intent to take said video to a contractor for a quote THEN you are doing part 107 work.

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.

 

[hank970]

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?

 

[Max Headroom]

Surely if you use the drone on your own property then you call in a person because you need work doing it cannot be illegal.

You cannot...... IF the contractor takes the video and provides you a quote for the work based SOLEY on that video then you have provided a service to the roofing company. you need a 107 to do that.

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.

 

[mavic3usa]

If as i stated you take the video yourself "then you call in a person because you need work doing" but DO NOT show him the video it cannot be illegal!

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.

 

[Cafguy]

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.

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)]

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

 

[mavic3usa]

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.

 

[hiflyer201]

This is exactly why I rarely look at the forum.
What a lot of nonsense

 

[MARK (LI)]

This subject gets discussed ad nauseam

 

[Daytona500]

Totally illegal. The authorities will probably be pulling up in their squad cars even before you have time to land.

right tell me another

 

[Bad Santa]

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.

 

[msinger]

So, what I'm gathering is there's people on both sides of the argument.
Which is exactly what a debate is.

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.

 

[mavic3usa]

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

 

[msinger]

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.

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.

 

[mavic3usa]

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.