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

[W5CI]

I look forward to hearing the discussion on this too. The argument that I repeatedly here is once it's past strictly recreational, it's a no-go. If that's the case I'm going to say that 'D' is over the edge. However, I would do any of those and ask, "Who's going to know?"

My Opinion is that is you have to ask then you need your part 107. If I can get it anyone can.

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

There is one item that has not been mentioned in the Op's post or any of the replies. Does the Op have a FB, YouTube or other site where he posts his photos, and are any of these monotized.
If any of these are monotized, then knowing that he will be posting his media there, regardless of the intent at the time of his flight, he is making money and the flights would be 107.

 

[Dangerly]

WOW!!! I got a response from the FAA in less than 24 hours. They were super responsive and helpful. I am impressed.

So, what do you think? Can I fly under the recreational carve out?

====== RESPONSE FROM FAA TO MY QUESTION ==================================
It is an erroneous assumption that if you are not being directly paid for drone operations then you do not need a Part 107 remote pilot certificate. Financial compensation, or the lack of it, is not the determinant for the type of operation you are conducting.
The rule for operating small UAS (under 55 pounds) in the U.S. National Airspace System is 14 CFR Part 107. § 44809 The Exception for Limited Recreational Ops is a "carve out" to this rule which, under certain circumstances, allows operation for the sole purpose of limited recreational flights.
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.
It is important to reiterate that revenue is not the trigger. Direct financial compensation It is but one way to show that the operation is not purely recreational. However, you do not have to receive revenue for a flight to be non-recreational. You could generate good will or other non-monetary value. Getting eyes on your footage if it is your “product” (like a videographer for weddings) would be deemed a non-recreational operation. Even if the footage is not the product, advertising is also a non-recreational op.
Does posting the video serve a business purpose, including (but not limited to) generating revenue, good will, and/or advertising? If yes, then you are governed by Part 107. If no, then you may operate under the exception for recreation providing you comply with all of its provisions.

======== MY REPLY BACK ==========

Thank you so much for that speedy and helpful response! How awesome that our FAA is so responsive.

My intention is solely to get permission to fly in a park for the pure joy of it and to capture the beauty of the park. I have no business or organization that I could possibly advertise with this, there is no good will for myself that I will generate. My name or watermark won't even be on the content. If other people want to copy my content and use it for their own purposes, I make it freely available to all and would neither know nor care if anyone copied it - that's up to them.

May I operate under the exception for recreation, assuming I comply with all the provisions as you noted?

======== FAA Replies back minutes later ==========

If you are flying for the sole purpose of recreation, then you may operate under The Exception for Limited Recreational Ops.

 

[Dangerly]

There is one item that has not been mentioned in the Op's post or any of the replies. Does the Op have a FB, YouTube or other site where he posts his photos, and are any of these monotized.
If any of these are monotized, then knowing that he will be posting his media there, regardless of the intent at the time of his flight, he is making money and the flights would be 107.

Great question, and the answer is no, and that is on purpose. I generate zero ad revenue anywhere.

 

[Vic Moss]

WOW!!! I got a response from the FAA in less than 24 hours. They were super responsive and helpful. I am impressed.

So, what do you think? Can I fly under the recreational carve out?

====== RESPONSE FROM FAA TO MY QUESTION ==================================
It is an erroneous assumption that if you are not being directly paid for drone operations then you do not need a Part 107 remote pilot certificate. Financial compensation, or the lack of it, is not the determinant for the type of operation you are conducting.
The rule for operating small UAS (under 55 pounds) in the U.S. National Airspace System is 14 CFR Part 107. § 44809 The Exception for Limited Recreational Ops is a "carve out" to this rule which, under certain circumstances, allows operation for the sole purpose of limited recreational flights.
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.
It is important to reiterate that revenue is not the trigger. Direct financial compensation It is but one way to show that the operation is not purely recreational. However, you do not have to receive revenue for a flight to be non-recreational. You could generate good will or other non-monetary value. Getting eyes on your footage if it is your “product” (like a videographer for weddings) would be deemed a non-recreational operation. Even if the footage is not the product, advertising is also a non-recreational op.
Does posting the video serve a business purpose, including (but not limited to) generating revenue, good will, and/or advertising? If yes, then you are governed by Part 107. If no, then you may operate under the exception for recreation providing you comply with all of its provisions.

