First of all, great video Greg. Very informative. I've always heard that intent was always a determining factor in whether you were required to have a 107 certification. You seemed to agree with that. So consider a scenario where I fly for fun and shoot some video. Strictly recreational (although I suppose one could argue that if you're shooting video, there's a secondary intent besides just flying for fun). I happen to show my video to my friends and family on my TV. Still recreational? I'd say so. Now my family in another part of the country wants to see it so I post it on social media or my non-monetized TH-cam channel. Should the medium that I use to show the video make a difference on whether it's for recreational purposes? I wouldn't think so and I don't think the FAA should think so. As you've said Greg, it's about intent. Just like if I shoot video with the intent to use it commercially, I need my 107 certification, even if I do nothing with the video after it's been taken. If intent is a driving factor, it needs to work both ways. Personally, I have my 107 certification and take a lot of pictures for my company, most of which hasn't even been used yet and may never be. But it's about intent.
Great question! And yes, the intent of the flight is what matters. What happens after really doesn't. I should have actually emphasized more on that in the video. In your case, your intent is recreational in purpose when you shot your video, so you're good. The fact you want to post it on YT after the fact (keyword) doesn't really matter anymore. And yes, like you said, if you intend to go our and build your portfolio: Part 107. Whether or not the footage gets used. If you intend to go fly to practice your skills to learning 3D mapping: Part 107. You intend to record your son/daughter down the ski slope and happen to catch an avalanche that you later sell/give to the local TV channel: Recreational, even if money was exchanged. As long, of course, as you met ALL the other requirements in 44809 for that flight (including CBO guidelines), otherwise you're back to being governed by 107.
racsyr - I've posted on my YT, but I insured that only my friend could view the video. You have the option of private/public. Greg - would this keep in the recreation category if he posted it as private and not public?
@@billbishop8915 Well, it seems to me that if it's not monetized, it's still recreational. If you put a video on YT just for the joy of sharing it with others, isn't that recreational? Plus, as I said, and Greg agreed, if the intent was just to take video for fun and you post it, it's recreational, no matter who sees it or how it's ultimately used.
@@gadget_Bob I'll have to review FAA Section 44809 and Greg's video again, but my take of the video for now is once you post it on YT your under Part 107. It's great to have these discussion. Thank you
@@billbishop8915 I don't think it's really the issue here. It is perfectly legal to post your videos on youtube to share with family and friends and not get in trouble, as long as you followed the regulation, and your channel is not monetized. In this case, private would have definitely kept the world from seeing the infractions, but it still doesn't make his flights illegal and subject to fines. It just means he would have likely gotten away with it. If I speed on the highway at 100mph and don't get caught, I got away with it. Still illegal. If I speed at 100mph and post it on YT for everyone to see and make myself identifiable, I might be in trouble. I don't think the FAA is treating this as a Part 107 case because he posted on TH-cam publicly. My understanding is that they are treating it as Part 107 because he did not qualify for all 8 items in 44809, which automatically reverts him to Part 107. From what I gathered, possibly flying in controlled airspace without authorization, flying above 400 feet, posting to a monetized channel (that will definitely exclude you from 44809), any of these will move you to Part 107. In your case, if the intent of your flight was for fun and you met all 8 clauses in 44809, post your videos on your non-monetized YT personal channel and you'll be just fine.
Currently studying to pass my Part 107 examination using your amazing online course! Thanks for the great update and clarification on this important topic.
Thank you for all your work educating and helping make the confusing regulations understandable by the average person. You are the only one I've seen doing this vital work and making a great impact to our community.
Greg I hope you read this but I very much appreciate the work and videos you make. I’m a new drone pilot and passed the Part 107 test the first time because of your excellent course. I felt more than prepared to take the test after taking your instruction. I also really appreciate these videos because it’s important to stay up-to-date on FAA regulations and there’s no way I would know about them without content like yours informing me about what’s going on in the drone world. I love flying my drone and I would hate to not be able to anymore because of irresponsible and ignorant drone flyers. These videos are important and the more people that see them the better.
The important thing to remember is your intent and the word "fun". Hypothetical #1: You do not have a 107 certification. Your neighbor asks you to take a video of his roof for $50. You tell him you can't charge him but will do him a favor. You take a video, it was fun but your intent was to look at your neighbor's roof while flying for fun. That is an FAA violation. Hypothetical #2 You do not have a 107 certification. You are flying for fun, you take a video of taking off from your yard, film an amazing blue sky and film as you are landing, camera facing down. You post your video to your TH-cam channel which is NOT monetized. A week later your neighbor sees the his roof on TH-cam, he sees the condition of his roof as you are landing and decides it's time for new shingles. That is not a violation, your intent was fun, you knew nothing about your neighbor's roof and did not intend on filming or inspecting his roof for the purpose of inspection for financial gain or as a favor.
One of Philly's TH-cam videos popped up in my feed and I watched it. He did have more than 500 foot ceiling above the over 1150 ft that he was flying and didn't have a cloud within 2000 feet, which you could tell because he was over 5000 ft away from the drone when he flew behind a tower and briefly lost signal (I could imagine that thing returning home into a building, dropping 1100 feet into some poor person below). Other than the ceiling and cloud separation, I think he broke almost all of the rules for recreational flight under any authority and all 107 rules, including flying multiple times over interstate highways. After seeing him on Dobo last week, I thought he might be being singled out for minor infractions...but dam! I can see why the FAA feels the need to talk to him.
Thank you for finally dissecting the FAA’s perspective on exempt “recreational” flights and Part 107 operations. That being the intent of the flight (presumably by the RPIC). Some thoughts: • If the RPIC intends to post on any media (this includes still images published in conventional print media, not just “social media” platforms), the flight is potentially NOT “recreational “ as perceived by the FAA. • Some will consider the FAA’s application of the regulations an overreach, perhaps even a bureaucratic chilling of 1A rights, especially if the circumstances leading to an enforcement incident cannot be matched to an actual safety or threat issue. • The FAA may also run into an “equal protection” conundrum when it attempts enforcement actions and respondents can show other instances (probably content posted on social media by others) where the FAA did not engage in enforcement. The FAA’s enforcement capabilities appear to be based on mid-20th century thinking which has been complicated by 21st century technology and an exponential growth of individuals piloting UAS devices in the air space. Time will tell if the FAA will adapt to be a well-functioning enforcement bureaucracy in this environment. • Enforcement is further compromised by the FAA’s failure to provide consistent guidance. Instances are being reported wherein multiple and sometimes conflicting advice is given by FAA agents in response to the same or very similar inquiries. • The enforcement action against “M,” the individual you referenced, is, I posit, counterproductive to the FAA’s interests. It has martyrized “M,” who, arguably, is not a good example of UAS pilots. This was classic bureaucratic short-sighted stupidity.
Great comment Ed. On your first, yes, absolutely,. Regarding the FAA enforcing others, my understanding is that the "live" component is what allowed the FAA to prosecute. Many who post videos that break the law either don't show their faces on camera, or if they do, it's hard to prove when it was done. At least that's my understanding. The What, Who, and when was all included in this person's shot, unlike many others. I'm sure the "conflicting" information bit is important here. Lots of conflicting information coming even from the FAA themselves at times. Yes, this could possibly backlash for the FAA and create a culture of "F the FAA", which is already in existence in many places. I like to believe that most people have good intents when they go fly and if they make a mistake, it was unintentional and should be educated. I'm hoping this is an opportunity for a lot of people to learn about the rules or want to learn about the rules so this doesn't happen to anyone else. I also hope the fine is reduced to something more reasonable for the crimes committed so he learns his lessons but so this doesn't destroy this person's life.
I think the FAA is following suit with other regulatory agencies. I have heard of other agencies using reality shows to fine companies. In my other job I have to take pictures & videos of work stations, set ups, etc. Most larger companies require me to hand over my sd card before I leave their site & they approve what can & cannot be used. Sometimes infractions "appear on film" that no one saw on person.
Great explanation! I've spent the time learning and getting my 107 certification before flying my drone. It opened my eyes to the requirements and responsibilities. Thank you for taking this time explaining different aspects about the FAA approach to the issues at hand.
Greg thank you for your time and energy in all of your videos. This video is one of the most informative and clarifying I have viewed on the balancing act of flying as a recreational flyer and flying under Part 107. Well done.
As always thanks for the info. Your class on he Part 107 certificate was incredible and with out it I do not believe I could have passed especially as high of grade as I made. I wish many people I am in contact with regularly could grasp what you said here on the Recreational Flying.
Because I live in a fairly rural part of the world and fly a drone a lot and many people know that, I am asked questions many times concerning legal flying. It is interesting when you tell someone that something is not legal that they want to shoot the messenger and disregard the message. People want to know what the rules are till they find out they are in violation of them. Then it is a different matter entirely. Normally followed by how stupid it is.
