Search for missing woman using Evo

[Jagerbomb52]

What you guys need is for the FAA to get their act together. Our new rules for Basic and Advanced are only different in the restrictions as to where one or the other is allowed to fly. Either can take photos\video and charge for them now. It has nothing to do with being commercial any more but if you can get in the air space legally to take that video or photo.

 

[Ansia]

Well, I found this webpage. She places it more clearly.

I'm flying a drone for "X" reason, but I'm not getting paid! Do I still need a license?

So you're flying a drone, and aren't sure if it's a hobby or commercial use case. And, if the latter, you're not sure if you need a license? Many use cases for drones fall into that grey area. Here's what you need to know.

thedronegirl.com

“Using a sUAS to take photographs for your own personal use would be considered recreational,” according to the FAA’s website. “Using the same device to take photographs or videos for compensation or sale to another individual would be considered a commercial operation.”

This was from February 2018. Many things have changed since then.

Edit: Here is a reply from Allen (BigAl) to someone with a similar question on the matter.

Part 107 technically "allows" for "CIVIL" UAS operations. Part of that "civil" operation can certainly be commercial operations but doesn't exclude other flights that are not "Commercial". This is why Search & Rescue, Crop Inspections, Training & Education and many other flights require Part 107 even though they may not “directly” involve the exchange of $$. Surprisingly to many people, even voluntary flights that do not fall fully inside the Hobby/101 bubble do require Part 107 without any $$/compensation at all.

Advantages / Disadvantages - 336 vs 107

Fairly new to the hobby, but have been going over material that you need to know to pass the 107 exam. I do not plan to fly my drone for any commercial purposes, but it still appears beneficial to have the 107. For instance, being able to fly based on knowledge of the airspace restrictions...

sparkpilots.com

 

[SnagsWolf]

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.

A comprehension of the English language is all I need to prove it. When you're flying for a friend, it's not work, it's not for a business purpose, and it's not for compensation or hire. Therefore, it's recreational flying, according to the FAA rules.

It's that simple. Not sure why you're having trouble comprehending it. The FAA has defined the subset that requires 107. Flying for a friend doesn't fall into that subset. Simple logic.

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.

You had to provide proof it was part 107 because you were within a mile of an airport. As I non-107 pilot, I wouldn't be allowed to do that. And it would have nothing to do with who I was taking the pictures for.

Stop spreading misinformation.

 

[SnagsWolf]

What you guys need is for the FAA to get their act together. Our new rules for Basic and Advanced are only different in the restrictions as to where one or the other is allowed to fly. Either can take photos\video and charge for them now. It has nothing to do with being commercial any more but if you can get in the air space legally to take that video or photo.

The FAA still makes the distinction between hobbyist and non-hobbyist. And no, a hobbyist flying without a 107 can't work for a realtor to film their properties. Doesn't matter if that property is in restricted airspace or not.

 

[SnagsWolf]

“Using a sUAS to take photographs for your own personal use would be considered recreational,” according to the FAA’s website. “Using the same device to take photographs or videos for compensation or sale to another individual would be considered a commercial operation.”

This was from February 2018. Many things have changed since then.

Yes, the key in that sentence is 'compensation or sale'. Which is what I've been saying all along. Thanks for proving my point.

Edit: Here is a reply from Allen (BigAl) to someone with a similar question on the matter.

Part 107 technically "allows" for "CIVIL" UAS operations. Part of that "civil" operation can certainly be commercial operations but doesn't exclude other flights that are not "Commercial". This is why Search & Rescue, Crop Inspections, Training & Education and many other flights require Part 107 even though they may not “directly” involve the exchange of $$. Surprisingly to many people, even voluntary flights that do not fall fully inside the Hobby/101 bubble do require Part 107 without any $$/compensation at all.

Search and Rescue, Crop inspections, and Training and Education have nothing to do with taking photos for a friend. You're twisting what he's saying.

 

[Ansia]

A comprehension of the English language is all I need to prove it. When you're flying for a friend, it's not work, it's not for a business purpose, and it's not for compensation or hire. Therefore, it's recreational flying, according to the FAA rules.

It's that simple. Not sure why you're having trouble comprehending it. The FAA has defined the subset that requires 107. Flying for a friend doesn't fall into that subset. Simple logic.



You had to provide proof it was part 107 because you were within a mile of an airport. As I non-107 pilot, I wouldn't be allowed to do that. And it would have nothing to do with who I was taking the pictures for.

Stop spreading misinformation.

You have yet to provide me proof where in the FAA webpage is says that. This was before the law changed and hobbyist were still able to fly within airspace with notification, so it could have been done just the same.

You may call it misinformation, I call it facts acepted from specialists in the field.

But what do I and many experienced pilots know. With all that Syma experience as hobbyist pilot, you clearly know more than us.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

@SnagsWolf what I suggest you do is call up your FAA hotline. The one where they answer questions and ask your question there. I believe the wording is I am a Rec pilot and fly only as a Rec pilot. That being said if my friend asked me to take photos for him is that legal under Rec rules? I understand that this can seem like a Grey area and you seem to have a hard time taking the comments from a experienced Part 107 pilot so I suggest you take it one step further and ask the FAA. Perhaps then we all can be enlighten.
It would seem no matter what we say it is not what you want to hear so go right to the source and fill us all in.

