Search for missing woman using Evo

[rkyleh]

Fly only for recreational purposes.
My hobby and recreation is taking pictures. How the hell could it be against the law for me to take pictures using my DSLR, Video camera or the camera on my drone of my friends house, his car or his dog and give him a copy. I know for a fact that most of this stuff was written by bureaucrats and they should never be let out of the house. In my humble opinion.

 

[Ansia]

#2: Fly only for recreational purposes.

Yes, and when asked the direct question, on the web page I posted, the FAA defined what they meant by that:

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.

So again, I'll propose that 'taking photos for a friend' does not fall into the category of 'work, business purposes, or for compensation or hire.'

BigAl (one of the moderators for most of the DronePilots forums) has over 35 years in UAS experience, respected greatly by his peers and the FAA and he will tell you otherwise. It stop being a hobby flight when you decided to do it for your friend.

If you were flying and took some photos for fun, later decide to give that photo to your friend, then it falls back into hobbyist flight, but that is a gray area filled with loopholes.

In reality, we could argue eternally if it falls into part 107 or not, but you will find many threads about this over at Phantompilots and CommercialPilots forums.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Depending on what your friend has planned for those photos. You are being asked to take photos, you are not just out enjoying yourself taking random pictures. You have set out to get a job done for a friend even if there is no compensation so your flight has changed from Rec to Commercial.

If you fly with the intention of even just giving the photos to your friend, yes, it's commercial work. If you fly, and then your friend wants the images after they see them, and you had no intention of doing that at the time of the flight, then no, it's not commercial work.
This is one of the few areas where the FAA rules are fairly black and white, and have been for a while. "intent" is extremely hard to prove, and is highly unlikely for the FAA to care anyway.

 

[SnagsWolf]

BigAl (one of the moderators for most of the DronePilots forums) has over 35 years in UAS experience, respected greatly by his peers and the FAA and he will tell you otherwise. It stop being a hobby flight when you decided to do it for your friend.

If you were flying and took some photos for fun, later decide to give that photo to your friend, then it falls back into hobbyist flight, but that is a gray area filled with loopholes.

In reality, we could argue eternally if it falls into part 107 or not, but you will find many threads about this over at Phantompilots and CommercialPilots forums.

I posted actual quotes from the FAA website. Unless someone finds some odd dictionary that has different definitions of words, I don't really care what some poster on a forum thinks, regardless of his UAS experience.

Appeal to Authority

Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

 

[rkyleh]

Depending on what your friend has planned for those photos. You are being asked to take photos, you are not just out enjoying yourself taking random pictures. You have set out to get a job done for a friend even if there is no compensation so your flight has changed from Rec to Commercial.

If you fly with the intention of even just giving the photos to your friend, yes, it's commercial work. If you fly, and then your friend wants the images after they see them, and you had no intention of doing that at the time of the flight, then no, it's not commercial work.
This is one of the few areas where the FAA rules are fairly black and white, and have been for a while. "intent" is extremely hard to prove, and is highly unlikely for the FAA to care anyway.

"f you fly with the intention of even just giving the photos to your friend, yes, it's commercial work. If you fly, and then your friend wants the images after they see them, and you had no intention of doing that at the time of the flight, then no, it's not commercial work "
That is lawyer speak if I ever heard it

 

[SnagsWolf]

If you fly with the intention of even just giving the photos to your friend, yes, it's commercial work.

Can you show me the FAA rule that states that? Because the definition of 'commercial' disagrees with you.

Definition of COMMERCIAL

occupied with or engaged in commerce or work intended for commerce; of or relating to commerce; characteristic of commerce… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

This is one of the few areas where the FAA rules are fairly black and white

Again, where in the FAA rules is this 'black and white?'

The FAA rules are strict enough. We don't have to be imagining that they're even stricter than they are.

 

[Ansia]

I posted actual quotes from the FAA website. Unless someone finds some odd dictionary that has different definitions of words, I don't really care what some poster on a forum thinks, regardless of his UAS experience.

Appeal to Authority

Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

You can always call your local FAA office and ask their representative. They always are ambiguous in their wording with the purpose of molding it how they need it on a case by case basis.

Don't confuse commercial with part 107. You need 107 for commercial, but it is not the same thing. Flying for a friend falls into 107.

 

[SnagsWolf]

Don't confuse commercial with part 107. You need 107 for commercial, but it is not the same thing.

The FAA seems to think it's the same thing:

Flying for a friend falls into 107.

And, once again, I'll ask you to post the actual FAA rule that states that.

 

[Tufargon]

Depending on what your friend has planned for those photos. You are being asked to take photos, you are not just out enjoying yourself taking random pictures. You have set out to get a job done for a friend even if there is no compensation so your flight has changed from Rec to Commercial.

If you fly with the intention of even just giving the photos to your friend, yes, it's commercial work. If you fly, and then your friend wants the images after they see them, and you had no intention of doing that at the time of the flight, then no, it's not commercial work.
This is one of the few areas where the FAA rules are fairly black and white, and have been for a while. "intent" is extremely hard to prove, and is highly unlikely for the FAA to care anyway.

