Why A Recreational Pilot Should Obtain a Commercial Drone License

[sar104]

That's why there should be stickies
It's where the questions that stand out stick out. Mini thread stickies why can't I connect to Dji fly app.
Or gimbal stuck. Or gps problems.
I like to read the stickies frist

Sticky gimbal stickies?

 

[Clintoops]

Sticky gimbal stickies? some Rc fourms have very important threads listed first .

On the most asked questions.
This section is called stickies.

 

[BigAl07]

That's why there should be stickies
It's where the questions that stand out stick out. Mini thread stickies why can't I connect to Dji fly app.
Or gimbal stuck. Or gps problems.
I like to read the stickies frist

There ARE stickies in every section of the forum here. They are at the very top of the list for each section . . .

If you see a thread that you think might be "sticky material" (see what I did there? lol ) let someone on staff KNOW and we can look into it.

 

[BigAl07]

No some Rc fourms have very important threads listed first .
No the most asked questions.
This section is called stickies.

 

[Crow Horse]

Late to the party and for what it's worth......

I'm a complete novice in this arena. I've had no flight experience other than being a passenger in my FIL's aircraft or on commercial flights. After flying with him and trying to video the countryside with the window open I started to look to alternatives. A UAS seemed to check all the boxes.

Knowing nothing and entering the world of UAS's is somewhat daunting. I'm not one to just wing it and let the chips fall where they may. I feel more comfortable with the 6 P's -Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. I needed to know
exactly what I was getting in to, be legal, be in compliance, and most importantly do it safely in order to accomplish my goals. I purchased a used MA1 and it sat until I started to educate myself.

The 107 certification would be required for my purposes so I enrolled in Pilot Institute's 107 course and I'm extremely thankful that I was steered to them. It's an awesome course that is comprehensive and gives you an overview of what goes on in the air even if it might not directly affect a UAS pilot. Understanding the big picture makes for a better pilot.

That said, in a nutshell, new drone owners should take some form of training that is more involved than the current TRUST. 107 might be too much for some but worth it's weight in gold. Most accidents (in any realm) can be avoided if people were properly educated. It would save a lot of heartache on so many levels.........

 

[AnzacJack]

You should have to demonstrate you can at least perform a thorough preflight, initiate flight, fly a designated route, land safely, do a thorough postflight inspect, and be able to answer some on-the-fly questions by the examiner

This is how it is here in Australia along with some specific manoeuvres. However I do think it has been summed down a little. The course I run over 18 months is something I think many, many operators would benefit from

 

[DoomMeister]

One of the FAA committees I'm on is working on this very thing. We're looking at the possibility of putting a QR code on or in every retail box. The issue is that drone manufacturers would have to agree to do this. To get them to be required is a bit of a regulatory hassle.

Make it a stick on label applied at the retail store. If the store is e-tail, make it a link in the checkout process.

Then at the FAA site linked to by the QR code make it at least like the TRUST.

 

[Bryan L]

OK, I'll buckle down and get my 107 this year. Why would I not?

 

[Corbeck]

So you do a "favor" for a friend such as take photos of his roof to see if there Is storm damage...as long as you are NOT paid or compensated then you are ok......Right?

That's the way I interpret it.

 

[Vic Moss]

That's the way I interpret it.

That's not how the FAA interprets it. There are very strict requirements for recreational exemptions. The first one is "The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes." This would obviously NOT be a recreational flight, thus requiring a Remote Pilot Certificate.

However, the odds of the FAA actually caring about this is virtually zero.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

Late to the party and for what it's worth......

I'm a complete novice in this arena. I've had no flight experience other than being a passenger in my FIL's aircraft or on commercial flights. After flying with him and trying to video the countryside with the window open I started to look to alternatives. A UAS seemed to check all the boxes.

Knowing nothing and entering the world of UAS's is somewhat daunting. I'm not one to just wing it and let the chips fall where they may. I feel more comfortable with the 6 P's -Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. I needed to know
exactly what I was getting in to, be legal, be in compliance, and most importantly do it safely in order to accomplish my goals. I purchased a used MA1 and it sat until I started to educate myself.

The 107 certification would be required for my purposes so I enrolled in Pilot Institute's 107 course and I'm extremely thankful that I was steered to them. It's an awesome course that is comprehensive and gives you an overview of what goes on in the air even if it might not directly affect a UAS pilot. Understanding the big picture makes for a better pilot.