======== MY REPLY BACK ==========

Thank you so much for that speedy and helpful response! How awesome that our FAA is so responsive.

My intention is solely to get permission to fly in a park for the pure joy of it and to capture the beauty of the park. I have no business or organization that I could possibly advertise with this, there is no good will for myself that I will generate. My name or watermark won't even be on the content. If other people want to copy my content and use it for their own purposes, I make it freely available to all and would neither know nor care if anyone copied it - that's up to them.

May I operate under the exception for recreation, assuming I comply with all the provisions as you noted?

======== FAA Replies back minutes later ==========

If you are flying for the sole purpose of recreation, then you may operate under The Exception for Limited Recreational Ops.

As I said, good folks work that FAA email address. Glad it worked out the way it did.

Just remember, if the park requires you to give them the imagery for their use in order to get permission, that is now "good will" that the FAA was mentioning. 107 then required.

Fly safe and post the pics here once you take them.

 

[Dangerly]

there is enough evidence in your messages here to convict you

I assume you mean if I were to do what I'm asking about, then they would have evidence. Hey, I just wrote to the FAA using my personal email and asked them about this. Obviously I'm trying to do this right but I'm not just accepting received wisdom because I think it's not clear.

 

[SmilingOgre]

WOW!!! I got a response from the FAA in less than 24 hours. They were super responsive and helpful. I am impressed.

So, what do you think? Can I fly under the recreational carve out?

====== RESPONSE FROM FAA TO MY QUESTION ==================================
It is an erroneous assumption that if you are not being directly paid for drone operations then you do not need a Part 107 remote pilot certificate. Financial compensation, or the lack of it, is not the determinant for the type of operation you are conducting.
The rule for operating small UAS (under 55 pounds) in the U.S. National Airspace System is 14 CFR Part 107. § 44809 The Exception for Limited Recreational Ops is a "carve out" to this rule which, under certain circumstances, allows operation for the sole purpose of limited recreational flights.
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.
It is important to reiterate that revenue is not the trigger. Direct financial compensation It is but one way to show that the operation is not purely recreational. However, you do not have to receive revenue for a flight to be non-recreational. You could generate good will or other non-monetary value. Getting eyes on your footage if it is your “product” (like a videographer for weddings) would be deemed a non-recreational operation. Even if the footage is not the product, advertising is also a non-recreational op.
Does posting the video serve a business purpose, including (but not limited to) generating revenue, good will, and/or advertising? If yes, then you are governed by Part 107. If no, then you may operate under the exception for recreation providing you comply with all of its provisions.

======== MY REPLY BACK ==========

Thank you so much for that speedy and helpful response! How awesome that our FAA is so responsive.

My intention is solely to get permission to fly in a park for the pure joy of it and to capture the beauty of the park. I have no business or organization that I could possibly advertise with this, there is no good will for myself that I will generate. My name or watermark won't even be on the content. If other people want to copy my content and use it for their own purposes, I make it freely available to all and would neither know nor care if anyone copied it - that's up to them.

May I operate under the exception for recreation, assuming I comply with all the provisions as you noted?

======== FAA Replies back minutes later ==========

If you are flying for the sole purpose of recreation, then you may operate under The Exception for Limited Recreational Ops.

Great response from the FAA! Kudos to them!

Here is a project I have coming up and my take on using the drone. My Granddaughter is getting married in Hawaii next month with only her and her to be husband present. She will then have a reception/wedding party at my daughter's home near Kansas MO. It is a 14 acre farm/woodland that will accommodate a "tent city" for attendees. I will be doing video of this event with a number of cinema cameras and include some drone footage. Once cut and produced the video will be available for those who wish to have a copy. This could be construed as "good will" as it is a gift. I will be doing this as a recreational flier. It is my assertion that this is a group of people having fun to include the presence of a drone. I believe that to be defensible should a challenge arise.

Enter real world........

What is the probability of anybody complaining about the drone? What is the probability of the FAA covert ops, men in black, agents surveilling the event? What is the probability of anyone outside the party giving a hoot? If some FAA representative did take exception to the event what kind of "donkey" would that make him or her look like? Obviously the FAA is an aggregate of many different opinions and every possible scenario is not fully defined. Yes there is risk with this decision. That's life.

