Seriously? This is illegal?

[msinger]

With which party do you think lies the burden of proof?

Again, I'm not a lawyer. However, I think any reasonable person would probably agree the proof would be easy to find since @Clipper707 stated the flight was not for personal enjoyment, but to inspect the condition of the home.

 

[Meta4]

You got it! That sounds simple, but it's apparently not since forum threads like this one keep popping up.
From here, the FAA states roof inspections are not recreational flights:
"Non-recreational drone flying include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections,

The FAA says Roof Inspections ... but are they simply meaning roof inspections done for others as a service which is something that commercial operators do?

The suggestion by a few in this thread that any peeping at your own roof couldn't possibly be part of a recreational flight is ridiculous, but just the kind of thing that some zealots and forum lawyers, displaying no common sense would fervently argue about forever.
The FAA response in post #62 suggests that they aren't concerned about you checking your own masthead or roof.

I know that when I was learning any excuse to fly was genuinely recreational and if I'd used the drone to check the roof, that would have been too.

 

[Cafguy]

This has been a good little DEBATE about THE WORDING OF THE LAW....NOT what would happen in real life.
IN reality you are going to have to be reported by someone and then the FAA has to decide it is worth the effort to go after you. In this case that would be pretty slim.
That is why I mentioned the IRS..You have a bigger chance getting in trouble with them then you do the FAA ......and YES if you are doing business with your drone and are not reporting it The IRS will be more than interested in talking to you. I would even suggest that the FAA could very well forward such information to them.
Nobody is going to get into alot of trouble surveying a roof for damages. BUT there is no reason that the Government could not throw the book at you if they wanted because you are doing things they have clearly told you NOT to do..
WHY put yourself in that position? Especially when in most cases you need to leave the roof inspection to a professional in the first place.
I hope the little debate has not angered anyone. If it has make your statement and move on from the subject. I would hope that this is a friendly debate. I myself have not seen it get out of hand yet.

We must all remember that the official that watches you as you fly is yourself....... Doing our best to interpret the Law and debating those facts with others shows that we are making the effort to understand and be Legal. I see no problem with it as a subject.

 

[msinger]

The suggestion by a few in this thread that any peeping at your own roof couldn't possibly be part of a recreational flight is ridiculous, but just the kind of thing that some zealots and forum lawyers, displaying no common sense would fervently argue about forever.
The FAA response in post #62 suggests that they aren't concerned about you checking your own masthead or roof.

The problem is that the law is pretty vague, which gives the FAA flexibility to interpret it in different ways and still technically be correct. That might even be by design. If the law were too specific, it could make enforcement a lot harder.

For example, regarding the sailboat inspection scenario, @Vic Moss mentioned here that the FAA previously held that such flights were categorically non-recreational. So, did their definition of "recreational flight" change, or are they just choosing not to enforce the law for certain non-recreational flights?

I believe it's the latter, but one could easily argue it's the former. And that’s basically what's being debated in this thread.

And while it's fun to speculate and debate, what really matters is how the FAA will interpret your specific situation. So, if you're planning a flight that you can't confidently say is for personal enjoyment (like "I'm flying to inspect my roof for damage"), it's a good idea to check with the FAA to get their current stance.

 

[Chris Mitchell]

They have many rules that don't make sense to actual pilots (who break these rules on the regular as part of their job) and a lot of the FAA rules/requirements can be downright dangerous if followed to the letter.

That's quite a bold statement. Can you give some examples?

 

[Chris Mitchell]

Really time to lock this thread its getting stupid

Indeed, probably because it started off stupid!

 

[Bad Santa]

The problem is that the law is pretty vague, which gives the FAA flexibility to interpret it in different ways and still technically be correct. That might even be by design. If the law were too specific, it could make enforcement a lot harder.

For example, regarding the sailboat inspection scenario, @Vic Moss mentioned here that the FAA previously held that such flights were categorically non-recreational. So, did their definition of "recreational flight" change, or are they just choosing not to enforce the law for certain non-recreational flights?

I believe it's the latter, but one could easily argue it's the former. And that’s basically what's being debated in this thread.