Even one step further. You flew for enjoyment and after, your friend liked the photos of his house and wanted them. You gave them to him then a year down the road he goes to sell his house and gives those photos to the realtor to use. Now what? lol
We are so off topic.

 

[SnagsWolf]

And how much different is 'flying with the intention of giving them to a friend' than 'flying with the intention of posting them on YouTube or Facebook?' Where ALL your friends (and even people you don't know) can get them?

It's obvious by the language used that the rule covers flying a UAS for commercial purposes. Which means you're making money off of it. Taking it past that bright line of demarcation is just opening up a can of worms where practically anything can be deemed against the rules.

 

[Ansia]

The FAA seems to think it's the same thing:

View attachment 4513



And, once again, I'll ask you to post the actual FAA rule that states that.

Here is almost everything covered in Part 107, not just commercial. Since it's quite a read, I will let you go at it.

14 CFR 107 - eCFR

Title 14, part 107 of the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.

ecfr.io

 

[SnagsWolf]

Since it's quite a read, I will let you go at it.

So you want me to search for the rule you're claiming is there? Don't you know what it is?

 

[Ansia]

So you want me to search for the rule you're claiming is there? Don't you know what it is?

No. What I'm trying to tell you that the rules are called part 107. The link I sent you will explain what is Part 107 entirely, not just commercial. When you get your part 107 certification is exacly that. You are certified in knowing what Part 107 entails.

The now defunct 336 was modeled on 107 with some adjustments. Now I believe is called 101E and has some more limitations you didn't have before.

Commercial flying is just 1 small section inside the Part 107, not the entire thing. What you get in the FAA website is the badly written cliffnote of every single part inside CFR 14.

CFR 14 are all the rules and regulations that involve the NAS.

 

[SnagsWolf]

Here are the actual rules from your link:

First, let's look at the applicability of 107:



That refers to part 101. So let's look at the applicability of 101 for model aircraft:



'Strictly for hobby or recreational use'

And when the FAA created an FAQ on what they meant by that, this is how they defined it:



So no, nowhere in the rules you posted says you need a 107 to fly with the purpose of giving photos to a friend.

Unless I'm missing a rule that's hidden somewhere?

 

[Ansia]

Here are the actual rules from your link:

First, let's look at the applicability of 107:

View attachment 4514

That refers to part 101. So let's look at the applicability of 101 for model aircraft:

View attachment 4515

'Strictly for hobby or recreational use'

And when the FAA created an FAQ on what they meant by that, this is how they defined it:

View attachment 4516

So no, nowhere in the rules you posted says you need a 107 to fly with the purpose of giving photos to a friend.

Unless I'm missing a rule that's hidden somewhere?

Ok. Since we are not getting far on this angle. Let us go into the hobby route. Here is the link on that section.

Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

www.faa.gov

I am currently at work, so I don't have time to dig in further, but I will do so as time permits. You won't find flying for a friend in this area either. You are not flying recreational, you are flying because your friend asked a favor. There is no AMA rule that will speak or cover about this, since they also consider this part 107.

 

[SnagsWolf]

Ok. Since we are not getting far on this angle.

Seriously? I've asked you five times to post the specific rule to back up your claims, and you've failed to do so.

The only reason we're not 'getting far on this angle' is because you have no facts to back up what you're saying.

Let us go into the hobby route. Here is the link on that section.

Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

www.faa.gov

I am currently at work, so I don't have time to dig in further, but I will do so as time permits. You won't find flying for a friend in this area either. You are not flying recreational, you are flying because your friend asked a favor. There is no AMA rule that will speak or cover about this, since they also consider this part 107.

So, once again you evade my question by posting a link.

And yes, 'flying for a friend is VERY CLEARLY in this area. It's recreational flying. And the FAA has defined 'recreational' as 'not for work, business purposes, or for compensation for hire.' It's stated in extremely clear English. 'Flying for a friend' is not work, a business purpose, or for compensation or hire. So it's recreational.

 

[Ansia]

Seriously? I've asked you five times to post the specific rule to back up your claims, and you've failed to do so.

The only reason we're not 'getting far on this angle' is because you have no facts to back up what you're saying.

No. It's because the FAA doesn't have it written in black and white specific to this case, and you don't wish to accept it. I cannot provide you this specific case, because it is not written. It is implied between the lines. The FAA is very specific that if you want to fly as a hobbyist, then you can only fly for recreational purposes. Flying because your friend asked you to is not recreational. The loophole is flying recreational and after the flight, your friend sees a photo he likes and keeps it. If you want to post your videos on youtube, and you recorded said video with youtube in mind, then you are flying under Part 107 and may be asked by the FAA to provide evidence of this. This has happened before and will continue to happen.

You don't need to follow advice from others and do what you understand is right. In the end, it is you who is responsible for your actions and no one else.

I posted actual quotes from the FAA website. Unless someone finds some odd dictionary that has different definitions of words, I don't really care what some poster on a forum thinks, regardless of his UAS experience.

