Where do you draw the line from recreational pilot to part 107?

[Zbip57]

It created a stir when they jammed the modellers in with the quads.

Whether it's a single engine scale model Spitfire, or a single rotor scale model helicopter, or a four engine scale model B17 bomber, or a 4-rotor quadcopter helicopter, or a 3-rotor tricopter, or 6-rotor hexacopter, or 8-rotor octocopter, or an FPV fixed wing or FPV rotor craft, etc., or even if it's a model glider with no engines at all, none of that makes any difference whatsoever. They're all remotely piloted aircraft.

It created a stir when they jammed all those unnecessary new regulations onto AMA model flying clubs, because the AMA have a long history of being able to safely regulate themselves and they were never the intended target of the new regulations.

The "Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft" (read it!) was intended solely for those sorts of established "community based organizations" like the AMA.

There are several more conditions applied to this "Exception", only one of which is that the flight must be "flown strictly for recreational purposes".

It is equally required that, "The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization's set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration."

All of the other conditions make perfect sense since they're all safety related. But the one based on whether or not you're actually having "fun" is ridiculous.

 

[Zbip57]

YES you DO need a license. Again INTENT. Eg. here in Los Angeles:
If your intent is to take photos that you will then sell, you must obtain a filming permit from the city. Even still photography. Any photography.

If you're shooting a Hollywood movie there are all sorts licences, approvals, union rules, waivers, insurance policies, contracts, etc. etc. etc. designed to limit who can do what, and who's allowed to load the film cameras, who's allowed to prepare and hand dangerous movie props to Alec Baldwin, and who is trained to be the camera focus puller, and who's allowed to run the electrical cables for lighting, etc., etc., etc.

It doesn't matter if you're using fancy movie cameras, or a Sony Handicam, or your cellphone, or even your drone to shoot those movies. There are all sorts of licence requirements applicable to the movie industry.

But why should the FAA care, or even have a say, in whether you choose to fly down to our own farm gate and back just for "fun", or with the non-recreational "intent" to check the gate has been properly closed to keep the livestock from escaping? It's the same flight both times.

 

[lookout]

Whether it's a single engine scale model Spitfire, or a single rotor scale model helicopter, or a four engine scale model B17 bomber, or a 4-rotor quadcopter helicopter, or a 3-rotor tricopter, or 6-rotor hexacopter, or 8-rotor octocopter, or an FPV fixed wing or FPV rotor craft, etc., or even if it's a model glider with no engines at all, none of that makes any difference whatsoever. They're all remotely piloted aircraft.

It created a stir when they jammed all those unnecessary new regulations onto AMA model flying clubs, because the AMA have a long history of being able to safely regulate themselves and they were never the intended target of the new regulations.

The "Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft" (read it!) was intended solely for those sorts of established "community based organizations" like the AMA.

There are several more conditions applied to this "Exception", only one of which is that the flight must be "flown strictly for recreational purposes".

It is equally required that, "The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization's set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration."

All of the other conditions make perfect sense since they're all safety related. But the one based on whether or not you're actually having "fun" is ridiculous.

But then you didn't have to have membership with any of the clubs in order to fly at their fria if they ever get approved. You just get to pick whichever cbo you want? That doesn't occur just anywhere. They're not reaching the common joe with the way they are handling it. People gonna get tripped up by that. They'll read recreational as long as following some cbo of your choice at the time of flight.

You saying they still intended for quads to have to get part 107 and remote id even though the ama will still have a blanket recreational registration and some of their toys weight over 250g? The ama guys seem to be fine with quad guys having to follow the rules as long as their fria is approved.

The feds are throwing quads under the bus over some unsubstantiated claims of uas flights? Seems like there is some mob mentality or crowd mania going on here.

 

[Zbip57]

Here's the reductio ad absurdum: you can buy a gun at Walmart, so to paraphrase what you said above:
"Who would ever buy a gun if not for the express purpose of shooting at ducks and squirrels in the city park?"

You've missed the point.

You're position seems to be that it would be okay if your drone has a camera only as long it's used to aid the pilot's view for recreational FPV purposes. But if the camera is used with the "intent" to actually record photos or videos, that's no longer recreational and thus requires full Part 107 compliance?

So you're reductio ad absurdum has nothing to do with ducks or squirrels. It would more accurately be paraphrased as, "Who would every buy a gun if not for the express purpose of shooting it?"

If you buy the gun as a collector just to hang it on a wall and look at it, that you would consider as "recreational". But if you ever took it down from the wall and actually fired it (regardless what the target), that would require the full Part 107.