That was a a very heavy video you posted, Professor. Very good information and I hope people who watch it take it to heart. FYI "intent" is very big with federal regulations, if you take a look at many federal firearms laws you'll see a similar theme. Another FYI, NEVER ignore a Federal Agency. How you react will dictate how they react. I talked to many ATF agents during my years as a firearms dealers and they had plenty of stories to tell me.
I’m a Private Pilot, Remote Pilot, an FAA Designated Engineering Representative (DER), and I work with various branches of the FAA extensively. First, very informative video. You always do a great job. But to your point about the FAA, I couldn’t agree more. My experience is that they are primarily very good and helpful people and what they care about is aviation safety. They take no delight in busting someone, but they do have a job to do. But by all means, if they do reach out to you with a concern, cooperate!!
Thank you for these videos. I just got my first drone and I’m excited about getting into this hobby. At the same time I want to do it right and your videos help me understand not just the rules, but also the intent behind them.
Without a second thought about it, I just deleted all my drone footage from my TH-cam channel, even though it was all initially captured under purely recreational intent, and the uploading to TH-cam was just an afterthought and an exercise in vanity. I don't want ANY trouble. So from no on, all my footage stays right with me, and goes nowhere else.
Don't get discouraged tho but you did the right thing ,but if you love it to have them post ,get ur part 107 an continue doing watt you love ok I am working on my part 107 too be4 I purchase my drone !!
Greg - Great video and very informative. I also reviewed that individuals videos and he did not meet the FAA Recreational guidelines. I learned a lot from this video. Thank you
Great, informative video. Actually, the best one I've seen thus far. I learned a lot. You're actually the first to state "intent if the flight" as well. I learned a few things and a few that I need to correct myself on.
Great video Greg. I watched it in its entirety and I'm Canadian. But it's always good to understand our neighbors drone rules/laws as well. Since I'm a new drone pilot, I enjoy soaking up knowledge from all over and everything drone related. Keep those great videos coming.
Great explanation, Greg! If you’ve seen any of his videos you know that following the law isn’t a priority. Ive seen him fly at over 1,000 ft in the middle of a city after changing the default DJI limit of 398 ft.
Wow!!! You just taught me a enormous amount of information. I really appreciate this video. To give you my opinion on why the FAA went after him is because a person came across his channel wasn’t to happy about him or what he was doing so they decided to contact the FAA and make it know that he was or potentially was flying a drone (Unmanned Aircraft) illegally!!! Yes we live in a world where there are people that have nothing better to do in life than cause misery for other people. Yes I know first hand beings I’ve had my blood (family) make several attempts at it towards me!
So are you telling me the FAA should ignore public tips concerning illegal drone activity? Regardless of who made the FAA aware of his activites, he was breaking the law. And still does to this day....
Posting to your FB page is problematic and the implications are ignored by many who choose to selectively interpret the FAA. Thanks for your discussion.
Damn, so if I have a flight that turns out not to be fun, it requires part 107? Few of my crashes are fun -- so I can't crash without a part 107 certification? What if it rains and that ruins the fun of a flight -- that requires a 107? The real problem is that "intent" is way too subjective to be part of *any* ruleset. Any subjective elements of a ruleset are open to abuse by both the regulator and those who are regulated. The FAA needs to do a *MUCH* better job with its rules.
If you post a video just to keep an officious FAA bureaucrat from leaving the home work station to get a latte at the corner Starbucks, is the intent to have fun? 😎
I know you like to be dramatic and controversial so I’m not sure if you’re joking or if you just haven’t bothered watching the explanation in the video. I didn’t realize the FAA had made “having fun” a factor in any of their regulation. There are obviously many more facets to qualifying for the exception. Flying within line of sight, under 400 feet, outside of controlled airspace without approval are just a few examples. But those would certainly be too difficult to discuss I assume.
@@PilotInstitute Obviously, you dont know Bruce Simpson. Hes been in this hobby as long as I have been and has made some of the same points I have made. These rules are unconstitutional in that simply because it doesn't say you can fly over a building in uncontrolled airspace doesn't mean that you cant. If enough people keep getting harassed by the FAA its going to lead to a class action suit. They have never proven or done a serious study in regards of incursions with aircraft by drones. There is not a single case of a drone downing an airplane simply and most likely because of their small size. Watch Bruce's channel and you will see what he's been through in New Zealand with their drone rules.
I am a registered pilot, an ultralight pilot, and a recreational drone pilot. I have worked quite extensively with the FAA in several capacities and I agree with the description of the FAA, and have known people who were caught breaking the rules. First offense is usually a warning, and as noted the FAA wants to educate and give good people an opportunity to fly and operate safely. That said, ultralights and drones are way down at the bottom of the FAA priority list since they have had their budgets cut and staffing reduced, and they have their hands full working with bigger airplanes in general and commercial aviation. They rely on community policing and local law enforcement to respond to local/infrequent incidents. With that said, they will only crack down on us little guys if we do something stupid to call attention to ourselves. The guidance I give my fellow pilots is be safe, be smart, don't push the limits oir make a spectacle of yourself. We need to act responsibly as a community of concerned pilots or else the FAA will crack down. When in doubt go ahead and get in touch with the FAA, they will help you.
Very well done video. I appreciate that it was straightforward, and stuck to the topic. None of the sometimes bizarre political rants I see in other videos, or the base accusations that people make against the real live human beings at the Agency. (Spoiler alert: they're pretty much just like the rest of us). It speaks volumes that there are relatively few tinfoil hats in the comment section, meaning that you've cultivated an audience that wants to see logical, rational, knowledgeable discussion of the issues. I'm already enrolled and studying for my 107 Cert at a different online school (and I'm quite happy with it), but I may augment it by additionally enrolling at the Pilot Institute, because my goal is to have the best foundation possible going forward.
Thank you for the kind words. We pride ourselves in trying to be neutral with most of what we share here, this is an educational platform, not the dining room table at Thanksgiving :P And yes, I think we have a lot of insightful discussions with our followers, something that's hard to come by these days on social media! Thanks for watching :)
Love the great work you do. All for smart flying. Just one question/comment for your FAA contacts. You mentioned that the FAA's charter is keeping the airspace safe. I fully support that. The question I would ask is how does posting a non-monetized video on youtube of a safe flight violate the recreational flying provision ? There is no danger to anyone for such a practice. Monetized videos, I understand why but not non-monetized. I'm not understanding. Many thanks and keep up the great work.
Thanks for the note. The short answer is, you can definitely post videos recorded as a rec flyer on a non-monetized channel. The action of posting TH-cam is not the deciding factor. The intent of the flight is. Good question.
@@PilotInstitute An additional note. Posting recreational drone videos on a non-monetized youtube IS actually ok. HOWEVER, if the channel is monetized OR if you INTEND (OR DECIDE) to monetize the channel in the future, then a part 107 license RPC is required. Retroactively. To be clear, you cannot claim to have filmed under the "part 107 recreational exception" just because the channel was not monetized yet, then at some time in the future change your mind and click the monetize button. If you monetize the video product later, the recreational flights retroactively become non-recreational.
Always great deep dive into the regulations to know the intent of your flight! Also to think about it as flying as Part 107, unless you meet the guidelines to be Recreational
Greg excellent explanation of 107 exemptions for recreational flights. I know one of the main confusing points is many YT presenters referencing a letter from an FAA official (almost a year ago) that stated "in furtherance of a business" being a 107 requirement with no mention of the other recreational exception requirements. Which I'm guessing was supposed to clarify the difference between 107 and recreational flights but all it really did was further muddy the waters. I looked back and saw I downloaded AC 91-57B when I bought my first drone but being over a year ago I haven't read it since then and couldn't tell you what was in it. (bad me) AMA guidelines, I've looked at them but with their non-fixed wing fields being over 25 miles away, and FPV multi rotor guidelines being either indoor or racing, it didn't tell me much.
Yes, furtherance of a business is not mentioned in Part 107 anymore BUT it definitely is ONE of the things that would make your activities fall under Part 107 and disqualify you from 44809.
It does muddy the water. The list of things that knocks you out of the recreational flying exemption is probably infinite. Rather than trying to enumerate all of the things that make it not recreational, it is a much shorter list to define what *is* recreational. I concur with the author that most recreational flyers are NOT following the program of a CBO (such as the AMA, which requires all AMA flights to be flown at an AMA airfield).
@@thomasmaughan4798 I was just making that comment on another comment. The CBO clause is probably what rec flyers should worry about more than the "recreational purposes" clause.
If you 'further ANY business' you are flying under Part 107... That means TH-cam, Facebook, Twatter. If they place an ad in your video, a business is making money and you are risking a fine... easy enough..