That said, in a nutshell, new drone owners should take some form of training that is more involved than the current TRUST. 107 might be too much for some but worth it's weight in gold. Most accidents (in any realm) can be avoided if people were properly educated. It would save a lot of heartache on so many levels.........

I think the "save a lot of heartache on so many levels" is somewhat melodramatic when it comes to flying drones. If crashing a $50 drone in your backyard produces "heartache" in an individual I think their priorities are a little out of whack.

The controversy has been where should the requirement for additional training be placed. If you're flying for commercial purposes a 107 should be a must. On the opposite end of the spectrum is flying a "toy" drone in your backyard. Those rules can be summed up in five or six sentences. The further you go outside the boundaries of your backyard the more extensive should be your understanding of airspace rules. The person flying a Tello at a local park below 100' and nowhere near an airport should not have to learn the orientation of airport runways with compass headings or how to decipher aviation weather reports. In my opinion, as a 107 and part 61 instrument rated pilot, that is major overkill.

 

[Corbeck]

Nope. In fact, under strict reading of the regs, if you use your drone to inspect YOUR OWN roof for storm damage, that's not recreational.

I did exactly that a month back due to a massive storm here... thankfully I went ahead and got my Part 107 license even before I got my drone. Here's a shot of a plugged downspout.

I think your reading is overly strict, although if you got into the specifics of your interpretation, I might be swayed. I certainly doubt that was the intention of the FAA, in promulgating the regulations. It is certainly NOT the philosophy that they apply to aircraft pilots. Basically, if you receive no compensation, you are considered a "Private Pilot". Simple. Of course, those of us that have progressed through Commercial, and Airline Transport Pilot licenses are aware of the distinctions. Make the case for inspecting your own roof being illegal, if you will. I am certainly willing to listen to how you arrived at that conclusion. We can all learn from others.

That's not how the FAA interprets it. There are very strict requirements for recreational exemptions. The first one is "The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes." This would obviously NOT be a recreational flight, thus requiring a Remote Pilot Certificate.

However, the odds of the FAA actually caring about this is virtually zero.

I agree with your last sentence. I'm not so sure about your first. Let's chat about the specific assertion that the FAA, "interprets it" that way. The practitioners (over on the manned commercial side of the FAA), hate vaguely worded regs, and so do airline pilots. When faced with the interpretation of a regulation, that is poorly worded, I've asked for a specific Letter of Interpretation from the FAA as to how I was to comply with a regulation that can be interpreted many different ways, by many different FAA inspectors. So if I've complied with that regulation, under the terms of the letter, I've nothing to worry about. Since my ATP license would have been on the line, I would not rely on a personal interpretation from someone, if it seemed contrary to common sense, or logic. Takes a while to get the response, especially if it needs to be kicked up the line. I would dearly love to see a Letter of Interpretation, from the FAA, stating that inspecting your own roof is a commercial operation. Not doubting your sources of course, but if you've something official from the FAA, regarding this, it would be useful for all of us. If this is really the way the FAA defines "recreational" it would be something new, as well as odd.

 

[Vic Moss]

I agree with your last sentence. I'm not so sure about your first. Let's chat about the specific assertion that the FAA, "interprets it" that way. The practitioners (over on the manned commercial side of the FAA), hate vaguely worded regs, and so do airline pilots. When faced with the interpretation of a regulation, that is poorly worded, I've asked for a specific Letter of Interpretation from the FAA as to how I was to comply with a regulation that can be interpreted many different ways, by many different FAA inspectors. So if I've complied with that regulation, under the terms of the letter, I've nothing to worry about. Since my ATP license would have been on the line, I would not rely on a personal interpretation from someone, if it seemed contrary to common sense, or logic.

My interpretation is certainly not a personal interpretation, but a legal one. And one I've used in both counseling and advising when it comes to FAA violations of 44809 or 107.

Congress used very specific language when crafting the recreational exemption, and "recreational purposes" is just that. Anything flown outside of pure enjoyment is no longer recreational. And once it's outside of recreational purposes, it requires a remote pilot certificate.

Takes a while to get the response, especially if it needs to be kicked up the line. I would dearly love to see a Letter of Interpretation, from the FAA, stating that inspecting your own roof is a commercial operation. Not doubting your sources of course, but if you've something official from the FAA, regarding this, it would be useful for all of us. If this is really the way the FAA defines "recreational" it would be something new, as well as odd.