I'm just finding it absurd that you seem to think cameras are "recreational" only as long as you're merely looking through them, but are non-recreational if you use the camera to take photos or videos of anything.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

It created a stir when they jammed the modelers in with the quads. Somebody made a rash decision to do that. ...

Wut? Some American bureaucrat made a rash decision? Gosh!

 

[NightFlightAlright]

You've missed the point.

No I haven't.

You're position seems to be that it would be okay if your drone has a camera only as long it's used to aid the pilot's view for recreational FPV purposes. But if the camera is used with the "intent" to actually record photos or videos, that's no longer recreational and thus requires full Part 107 compliance?

That is letter of the law in the United States, but as I also indicated, you don't have to admit to people that you were intending to take photos, because you know, we have those pesky constitutional rights L O L...

So you're reductio ad absurdum has nothing to do with ducks or squirrels. It would more accurately be paraphrased as, "Who would every buy a gun if not for the express purpose of shooting it?"

Yeah but throwing the ducks and squirrels made it more funny.

If you buy the gun as a collector just to hang it on a wall and look at it, that you would consider as "recreational". But if you ever took it down from the wall and actually fired it (regardless what the target), that would require the full Part 107.

Exactly. You buy a gun in Los Angeles, you can't shoot it anywhere in the city, except at specific, legally designated firing ranges. And you need a license to carry it.

I'm just finding it absurd that you seem to think cameras are "recreational" only as long as you're merely looking through them, but are non-recreational if you use the camera to take photos or videos of anything.

I didn't say if you use the camera, you're twisting my words around. I said, specifically, the bright line is the intent of the flight is it just a fly around? Great, and if you happen to fire off some photos while you're having fun flying around that's fine.

But if your intent is to go up and take photos of the trees for your Arbor Day website, technically that's part 107. Again this is applicable to US Law only, your mileage may vary.


To Add: the FAA and Congress for that matter have no concerns about "why would you ever buy a drone with a camera on it" it's just not relevant.... naturally the camera's on there for people to take photos and videos. The law is written not about shooting, it's written about flying, with specific allowances or prohibitions regarding any specific intent or purpose of the flight. Dem's da feds.

 

[Zbip57]

I didn't say if you use the camera, you're twisting my words around.

Sure, you did. If your intent is to use the camera for the purpose of taking photos or videos.

You said in post #144 ,

"The taking of photos or videos is not prohibited under recreational flight SO LONG AS taking photo or video IS NOT the purpose of the flight."

And what you said in post #155 was,

"You can certainly fly a camera drone without actually recording or taking any stills—you have a live video feed for POV and so forth, it's not as if it's not usable for flying for fun without recording or snapping".

That is merely your own overly restrictive interpretation of "recreational" use, and yet you claim that is somehow the letter of the law.

That is letter of the law in the United States, but as I also indicated, you don't have to admit to people that you were intending to take photos

I think you are totally misinterpreting what your law actually says. Part 107 applies if you intend to use your drone for any purpose considered to be non-recreational (i.e. taking real estate photos, roof inspections [even your own roof], surveying, agriculture, farming, herding livestock, etc.).

You've stretched your own bizarre interpretation to claim the recreational exemptions don't apply if you intend to use your drone to take any photos or videos at all, even if they are purely for your own recreational purpose. That's an obviously incorrect interpretation.

Jump back to post# 43, where @Dangerly quoted the reply he received from the FAA saying,

It's not what you take a photo/video of, rather, it's if your intent is to use that media for any other purpose than recreation. Simply posting media to social media does not negate your recreational purpose. However, if your intent is to post to social media to generate revenue, advertise your business/organization, etc., that would be considered Part 107.

Clearly you are allowed to fly your drone with the full intent of recording photos and video, as long as the use of those photos is for your own "recreational" purposes, not in furtherance of "non-recreational" business, or revenue-generating, nor even merely goodwill-generating purposes.

My complaint is that the line between recreational versus non-recreational is already unnecessary, confusing, and vague enough. But your claim is truly absurd that, under the recreational exemption, you can't even intend to take any photos at all.

 

[mavic3usa]

^I would say "bizarre" is an accurate description of what I am reading as well.

 

[hornj]

I feel like this whole distinction between recreational and part 107 is pure mud and I can't make heads or tails of it for my particular use case. I never want to get compensated in any way - whether financially, good will, or otherwise - from any of my drone work. In fact, I don't even want my name on any of my drone work or to get credit. It's purely for the fun of it and capturing beauty. If other people see it, great, but I honestly don't care.

So with that setup, pick a letter and tell me where you'd draw the line between recreational and Part 107. Do I need a Part 107?

A. I own property in clear airspace with no local restrictions, I launch my drone from my own back yard, go up to 100 feet, take a picture of a park in the distance, and return. I post the picture on my personal Instagram account. So far, this would all be fine under recreational use, right? I can't imagine any problems.