I'm a recreational pilot. Does the FAA consider the 400ft limit from the take off point or what's directly under the drone? And assuming it's the distance between the drone and the ground directly underneath, would a drone taking off from a mountain side that's at or above 10,000ft MSL legally be able to fly up to 400ft straight upward (with no clouds/fog 500ft above or 200ft horizontal to the drone)? I found on the FAA site, Class E airspace is excluded at and below 2,500ft AGL. Does this excluded airspace become G Class if not another class first? Could you explain airspace around mountain peaks as well? Thanks for this video too.
It's 400 feet above ground level (AGL) so you need to adapt as the ground changes. I fly all the time at 5000-7000 feet MSL here so that's no issue as long as you don't exceed 400 feet above the terrain.
Not saying courts or laws follow what I'm about to say, but this is how I see it: I'm listing to the 1st requirement and thinking in my mind about this: *I just bought a 3d printer - to make stuff, stuff that I will probably post online, will probably share with people, will use for game nights, will probably take videos of. *Every single one of those activities is "recreational" in their very nature. They aren't my job, they are for enjoyment. *even if I made money on a youtube channel posting videos of my printing etc, that would not negate that I was doing the printing for fun. Relating this back to the FAA, they would need to demonstrate, not that the youtube channel is profitable, but that the intended purpose for the flight was commercial enterprise rather than enjoyment. If you made a fun video of flying your drone, and later some company offered to buy your footage, you made a profit on it, but it shouldn't retroactively negate that it was made recreationally. So the after the fact sales, should not affect the actual event of flying. By my logic, the FAA would then need to demonstrate that you would not have done that flight without the intent for profit from it. And the best support to defend the claim of "for recreation" would be to have lots of similar taken videos as an obvious hobby that don't get posted or aren't sold or monetized, to demonstrate that this is your fun activity, which happened to later produce a profit, as opposed to an activity you are doing seeking that profit. With that logic, many youtubers would still cross the line into commercial activity. But as an example of an entire youtube channel that fits my logic for "recreation", watch smarter everyday and tell me he controlling motivation isn't enjoyment of learning and sharing that with people. The public in general needs to issue a big legislative slap down to any government agency that is unreasonable and excessive on normal behavior that isn't destructive. We should not under the threat of some agency deciding to reinterpret your actions. I hope some high profile case successfully pushes a precedent in favor of freedom.
I think there is a distinction between "doing something and having fun" and "recreational, leisurely activity". I love my job. Every day I do this, it is fun, but it's not a leisurely activity. it's a for-profit endeavor. The moment you monetize your channel, it's no longer a recreational activity. Now as far as making money from a recreational activity, that's different. You filmed an avalanche while recording your kid skying, and the news channel wants to give you $500 for it. That's totally acceptable to the FAA. You recorded a footage of the mountains near you to put on your monetized TH-cam channel, that's a different story. With that said, the FAA's intent is to make sure the airspace remains a safe place for everyone. The only reason the person in this video got in trouble is because he was flying recklessly. And because his channel is monetized, it was hard to make a case that he's doing this for recreational purposes, even though he is having fun doing it. I hope this clarifies it.
The reason I upload my videos to TH-cam is because I want a long-term personal record of them somewhere cloud-based. The fact that the public can also see those is incidental. And that will be the reasoning behind ALL my flights being recreational.
Thanks for the info Greg. I still believe the FAA (Government) is going to kill this hobby. Make it too complex and people ignore the rules, or just stop flying altogether. What a shame.
thanks for the information. I usually don't post anything on on TH-cam. I may go FB live but I do adhere to the rules by flying line of sight. I do have the the temporary Airman Certificate and am waiting for the real one in the mail.
I can't thank you enough for your wealth of knowledge and breaking down of needed information. I listened to individual that this was about, during a stream with another drone operator. My heart aches at his story. Flying a mini and getting such high of fines. Wow. I personally feel that the quantity owed in penalties should be more obtainable, and not seemingly intentionally bankrupting. This gentleman is already on welfare, already living on limited means, and got into droning to aid in sobriety. Be safe, be well.
Thank you so much for your kind and humble words.. everyone seems to want to get a piece of the story for there personal gain. They could care less about the rules or whatever there wrong or not. Or that fines are outrageously given.. Just buy the video. So to speak... Also, It's just for clicks and views. This is TH-cam right? ..... Anyways. Thank you my friend...
@@PhillyDroneLife Absolutely. I'm for Truth n Balance over misinformed sensationalism. I'm new to the hobby, but went into it wanting to be informed and educated as best as able. I also know that the news isn't going to be transparent on real to life topics. So i can't interject any inflamed view in any form of arrogance. I just hope for a peaceful end in this. For peace n sanity sake. I hate hearing of the world's pressures that press others into mentally/emotionally destructiveness/collapse. Be well.
The FAA applies fines based on the violation and not based on the type of drone or the income of the pilot. Law enforcement does the same. Don't wear your seat belt, fine is $X. Speed in a school zone: fine is $X. In this case, break X number of regulations at $X per violation equals the total amount.
@@PhillyDroneLife We report drone news every single week to help our followers and students stay up to date with what's going on. We try to do so without ill intent, while presenting facts, and educating when possible. This video is no different. You apparently broke the law, multiple times, got caught by the FAA. Those are facts. And that's what we presented. We tried to explain to others why it happened so it doesn't happen to anyone else. We could have thrown you under the bus, made fun of you, sensationalize it, like many others have done. We don't believe in this approach and don't believe in adding more burden to what you are already going through. And yes, we post videos so they can get views. Isn't that the reason ANYONE posts videos on TH-cam? Isn't that the reason you posted videos on TH-cam? Note that our channel is not monetized because it's an educational channel and we didn't want to burden our followers with ads.
@@PilotInstitute Understood. Just seems that since it's deemed Federal, that the fines are more extreme. After hearing some of the alleged charges, most of them are passed $1k up to several thousands. That's extreme. Yes a couple to few hundred for traffic violations, understood. Still high, just not as extreme as FAA fines. I understand that aerospace is a whole other realm that is needed to get insight towards for myself. I have often had an issue with the system of fines and their implementations, as well as their bias. Nonetheless. Thank you again.
I have a commercial for SEL, MEL, glider and helicopter, but no current BFR. I also have CFI, MEI and CFII and have a current FIRC. I am current member of AMA. I fly drones as well as regular RC powered fixed wing and glider and have considered taking part 107, just haven’t got around to it. I don’t post to TH-cam much, just stuff around the AMA sanctioned RC field. Does my commercial or CFI cover me for part 107?
Only your CPL would help but your need a current flight review so it sounds like you need to take the written exam like everybody else. It’s called UAG: Unmanned Aircraft General. Best of luck!
I have a question...last week I was flying from a river bank, over the river, up to 350 feet. As I was heading back to shore @ 100 feet or so, a military helicopter came barreling along the river at 200 feet or so. Luckily I was almost at shore, but if it collided with my drone, would I be at fault? I was flying in class G, uncontrolled airspace where it was 100% legal to fly.
Thanks for the video, Greg. I am Sect 107 certified, but almost always fly recreationally, always requesting a LAANC authorization beforehand. If, at the time of making a flight, I intend to fly recreationally, but after viewing killer footage, I decide to post it to youtube, have I violated FAA regulations? Remember that I requested authorization recreationally. Just to be on the safe side, should I always request LAANC Commercially? Thank you in advance.
No you'd be fine because you original intent was to fly recreationally. My question to you would be: why not submit LAANC as Part 107. It's really the same process and then you don't have to worry.
I was worried but never mind. Found the offender channel (Philly Drone Life) and 1) is clearly for monetizing and 2) wow... He shows a Mini 2 flying near a skyscraper showing over a 1000 ft height and drone is catched by strong winds and he loses control and makes fun of it. The guy had it all deserved. I would never ever do something as irresponsible, part 107 or recreational. I don't even think if I was authorized to do a special video I would not take a Mini 2 to 1000 ft and high winds, only a professional drone should do that. The guy is irresponsibly enticing other users to do the same and that's why FAA just had to show discipline, otherwise people will start causing accidents and ruining the drone hobby for the rest of us. Fly responsibility.
Winds aloft can be quite different from wind on the ground, particularly around buildings. I've only flown a couple of times under Part 107 in a city and I keep a sharp eye on everything but in particular the tilt angle indicator of the drone which signifies how much wind it is fighting. I keep around a 50 percent margin of safety; if the drone can do 25 miles per hour, my wind limit is 12 mph. About the worst thing to do in a strong wind flyaway is to hit the "return to home" button since it will CLIMB into even stronger wind to try to return home! Lower it to the ground and fly it manually and if you are making no progress, land it and walk over to it. But be sure you have stopped the propellers and leave your transmitter on. If you shut off the controller it will treat that as a lost signal, take off, go up 30 meters and away it goes.