 

[DaveS]

Just getting your Pt. 107 doesn't require you to do commercial work. I got mine so I could better understand airspace rules and know more about where/when I can fly. I have no interest in flying for compensation but I like knowing that I can fly under Pt. 107 rules and not worry about whether my flights fit into the 44809 boundaries or not. I find it makes my time in the air more enjoyable since I know the rules for where I am flying.

I like this advice best. Given how many incidents we've heard of or read about lately of drone pilots flying in restricted air space, I'd say learning about air space is the best reason to study for the Part 107. I certainly found that to be the case when I got my Part 107. In fact, all the weather stuff I think is stupid...Sunny day with little wind, go fly...rainy, windy day, don't fly. That's all I need to know but knowing about air space makes us better more responsible pilots. That said, it is expensive to take the test for the first time. Nonetheless, as AlanL states, if you have a Part 107, you'll never have to wonder, you're covered no matter what.

 

[Chip]

My intention is solely to get permission to fly in a park for the pure joy of it and to capture the beauty of the park. I have no business or organization that I could possibly advertise with this, there is no good will for myself that I will generate. My name or watermark won't even be on the content. If other people want to copy my content and use it for their own purposes, I make it freely available to all and would neither know nor care if anyone copied it - that's up to them.

May I operate under the exception for recreation, assuming I comply with all the provisions as you noted?

The part you did not mention was that drone flying is prohibited at the park but the park is willing to make an exception and let you fly IF you make your work available for the park to use for any purpose. I personally cannot imagine why a park owned by a public entity would ever prohibit drones unless you post your imagery, because it would quickly become an exception that swallowed and defeated the original rule. But, if that is what they are saying and doing, then good luck and go for it.

 

[DSRT_VLTR]

You never wrote what class airspace the park is under. As a 100% recreational pilot, I only operate my Mini 2 in Class G airspace & launch from public property. Frankly, if the park board wants an aerial picture of its park, they can hire a drone pilot with a Part 107 FAA certification to do it. It's not like said pilots are scarce...

 

[Schweizer 126MH]

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.

I've got my Part 107. I occasionally do video work of the various properties for the Whatcom Land Trust. Clearly I need to have the certification. I'd guess D and E 'might' be in violation, but like everything else it comes down to the judgement of an investigator to make the final call.
A bigger issue would be in your hypothetical case would be what's *under* the drone and what you're flying over in the park. The FAA has pretty specific rules about flying over people. Why not get your Part 107 certification? The Pilot Insitute has a great course at a nominal fee.

 

[Kuiper Denizen]

I’ve been operating a drone for two years. Everything I’ve read or seen makes it very clear that the F.A.A. requires 107 licensing for any operation that is not done purely for recreation. If the operation has an element of “consideration” it is not recreational.

If I do a roof inspection for my neighbor in exchange for him taking his barking dog in at night, there’s consideration. Even if I do it so he won’t continue telling everyone in the neighborhood I’m a jerk, there’s consideration. Technically, there’s consideration even if there’s no quid pro quo agreed to. When I took off, the intent of my flight was no longer “recreational”! It became an operation for consideration.

I don’t believe the F.A.A. would ever come after anyone for the latter, or maybe even any of those. But let’s stop and think about the reasoning behind requiring professional licensing.

We can drive our car anywhere we want on our own property without registering, insuring or having it inspected. We can operate it without a driver’s license and at any speed with no limit on our state of intoxication.

If we want to get out on public roads the rules change.

If one wants to operate a drone for consideration, i.e., cash, eggs, milk, friendship, the operator is now flying professionally. The rules change.

The operator now has to have a skill level that demonstrates a knowledge of the governing laws. Going through the process of obtaining that license also implies a level of responsibility and even skill.

Doesn’t the “paying customer” of that drone service deserve that quality of professionalism? Would anyone go to an unlicensed doctor for care or an unlicensed lawyer for advice? Sure, shade tree mechanics are cheaper, but how reliable is their work?

Shouldn’t the drone community insist on making sure that a professional operator has a tested and endorsed level of competency?

The question is the seriousness of the compensation. The argument can be made that ”doing a favor” or receiving a non-fungible payment or gift should not qualify as legitimate compensation.