And while it's fun to speculate and debate, what really matters is how the FAA will interpret your specific situation. So, if you're planning a flight that you can't confidently say is for personal enjoyment (like "I'm flying to inspect my roof for damage"), it's a good idea to check with the FAA to get their current stance.

I know that ambiguity in a contract does not favor the party that provides the contract.
There are millions of examples (I'm sure) where ambiguity of a law does not favor the enforcer of the law. It's the general basis for loopholes.

So, if the law is ambiguous, as the sailboat mast example illustrates, the enforcement that law is, by example, difficult to enforce or prosecute.

 

[Bad Santa]

That's quite a bold statement. Can you give some examples?

I can but I won't. For reasons that also won't be mentioned.

Let me just say, I have, in fact, piloted an airplane that had a condition that the FAA required it be grounded, knowing fully well that the condition existed prior to taking off. And I wasn't the first person to do so, nor was I the last.

 

[Chris Mitchell]

I can but I won't. For reasons that also won't be mentioned.

Let me just say, I have, in fact, piloted an airplane that had a condition that the FAA required it be grounded, knowing fully well that the condition existed prior to taking off. And I wasn't the first person to do so, nor was I the last.

You have "piloted" a (poorly maintained, private) aircraft and now you can say that professional pilots break regulations "on the regular as part of their job"? Are you a certificated pilot? "Piloting" a small aircraft once or twice is lightyears away from knowing how professional pilots conduct business on a flight deck. Ive been a CFI since 1990 and a pro pilot ever since. I can assure you that there no "FAA rules/requirements can be downright dangerous if followed to the letter". Better judgment should be exercised before spreading such nonsense on this forum!

 

[msinger]

So, if the law is ambiguous, as the sailboat mast example illustrates, the enforcement that law is, by example, difficult to enforce or prosecute.

Can you point us to a case like this that the FAA has attempted to prosecute and/or enforce? If no such cases exist, you may be making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Bad Santa]

Can you point us to a case like this that the FAA has attempted to prosecute and/or enforce? If no such cases exist, you may be making a mountain out of a molehill.

That's actually a really interesting post you made.
Can anyone, perhaps, point to an instance where someone was written up for flying a drone commercially without the appropriate Part 107 certification? And more specifically, where someone was (for lack of a better word) surveying their own property?

 

[@Rip]

There are a lot of interesting responses on this thread,
I do roof, gutter, yard, slope, downspout and lanslide inspection on my home and property at least twice a year.
It is really rainy on the Oregon Coast...
We have had 4 + inches of rain this week alone and the drains need to work.
To acknowledge other responders, I use the information so I can fix or mitigate any issues found. I don't use the info to call a contractor or handyman or anything like that.
I just want to see for myself what is going on with the structure and drainage, etc.
I haven't had to do it in 20+ years, but should I call a contractor for some reason, I would suggest he/she take a look at "something". Because I "suspect" it may need attention that I can't give it (in my aging years)...
That's it.

Interesting thought though... Is it commercial if you employ a "professional" based on the results of a flight...
I may contact the FAA for clarification. (They are really good at telling us what we can and can't do)

 

[mavic3usa]

That's actually a really interesting post you made.
Can anyone, perhaps, point to an instance where someone was written up for flying a drone commercially without the appropriate Part 107 certification? And more specifically, where someone was (for lack of a better word) surveying their own property?

Yes of course there have been dozens of people who fly for other than fun and were told by the FAA they needed to have a part 107 to do whatever they were doing. Do you doubt that?

 

[mavic3usa]

Interesting thought though... Is it commercial if you employ a "professional" based on the results of a flight...
I may contact the FAA for clarification. (They are really good at telling us what we can and can't do)

I would *not* waste my time reaching out to the FAA. You will only get an "answer" to your question and it may or may not be relevant to the law or how the law will be applied in a similar but different case. It's like asking the police if you will get a ticket for going 3 mph over the limit in your neighborhood. You can an email that says nope police don't bother with that and one day you get pulled over; do you show the email?

