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

[Zbip57]

The fact that the F.A.A. requires so little for an operator to fly ”recreationally“ is a gift.
[...]
A professional license should imbue a level of knowledge and commitment above that of the recreational user.

But why should there be two separate classes of users?

I can fly over my house purely with the intent of recreational leisure, but later studying the video I notice that there are leaves collecting in the gutters of my house. That's okay because the original "intent" was recreational.

However, if on the exact same daily recreational flight over my house, I purposely intend to check the gutters during the flight, that's suddenly Part 107, for which I need to pay $$$ to pass an exam to demonstrate that I can decode METAR weather reports and all sorts of other totally inapplicable stuff which otherwise is not required for a recreational flight.

I know the FAA only did this because Congress told them to, and it's how the rules are currently interpreted. But why should the same flight be allowed to proceed with less applicable regulations if it's for fun versus for any other benefit?

The FAA makes this gift of requiring so little of recreational operators, yet requires a greater level of knowledge and commitment based solely on "intent"?

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 "intent" IMO.

I fly my drones for my own enjoyment. A big part of that enjoyment is in making videos. It's not a business. I gain no benefit from this, other than the enjoyment of my hobby.

None of my videos are monetized by me. Yet I gain enjoyment from the fact that other people sometimes post encouraging comments on my Youtube videos, saying that they have enjoyed watching the video. Does that mean I require a full Part 107 certification because others have somehow "benefited" from watching my videos?

Another of my "recreational" hobbies is reading and sometimes contributing posts on this forum. To back up my opinions, I sometimes intentionally post videos with the "intent" and express purpose of demonstrating how a particular feature works on my drones. I recently posted a series of videos demonstrating how the infrared height sensors work on the VPS system on my Mavic Mini.

I'm not a licensed flight instructor. It's not my "intent" to instruct people how to fly their aircraft. Posting in this forum is merely another of my recreational hobbies. I "intentionally" flew my drone at low height in my own driveway to create videos demonstrating what the VPS height sensors actually can and cannot do. I did that as proof of what I posted in this recent thread:
mavicpilots.com/threads/yes-landing-protection-can-be-disabled-but.134162/

I could have done those exact same flights under different conditions:

1. Just fooling around for my own amusement, no video, no post,
2. Conduct an experiment solely for my own education, no video,
3. Experimenting solely to support my written arguments in that thread,
4. Experimenting and posting video evidence to support my arguments, or
5. Experimenting, videoing, posting with the "intent" to educate others.

Other people may, or may not, have "benefited" by learning something from reading that discussion thread. Why should the FAA care whether I flew my drone low across a tabletop for my own amusement, or whether I did it with the intent to use the videos in those forum posts?

The FAA requires so little of recreational operators, yet if there's any chance of anyone benefiting from the exact same flight you better be carrying proof of your ability to decipher METAR and NOTAM codes etc. It makes no sense that recreational operators can be trusted to fly safely, yet anyone "intending" any benefit other than amusement to themselves must be held to a higher standard.

 

[Ty Pilot]

The FAA makes this gift of requiring so little of recreational operators, yet requires a greater level of knowledge and commitment based solely on "intent"?

Zbip57, (or others that are of the same mind) I read your whole post and I have some ideas to toss out.

Have you ever been hired as a photographer or videographer to shoot an event perhaps a wedding or outdoor activity? In particular where there are no do-overs or retakes? Where everything happens in real time and you've taken the job and understand there is a high expectation by the client that you will not miss anything? Have you ever done a job such as this knowing a portion of your monthly income is at stake? Indeed your career as a photographer, your reputation and pride of workmanship? Have you ever done that while flying a drone?

The FAA cannot tailor fit the 107 certification to everyone's needs so the level of entry is set a bit high perhaps to check gutters for a living but, there are many 107's that operate in just about every conceivable scenario we've seen discussed on these forums.

When you add the weight and pressure of a job to simple drone flight believe me, as you shift focus to the job your flying will rely almost entirely on muscle memory or the sub conscious. Having all of the topics taught for 107 at hand will allow a working pilot a vast toolbox that will cover virtually every kind of operational scenario they will encounter along with the knowledge of a proper workflow to ensure safety as well as getting the job done.

 

[Zbip57]

Have you ever been hired as a photographer or videographer to shoot an event perhaps a wedding or outdoor activity? In particular where there are no do-overs or retakes?