Holy smokes. Much stupid. Nice video of Philly. Would it be so difficult to get a Part 107 and make beautiful city photos legally? Dude forgot to start the camera recorder so we all get to see the telemetry and alerts for excessive wind, excessive distance, tippy attitude, and flying directly in front of microwave antenna very likely to interfere with your control signals or worse, disrupt the control module in the drone. Some of these microwave devices (such as Ubiquiti AirFiber) operate on the same frequencies as drone control and downlink frequencies. He's obviously having fun so in his mind it is "recreational". That's one of the 8 requirements!
@@thomasmaughan4798 there are ways of shooting buildings and high. You'll need the 107, but also a better drone that can withstand winds, has anti collision, etc. In the event of losing it to a gust, if it ever happens, the anti collision can help from hitting buildings. Using the Mini is just looking for trouble. Even Mini 2, I've seen guys running after a runaway Mini, they are meant for casual, social media footage. This guy is clearly flying irresponsibly and we don't want people to follow his example. In my view, taking footage that could be from a helicopter is not interesting... The most interesting footage is the one only a drone can do, because of its size, it's ability to not disturb animals or people, ability to fly closer and shoot in ways neither an helicopter nor a crane could do
Not familiar with the area in Philly but it sounded like some of these flights are in Class B, several miles away from the airport, so my guess is that LAANC is available to maybe 300-400 in that area. However, flying at 600-800 feet around those buildings would require further approval but with the right approach, may not be impossible.
the rule "flying for fun" is killing the sport. Anyone can fly for fun they could fly in the same area for fun. They could choose to share their fun flying experience with others. Today sharing experience many times means videos , photos, talking about the fun experience. The FAA should not get involved unless there is an air space violation or something not safe happening. Flying and posting a video of the flight should not involve the FAA. Any lawyers want to take up a class action suite against the FAA?
So summary is that we can only fly at CBO fields under their rules. And can not use the video for really any purpose outside our own home playback devices because they can twist intent. This is why I haven't even atempted to fly in the last few years. The FAA was given some over reaching authority in the hobby areas. And with remote ID the fixed wing aircraft are going to fall as well.
Talking about point 3, I think if not flying fpv, operator must be able see his aircraft rather than looking at the screen. For fpv, wearing the fpv goggles, definitely a spotter is needed to communicate with operator in case of any danger that the operator cannot see from his goggles.
It's no wonder people are confused about FAA regulations when the official statements released by the FAA do not accurately reflect current law. As you pointed out, the 7th requirement is not applicable (yet). Additionally, requirement number 8 that your drone be registered and labeled is inaccurate since drones weighing less than 250 grams (0.55 lbs) do not require registration for flight under the part 44809 exception. Question: Once an education/exam requirement is added to the 44809 exception is there any reason someone would want to fly as a hobbyist rather than getting the part 107 certificate? It seems like if you need to know the info anyway you might as well get the part 107 remote pilot certificate.
I was happy to learn about this recreational pilot section as it states one may fly a drone at night if it has position and orientation lights. This conflicts with what you said in your course, which was no flying at night. Perhaps no commercial flying at night is what you meant.
Two different things indeed. Under Part 107, no night flying unless you have a waiver (this rule is likely to disappear soon). For hobbyists, you can fly at night in uncontrolled airspace but make sure you follow the guidelines of a CBO when you do so.
Clearly, if the FAA focused its authority on relevant safety issues such as scrutinizing the modification of the Boeing 737 into the radically different 737 Max with its blatant disregard for educating pilots on the deadly MCAS system, rather than the harmless flying of miniature aircraft who's ability to safely explore traditionally restricted air space warrants exception rather than scrutiny, the body count would not be as high.
Great explanation of the current rules; but I have a few questions. (I got my part 107 certification in December 2019.) Was recreational flying always carved out of Part 107 in this manner; or did this only happen through the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018? Why is the FAA so hung up about videos posted on social media? I have heard that is their determining factor on recreation flying or not; but that seems very arbitrary to me. (Maybe I am just use social media to share videos & pictures with uncle Harry who lives back East.) Do you know if anyone has pushed back against the FAA on that idea? Thanks for all your good work and keeping us informed. Merry Christmas.
Paul, This changed in 2018 with the Reauthorization act. Before that, "Hobbyists" as it was called, was governed under a portion of 14 CFR Part 101. I don't think the FAA is really hung up on social media. This specific video is making a point to say that it could disqualify you (although that's not a general rule) but here we are facing a lot of other violations that made it obvious this person was not flying under the 44809. "Flying for recreational purposes" is only one of the 8 things that must be checked off before you can fly under 44809.
Greg, does the "clouds" restriction include smoke (like from the recent controlled burns here in Prescott)? Would smoke that had settled over a town/city be considered akin to a 'cloud'?
With low laying smoke, you'll be worried about visibility. Since you're flying under recreational purposes, there is no visibility requirements other than being about to see the drone and maintain visual line of sight. So I wouldn't fly inside the smoke so you can continue to have visual.
Thank you for the Video! I am considering buying my first drone. I want to know the rules and regulations before I but and fly! Eventually I want to get my 701 certificate and use my drone on my sailing TH-cam Channel. From the little that I have learned getting my 701 doesn't seem too difficult or unreasonable! Most of the 701 stuff that I have seen doesn't seem too different from what I know from sailing; like reading charts, weather maps, understanding compass courses, etc. I am sure I will need to learn some new things.
So, if I join a recreational soccer league and someone takes a picture or short video and I share that online... I'm no longer playing soccer recreationally? Sounds like BS to me. I'd say it IS still purely recreational. Showing someone else a photo you took with your camera taking recreational photos(not professional) makes it now not "recreational"? I'd say no. That's ridiculous. Showing it to your friends online is no different. Recreational photography is the FUN of sharing it with friends. It's for FUN. Therefore it IS recreational. Just like playing with OTHER soccer players is where the FUN is. Doing stuff alone can actually destroy forms of recreation... especially forms like photography in which the nature of its recreation is showing the photo. Taking a photo, for recreation, is not to hide the photo in a box. As long as cash is not made by that individual it's purely for the fun and love of it.
Great Video Greg...what if I am flying as a Recreational Flyer with a DJI Mini 2 which is under the FAA Minimum Weight SO do I still need to regerter with the FAA?
Can I fly in a park (over the lake facing side / over water) but where people are walking in the same park? Flying in populated area really confuses me
Greg I was working on my CFI when I got high blood pressure and lost my physical. I am a part 107 pilot and an instrument rated private pilot. Would you be willing to do a drone instructors course? I would love to teach others how to fly.
I think you did a good job explaining the hobby exemptions, and yes my beef is with the FAA. They are choosing how to interpret the first clause - recreational. It's pedantic. And they are defining recreational, yet the written text does not, they are internally. So the enforcement agency is setting the boundaries, and I'd prefer the courts set it through judicial precedent - just like 4th amendment cases. The police do not determine what is a "reasonable" search and seizure - courts do. Second, the part 107 test is great knowledge and I enjoyed learning and getting it. However, if the FAA is going to take a pedantic stance and insist on applying it to an extreme - then let's make it more available. I had to go specifically to an aviation college's testing department - not even the regular community college testing center (where I can take GRE, LSAT, etc...). And the cost was more than your normal standardized of professional tests. So, if we're going to want more part 107 operations, make it more available. In regard to this case, I thought these were "proposed" fines. I wonder if there is a "plea bargain" process. And another question - when the FAA fines you, that is civil correct? So its a different legal process, and burden of proof, than criminal, no? Thanks.
Whatever happened to phillydronelife's fines? I can't find news on this anywhere. Did he get the fines reduced? I see he is still flying, but he appears to be doing things differently now.
"In furtherance of a business" doesn't specify *your* business. It can mean *any* business. Including TH-cam. Making your done video public on TH-cam (since TH-cam gets revenue from your video) could be considered by the FAA to be in furtherance of a business.
How do I get approved by the FAA to fly in a unauthorized area? I am registered with the FAA and took the test. I have done it with DJI Fly Safe online. Do I have to as well get approved by the FAA? Enjoy your videos. Thank you. Is there a link to get approved by the FAA. Can you send the link.
Greg, I have part 107-I have a question. The only reason I ever posted on TH-cam is it takes too long to download a flight that I share with family and friends. The question is “does it make any difference If I post a flight on TH-cam and mark it private as oppposed to public”?
What's gonna happen when Amazon has a delivery to my next door neighbor - will they still need VLOS? Will I have to yield to their delivery? Maybe only allowed to fly between the hours of 2-4 pm? How will all this work?