The source is the language of the U.S. Code itself. If you'd like an FAA sourced interpretation, reach out to [email protected]. This is the stuff they love to answer. And post back here with their answer.

Tell them "Vic Moss sent me.."

 

[Vic Moss]

@Corbeck, I notice you're from Colorado. If you're in the KDEN area, look up "Denver Drone Pilot Social Hour" on Facebook. We get together once a month to fly, talk about drones, and drink beer. In that order.

 

[SethB]

I think your reading is overly strict, although if you got into the specifics of your interpretation, I might be swayed. I certainly doubt that was the intention of the FAA, in promulgating the regulations. It is certainly NOT the philosophy that they apply to aircraft pilots. Basically, if you receive no compensation, you are considered a "Private Pilot". Simple. Of course, those of us that have progressed through Commercial, and Airline Transport Pilot licenses are aware of the distinctions. Make the case for inspecting your own roof being illegal, if you will. I am certainly willing to listen to how you arrived at that conclusion. We can all learn from others.

I agree with your last sentence. I'm not so sure about your first. Let's chat about the specific assertion that the FAA, "interprets it" that way. The practitioners (over on the manned commercial side of the FAA), hate vaguely worded regs, and so do airline pilots. When faced with the interpretation of a regulation, that is poorly worded, I've asked for a specific Letter of Interpretation from the FAA as to how I was to comply with a regulation that can be interpreted many different ways, by many different FAA inspectors. So if I've complied with that regulation, under the terms of the letter, I've nothing to worry about. Since my ATP license would have been on the line, I would not rely on a personal interpretation from someone, if it seemed contrary to common sense, or logic. Takes a while to get the response, especially if it needs to be kicked up the line. I would dearly love to see a Letter of Interpretation, from the FAA, stating that inspecting your own roof is a commercial operation. Not doubting your sources of course, but if you've something official from the FAA, regarding this, it would be useful for all of us. If this is really the way the FAA defines "recreational" it would be something new, as well as odd.

This has been repeated ad nauseum - a simple search on this forum will turn up SO many examples, so many statements from FAAST team representatives, so many references to the 44809 recreational carve-out that *congress* created on very strict terms.

I’m afraid your Pt. 61 and commercial/transport informed sense of FAA interpretations don’t apply here. Drones are regulated differently.

In short, per the legislation, by law in the U.S., the recreational *exemption* is determined as strictly hobby and personal enjoyment intent at the time of flight. And, the FAA has clarified in recent years, that students taking courses in colleges and universities may fly under the rec rule.

That’s it. Have a look around, do some searching, there’s a subforum here dedicated to sUAS regs… Your Pt. 61 currency *does* give you a huge advantage in seeking the Pt. 107 certification, but there are some regs specific to UAS to learn.

 

[Corbeck]

My interpretation is certainly not a personal interpretation, but a legal one. And one I've used in both counseling and advising when it comes to FAA violations of 44809 or 107.

Congress used very specific language when crafting the recreational exemption, and "recreational purposes" is just that. Anything flown outside of pure enjoyment is no longer recreational. And once it's outside of recreational purposes, it requires a remote pilot certificate.

The source is the language of the U.S. Code itself. If you'd like an FAA sourced interpretation, reach out to [email protected]. This is the stuff they love to answer. And post back here with their answer.

Tell them "Vic Moss sent me.."

Here's the specific wording, Vic.
Under my "strict reading", it doesn't apply to viewing your own roof. If it is not commercial, it is recreational. The FAA doesn't care whether you enjoy it, or not. I exercise 45 minutes a day, and absolutely hate it. As you see, in 49 U.S.C 44809 (General Limitations (a)(1)), it is very simple. I'll follow the common sense interpretation of recreational, with regard to it not being commercial. I don't know any FAA inspectors that would interpret the reg in the fashion you are following, but perhaps I need to ask more of them. I'm unlikely to do that though. I already have too many airline pilot friends that have retired, and gone over to the "dark side" at the FAA, and if I asked them, they'd just make more fun of me, than they did when we were on the line together. A tender ego, you see. ;-)

GENERAL LIMITATIONS:​

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations:
(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes.