A good photographer/videographer will know to bring the correct lenses, know how to adjust focus and exposure, and will remember to ensure there actually is film in the cameras. Remembering to press the record button at the proper moment is in no way dependant on being able to decipher METAR and NOTAM codes.

Have you ever done a job such as this knowing a portion of your monthly income is at stake? Indeed your career as a photographer, your reputation and pride of workmanship? Have you ever done that while flying a drone?

My expensive drones always represent a substantial portion of my monthly income. If I should lose one, it would hurt either way, whether flying recreational or commercial. I always take care to minimize the risks. In the event of any unexpected occurrence, I make certain to fully diagnose and understand what went wrong to ensure it never happens again.

When you add the weight and pressure of a job to simple drone flight believe me, as you shift focus to the job your flying will rely almost entirely on muscle memory or the sub conscious.

And yet, to obtain Part 107 certification, there is no flight test requirement to demonstrate your muscle memory or subconscious ability to control your drone in flight.

Having all of the topics taught for 107 at hand will allow a working pilot a vast toolbox that will cover virtually every kind of operational scenario they will encounter along with the knowledge of a proper workflow to ensure safety as well as getting the job done.

All the topics taught for 107 will enable you determine whether it is legal for you to fly at your wedding location, but it doesn't teach how to fly. Part 107 doesn't make you a better wedding photographer.

I don't think your point of view is valid at all. You're whole premise is that it's more stressful to be flying under the weight and pressure of a job, whereas recreational flying is somehow happy and carefree thus requiring less regulation. If you fly in stressful job situations you therefore require Part 107 certification, whereas carefree recreational flyers are somehow better equipped and able to cope with their stress-free flying environment.

There certainly is a significant difference in the level of hazard and the duty of care in piloting a commercial airliner when you're responsible for the safety of hundreds of paying passengers, versus caring only for yourself when dangling from your personal hang-glider. I can see a need for different licensing requirements there.

But I do NOT see a need for any difference whatsoever whether I choose to fly around our cottage lake recording video merely for my own fun, or whether my neighbour offers me a beer to snap a photo or video of his cottage while I'm already flying around the lake anyway.

 

[Ty Pilot]

A good photographer/videographer will know to bring the correct lenses, know how to adjust focus and exposure, and will remember to ensure there actually is film in the cameras. Remembering to press the record button at the proper moment is in no way dependant on being able to decipher METAR and NOTAM codes.My expensive drones always represent a substantial portion of my monthly income. If I should lose one, it would hurt either way, whether flying recreational or commercial. I always take care to minimize the risks. In the event of any unexpected occurrence, I make certain to fully diagnose and understand what went wrong to ensure it never happens again.
And yet, to obtain Part 107 certification, there is no flight test requirement to demonstrate your muscle memory or subconscious ability to control your drone in flight. All the topics taught for 107 will enable you determine whether it is legal for you to fly at your wedding location, but it doesn't teach how to fly. Part 107 doesn't make you a better wedding photographer. I don't think your point of view is valid at all. You're whole premise is that it's more stressful to be flying under the weight and pressure of a job, whereas recreational flying is somehow happy and carefree thus requiring less regulation. If you fly in stressful job situations you therefore require Part 107 certification, whereas carefree recreational flyers are somehow better equipped and able to cope with their stress-free flying environment. There certainly is a significant difference in the level of hazard and the duty of care in piloting a commercial airliner when you're responsible for the safety of hundreds of paying passengers, versus caring only for yourself when dangling from your personal hang-glider. I can see a need for different licensing requirements there.

But I do NOT see a need for any difference whatsoever whether I choose to fly around our cottage lake recording video merely for my own fun, or whether my neighbour offers me a beer to snap a photo or video of his cottage while I'm already flying around the lake anyway.

Well, you can state that all you want, but it is a known fact that pilots (manned and unmanned) will take greater risks when there is an element of 'necessity' added to there flight. Recreational pilots without training (for the most part) will not recognize when they're taking greater risks, and will almost always focus more on the job than on flight safety.

I've worked with new (rec only), pilots and the pattern I spoke of is almost always there, but of course - they don't see it.

 

[Ty Pilot]

All the topics taught for 107 will enable you determine whether it is legal for you to fly at your wedding location, but it doesn't teach how to fly. Part 107 doesn't make you a better wedding photographer.