Amazon will operate under Part 135 so VLOS won't be a requirement. As far as sharing the airspace, there will be airspace reservation, first come first served, it will be 4D: space and time. The airspace is big enough that we will all be able to share. They definitely won't have priority.
One of the 8 points necessary to fulfill the 44809 exception is to register your drone. No exceptions are made as relates to drone weight, specifically whether it's more or less than 250 grams. Separately, the FAA doesn't require sub 250 gram drones to be registered. But if you don't register your sub 250 drone, then you can't fly as Rec and by default are then flying under rules governing 107. Greg, does this mean that if you don't register your sub 250 drone that you have to get your 107 certificate?
Remi, great question! There's actually an exception for the drone weight, which is coded in 14 CFR Part 48.15 so you would technically still meet the 44809 requirement if you didn't register your sub 250g drone because the regulation in Part 48 allows for an exception.
Beware treating SUMMARY of rules as ACTUAL rules. As we see in the actual regulations copied below for convenience, recreational drone weight requirement is 0.55 pounds or above: [I am reminded that all non-recreational drones must be individually registered and your recreational registration may need to be replaced with a commercial registration if you intend any non-recreational flying. You can certainly treat your toy drones as recreational and your Phantom or Inspire or Matrice as commercial] www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/17/2019-10169/exception-for-limited-recreational-operations-of-unmanned-aircraft 8. The aircraft is registered and marked and proof of registration is made available to the Administrator or a designee of the Administrator or law enforcement upon request. Registration and marking requirements for small unmanned aircraft, including recreational unmanned aircraft, can be found at 14 CFR part 48, ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-48 § 48.15 Requirement to register. No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft that is eligible for registration under 49 U.S.C. 44101-44103 *unless one of the following* criteria has been satisfied: (a) The owner has registered and marked the aircraft in accordance with this part; (b) *The aircraft weighs 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff* , including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft; or
@@thomasmaughan4798 A little correction here. The 0.55 lbs exception does not apply to drones flown under Part 107. All drones under 55lbs must be registered under Part 107. The 0.55 lbs rule is only for rec flyers.
@@PilotInstitute Concur. I will edit my comment to avoid adding to confusion. Any drone flown in Part 107 must be individually registered (per drone, not per operator).
Drone laws in the US are an absolute joke. Let's be real. Two people flying their drone in the exact same way, one person monetizes and all of a sudden they can be fined for not having his part 107, yet the other person not monetizing it is perfectly fine. That's just absolutely stupid. The flying itself should determine if you need a license, not what you do with any footage after the fact. that being said, everyone flying >250g drones should have to take a basic test and license. This way you know people have at least done a little bit of learning about actual rules.
I see the biggest problem here is that the term "for recreation" is not clearly defined. With the intent to be compensated is understood, and FAA does have somewhere the term "furthering a business". I don't consider posting on social media, whether intended or not is "furthering a business". If it were, then you could not intend to take aerials and intend to mail them to Aunt Sally, as you are furthering the postal business for use of their services, just as you are "furthering the social media business" for using their services. I highly doubt that was the intent of the distinction. However as others have said, it could be twisted that way.
Hi there Im a little bit confused The 8th part says need to register the drone So, what about if im flying the mavic mini or mini 2 which are 249grams, and they do not require to be registered So, does it means if i fly that drone without registration, but i met all other 7 parts, im not a recreational flyer?
If you read a bit more into the 8th one, it mentions PArt 48, which is where the sub 250 grams are exempt from registration. So you would still qualify for that part if you didn't register your sub-250g drone.
Greg this video aged pretty fast - seems like you should do a follow-up or give us a link to the follow-up video if you made one. It's hard to keep up with you!
With our 107, do we need to declare our purpose/intent for filming/flying (recreational or commercial) or are we safe as long as we follow the rules we have learned? Speaking purely about intent, not to include asking to fly on private land or requesting LAANC or speaking with officials in the event we are questioned. As in, if I went out (after I pass my 107) and flew with recreation purpose following all rules (cause it sounds like the person in question didn't even follow basic safety) and took some shots that I later decide down the road work in a video I'm putting together, would I be covered since I am a 107 pilot?
Here's the simple answer. If, at the time of recording, your intent was to fly for recreational purposes, and you followed all the recreational rules (the 8 points I mentioned), then you're good to go and can later use the footage for commercial purposes.
So, if I am reading you correctly, if one is following the other 7 requirements, but enjoys sharing videos, which places intent in question, they should get 107 certified so intent is no longer a concern. Is that correct?
That's a tough one because it's all about intent of the flight. If you meet all 7 requirements but go out for fun to get footage and then post it on YT, I have a hard time believing the FAA would come after you. If you meet all 7 but then post to a monetized or business channel on YT, then they may have a case. I believe the line is thin there because there is no way for anyone to prove your intent so you are likely to get busted on the other 7 rather than the first one. The bottom line with this video is, fly safely, don't post to monetized or business channel without a 107, don't break FAA regulation (107 or 44809).
If you are out flying in the middle of no where, no airports anywhere, no controlled airspace or any flight restrictions, no people, can I fly above 400ft as a Recreational only pilot? Thanks.
The best way to check all that is to use the free B4UFLY app from the FAA. But in all cases, your absolute limit is 400 feet above the ground, even in the middle of nowhere with no controlled airspace.
@@BC-yw2tw Sorry, I missed the part where you said "ABOVE". No, you can never fly above 400 feet above the ground as a recreational pilot. That's your absolute limit. I'm going to edit my previous answer to reflect that.
@@BC-yw2tw The only time you can fly over 400 feet above the ground under Part 107 is if there is a man-made structure and you stay within 400 feet radius of it, then you can fly up to 400 feet on top of it, as long as you are in uncontrolled airspace and that you do not enter controlled airspace while flying higher than 400 feet above the ground.
Great video Greg, thank you for all of your videos and knowledge. I do have a question regarding FPV wings, I understand the LOS requirement of the regulation but there is a process for submitting a waiver to be able to fly BVLOS, however, they suggest to file it about 90 days prior to your operation. My thing is that what would happen if on the day it's snowing, raining, hurricane, etc.? Will it expire your permit? I saw that Kittyhawk is working on something to help with that but my main question is for the FPV wing pilot that flies long range have they talked about a plan or process? Reason I say this is due to the flight is being conducted in areas where we all know that there is no way to have VO's to keep LOS or EVLOS on the aircraft. I know it's early in the process and most likely there is no ruling that enforces this but the fact that the rules currently state LOS, VOs, or EVLOS kind of shoots any type of long range in the foot and legally cannot be conducted. What would be the best approach until they discuss this issue? Currently for the sake of being legal and still enjoy our hobby, I fly maintaining LOS or VO's for EVLOS operations. BTW I'm currently a hobby enthusiast and not Part107 yet.
Great question. At the moment, there is no waiver process available under recreational flying, so if you wanted to fly BVLOS, you'd need Part 107 and a waiver. This waiver is difficult to get because it requires you have a whole lot of equipment available on board the aircraft for sense and avoid amongst other things so it's unlikely that an individual without lots of resource would get that. With all that said, the FAA is supposed to release new regulation in December to cover a variety of things, including BVLOS, flying over people, and night flying. So more on that soon!
@@PilotInstitute Outstanding! Thank you for your prompt reply Greg. I have 21 years of Aviation background in mtx and a&p licensed so my passion started with the little planes not the biggies. I look forward to seeing what is to come and hopefully it keeps moving in the forward direction.
So Greg if I go out and fly and say get a picture of the sunset and I put it on my Facebook to show my friends and family that steps outside of the recreational flying term so to speak and put you in the commercial part 107 side? Because my intent was just to have fun and share my fun with my friends and family
Great video as always Greg ..so if I’m flying recreationally and I’m approached by FAA or other official , I should be just able to say I’m flying under AMA safety flying standards as my CBO , I’m also a AMA member .. is this correct ? Or does only apply if I’m flying at a AMA field ?
Correct. If it is indeed what you are doing, that would be the right answer :) you would not have to be at an AMA field, they are just looking for the fact that you're following their guidelines.
@@PilotInstitute Interesting post from Kevin Morris from a FB group , did you see it ? “Posting to social media does NOT automatically move the drone operation out of Section 44809 and into Part 107. When speaking of 44809(a)(1), recreational purposes, the intent of the operation (not the media obtained) is the qualifying factor. To put it another way, it's not what you take a photo/video of, it's if you're going 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.”
Thanks for all info to keep us save. Great job always. ? All this it’s for the 🇺🇸? What about international drone flying? And share them to Facebook or TH-cam? Can you still get fine from the FAA?