 

[SnagsWolf]

You have yet to provide me proof where in the FAA webpage is says that.

Seriously? Are you stupid? I only posted it three times.

You may call it misinformation, I call it facts acepted from specialists in the field.

But what do I and many experienced pilots know. With all that Syma experience as hobbyist pilot, you clearly know more than us.

**** off, moron. Learn how to read and get back to me.

 

[SnagsWolf]

@SnagsWolf
It would seem no matter what we say it is not what you want to hear .

Because you all can't seem to understand simple English.

**** this forum. It's boring as ****.

 

[Ansia]

Seriously? Are you stupid? I only posted it three times.

View attachment 4517



**** off, moron. Learn how to read and get back to me.

That doesn't say anything about being able to fly for a friend. I'm just a stupid moron, perhaps I don't see it.

 

[norman.hicks.35]

I would encourage anyone interested in this subject to connect with the Drone SAR folks at https://www.dronesar.info/training . They seem to have their ducks in a row on this subject and offer training as well. It is important to coordinate with the incident command to avoid low flying search helicopters or other aircraft engaged in the search. I know several drones were recently deployed searching for a missing preacher in Alabama. He was found safe, but not by the drones.

 

[mtron7450]

Here is a qoute from B4 you fly for hobbyists. However, if they wanted you in on the search and no other flights were in the operation you almost would be obligated to do the right thing and help.

1. Never fly near emergencies such as any type of accident response, law enforcement activities, firefighting, or hurricane recovery efforts.

 

[mtron7450]

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.

Basic any image you take with a suav that at some point , even if not originally intended, results in someone receiving compensation for the purchase sale or bartar of the subject of that image is considered commercial. Even if you find does not pay you but posts the image to aid in the sale. It's commercial. It's not so much , if you get paid for the image as does the image in anyway and in any sale.

 

[Wally107]

I believe that working as a rescue drone pilot, you will need the 107 certificate.

...unless your agency is operating under a Part 333 COA, in which case said agency can 'self-certify' their pilots.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

...unless your agency is operating under a Part 333 COA, in which case said agency can 'self-certify' their pilots.

Your Part 333 exemption is valid until it expires – usually two years after it was issued. Most are expired and people have moved on to Part 107 and most of these have expired and need to be renewed.

 

[hscrugby]

The bad part is the way the legalese kicks in on that one line:

"or for compensation OR hire"
Legalese allows that to point out the "hire" part can literally be, "Hey Chris, can you fly over and check if my shingles are bad?"
Zoom over, "nope, look great neighbor"
zoom home,
And I was just "hired" to check on my neighbors shingles. (This EXACT conversation happened tonight. Followed by over to other neighbors house, and "oh crap" and now tomorrow he's borrowing my *(@#*(#@ 40' extension ladder to replace some damaged shingles)
Do I "think" the FAA would prosecute someone for that?
Nope.
BUT let's say "Hey, can you take some pictures of the car meetup at Joe's Diner?"
Now we're REALLY falling into the portion of "furtherance of a business" that the FAA jumps on. It's shared to FB. then Joe's diner shares it. Etc etc.

(I went ahead and got my 107 primarily to avoid the gray areas, but with government and lawyers, it's ALL gray.)


Is it clearly written? Not really. But I think they want to leave a lot of wiggle room for their investigators to nail people for being stupid.

 

[G_G]

Love all these armchair FAA legal opinions. The facts are that the FAA has no interest in enforcement at this time, no matter how cleverly you interpret or twist their ambiguous regulations to reach your own individual layman opinion. This is a purely academic discussion, as the FAA has stated that it has NO enforcement powers, and has made it very clear within the last month that they are now solely focusing on education and training. Any statements to the contrary are greatly exaggerated! Fly safely with a modicum common sense and you'll be fine!

 

[Tufargon]

All I did was state the facts of what's legal and not. If you choose to disregard the laws, that's up to you. I'd rather just not deal with any hassles while I fly. You'll be fine though. lol Also, promoting someone violate the laws in a forum like this is probably not a good idea.
I am sitting here in my arm chair too hahaha.

 

[G_G]

All I did was state the facts of what's legal and not. If you choose to disregard the laws, that's up to you. I'd rather just not deal with any hassles while I fly. You'll be fine though. lol Also, promoting someone violate the laws in a forum like this is probably not a good idea.
I am sitting here in my arm chair too hahaha.

Just another irrelevant opinion to the FAA, which has a mind of its own.
I'm not promoting anything other than that the FAA isn't enforcing ANYTHING. They don't have enforcement authority. What is legal and not depends upon interpretation, and any competent lawyer can argue both sides successfully. When education and training is the goal, instead of enforcement, it really doesn't matter. Just accept the FAA warning and move on, if they disagree!

 

[Tufargon]

Just another irrelevant opinion.
I'm not promoting anything other than that the FAA isn't enforcing ANYTHING. They don't have enforcement authority. What is legal and not depends upon interpretation, and any competent lawyer can argue both sides successfully. When education and training is the goal, instead of enforcement, it really doesn't matter. Just accept the warning and move on, if they disagree!

Glad you liked my post. Happy flying. ?