This above all else, shows how little you really know about 107. The topics below are straight from FAA-G-8082-22. I would agree that the first two could be seen as making one able to determine if a flight is legal but the rest is all about operations

• Regulations
• Airspace
• Weather Sources
• Effects of weather on UAs
• Small UAs Loading
• Emergency Procedures
• Crew Resource Management
• Radio Communication
• UAs Performance
• Drugs and alcohol
• Aeronautical Decision-Making
• Maintenance & Preflight Inspection

Part 107 makes you a batter pilot and that will make you better at the other stuff.

 

[Zbip57]

This above all else, shows how little you really know about 107.

Fortunately I live in Canada and therefor I'm not required to know anything about 107. However, the little I do know leaves me scratching my head.

Is it true that the FAA does not require registration for a sub-250gram Mini if it is flown for "recreational" purposes? But if you want to use the same sub-250 gram Mini to check the gutters on your own house, the FAA requires you to pay a fee to register the drone, and pay a fee to take the test required to achieve full Part 107 certification? That somehow makes sense to you, since the overwhelming stress of trying to concentrate on such a complex job makes all those regulations necessary?

In Canada some restrictions apply equally to ALL drones regardless of size, such as flying in National Parks or in flight restricted zones like over the Parliament Buildings or Niagara Falls. But there is no requirement to register a sub-250gram drone, and there is no distinction between recreational or commercial use of any drone.

I can legally use my Mini without registration to inspect my roof gutters whenever I feel like it. I can even use it to take on a paid commercial wedding shoot.

Since the battery size limits my flights to 20 minutes, I have no need for long range weather forecasts. I just look out the window. If I feel the need for more detailed input I can even open the window to check the outside temperature. Anything more fancy than that, I go to John's forecasting source.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Is it true that the FAA does not require registration for a sub-250gram Mini if it is flown for "recreational" purposes?

Correct.

But if you want to use the same sub-250 gram Mini to check the gutters on your own house, the FAA requires you to pay a fee to register the drone, and pay a fee to take the test required to achieve full Part 107 certification? That somehow makes sense to you, since the overwhelming stress of trying to concentrate on such a complex job makes all those regulations necessary?

Seems there is a lot of gutter-checking up there . . . . but if you wish to use your sub 250 gram Mini, for commercial purposes - yes, you need a 107 and like all other 107 flown aircraft - it will need a unique registration. Why should that be any different to any other 107? So yeah, it makes sense.

 

[Zbip57]

Seems there is a lot of gutter-checking up there . . .

Gutter-checking is merely an example to illustrate my point. But, as has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, only your own time-wasting amusement can be considered as "recreational". The moment your flight is of any benefit to anyone, it is no longer recreational, regardless of whether anyone receives compensation, even if it's just a goodwill gesture.

If you live on a farm and enjoy flying your drone out to the end of the field and back for fun, that's recreational. But if you do the exact same flight for the purpose of checking whether anyone left the gate open on the pasture, that's no longer recreational. That's now commercial farming to ensure your livestock isn't escaping.

It's the exact same flight, covering the same distance, except for the "intent". The distinction has nothing to do with safety.

I would suggest that the recreational flight is of far greater danger. When you're just fooling around you're more likely to try dangerous stunts, like flying low under the parked farm machinery. But if you're only planning to zip out to the end of the field to check the gate, you're more likely to go straight out and straight back.

You're suggesting completely the opposite. You're saying when there's money at stake you're more likely to crack under the weight and pressure of a job, and an untrained recreational flyer is more likely to fail at this stressful task than a fully licensed Part 107 pilot.

if you wish to use your sub 250 gram Mini, for commercial purposes - yes, you need a 107 and like all other 107 flown aircraft - it will need a unique registration. Why should that be any different to any other 107? So yeah, it makes sense.

How does that make any sense at all?

A sub-250g drone is considered so harmless that, in the hands of an untrained recreational pilot it's not even required to be registered. But if I use the same drone to check whether the cattle are slipping out of the gate, it suddenly becomes so much more dangerous that the Mini now needs to be registered and you need to have a licence to prove you know how to look up the METAR data for a weather report over the gate before deciding it's safe to fly there and back.