Excellent video. I'm new and trying to absorb as much as possible to keep me out of trouble and enjoy. I wonder how long it will be before someone challenges the use of social being considered "non-recreational. Example, I was on my roof putting up a new weather station and caught a stunning sunset. I quickly took a picture and posted it to share. Does that make me a professional photographer? I want to make it clear, I am not arguing, just thinking out loud. Again, thank you.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
First of all, great video Greg. Very informative. I've always heard that intent was always a determining factor in whether you were required to have a 107 certification. You seemed to agree with that. So consider a scenario where I fly for fun and shoot some video. Strictly recreational (although I suppose one could argue that if you're shooting video, there's a secondary intent besides just flying for fun). I happen to show my video to my friends and family on my TV. Still recreational? I'd say so. Now my family in another part of the country wants to see it so I post it on social media or my non-monetized TH-cam channel. Should the medium that I use to show the video make a difference on whether it's for recreational purposes? I wouldn't think so and I don't think the FAA should think so. As you've said Greg, it's about intent. Just like if I shoot video with the intent to use it commercially, I need my 107 certification, even if I do nothing with the video after it's been taken. If intent is a driving factor, it needs to work both ways. Personally, I have my 107 certification and take a lot of pictures for my company, most of which hasn't even been used yet and may never be. But it's about intent.
Great question! And yes, the intent of the flight is what matters. What happens after really doesn't. I should have actually emphasized more on that in the video. In your case, your intent is recreational in purpose when you shot your video, so you're good. The fact you want to post it on YT after the fact (keyword) doesn't really matter anymore.
And yes, like you said, if you intend to go our and build your portfolio: Part 107. Whether or not the footage gets used.
If you intend to go fly to practice your skills to learning 3D mapping: Part 107.
You intend to record your son/daughter down the ski slope and happen to catch an avalanche that you later sell/give to the local TV channel: Recreational, even if money was exchanged. As long, of course, as you met ALL the other requirements in 44809 for that flight (including CBO guidelines), otherwise you're back to being governed by 107.
racsyr - I've posted on my YT, but I insured that only my friend could view the video. You have the option of private/public. Greg - would this keep in the recreation category if he posted it as private and not public?
@@billbishop8915 Well, it seems to me that if it's not monetized, it's still recreational. If you put a video on YT just for the joy of sharing it with others, isn't that recreational? Plus, as I said, and Greg agreed, if the intent was just to take video for fun and you post it, it's recreational, no matter who sees it or how it's ultimately used.
@@gadget_Bob I'll have to review FAA Section 44809 and Greg's video again, but my take of the video for now is once you post it on YT your under Part 107. It's great to have these discussion. Thank you
@@billbishop8915 I don't think it's really the issue here. It is perfectly legal to post your videos on youtube to share with family and friends and not get in trouble, as long as you followed the regulation, and your channel is not monetized. In this case, private would have definitely kept the world from seeing the infractions, but it still doesn't make his flights illegal and subject to fines. It just means he would have likely gotten away with it. If I speed on the highway at 100mph and don't get caught, I got away with it. Still illegal. If I speed at 100mph and post it on YT for everyone to see and make myself identifiable, I might be in trouble.
I don't think the FAA is treating this as a Part 107 case because he posted on TH-cam publicly. My understanding is that they are treating it as Part 107 because he did not qualify for all 8 items in 44809, which automatically reverts him to Part 107. From what I gathered, possibly flying in controlled airspace without authorization, flying above 400 feet, posting to a monetized channel (that will definitely exclude you from 44809), any of these will move you to Part 107.
In your case, if the intent of your flight was for fun and you met all 8 clauses in 44809, post your videos on your non-monetized YT personal channel and you'll be just fine.
Currently studying to pass my Part 107 examination using your amazing online course! Thanks for the great update and clarification on this important topic.
Thank you for all your work educating and helping make the confusing regulations understandable by the average person. You are the only one I've seen doing this vital work and making a great impact to our community.
Thank you, Sapphire. Happy to do it! Life long educator and I enjoy doing it.
Glad I took your course and passed my part 107 easily! It was the right decision. Thank you for the continued informational videos!
Greg I hope you read this but I very much appreciate the work and videos you make. I’m a new drone pilot and passed the Part 107 test the first time because of your excellent course. I felt more than prepared to take the test after taking your instruction. I also really appreciate these videos because it’s important to stay up-to-date on FAA regulations and there’s no way I would know about them without content like yours informing me about what’s going on in the drone world. I love flying my drone and I would hate to not be able to anymore because of irresponsible and ignorant drone flyers. These videos are important and the more people that see them the better.
Glad we can help clarify things out :)
Thank you for a very informative discussion. It cleared up a lot of questions I had about recreational flying.
You are the best!
The important thing to remember is your intent and the word "fun". Hypothetical #1: You do not have a 107 certification. Your neighbor asks you to take a video of his roof for $50. You tell him you can't charge him but will do him a favor. You take a video, it was fun but your intent was to look at your neighbor's roof while flying for fun. That is an FAA violation. Hypothetical #2 You do not have a 107 certification. You are flying for fun, you take a video of taking off from your yard, film an amazing blue sky and film as you are landing, camera facing down. You post your video to your TH-cam channel which is NOT monetized. A week later your neighbor sees the his roof on TH-cam, he sees the condition of his roof as you are landing and decides it's time for new shingles. That is not a violation, your intent was fun, you knew nothing about your neighbor's roof and did not intend on filming or inspecting his roof for the purpose of inspection for financial gain or as a favor.
Nailed it!!
Greg, great explanation! A lot of flyers out there need to hear this 👍 Also, you mention a few times "exemption" when you really mean "exception".
One of Philly's TH-cam videos popped up in my feed and I watched it. He did have more than 500 foot ceiling above the over 1150 ft that he was flying and didn't have a cloud within 2000 feet, which you could tell because he was over 5000 ft away from the drone when he flew behind a tower and briefly lost signal (I could imagine that thing returning home into a building, dropping 1100 feet into some poor person below). Other than the ceiling and cloud separation, I think he broke almost all of the rules for recreational flight under any authority and all 107 rules, including flying multiple times over interstate highways. After seeing him on Dobo last week, I thought he might be being singled out for minor infractions...but dam! I can see why the FAA feels the need to talk to him.
Thank you for finally dissecting the FAA’s perspective on exempt “recreational” flights and Part 107 operations. That being the intent of the flight (presumably by the RPIC). Some thoughts:
• If the RPIC intends to post on any media (this includes still images published in conventional print media, not just “social media” platforms), the flight is potentially NOT “recreational “ as perceived by the FAA.
• Some will consider the FAA’s application of the regulations an overreach, perhaps even a bureaucratic chilling of 1A rights, especially if the circumstances leading to an enforcement incident cannot be matched to an actual safety or threat issue.
• The FAA may also run into an “equal protection” conundrum when it attempts enforcement actions and respondents can show other instances (probably content posted on social media by others) where the FAA did not engage in enforcement. The FAA’s enforcement capabilities appear to be based on mid-20th century thinking which has been complicated by 21st century technology and an exponential growth of individuals piloting UAS devices in the air space. Time will tell if the FAA will adapt to be a well-functioning enforcement bureaucracy in this environment.
• Enforcement is further compromised by the FAA’s failure to provide consistent guidance. Instances are being reported wherein multiple and sometimes conflicting advice is given by FAA agents in response to the same or very similar inquiries.
• The enforcement action against “M,” the individual you referenced, is, I posit, counterproductive to the FAA’s interests. It has martyrized “M,” who, arguably, is not a good example of UAS pilots. This was classic bureaucratic short-sighted stupidity.
Stay safe.
Great comment Ed.
On your first, yes, absolutely,.
Regarding the FAA enforcing others, my understanding is that the "live" component is what allowed the FAA to prosecute. Many who post videos that break the law either don't show their faces on camera, or if they do, it's hard to prove when it was done. At least that's my understanding. The What, Who, and when was all included in this person's shot, unlike many others.
I'm sure the "conflicting" information bit is important here. Lots of conflicting information coming even from the FAA themselves at times.
Yes, this could possibly backlash for the FAA and create a culture of "F the FAA", which is already in existence in many places. I like to believe that most people have good intents when they go fly and if they make a mistake, it was unintentional and should be educated. I'm hoping this is an opportunity for a lot of people to learn about the rules or want to learn about the rules so this doesn't happen to anyone else. I also hope the fine is reduced to something more reasonable for the crimes committed so he learns his lessons but so this doesn't destroy this person's life.
I think the FAA is following suit with other regulatory agencies. I have heard of other agencies using reality shows to fine companies. In my other job I have to take pictures & videos of work stations, set ups, etc. Most larger companies require me to hand over my sd card before I leave their site & they approve what can & cannot be used. Sometimes infractions "appear on film" that no one saw on person.
Great explanation! I've spent the time learning and getting my 107 certification before flying my drone. It opened my eyes to the requirements and responsibilities. Thank you for taking this time explaining different aspects about the FAA approach to the issues at hand.
