I don't 'only seek to impugn the regulations', I just see some regulations as tedious, unnecessary and irrelevant. And those regulations, I will ignore.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.
Apparently, a lot of those tedious, unnecessary, and irrelevant regulations don't apply and can be safely ignored, just as long as you're having fun.I just see some regulations as tedious, unnecessary and irrelevant. And those regulations, I will ignore.
Apparently, a lot of those tedious, unnecessary, and irrelevant regulations don't apply and can be safely ignored, just as long as you're having fun.
Flying over your house, or flying out to the end of the pasture, is allowed and considered safe when done purely for fun and your own amusement. You can check the state of your rain gutters or whether the pasture gate has been closed, or even check your neighbour's gutters and gates, as long as that's purely for fun and your own personal enjoyment.
But if the "intent" of your flight is to check your own or your neighbour's rain gutters or gates, that's non-recreational regardless of whether or not you get compensated for it.
It's absurd.
We should not because that definition is too broad. We'll need to use "recreational" under the terms defined by Congress and layed out by the FAA subject to their interpretation and subject to change over time. There is an exception and the term "recreational" has been landed on to label that exception. It's not the same "recreational" that you might find when it comes to downhill skiing or cross-country RVing.View attachment 164334
If flying over my neighbor's roof to ensure it's not going to leak gives me joy (enjoyment) and it's not when I am working, then by the definition of recreational, this meets the actual dictionary definition of recreational. Should we not use the actual dictionary definition of "recreational" here?
(2) 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.
I think you still miss the point a little. It is YOUR intent that counts, not others.I'm grateful for all the discussion on this thread I started. It's helping me better understand this line.
My latest attempt to understand this is with the following rule: If I know that anyone has an intention to use my drone flight for anything other than fun at the time I fly, then it's not recreational.
How does that reformulation land with people?
I disagree based on what I learned here, because if I fly purely for fun over someone else's property on the condition that I share any photos I take with them to use to promote their business, then my understanding is that I am no longer flying "recreationally". My intent is pure: to have fun. The other person's intent is to promote their business, about which I could not care less, but I know that my photo may (or may not) be used for that purpose. My understanding is that this does not meet the definition of recreational even though MY intent is only to have fun. Am I wrong?I think you still miss the point a little. It is YOUR intent that counts, not others.
I agree.I think you still miss the point a little. It is YOUR intent that counts, not others.
The intent of the flight, not the intent of the use of videos or the photos, is all that counts.I disagree based on what I learned here, because if I fly purely for fun over someone else's property on the condition that I share any photos I take with them to use to promote their business, then my understanding is that I am no longer flying "recreationally". My intent is pure: to have fun. The other person's intent is to promote their business, about which I could not care less, but I know that my photo may (or may not) be used for that purpose. My understanding is that this does not meet the definition of recreational even though MY intent is only to have fun. Am I wrong?
Exactly. The same sort of thing if you take off and then happen to capture the crashing of an alien UFO: you can sell the pics to the highest bidder as the intention was not to make money initially. However, if you then go back, knowing the pics are worth money, and you take heaps of pics of the crash site, selling them for $1000 each, you are flying commercially.Also legit #3 even if they PAY YOU!!! As long as the INTENT was recreation, just to fly up and take some nice, personal pictures or to fly around and sight see. If ANY other purpose, Part 107.
Now we're back to the absurdity of it all.Exactly. The same sort of thing if you take off and then happen to capture the crashing of an alien UFO: you can sell the pics to the highest bidder as the intention was not to make money initially.
Here's the difference. In the latter case, it sounds like you are operating a business called "We Record UFO Sightings" and you take your commercial drone up over the mountain every night hoping to snag a picture worth $$$. But here's where I agree with you, if you fly up there every night at midnite hoping to see something but you're not furthering any sort of business, not 107 in my eyes...but i digress. Intent is what the FAA says and at this point, we gotta live with it because without it, all flights would be 107. Isn't there a similar argument going on with Uber drivers and commercial licenses and business stuff?Now we're back to the absurdity of it all.
If you're fly recreationally every day and unintentionally record the crash of an UFO and subsequently make money off the pics, that's okay.
But if you hope to someday record a UFO crashing and intentionally fly your drone every day waiting for the UFO to crash, for that you better hurry and first obtain your full Part 107 certification.
What's the difference?
The FAA wanted everyone subjected the same way to the full Part 107. Congress forced them to include recreational exemptions. If untrained recreational flyers can be sufficiently TRUSTed to fly safely within the National airspace, why are professionals (and UFO watchers) considered so much more of a hazard deserving stricter regulation?
The FAA is there for safety. Why should they have any say over who makes money or not? Isn't that the realm of the IRS?
Whether you're deliberately taking pics of UFOs for money, or just for fun and then incidentally making money, makes no difference to anyone as long as you're flying safely in both cases. Same rules for everyone.
The FAA should regulate how you conduct your flights safely. The intent of the flight is irrelevant.
That's the point though, isn't it? You can fly the exact same flight every night just for fun because you know full well UFOs don't exist and there's no chance of you ever getting a photo of one. Or, you can fly every night intending to catch a photo of a UFO, but never see one. Or, one night everything goes according to plan and intent and you actually do get a photo of a UFO and sell it for big money.[...] if you fly up there every night at midnite hoping to see something but you're not furthering any sort of business, not 107 in my eyes...
But, the FAA says it's acceptably safe for untrained hobbyists to fly under the recreational exemptions. Why isn't it equally safe when your intent is to sell photos of UFOs. Why can't all flights be done under the same relaxed rules?Intent is what the FAA says and at this point, we gotta live with it because without it, all flights would be 107.
I'm still waiting for the great pumpkin.Here's the different. In the latter case, it sounds like you are operating a business called "We Record UFO Sightings" and you take your commercial drone up over the mountain every night hoping to snag a picture worth $$$. But here's where I agree with you, if you fly up there every night at midnite hoping to see something but you're not furthering any sort of business, not 107 in my eyes...but i digress. Intent is what the FAA says and at this point, we gotta live with it because without it, all flights would be 107. Isn't there a similar argument going on with Uber drivers and commercial licenses and business stuff?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.