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.