Very informative. Thanks for clarifying the distinction between the exception for limited recreational flying and commercial flying under Part 107.
Greg thank you for your time and energy in all of your videos. This video is one of the most informative and clarifying I have viewed on the balancing act of flying as a recreational flyer and flying under Part 107. Well done.
As always thanks for the info. Your class on he Part 107 certificate was incredible and with out it I do not believe I could have passed especially as high of grade as I made. I wish many people I am in contact with regularly could grasp what you said here on the Recreational Flying.
Because I live in a fairly rural part of the world and fly a drone a lot and many people know that, I am asked questions many times concerning legal flying. It is interesting when you tell someone that something is not legal that they want to shoot the messenger and disregard the message. People want to know what the rules are till they find out they are in violation of them. Then it is a different matter entirely. Normally followed by how stupid it is.
Thanks Greg. Appreciate the weekly updates.
That was a a very heavy video you posted, Professor. Very good information and I hope people who watch it take it to heart. FYI "intent" is very big with federal regulations, if you take a look at many federal firearms laws you'll see a similar theme. Another FYI, NEVER ignore a Federal Agency. How you react will dictate how they react. I talked to many ATF agents during my years as a firearms dealers and they had plenty of stories to tell me.
It is indeed a great advice. Don't ignore a federal agency. I will add, don't mess with the FCC or the IRS.
@@PilotInstitute I'm plum afraid of the IRS!
I’m a Private Pilot, Remote Pilot, an FAA Designated Engineering Representative (DER), and I work with various branches of the FAA extensively. First, very informative video. You always do a great job. But to your point about the FAA, I couldn’t agree more. My experience is that they are primarily very good and helpful people and what they care about is aviation safety. They take no delight in busting someone, but they do have a job to do. But by all means, if they do reach out to you with a concern, cooperate!!
100%!
Thank you for these videos. I just got my first drone and I’m excited about getting into this hobby. At the same time I want to do it right and your videos help me understand not just the rules, but also the intent behind them.
Great video, precisely why i signed up for your part 107 program.
Without a second thought about it, I just deleted all my drone footage from my TH-cam channel, even though it was all initially captured under purely recreational intent, and the uploading to TH-cam was just an afterthought and an exercise in vanity. I don't want ANY trouble. So from no on, all my footage stays right with me, and goes nowhere else.
Don't get discouraged tho but you did the right thing ,but if you love it to have them post ,get ur part 107 an continue doing watt you love ok I am working on my part 107 too be4 I purchase my drone !!
Greg - Great video and very informative. I also reviewed that individuals videos and he did not meet the FAA Recreational guidelines. I learned a lot from this video. Thank you
Great, informative video. Actually, the best one I've seen thus far. I learned a lot. You're actually the first to state "intent if the flight" as well. I learned a few things and a few that I need to correct myself on.
Great video Greg. I watched it in its entirety and I'm Canadian. But it's always good to understand our neighbors drone rules/laws as well. Since I'm a new drone pilot, I enjoy soaking up knowledge from all over and everything drone related. Keep those great videos coming.
Great explanation, Greg! If you’ve seen any of his videos you know that following the law isn’t a priority. Ive seen him fly at over 1,000 ft in the middle of a city after changing the default DJI limit of 398 ft.
Wow!!! You just taught me a enormous amount of information. I really appreciate this video.
To give you my opinion on why the FAA went after him is because a person came across his channel wasn’t to happy about him or what he was doing so they decided to contact the FAA and make it know that he was or potentially was flying a drone (Unmanned Aircraft) illegally!!! Yes we live in a world where there are people that have nothing better to do in life than cause misery for other people. Yes I know first hand beings I’ve had my blood (family) make several attempts at it towards me!
So are you telling me the FAA should ignore public tips concerning illegal drone activity? Regardless of who made the FAA aware of his activites, he was breaking the law. And still does to this day....
Posting to your FB page is problematic and the implications are ignored by many who choose to selectively interpret the FAA. Thanks for your discussion.
Thabks Greg! Let's fly safe and keep the Drone pilots reputation good helping to educate as much as we can
Thank you so much for this, Greg! Extremely helpful!
Thanks so much for this video Greg. You are so clear and easy to understand. I learn a lot from watching these videos.
Damn, so if I have a flight that turns out not to be fun, it requires part 107? Few of my crashes are fun -- so I can't crash without a part 107 certification? What if it rains and that ruins the fun of a flight -- that requires a 107?
The real problem is that "intent" is way too subjective to be part of *any* ruleset. Any subjective elements of a ruleset are open to abuse by both the regulator and those who are regulated. The FAA needs to do a *MUCH* better job with its rules.
If you post a video just to keep an officious FAA bureaucrat from leaving the home work station to get a latte at the corner Starbucks, is the intent to have fun? 😎
I know you like to be dramatic and controversial so I’m not sure if you’re joking or if you just haven’t bothered watching the explanation in the video. I didn’t realize the FAA had made “having fun” a factor in any of their regulation.
There are obviously many more facets to qualifying for the exception. Flying within line of sight, under 400 feet, outside of controlled airspace without approval are just a few examples. But those would certainly be too difficult to discuss I assume.
@@PilotInstitute Obviously, you dont know Bruce Simpson. Hes been in this hobby as long as I have been and has made some of the same points I have made. These rules are unconstitutional in that simply because it doesn't say you can fly over a building in uncontrolled airspace doesn't mean that you cant. If enough people keep getting harassed by the FAA its going to lead to a class action suit. They have never proven or done a serious study in regards of incursions with aircraft by drones. There is not a single case of a drone downing an airplane simply and most likely because of their small size. Watch Bruce's channel and you will see what he's been through in New Zealand with their drone rules.
Thanks. Bruce.
My DJI Mini 2 is under 250g so it isn’t registered. How does this work with the last rule you have stated?
There's an exception to the registration rule for sub250g drones. You're fine.
Good clarification between recreational and 107. I was alway in the fog about this. I'm a 107 pilot, but good to know information. Thanks -
I am a registered pilot, an ultralight pilot, and a recreational drone pilot. I have worked quite extensively with the FAA in several capacities and I agree with the description of the FAA, and have known people who were caught breaking the rules. First offense is usually a warning, and as noted the FAA wants to educate and give good people an opportunity to fly and operate safely. That said, ultralights and drones are way down at the bottom of the FAA priority list since they have had their budgets cut and staffing reduced, and they have their hands full working with bigger airplanes in general and commercial aviation. They rely on community policing and local law enforcement to respond to local/infrequent incidents. With that said, they will only crack down on us little guys if we do something stupid to call attention to ourselves. The guidance I give my fellow pilots is be safe, be smart, don't push the limits oir make a spectacle of yourself. We need to act responsibly as a community of concerned pilots or else the FAA will crack down. When in doubt go ahead and get in touch with the FAA, they will help you.
Very well done video. I appreciate that it was straightforward, and stuck to the topic. None of the sometimes bizarre political rants I see in other videos, or the base accusations that people make against the real live human beings at the Agency. (Spoiler alert: they're pretty much just like the rest of us). It speaks volumes that there are relatively few tinfoil hats in the comment section, meaning that you've cultivated an audience that wants to see logical, rational, knowledgeable discussion of the issues.
I'm already enrolled and studying for my 107 Cert at a different online school (and I'm quite happy with it), but I may augment it by additionally enrolling at the Pilot Institute, because my goal is to have the best foundation possible going forward.
Thank you for the kind words. We pride ourselves in trying to be neutral with most of what we share here, this is an educational platform, not the dining room table at Thanksgiving :P
And yes, I think we have a lot of insightful discussions with our followers, something that's hard to come by these days on social media! Thanks for watching :)
Thanks for the info. I'm pursuing my part 107 certificate through Pilot Institute and I hope to finish soon.
Interesting and informative. I had no idea about all the requirements for a flight to qualify as recreational. Happy with my 107.
- Shrug
Great explanation of Part 107 vs 44809, Greg.
I have good mentors ;)
Love the great work you do. All for smart flying. Just one question/comment for your FAA contacts. You mentioned that the FAA's charter is keeping the airspace safe. I fully support that. The question I would ask is how does posting a non-monetized video on youtube of a safe flight violate the recreational flying provision ? There is no danger to anyone for such a practice. Monetized videos, I understand why but not non-monetized. I'm not understanding. Many thanks and keep up the great work.
Thanks for the note. The short answer is, you can definitely post videos recorded as a rec flyer on a non-monetized channel. The action of posting TH-cam is not the deciding factor. The intent of the flight is. Good question.