The FAA is unable to clarify because it would be disingenuous to say anything else but yes you need a part 107 unless you are flying for fun.

 

[Bad Santa]

I would waste my time reaching out to the FAA. You will only get an "answer" to your question and it may or may not be relevant to the law or how the law will be applied in a similar but different case. It's like asking the police if you will get a ticket for going 3 mph over the limit in your neighborhood. You can an email that says nope police don't bother with that and one day you get pulled over; do you show the email?

The FAA is unable to clarify because it would be disingenuous to say anything else but yes you need a part 107 unless you are flying for fun.

Someone, in a private chat sent me this snippet

" just remember there are new (and seasoned) drone flyers here that, in many cases, take the information on this forum as the gospel (which is concerning enough!). Bad information here isn't doing our UAS hobby or industry any favors."

And this is how I see it. If a person has questions and they think they should call the FAA to ask, they should call the FAA and ask. It's their job to answer.

Having said that, the person you will get at the FAA might be someone who has been there less than 6 months and doesn't actually have the full answer, either way they interpret the rule.

 

[msinger]

Interesting thought though... Is it commercial if you employ a "professional" based on the results of a flight...
I may contact the FAA for clarification. (They are really good at telling us what we can and can't do)

According to everything the FAA has stated on their website, flying under Part 107 (often referred to as "commercial" here) applies to any drone use that's not purely recreational (often referred to as "flying for fun" by the FAA). For example, using a drone to inspect a roof, gutter, yard, slope, downspout, etc. likely wouldn't be considered recreational. And then as we've been discussing for pages now, the FAA has historically not attempted to enforce flights like these unless someone reports the flights or the pilot is causing danger to other people.

I haven't had to do it in 20+ years, but should I call a contractor for some reason, I would suggest he/she take a look at "something". Because I "suspect" it may need attention that I can't give it (in my aging years)...

The fact that you feel the need to tread carefully about how you discovered these issues suggests you recognize these flights may not be truly recreational. Many people convince themselves that flights are recreational because they assume Part 107 only applies to commercial activities that generate income. Since they're not making money by inspecting their own property, they believe they’re in the clear.

If a person has questions and they think they should call the FAA to ask, they should call the FAA and ask. It's their job to answer.

Exactly. The FAA established the UAS Support Center for that very reason. While there are some knowledgeable people in this forum, FAA employees don’t post here, and it would not be considered an official source of FAA information even if they were to participate someday. So, if you have any doubts, it would be best to contact the FAA directly.

 

[Cafguy]

Bad information here isn't doing our UAS hobby or industry any favors."

I would be interested in what "Bad" information" you found on this forum. please be specific.

 

[djwak59]

The FAA rules about recreational vs commercial flying go back to the FAA trying to treat drones as aircraft because that's what they understand.
Originally they demanded a real plane licence for any commercial drone use (Section 333 exemption from 2014-2016).
Imaging how completely ridiculous that you had to be a genuine plane pilot to be able to shoot some pix of a house for a real estate agent!
That was replaced by the Part 107 exemption which allowed drone flyers to fly drones commercially.
But the FAA didn't use much imagination.
Still thinking of drones as planes, just like planes the FAA thought that flyers should have a higher level of training for commercial flying.
That makes sense when you are flying a plane with paying passengers of cargo, but is ridiculous to fly hobby drones for a real estate shoot.
The idea that you could fly and shoot photos legally, but couldn't sell the photos doesn't stand up to any rational thought.
Many other advanced countries have worked this out and no longer make the silly and artificial distinction for drones weighing less than 2kg.

Bravo ! !

 

[Cafguy]

I did neighborhood watch with my Drone until an FAA official told me to cut it out until I got a 107 cert. NO I was not fined or investigated simply reminded...By the FAA.
We have an RC club and hold Safety meetings from time to time, ( more like safety party really) every now and then someone will drag an FAA person to it.

 

[msinger]

I did neighborhood watch with my Drone until an FAA official told me to cut it out until I got a 107 cert

That makes sense since patrolling the neighborhood is another example of not "flying for fun".