If the FAA regs are about safety, how is it considered allowable for recreational pilots to fly an unregistered Mini out to the gate and back just for fun, but you need to be a Part 107 pilot in order to be allowed to actually look at the gate while the drone is out there?

It's a ridiculous distinction, no?

 

[Ty Pilot]

Gutter-checking is merely an example to illustrate my point. But, as has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, only your own time-wasting amusement can be considered as "recreational". The moment your flight is of any benefit to anyone, it is no longer recreational, regardless of whether anyone receives compensation, even if it's just a goodwill gesture.

If you live on a farm and enjoy flying your drone out to the end of the field and back for fun, that's recreational. But if you do the exact same flight for the purpose of checking whether anyone left the gate open on the pasture, that's no longer recreational. That's now commercial farming to ensure your livestock isn't escaping.

It's the exact same flight, covering the same distance, except for the "intent". The distinction has nothing to do with safety.

I would suggest that the recreational flight is of far greater danger. When you're just fooling around you're more likely to try dangerous stunts, like flying low under the parked farm machinery. But if you're only planning to zip out to the end of the field to check the gate, you're more likely to go straight out and straight back.

You're suggesting completely the opposite. You're saying when there's money at stake you're more likely to crack under the weight and pressure of a job, and an untrained recreational flyer is more likely to fail at this stressful task than a fully licensed Part 107 pilot.



How does that make any sense at all?

A sub-250g drone is considered so harmless that, in the hands of an untrained recreational pilot it's not even required to be registered. But if I use the same drone to check whether the cattle are slipping out of the gate, it suddenly becomes so much more dangerous that the Mini now needs to be registered and you need to have a licence to prove you know how to look up the METAR data for a weather report over the gate before deciding it's safe to fly there and back.

If the FAA regs are about safety, how is it considered allowable for recreational pilots to fly an unregistered Mini out to the gate and back just for fun, but you need to be a Part 107 pilot in order to be allowed to actually look at the gate while the drone is out there?

It's a ridiculous distinction, no?

I think there are two issues in your responses that are intentionally slanted towards your argument. You have created the 'gutter' scenario and used it many times, and then there is this new 'gate' scenario.

Both of these are sitting on the edge of rec/commercial legality discussion. In both cases you boldly state without a doubt, that under FAA these (scenarios) are commercial. You seem to do this as a means of further illustrating what you call the absurdity or non-sensical nature of the 107.

I disagree with both. If I lived on a farm and was not 107 rated and wanted to use my drone to help me (and me only) with chores around my house (gutter and gate checking), then I would do it. There is nothing there that is in furtherance of a business, or anyone else. I would be using the drone for my own private purposes. I would call those scenarios (exactly how you described them) - recreational. I find doing chores around the house as a means of fun and exercise.

As I mentioned earlier, the FAA had to put forth regulations that covered a very wide spectrum of drones and drones use. They could NOT tailor the regulations to include every single possible use.

Given that; no, I do not think the distinction between recreational and 107 is ridiculous.

 

[Zbip57]

I think there are two issues in your responses that are intentionally slanted towards your argument. You have created the 'gutter' scenario and used it many times, and then there is this new 'gate' scenario.

Those are merely two examples. I could come up with a million more. But that's not the issue.

The issue is that it's ridiculous to impose a threshold on the applicability of "safety" regulations based on whether the flight is recreational or not, in particular with respect to sub-250 gram drones.

Let's take it a little further into the realm of absurd with this even more extreme example. I can fold up a sheet of paper into a paper airplane that weighs next to nothing, and add a propeller powered by a tiny electric motor (ergo capable of sustained flight). If I do that merely for my own amusement, nobody cares.

Now let's say I stick the name of my business on this paper airplane and fly it for the purpose of advertising. That's no longer "recreational". Does that mean I'd need to register that paper airplane and obtain a Part 107 certification to legally fly it? According to you, anything (regardless of weight, even a sub-250g Mini) requires full Part 107 if flown for non-recreational purposes.

Both of these are sitting on the edge of rec/commercial legality discussion. In both cases you boldly state without a doubt, that under FAA these (scenarios) are commercial. You seem to do this as a means of further illustrating what you call the absurdity or non-sensical nature of the 107.

Yes! That's exactly what I'm doing. And to be clear, I'm not the one who defined that edge. The FAA, as quoted in several posts above, defined that threshold to be decided solely on whether the flight is "recreational" or not, even if you're merely flying a paper airplane.