B. The park sees my picture, downloads it from Instagram, and posts it on their website. So far, no problem for me, right?

C. I ask for and receive permission from the park to operate my drone within the park and take a picture for my own enjoyment from within the park. I do the same thing - go up 100 feet, take a very similar picture but this time within the park, and post it on Instagram. The park does the same thing - they copy it and eventually post the picture on their website.

D. Very similar to above, but with one difference. I ask for and receive permission from the park to operate my drone and take a picture from within the park, so long as I give them permission to use the picture to do with what they want. I do the same thing - go up 100 feet, take a very similar picture but this time within the park, and post it on Instagram. They do the same thing - copy the picture from Instagram and post on on their website.

E. Very similar to above, but with one difference. I ask for and receive permission from the park to operate my drone and take a picture from within the park, so long as I give them a copy of the picture to do with what they want. I do the same thing - go up 100 feet, take a very similar picture but this time within the park, and post it on Instagram. I email them a copy of the picture, and they post it on their website.

At what letter do I violate FAA guidelines with a recreational license?

EDIT: For those starting here, I've since added the twist that I would intend to open source all my drone photos and videos, allowing anyone in the world to copy them without giving me credit. I assume I don't need a part 107 just for that. If others want to use my work, I would neither know nor care. This way, I don't need to explicitly give permission (in part D) to use my work because it's inherent in the open source copyright.

From what I understood, you can do anything you want as long as you’re not making money with it the minute you make a dime you gotta have a license

 

[hornj]

And then I feel like as far as the YouTube is concerned, you’re not making money from the images or videos you’re making money from your YouTube channel which incorporates everything not just that one or two videos or pictures so you’re actually not making money off of your drone. You’re making money off of your entire website which I think is way around that 107 ****

 

[Vic Moss]

From what I understood, you can do anything you want as long as you’re not making money with it the minute you make a dime you gotta have a license

You understand wrong.

Anything not "flown strictly for recreational purposes" requires a 107, as per §49 USC 44809. Money certainly precludes it as recreational, but that's not the only thing.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title49-section44809&num=0&edition=prelim

 

[hornj]

Lol… I mean I love how people say per 49 USC whatever whatever whatever that's cool I understand I know the laws but I'm just telling you that I'm not making money or nobody else's if they make a drone video and I posted on the YouTube video they're still not making money, so there's no sense in licensing. Tell me where you made money by maybe making a drone video and posting it to YouTube? where is the money from that? And if you do happen to make a dime off of a YouTube video, it's not the video that's where but he's wrong he's not a video it's the YouTube channel. That's what you're making the money from not the video from the from the drone. I know when everybody knows this famous Little lol 49 USC whatever whatever but I'm telling you that I've already checked into it and that is a loophole. Not trying to start an argument or a fight or anything else. I'm just giving you what I have learned by talking to McKenna parts because I have 26 certifications and safety regulations. But I guess at the end of the day, it's all about who you talk to, and what their opinion is of the law because everybody has their own opinion of the long until you get in from the judge, and he tells you the word verbatim with the law is. just saying.....

 

[Vic Moss]

Lol… I mean I love how people say per 49 USC whatever whatever whatever that's cool I understand I know the laws but I'm just telling you that I'm not making money or nobody else's if they make a drone video and I posted on the YouTube video they're still not making money, so there's no sense in licensing. Tell me where you made money by maybe making a drone video and posting it to YouTube? where is the money from that? And if you do happen to make a dime off of a YouTube video, it's not the video that's where but he's wrong he's not a video it's the YouTube channel. That's what you're making the money from not the video from the from the drone. I know when everybody knows this famous Little lol 49 USC whatever whatever but I'm telling you that I've already checked into it and that is a loophole. Not trying to start an argument or a fight or anything else. I'm just giving you what I have learned by talking to McKenna parts because I have 26 certifications and safety regulations. But I guess at the end of the day, it's all about who you talk to, and what their opinion is of the law because everybody has their own opinion of the long until you get in from the judge, and he tells you the word verbatim with the law is. just saying.....

I was answering hornj.

But there is nothing wrong with posting on social media. that in and of itself doesn't make it a 107 flight. People post vacation imagery and hobby imagery (train fanatics are notorious for this) simply to share their pics and videos. None of that requires a 107.

But suppose you post train videos because you own a hobby shop and advertise that in your videos. Or suppose you have affiliate links in the description, and use your videos to increase views, and by default clicks to your affiliate links. Those require a 107.

Social media is not the deciding factor.