To date the F.A.A. has set a different standard. If an operator wants to fly for other than “recreational enjoyment“ ”professIonal licensing“ is required.

What does that require? Studying F.A.A. regulations and procedures of safely operating a drone and demonstrating that knowledge on a test that costs $150 to take before taking our “vehicle” off the ground and into public airspace.

The F.A.A. could well make such licensing mandatory for all drone operators. It does for onboard operators of aircraft. The states all have strict requirements before one is allowed to drive a car on public roads.

The fact that the F.A.A. requires so little for an operator to fly ”recreationally“ is a gift.

We should also remember that the F.A.A. protects our right to fly in the airspace it controls with the only caveat that we obey its rules, mostly created for the safety of the public. Uninformed municipalities, law enforcement officers, and home owners associations can’t supersede the F.A.A. and forbid us to fly where the F.A.A. has jurisdiction.

I’m currently studying for my F.A.A. Part 107 license. It’s not a snap, but it shouldn’t be.

A professional license should imbue a level of knowledge and commitment above that of the recreational user.

 

[Ty Pilot]

WOW!!! I got a response from the FAA in less than 24 hours. They were super responsive and helpful. I am impressed.

So that was their response and a follow up by you. What was the question you asked them to get that response?

 

[Player-Pe]

So long as there's no explicit exchange of value, I'm good? If it's implicit, as in the above, then I should be okay?

I think even implicit exchanges might be affected also, but I'm not totally sure. Like...what if they say they'll simply grant you free access (verbally) to fly in the park for 2 years? Tempting right? However, could that fall under Part 107 even if you're not required to submit photos to them, but yet, they know you'll post your pics on IG and will copy & post on their website?

 

[Walleye Hunter]

I just want to hear what the penalty would be if one got nabbed and there was one.

 

[Squire330]

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.

$$$

 

[JimSteadman]

Unfortunately, it's really not simple at all. That's why the OP is here asking this question.

The link you shared states "the aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes". It does not explain what "recreational purposes" means. I believe that's what the OP is trying to understand.

I agree. Of the 8 rules the only one which is in question is the first. The remaining rules seem to me to apply to all drone flights - recreational or commercial.

 

[finity]

You are obviously trying to play semantics with the rules by doing a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean"...(any Monty Python fans here? ) and trying to get the answer you want likely knowing that the real answer isn't what you want to hear.

You already said in another thread here that the park was going to give you permission to fly if you gave them access to the pictures "to help promote diversity and awareness of the State Park on their website". That's not recreational and requires 107 no matter how you try to spin it.

Just either heed the valid advice given and get the 107 or don't take the flight or just ignore the advice here and do the flight since no one will likely catch you anyway.

Of course, unless by you keeping this thread going and now everyone knowing what the real deal is that they might be watching now.

Is it a risk you want to take?

I'm just sayin'...

 

[Ty Pilot]

You (Dangerly) already said in another thread here that the park was going to give you permission to fly if you gave them access to the pictures "to help promote diversity and awareness of the State Park on their website". That's not recreational and requires 107 no matter how you try to spin it.

In that earlier thread you reference, he also admitted that he knew he would need a 107.

Yeah, that pretty much excludes me without a 107. Guess I need to get my 107 now...

I get that the FAA makes the rules fairly vague in some areas to give pilots enough rope to hang themselves, but these threads keep popping up where someone tries to construct a means by which they can essentially operate as a 107 but remain recreational. I think others read these threads, and since the responses are split down the middle with half saying 'yay' and the other half saying 'nay' - the answer-shopping never ends unfortunately.

I think the OP has an outstanding opportunity that I would love to have, if I could get my foot in the door of just one state park to make promotional media, I would piggy back that to another and another and build that into a niche market.

A couple hundred bucks, a few weeks of spare time and, the bonus of being a more informed pilot by being a 107 certified pilot; seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[striperseeker]

My understanding is quite simple. Get paid or compensated any way, Part 107.. that includes flying for someone else's compensation ie volunteering for an organization. Not paid or compensated, recreational.

There are other things that come with 107 cert. Ability to fly 400' over an object (REC flyers are limited to a height of 400' ONLY). Plus there is the personal satisfaction of knowing you at least understand the basics of Air Space and the regs.