"The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes."

I disagree with both. If I lived on a farm and was not 107 rated and wanted to use my drone to help me (and me only) with chores around my house (gutter and gate checking), then I would do it. There is nothing there that is in furtherance of a business, or anyone else. I would be using the drone for my own private purposes. I would call those scenarios (exactly how you described them) - recreational. I find doing chores around the house as a means of fun and exercise.

In that case we're right back to the original questions posted by @Dangerly. Who decides what is considered "recreational"? He has permission to fly in a park. The park officials ask if he can give them a photo. Right away everyone here points out that's now non-recreational.

As I mentioned earlier, the FAA had to put forth regulations that covered a very wide spectrum of drones and drones use. They could NOT tailor the regulations to include every single possible use.

Given that; no, I do not think the distinction between recreational and 107 is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous.

Canada's regulations make far more sense. Anything under 250 grams is considered harmless, just "don't be an idiot". Anything 250g-25kg requires registration and either a Basic or Advanced certificate. Whether you fly for fun or for a business or merely to inspect your roof gutters make absolutely no difference to anyone. The same regulations and tests apply to everyone.

 

[Walleye Hunter]

Gutter-checking is merely an example to illustrate my point. But, as has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, only your own time-wasting amusement can be considered as "recreational". The moment your flight is of any benefit to anyone, it is no longer recreational, regardless of whether anyone receives compensation, even if it's just a goodwill gesture.

If you live on a farm and enjoy flying your drone out to the end of the field and back for fun, that's recreational. But if you do the exact same flight for the purpose of checking whether anyone left the gate open on the pasture, that's no longer recreational. That's now commercial farming to ensure your livestock isn't escaping.

It's the exact same flight, covering the same distance, except for the "intent". The distinction has nothing to do with safety.

I would suggest that the recreational flight is of far greater danger. When you're just fooling around you're more likely to try dangerous stunts, like flying low under the parked farm machinery. But if you're only planning to zip out to the end of the field to check the gate, you're more likely to go straight out and straight back.

You're suggesting completely the opposite. You're saying when there's money at stake you're more likely to crack under the weight and pressure of a job, and an untrained recreational flyer is more likely to fail at this stressful task than a fully licensed Part 107 pilot.



How does that make any sense at all?

A sub-250g drone is considered so harmless that, in the hands of an untrained recreational pilot it's not even required to be registered. But if I use the same drone to check whether the cattle are slipping out of the gate, it suddenly becomes so much more dangerous that the Mini now needs to be registered and you need to have a licence to prove you know how to look up the METAR data for a weather report over the gate before deciding it's safe to fly there and back.

If the FAA regs are about safety, how is it considered allowable for recreational pilots to fly an unregistered Mini out to the gate and back just for fun, but you need to be a Part 107 pilot in order to be allowed to actually look at the gate while the drone is out there?

It's a ridiculous distinction, no?

I agree and rather than get into an argument, I've just been watching from the sidelines.

I have two friends who I would consider reasonable sources of logic. One is a retired FAA FSDO worker (I guess he'd be called an agent) and one who is retired Naval aviator who is now flying commercial. The latter of which, signed off on my Part 107 Cert. He asked me to fly up and get a close look at some shingles on his house because he found some pieces in his yard after some of the bad wind's we've had here. I already had my Part 107 license so I was legal but I'd have done it for him anyway. Come and lock me up for the notion. Anyhow, they both rolled their eyes when I spoke with them about some of this stuff. I am pretty much a law abiding citizen but there are some things that I'm just going to say, "Who's going to know?", and go on with it. IMO, a lot of it is petty garbage.

 

[Zbip57]

I am pretty much a law abiding citizen but there are some things that I'm just going to say, "Who's going to know?", and go on with it. IMO, a lot of it is petty garbage.

Agreed. All of my examples were deliberately absurd and petty. As long as you stick to the "don't be an idiot" rule, who's ever going to know or care?

The problem is, if ever you do suffer an unfortunate accident (it can happen) and the FAA gets involved, you can be in for a world of pain if they decide you've been operating without the proper credentials on the wrong side of that seemingly completely arbitrary threshold between recreational or non-recreational.