Appeal to Authority

Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

You have stated before that if it isn't written by the FAA you do not care what others have to say. So since you do not care what I have to say, I will say no more to you on this matter.

 

[SnagsWolf]

No. It's because the FAA doesn't have it written in black and white specific to this case, and you don't wish to accept it. I cannot provide you this specific case, because it is not written. It is implied between the lines. The FAA is very specific that if you want to fly as a hobbyist, then you can only fly for recreational purposes. Flying because your friend asked you to is not recreational.

There is no implication. The FAA states very clearly what the rules are. 107 doesn't apply if you are flying for hobby or recreational use.

And they define hobby or recreational use as 'not for work, business purposes, or for compensation for hire.' It's there in clear English. You're the one refusing to accept that fact.

If you want to post your videos on youtube, and you recorded said video with youtube in mind, then you are flying under Part 107 and may be asked by the FAA to provide evidence of this. This has happened before and will continue to happen.

Is this what you're talking about?

FAA Enforcement and YouTube - FLYING Magazine

Invariably whenever somebody posts a fun flying video online, the Internet “sheriffs” come out in droves to inform the original poster of just how many Federal Aviation Regulations he or she has broken. Of course, the only thing that really matters is what the FAA has to say about your video...

www.flyingmag.com

First, FAA inspectors are being reminded they have "no authority to direct or suggest" that a flying video you posted on the Internet be removed, according to the new policy. It's your First Amendment right to upload any video you want. Safety inspectors are also being reminded by top agency brass that a video alone is "ordinarily not sufficient evidence" to determine whether any FARs have been broken. A video purporting to show something legally questionable must also be "authenticated" by the FAA inspector before any enforcement action is taken.

The FAA crafted the policy after one of its safety inspectors sent a threatening letter to the owner of a remote-control quadracopter who filmed beachgoers from on high in Florida a few months back. There was nothing particularly dangerous about the flight or the filming, but because the UAV owner posted the video to YouTube, and because YouTube is a for-profit website that shows ads and gives uploaders a few pennies or dollars for their trouble, the flight had crossed the line into a "commercial operation," this inspector warned.

Flying asked the FAA for clarification on this point last month. We were told the agency was "looking into it" and never heard another word. The new policy letter, issued on April 8, appears to address this issue by telling safety inspectors in essence to stick to the script when sending out "informational letters" to UAV operators and pilots informing them they may be in violation of the FARs based on a video.

If so, that's proof the FAA ISN'T taking action against non-107 pilots who are posting to YouTube. They've made it clear that there has to be an actual violation within the video.

You have stated before that if it isn't written by the FAA you do not care what others have to say.

Exactly. Which is why I repeatedly asked you to point out the FAA rule you were basing your claims on. Why should I listen to someone who is clearly stating something that isn't in the actual rules? This is how misinformation gets spread.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Like I said before it depends if you were just flying for fun to begin with or if your friend asked you to fly to get pictures. If they asked you to provide a product (pictures) by asking you to fly then the flight isnt just for your own enjoyment any more. This is clear as day in anything you have posted today and has been brought up many times in different legal forums.

And it all leads back to a situation where you could be innocent or guilty not by the means of the flight but by how you answer the question. about the flight.....

 

[Ansia]

There is no implication. The FAA states very clearly what the rules are. 107 doesn't apply if you are flying for hobby or recreational use.

And they define hobby or recreational use as 'not for work, business purposes, or for compensation for hire.' It's there in clear English. You're the one refusing to accept that fact.



Is this what you're talking about?

FAA Enforcement and YouTube - FLYING Magazine

Invariably whenever somebody posts a fun flying video online, the Internet “sheriffs” come out in droves to inform the original poster of just how many Federal Aviation Regulations he or she has broken. Of course, the only thing that really matters is what the FAA has to say about your video...

www.flyingmag.com

If so, that's proof the FAA ISN'T taking action against non-107 pilots who are posting to YouTube. They've made it clear that there has to be an actual violation within the video.



Exactly. Which is why I repeatedly asked you to point out the FAA rule you were basing your claims on. Why should I listen to someone who is clearly stating something that isn't in the actual rules? This is how misinformation gets spread.

I am already part 107 certified. All my flights, recreational or not go under 107. I do fly for recreational purposes, but that also will fall under my part 107 certification. I know how rules apply to me and follow them regardless of what type of flight I do. So, I will not go search for this holy grail proof you desire. You did said this:

And yes, 'flying for a friend is VERY CLEARLY in this area. It's recreational flying. And the FAA has defined 'recreational' as 'not for work, business purposes, or for compensation for hire.' It's stated in extremely clear English. 'Flying for a friend' is not work, a business purpose, or for compensation or hire. So it's recreational.

Now, if you can provide us with the proof it falls under this, I am willing to take everything back.

I took some photos for my cousin's husband of his airb'nb apartment, within a mile of an airport on my DJI drone. I was asked if I was part 107 cerfitied. It was a flight for a friend and yet I had to provide proof. That is how I know you need it for your friend.