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

[Dmcvey]

And just in case anyone wants to see where it is spelled out by the FAA, on their website; that membership to a CBO is NOT required Click THIS Link

View attachment 162969

Ok, of the 4 approved CBO's, 3 have posted online safety guidelines. I could not find a list for STEM. Of the 3 with posted guidelines, 2 say you can use them without being a member.

All safety guidelines must be followed while participating or identifying as an FTCA member. ​

AMA is posted above.

My point is that we have reduced REC vs. 107 to am I making money or not. Most rec flyers don't know the rules, just I am not making money. If you are claiming to fly Recreationally, you should be able to at least name a single CBO before claiming to fly under their safety guidelines. Or better yet, join and support the organization that you are coat tailing off of for free.

The default is Part 107, Part 107 is required for ALL pilots unless you meet ALL of 44809. So, if you claim to fly under 44809, you should be required to at least read the safety guidelines of the CBO you are flying under. And if you are fly your Mini 2000 feet downrange (beyond the requirements for LOS) you are no longer Recreational.

Just go get the 107, most people spend more time and effort trying to figure out how to skirt, loophole or avoid the regulation than it takes to get 107.

 

[SmilingOgre]

I’m not only compliment to 44809 but have no desire to fly for purposes beyond 44809 constraints. I have purchased Pilot Institutes 107 training and study it. I enjoy the knowledge And apply it. I will not apply for the 107. The cert has no value to me.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Ok, of the 4 approved CBO's, 3 have posted online safety guidelines. I could not find a list for STEM. Of the 3 with posted guidelines, 2 say you can use them without being a member.

My point is that we have reduced REC vs. 107 to am I making money or not.

I don't know who this "we" is but it certainly isn't me - look at my responses in this thread, and all the others like it. I have stated on this forum many times that I think to fly a drone in the US (for any purpose), a 107 should be obtained at a minimum.

My original response to you was because you stated (incorrectly) that the AMA required a recreational drone flyer to join in order to be "within" their guidelines (post #64). As I showed in posts #74 and 75, this is not the case. The AMA does not have the authority to mandate membership.

What the AMA can do is word their literature in a manner that will confuse people into believing they have to join. But then the AMA has been hemorrhaging members since the dawn of the drone and this is a desperate attempt (perhaps?) to stop the bleeding.

PS. I first joined the AMA in 1978 and was a member up until 3 years ago because; I have all but stopped flying fixed wing and am focused on multi rotors.

 

[finity]

costs under a 100 bucks to take the test.

I just took the test recently and it cost me $175.

 

[Walleye Hunter]

I was talking to the retired fed that I know last week. I'm not sure what all he did but part of it was to ride with commercial pilots but he doesn't know anything about the drones. I do not know if he's a typical fed or not but in his opinion, the line was if you took money for flying the drone. I know that there are regulations and I know that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed and in my experience, they are not always in the same place. He did seem pretty serious about situations like unlicensed realtors taking video for commercial purposes.

 

[Riteguy]

It's all about intent. So...

A) Part 107. But only if your intent when you made the flight was to post images on your Instagram account. If 3 weeks later you go "Hey, that's not a bad shot, I think I'll post it"....recreational.

B) No problem there, see A.

C) See A and B.

D) Part 107, flight, and images are for the benefit of the park.

E) Same as D if you intended to do that at the time of the flight.

The intent is the key to all of it. Though in all your scenarios, doubt the FAA would even pay attention unless you were doing it a lot. If, for example, you run a YouTube channel or an Instagram all drone related then they might take notice or someone (gasp) might rat you out. It seems muddy, but it's not really.

Any flight where you intend to benefit yourself or someone else is Part 107. Benefit, that's the grey area, but it does not have to be monetary. A good example, using the drone to check out your roof to see if it is in need of repair...part 107, because there is a benefit to you in that you don't have to hire someone to go up and look at it.

So, in your opinion, everything is Part 107 because everyone should be. I call bogus!! If I want to see my roof because I suspect a nest of bee's have infested my attic, you're saying I must have Part 107 because I've avoided paying a bee keeper and have financially benefited? Get real! Best to keep your mouth shut and do what you will.

 

[Dmcvey]

So, in your opinion, everything is Part 107 because everyone should be. I call bogus!! If I want to see my roof because I suspect a nest of bee's have infested my attic, you're saying I must have Part 107 because I've avoided paying a bee keeper and have financially benefited? Get real! Best to keep your mouth shut and do what you will.

Not his opinion..the rules of the FAA. Everything is 107 unless you met ALL of 44809 exemptions.

 

[Dangerly]

Not his opinion..the rules of the FAA. Everything is 107 unless you met ALL of 44809 exemptions.

The FAA says this at https://www.faa.gov/faq/what-definition-recreational-or-hobby-use-uas-or-drone

What is the definition of recreational or hobby use of a UAS or drone?​

Recreational or hobby UAS or drone use is flying for enjoyment and not for work, business purposes, or for compensation or hire. In the FAA's Interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, the FAA relied on the ordinary, dictionary definition of these terms.

The 44809 requirements are published here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/Editorial_Update_AC_91-57B.pdf

If you search this document, you will not find the phrase "good will" and that's where I have the biggest problem. If the only way I can fly my drone "recreationally" is to agree to give the property owner permission to use my drone video after I've had my fun, then the FAA will give me a big fine. That doesn't seem right to me.

 

[mobilehomer]

The FAA says this at https://www.faa.gov/faq/what-definition-recreational-or-hobby-use-uas-or-drone

The 44809 requirements are published here: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/Editorial_Update_AC_91-57B.pdf

If you search this document, you will not find the phrase "good will" and that's where I have the biggest problem. If the only way I can fly my drone "recreationally" is to agree to give the property owner permission to use my drone video after I've had my fun, then the FAA will give me a big fine. That doesn't seem right to me.