The people who agree to bend a knee and meekly submit to registering all their model planes and put in the required effort and expense required to study and pass all the required exams, those are the people who will object the strongest whenever anyone dares to do anything that even remotely smells of non-recreational flight without a full Part 107.

And no matter how many times anyone asks for advice here, there's always someone eager to split hairs and quick to point out that every flight requires full Part 107 compliance if it's not conducted for the sole purpose and intent of your own entertainment and nothing else. No benefit is to be obtained in any way from that recreational flight, not even for yourself, other than for your own personal amusement (however that's supposed to be defined).

But it's actually way more complicated than that.

 

[mavic3usa]

Why doesn't anyone talk about the "in furtherance of a business" part of the discussion? If you do something that isn't strictly for fun but you are not doing it to further business activity....do we just label everything as commercial (regardless if it is truly commercial activity of not) and then except it recreationally?

Personally I think the FAA is going to have a hard time declaring that you are operating a drone in furtherance of a business if you simply fly up to the roof of your own home and look around for 5 minutes. Technically it isn't fly for fun but you definitely intended to "inspect" the roof.

 

[Ty Pilot]

Why doesn't anyone talk about the "in furtherance of a business" part of the discussion? If you do something that isn't strictly for fun but you are not doing it to further business activity....do we just label everything as commercial (regardless if it is truly commercial activity of not) and then except it recreationally?

I did mention that very phrase in my last post but the anti-rules crowd has probably never heard that and only seek to impugn the regulations.

I disagree with both. If I lived on a farm and was not 107 rated and wanted to use my drone to help me (and me only) with chores around my house (gutter and gate checking), then I would do it. There is nothing there that is in furtherance of a business, or anyone else. I would be using the drone for my own private purposes. I would call those scenarios (exactly how you described them) - recreational. I find doing chores around the house as a means of fun and exercise.

 

[Dangerly]

Why doesn't anyone talk about the "in furtherance of a business" part of the discussion? If you do something that isn't strictly for fun but you are not doing it to further business activity....do we just label everything as commercial (regardless if it is truly commercial activity of not) and then except it recreationally?

Personally I think the FAA is going to have a hard time declaring that you are operating a drone in furtherance of a business if you simply fly up to the roof of your own home and look around for 5 minutes. Technically it isn't fly for fun but you definitely intended to "inspect" the roof.

Maybe the root of the problem is that a recreational pilot could find everything they do fun and just for themselves, even though their fun also happens to have business benefits to themselves or someone else. The example that has motivated me to get a 107 is that someone is giving me permission to fly for fun on their property so long as I give them a copy. Is this for business purposes? My purpose in flying is not for business purposes and is purely for the fun of it, but it just so happens that someone else can get business value out of what I'm doing purely for fun, which is irrelevant to my sole purpose of having fun.

 

[mavic3usa]

Maybe the root of the problem is that a recreational pilot could find everything they do fun and just for themselves, even though their fun also happens to have business benefits to themselves or someone else. The example that has motivated me to get a 107 is that someone is giving me permission to fly for fun on their property so long as I give them a copy. Is this for business purposes? My purpose in flying is not for business purposes and is purely for the fun of it, but it just so happens that someone else can get business value out of what I'm doing purely for fun, which is irrelevant to my sole purpose of having fun.

I think I can answer that or try to at least. The way i understand the ruling, even if the flight is for fun, if it furthers a business then it's a commercial flight. The pilot shouldn't claim he is flying for fun plus a whole bunch of other reasons and then try to equate only the fun part means it is recreational. Furthering your business + having fun = Part 107.

Let's talk about intent. If you take off for fun and your intent is to simply fly around and observe the countryside, it's a recreational flight. If a week or two later, someone sees your video and want to do business with that video, your intent when you took off last month was to have fun and when you took off, you had no commercial intent and you were not trying to further any business interest at that time. The flight which took that video is tagged as recreational....forever. The video doesn't get tagged (as recreational or part 107) but it's the flight's intent which is of concern. I honestly don't think it matters much when someone looks at a hard drive full of videos and then have to try to remember if each of those videos were done under part 107 or not. (I realize the answer might be to don't use any of them unless you have a Part 107).