 

[spudster]

Direct from the FAA:

• Note: Non-recreational purposes include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections, or taking pictures of a high school football game for the school's website. Goodwill or other non-monetary value can also be considered indirect compensation. This would include things like volunteering to use your drone to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit organization. Recreational flight is simply flying for fun or personal enjoyment.

Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

www.faa.gov

 

[Vic Moss]

Here's the specific wording, Vic.
Under my "strict reading", it doesn't apply to viewing your own roof. If it is not commercial, it is recreational.

You have it backwards. And the FAA doesn't use the term "commercial" in it's regs. They still do in some of their summary pages though. And we've tried hard to get them to change some.

14 CFR Part 107 is the default regulations for 99%+ of the sUAS flight in the U.S. The others being Public COA and/or 333 (of which very few, if any, still exist). And you have some Part 135 flights, but for this discussion, let's go with 107 v. 44809.

As I mentioned, 107 is the default, and 44809 is the exception. So unless someone satisfies all 8 (7 until CBOs are published), they're flying under 107.

The FAA doesn't care whether you enjoy it, or not. I exercise 45 minutes a day, and absolutely hate it. As you see, in 49 U.S.C 44809 (General Limitations (a)(1)), it is very simple. I'll follow the common sense interpretation of recreational, with regard to it not being commercial. I don't know any FAA inspectors that would interpret the reg in the fashion you are following, but perhaps I need to ask more of them.

I'd shy away from asking the ASIs. Odds are they don't know, and will likely guess. KDEN FSDO actually reach out to me when they have a question about drone stuff like this. Instead, I suggest you use the faa.gov email I address posted above. If they don't know, they have the resources to find out.

I'm unlikely to do that though. I already have too many airline pilot friends that have retired, and gone over to the "dark side" at the FAA, and if I asked them, they'd just make more fun of me, than they did when we were on the line together. A tender ego, you see. ;-)

My BIL basically did that. He was a lead mechanic at United here in Denver, but now he signs off on inspections. Sort of a pseudo FAA inspector. He answers to the FAA and United.

GENERAL LIMITATIONS:​

 

[Corbeck]

Direct from the FAA:

• Note: Non-recreational purposes include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections, or taking pictures of a high school football game for the school's website. Goodwill or other non-monetary value can also be considered indirect compensation. This would include things like volunteering to use your drone to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit organization. Recreational flight is simply flying for fun or personal enjoyment.

Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

www.faa.gov

GASP!! You must be correct. Apparently, I have to enjoy flying a drone, if it is not under part 107. I mean, it says so right there. Well, I am corrected, but one do wonder who came up with that interpretation of recreational. Seems a silly basis for an interpretation, but there it is. I guess I was naive. Apologies all around!

You have it backwards. And the FAA doesn't use the term "commercial" in it's regs. They still do in some of their summary pages though. And we've tried hard to get them to change some.

14 CFR Part 107 is the default regulations for 99%+ of the sUAS flight in the U.S. The others being Public COA and/or 333 (of which very few, if any, still exist). And you have some Part 135 flights, but for this discussion, let's go with 107 v. 44809.

As I mentioned, 107 is the default, and 44809 is the exception. So unless someone satisfies all 8 (7 until CBOs are published), they're flying under 107.

I'd shy away from asking the ASIs. Odds are they don't know, and will likely guess. KDEN FSDO actually reach out to me when they have a question about drone stuff like this. Instead, I suggest you use the faa.gov email I address posted above. If they don't know, they have the resources to find out.

My BIL basically did that. He was a lead mechanic at United here in Denver, but now he signs off on inspections. Sort of a pseudo FAA inspector. He answers to the FAA and United.

Direct from the FAA:

• Note: Non-recreational purposes include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections, or taking pictures of a high school football game for the school's website. Goodwill or other non-monetary value can also be considered indirect compensation. This would include things like volunteering to use your drone to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit organization. Recreational flight is simply flying for fun or personal enjoyment.

Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

www.faa.gov

I am corrected. Hanging my head in shame........

 

[Corbeck]

Direct from the FAA:

• Note: Non-recreational purposes include things like taking photos to help sell a property or service, roof inspections, or taking pictures of a high school football game for the school's website. Goodwill or other non-monetary value can also be considered indirect compensation. This would include things like volunteering to use your drone to survey coastlines on behalf of a non-profit organization. Recreational flight is simply flying for fun or personal enjoyment.

Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

www.faa.gov

I am corrected. Hanging my head in shame.........