Try this link - https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_flyers
Read it all, especially the first Note.

 

[Dangerly]

• Goodwill can also be considered non-recreational. This would include things like volunteering to use your drone to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit organization.

Here's where it's really fuzzy for me. I'm not volunteering to use my drone for some business purpose. Rather, some business is giving me permission to have fun flying my drone on their property so long as I share the video with them. And then I get fined. I understand I can't do that, but it doesn't seem right to me.

 

[mobilehomer]

Here's where it's really fuzzy for me. I'm not volunteering to use my drone for some business purpose. Rather, some business is giving me permission to have fun flying my drone on their property so long as I share the video with them. And then I get fined. I understand I can't do that, but it doesn't seem right to me.

Quid pro quo is not recreational. You are exchanging your content for flying privileges.

 

[Dangerly]

Quid pro quo is not recreational. You are exchanging your content for flying privileges.

Yes, as I wrote "I understand I can't do that" so I know it's not recreational. I have a work around though for that I do not intend to try, but it illustrates the problem. If I routinely post my content on my own website with a license that lets anyone use my content for free without attribution, and people know that, and then I get permission to fly for recreational purposes only, no one has to ask me for the content in exchange for flying. What is the quid pro quo there?

 

[mobilehomer]

Yes, as I wrote "I understand I can't do that" so I know it's not recreational. I have a work around though for that I do not intend to try, but it illustrates the problem. If I routinely post my content on my own website with a license that lets anyone use my content for free without attribution, and people know that, and then I get permission to fly for recreational purposes only, no one has to ask me for the content in exchange for flying. What is the quid pro quo there?

It's the INTENT of the flight that is the deciding factor. If you intend to assist or supply others with content, that is Part 107. If you fly and post for your own enjoyment and someones wants to pay you or use your work, what was the intent of the original flight?

 

[Dangerly]

It's the INTENT of the flight that is the deciding factor. If you intend to assist or supply others with content, that is Part 107. If you fly and post for your own enjoyment and someones wants to pay you or use your work, what was the intent of the original flight?

Thanks, I get that part about the intent. My intention is to always fly for the pure fun of it for myself, never generate revenue, never generate good will, and post my favorite content freely available to anyone that wants it.

If I ask someone for permission to fly and they say only if they can get a copy of my photo, and I respond by saying they don't need my permission because I routinely give away all my posted content for free routinely, then do I need a 107? I am not intending to assist or supply others with content but I know they may use if it they like it.

 

[Torque]

Thanks, I get that part about the intent. My intention is to always fly for the pure fun of it for myself, never generate revenue, never generate good will, and post my favorite content freely available to anyone that wants it.

If I ask someone for permission to fly and they say only if they can get a copy of my photo, and I respond by saying they don't need my permission because I routinely give away all my posted content for free routinely, then do I need a 107? I am not intending to assist or supply others with content but I know they may use if it they like it.

You need your part 107 because your intent is to share your photos with anyone and everyone and they may use them to profit. Your intent may not be for you to make money, but your intent of sharing your photos when you have no control of how they are used compromises your "intnent" IMO.
You are asking very specific questions in an area that is gray to many of us - you should contact the FAA with these very questions.
A few times a year I use my drone to check my gutters and check the moss growth on my roof. I am not part 107, Do I think the FAA will knock on my door - absolutely not. I fly my Avata within the confines of my half acre lot after dark without a spotter, at altitudes less than 15 ft. I doubt the FAA will knock at my door. I often make short flights where I am obscured by large evergreens, and I don't have VLOS. I am not worried about the FAA.
However if I start doing roof inspections for my neighbors, post my FPV after dark flights to YouTube, along with my "drone was obscured by trees" non VLOS videos, I would be concerned. As it is, I am concerned enough to realize I'm better off with my Part 107 regardless of my intent when flying.

 

[Dangerly]

You are asking very specific questions in an area that is gray to many of us - you should contact the FAA with these very questions.

Thank you for confirming my belief that this is a gray area! That's kinda the reason why I started this thread. I also know that many members here don't think this is a gray area at all. And again, I think that's part of the problem.

Also, just to be clear about this: I am intending to get a 107 just to get out of the gray area.

 

[AlanL]

I think this thread has used more brain cycles than it would take to get the Pt. 107

 

[Dangerly]

I think this thread has used more brain cycles than it would take to get the Pt. 107

If it indirectly makes the whole 107 thing better in some way, maybe because I ask the FAA about this, it's worth it.

 

[Torque]

Thank you for confirming my belief that this is a gray area! That's kinda the reason why I started this thread. I also know that many members here don't think this is a gray area at all. And again, I think that's part of the problem.

Also, just to be clear about this: I am intending to get a 107 just to get out of the gray area.

I need to clarify - this isn't a gray area to those who have their Part 107, but to those of us who don't, or are studying for our part 107, it is a gray area IMO. And when you asked a group of mostly confused fellow pilots for clarity, you're going to get more gray and confusing answers, which is why I suggest taking this specific question to an FAA website.

 

[Ty Pilot]

. . . . I also know that many members here don't think this is a gray area at all. And again, I think that's part of the problem.

Well, I'm guessing you may think I fall into that crowd. But how does having enough; time/experience to understand the difference between recreational and commercial by those with certification, cause this 'gray' area exactly?

Especially when the purpose of this entire thread (to decide if you need 107), is summed up perfectly and unambiguously by the FAA:

"Remember, if you’re not sure which rules apply to your flight, fly under Part 107"

There is no gray area. Plain and simple.