I have no idea who McKenna parys is. And no, at the end of the days it's not determined by who you talk to, it's determined by FAA regulation. I suggest you go straight to thee FAA's own team. Reach you and ask [email protected]. You don't need to hear it from a judge.

FYI, this is exactly what I do for Denver FSDO.

 

[mavic3usa]

Lol… I mean I love how people say per 49 USC whatever whatever whatever that's cool I understand I know the laws but I'm just telling you that I'm not making money or nobody else's if they make a drone video and I posted on the YouTube video they're still not making money, so there's no sense in licensing. Tell me where you made money by maybe making a drone video and posting it to YouTube? where is the money from that? And if you do happen to make a dime off of a YouTube video, it's not the video that's where but he's wrong he's not a video it's the YouTube channel. That's what you're making the money from not the video from the from the drone. I know when everybody knows this famous Little lol 49 USC whatever whatever but I'm telling you that I've already checked into it and that is a loophole. Not trying to start an argument or a fight or anything else. I'm just giving you what I have learned by talking to McKenna parts because I have 26 certifications and safety regulations. But I guess at the end of the day, it's all about who you talk to, and what their opinion is of the law because everybody has their own opinion of the long until you get in from the judge, and he tells you the word verbatim with the law is. just saying.....

Every drone flyer in America needs a license to fly a drone for any reason at any time. There's one big exception: if you fly strictly for fun then you don't need a part 107.

Does that clear up the confusion for you? You're making it more complicated than it has to be.

 

[Bad Santa]

So, I was out flying my drone around a property, you know, just for fun. A guy I just met owned it and was going to put it up for sale.
I flew over the house, the barn, the pasture, and even got some good close up shots.
After I was done I showed him the video, to show how cool it was and all. He said "Hey, could I get a copy of that video?"
I didn't see any reason to not share it so I told him I would email him a link to my youtube video of it.
It was at that moment he said "Oh, hey, did you drop that $100 bill on the ground?" and at my feet I saw a $100 bill.
I told him I didn't remember dropping one but he insisted it wasn't his and I should take it.

Hypothetically.

 

[hornj]

hahahaha…….that’s freakin awesome!!! I did the same thing when id take my truck in to get it inspected in Texas. I just leave 40 bucks on the middle console. He passed me with no problem. Just had to put it out there my tent was 3% except the front windshield. But that’s real funny. I thought I had to share that.

 

[Dmcvey]

Very simple. 107 is the default, you must have 107 unless that flight meets ALL the requirements of 44809. Stop talking about getting paid, or what if I post them here or there. If you are flying a drone you have to have Part 107. Period. 44809 is a LIMITED carve out.

 

[MattInFla]

The YouTube / social media line is really not as grey as people think.

If your social media channel is monetized - i.e. you get a share of ad revenue from your page - then any flying you do to generate media to post there falls outside the recreational regs.

I have a friend who has a pretty wide following on YouTube. He has two channels - one for the videos he posts about a specific topic, some of which he gets with an aUAS, which is monetized. He has a part 107 license and all those flights are conducted under part 107.

He also has a personal, non-monetized channel. He posts aerial images of landscapes, his dogs, etc. there. That channel is not monetized, and those flights are recreational.

 

[mavic3usa]

The YouTube / social media line is really not as grey as people think.

If your social media channel is monetized - i.e. you get a share of ad revenue from your page - then any flying you do to generate media to post there falls outside the recreational regs.

I have a friend who has a pretty wide following on YouTube. He has two channels - one for the videos he posts about a specific topic, some of which he gets with an aUAS, which is monetized. He has a part 107 license and all those flights are conducted under part 107.

He also has a personal, non-monetized channel. He posts aerial images of landscapes, his dogs, etc. there. That channel is not monetized, and those flights are recreational.

Those are just two examples of how one individual might handle his drone business. It's not the rule and it doesn't necessarily apply to everyone else. We've been given the rule by the FAA and it's simple (and has no mentioned of YT channels, monetization, followings, or anything else). It says "Fly for fun = Recreational" and "Fly for any other reason = Part 107 commercial." From there you can make up all the different scenarios you wish.

 

[AMann]

It's very simple. There are 8 criteria for flying under the recreational exception to 107. They are listed here: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml...lim-title49-section44809&num=0&edition=prelim

if you fall outside any of those 8 criteria, it's a 107 flight. No discussion necessary.

What you or someone else does with the imagery after the flight is of no concern to the FAA. They could care less. It's all about intent at time of flight.

There is no grey area here at all.

You are right- it’s about the intent of the flight. Shouldn’t the criteria also include that the aircraft is equipped with an approved and operating RID function or device, or is only being flown within an approved fixed site? Else there would need to be a waiver and I doubt FAA would authorize it for a recreational based flight…