Furthermore, if you took off and you were flying for recreational purposes but your intent was to take pictures to further a business (yours or anyone else), to me that qualifies as a commercial activity which requires part 107. Perhaps it's not so clear but if you fly for fun over the past 4 years and you collect a bunch of videos that you like to look at and then one day you meet a co-worker who likes your stuff and want to use it, "I don't see why not" would be my answer but I know I'll received pushback because some folks (not me) have found a secret monetary clause hidden somewhere in the FAA regulations (read: confusion).

 

[Zbip57]

Why doesn't anyone talk about the "in furtherance of a business" part of the discussion? If you do something that isn't strictly for fun but you are not doing it to further business activity....[...]

I did mention that very phrase in my last post but the anti-rules crowd has probably never heard that and only seek to impugn the regulations.

I'm not anti-rules, just anti-rules-that-make-no-sense.

If I lived on a farm and was not 107 rated and wanted to use my drone to help me (and me only) with chores around my house (gutter and gate checking), then I would do it. There is nothing there that is in furtherance of a business, or anyone else. I would be using the drone for my own private purposes.

The rules make no mention of "furtherance of a business", they don't mention the word "commercial", and they say nothing about earning a profit, nor are there any exemptions for your own private purposes.

What the rules do say is that Part 107 always applies except in the case of the special exemptions for recreational operations as spelled out here. See what was written by @Vic Moss in post #11 above, i.e. it is the "intent" of the flight that matters.

The very first, and thus most important clause of the exemption is,
"(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes."

Anything that is not "strictly for recreational purposes" is therefor "non-recreational" and thus subject to the full Part 107.

@Ty Pilot says if he lived on a farm he would use his drone for "chores around my house (gutter and gate checking)", as those are "for my own private purposes".

It doesn't have to be for business or profit. Anything that's not "strictly for recreational purposes" is subject to Part 107 and not eligible for the recreational exemptions. Calling them "chores" certainly doesn't sound like recreation. Any "non-recreational" purposes, even for your own private purposes, must meet all of Part 107.

It's interesting that @Ty Pilot seems to have changed his position on this, as earlier in post #10 he posted the following clarification from the FAA. Be sure to click to expand, to see the full FAA clarification.

"Roof inspections", regardless of whether done as a goodwill gesture for a neighbour or for your own private purposes, are clearly identified as a non-recreational activity. Recreational can only be purely for fun or personal enjoyment.

Here is what the FAA says about situations where you are unsure if the flight is recreational or not . . .

 

[Zbip57]

no, I do not think the distinction between recreational and 107 is ridiculous.

If you live on a farm and fly a sub-250g Mini out to check the gate and back, purely for fun, then that's a recreational operation, and you don't need to register the drone, and you are eligible for the generous exemptions under recreational operations, provided you still meet all the other requirements.

But, if you live on a farm and fly a sub-250g Mini out to check the gate and back, but gain no personal enjoyment from the flight because you consider it a chore, then that is non-recreational, and therefor you are required to pay to register that drone, and you must conduct that flight in full compliance with all of Part 107 after having paid to pass an exam.

That is ridiculous.

 

[Dangerly]

The very first, and thus most important clause of the exemption is,
"(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes."

Maybe part of the problem may be this piss-poor English grammar that uses the passive voice. I would rewrite this in a more clear way (imho):

"A pilot is considered a recreational pilot if they are flying solely for their own pleasure and not for any form of compensation, though others may benefit at the time or after the fact."

I am guessing that's what the intention of the FAA might be, and if there's going to be a "recreational" exception, it's what I'd want to see. This seems much more clear cut to me, and would allow me and others to do the kinds of things people want to do. You could fly over your house to inspect your roof because it pleases you to have a roof in good repair. You could do the same for your neighbor who doesn't pay you. In both cases you are not being compensated in any way.

 

[mavic3usa]

Maybe part of the problem may be this piss-poor English grammar that uses the passive voice. I would rewrite this in a more clear way (imho):

"A pilot is considered a recreational pilot if they are flying solely for their own pleasure and not for any form of compensation."

I am guessing that's what the intention of the FAA might be, and if there's going to be a "recreational" exception, it's what I'd want to see. This seems much more clear cut to me, and would allow me and others to do the kinds of things people want to do. You could fly over your house to inspect your roof because it pleases you to have a roof in good repair. You could do the same for your neighbor who doesn't pay you. In both cases you are not being compensated in any way.

unfortunately none of this can be based on "compensation"; sorry but that won't work. way too complicated.