@@PilotInstitute An additional note. Posting recreational drone videos on a non-monetized youtube IS actually ok. HOWEVER, if the channel is monetized OR if you INTEND (OR DECIDE) to monetize the channel in the future, then a part 107 license RPC is required. Retroactively. To be clear, you cannot claim to have filmed under the "part 107 recreational exception" just because the channel was not monetized yet, then at some time in the future change your mind and click the monetize button. If you monetize the video product later, the recreational flights retroactively become non-recreational.
Always great deep dive into the regulations to know the intent of your flight! Also to think about it as flying as Part 107, unless you meet the guidelines to be Recreational
Greg excellent explanation of 107 exemptions for recreational flights. I know one of the main confusing points is many YT presenters referencing a letter from an FAA official (almost a year ago) that stated "in furtherance of a business" being a 107 requirement with no mention of the other recreational exception requirements. Which I'm guessing was supposed to clarify the difference between 107 and recreational flights but all it really did was further muddy the waters.
I looked back and saw I downloaded AC 91-57B when I bought my first drone but being over a year ago I haven't read it since then and couldn't tell you what was in it. (bad me) AMA guidelines, I've looked at them but with their non-fixed wing fields being over 25 miles away, and FPV multi rotor guidelines being either indoor or racing, it didn't tell me much.
Yes, furtherance of a business is not mentioned in Part 107 anymore BUT it definitely is ONE of the things that would make your activities fall under Part 107 and disqualify you from 44809.
It does muddy the water. The list of things that knocks you out of the recreational flying exemption is probably infinite. Rather than trying to enumerate all of the things that make it not recreational, it is a much shorter list to define what *is* recreational. I concur with the author that most recreational flyers are NOT following the program of a CBO (such as the AMA, which requires all AMA flights to be flown at an AMA airfield).
@@thomasmaughan4798 I was just making that comment on another comment. The CBO clause is probably what rec flyers should worry about more than the "recreational purposes" clause.
Thank you very much for this thorough explanation of the regulations!
If you 'further ANY business' you are flying under Part 107... That means TH-cam, Facebook, Twatter. If they place an ad in your video, a business is making money and you are risking a fine... easy enough..
Great video and information, Greg. Thanks.
I'm a recreational pilot. Does the FAA consider the 400ft limit from the take off point or what's directly under the drone? And assuming it's the distance between the drone and the ground directly underneath, would a drone taking off from a mountain side that's at or above 10,000ft MSL legally be able to fly up to 400ft straight upward (with no clouds/fog 500ft above or 200ft horizontal to the drone)? I found on the FAA site, Class E airspace is excluded at and below 2,500ft AGL. Does this excluded airspace become G Class if not another class first? Could you explain airspace around mountain peaks as well? Thanks for this video too.
It's 400 feet above ground level (AGL) so you need to adapt as the ground changes. I fly all the time at 5000-7000 feet MSL here so that's no issue as long as you don't exceed 400 feet above the terrain.
@@PilotInstitute The clarification is much appreciated.
Not saying courts or laws follow what I'm about to say, but this is how I see it:
I'm listing to the 1st requirement and thinking in my mind about this:
*I just bought a 3d printer - to make stuff, stuff that I will probably post online, will probably share with people, will use for game nights, will probably take videos of.
*Every single one of those activities is "recreational" in their very nature. They aren't my job, they are for enjoyment.
*even if I made money on a youtube channel posting videos of my printing etc, that would not negate that I was doing the printing for fun.
Relating this back to the FAA, they would need to demonstrate, not that the youtube channel is profitable, but that the intended purpose for the flight was commercial enterprise rather than enjoyment.
If you made a fun video of flying your drone, and later some company offered to buy your footage, you made a profit on it, but it shouldn't retroactively negate that it was made recreationally.
So the after the fact sales, should not affect the actual event of flying.
By my logic, the FAA would then need to demonstrate that you would not have done that flight without the intent for profit from it.
And the best support to defend the claim of "for recreation" would be to have lots of similar taken videos as an obvious hobby that don't get posted or aren't sold or monetized, to demonstrate that this is your fun activity, which happened to later produce a profit, as opposed to an activity you are doing seeking that profit.
With that logic, many youtubers would still cross the line into commercial activity. But as an example of an entire youtube channel that fits my logic for "recreation", watch smarter everyday and tell me he controlling motivation isn't enjoyment of learning and sharing that with people.
The public in general needs to issue a big legislative slap down to any government agency that is unreasonable and excessive on normal behavior that isn't destructive. We should not under the threat of some agency deciding to reinterpret your actions.
I hope some high profile case successfully pushes a precedent in favor of freedom.
I think there is a distinction between "doing something and having fun" and "recreational, leisurely activity". I love my job. Every day I do this, it is fun, but it's not a leisurely activity. it's a for-profit endeavor. The moment you monetize your channel, it's no longer a recreational activity.
Now as far as making money from a recreational activity, that's different. You filmed an avalanche while recording your kid skying, and the news channel wants to give you $500 for it. That's totally acceptable to the FAA.
You recorded a footage of the mountains near you to put on your monetized TH-cam channel, that's a different story.
With that said, the FAA's intent is to make sure the airspace remains a safe place for everyone. The only reason the person in this video got in trouble is because he was flying recklessly. And because his channel is monetized, it was hard to make a case that he's doing this for recreational purposes, even though he is having fun doing it.
I hope this clarifies it.
The reason I upload my videos to TH-cam is because I want a long-term personal record of them somewhere cloud-based. The fact that the public can also see those is incidental. And that will be the reasoning behind ALL my flights being recreational.
Thanks for the info Greg. I still believe the FAA (Government) is going to kill this hobby. Make it too complex and people ignore the rules, or just stop flying altogether. What a shame.
Agreed. This was one of our complaints in our remote ID response. And if people ignore remote ID, it will be a big expensive failure.
thanks for the information. I usually don't post anything on on TH-cam. I may go FB live but I do adhere to the rules by flying line of sight. I do have the the temporary Airman Certificate and am waiting for the real one in the mail.
He has send an answer to the FFA. I follow the channel.
I can't thank you enough for your wealth of knowledge and breaking down of needed information. I listened to individual that this was about, during a stream with another drone operator. My heart aches at his story. Flying a mini and getting such high of fines. Wow. I personally feel that the quantity owed in penalties should be more obtainable, and not seemingly intentionally bankrupting. This gentleman is already on welfare, already living on limited means, and got into droning to aid in sobriety. Be safe, be well.
Thank you so much for your kind and humble words.. everyone seems to want to get a piece of the story for there personal gain. They could care less about the rules or whatever there wrong or not. Or that fines are outrageously given.. Just buy the video. So to speak... Also, It's just for clicks and views. This is TH-cam right? ..... Anyways. Thank you my friend...
@@PhillyDroneLife Absolutely. I'm for Truth n Balance over misinformed sensationalism. I'm new to the hobby, but went into it wanting to be informed and educated as best as able. I also know that the news isn't going to be transparent on real to life topics. So i can't interject any inflamed view in any form of arrogance. I just hope for a peaceful end in this. For peace n sanity sake. I hate hearing of the world's pressures that press others into mentally/emotionally destructiveness/collapse. Be well.
The FAA applies fines based on the violation and not based on the type of drone or the income of the pilot. Law enforcement does the same. Don't wear your seat belt, fine is $X. Speed in a school zone: fine is $X. In this case, break X number of regulations at $X per violation equals the total amount.
@@PhillyDroneLife We report drone news every single week to help our followers and students stay up to date with what's going on. We try to do so without ill intent, while presenting facts, and educating when possible. This video is no different. You apparently broke the law, multiple times, got caught by the FAA. Those are facts. And that's what we presented. We tried to explain to others why it happened so it doesn't happen to anyone else. We could have thrown you under the bus, made fun of you, sensationalize it, like many others have done. We don't believe in this approach and don't believe in adding more burden to what you are already going through.
And yes, we post videos so they can get views. Isn't that the reason ANYONE posts videos on TH-cam? Isn't that the reason you posted videos on TH-cam? Note that our channel is not monetized because it's an educational channel and we didn't want to burden our followers with ads.
@@PilotInstitute Understood. Just seems that since it's deemed Federal, that the fines are more extreme. After hearing some of the alleged charges, most of them are passed $1k up to several thousands. That's extreme. Yes a couple to few hundred for traffic violations, understood. Still high, just not as extreme as FAA fines. I understand that aerospace is a whole other realm that is needed to get insight towards for myself. I have often had an issue with the system of fines and their implementations, as well as their bias. Nonetheless. Thank you again.
I have a commercial for SEL, MEL, glider and helicopter, but no current BFR. I also have CFI, MEI and CFII and have a current FIRC. I am current member of AMA. I fly drones as well as regular RC powered fixed wing and glider and have considered taking part 107, just haven’t got around to it. I don’t post to TH-cam much, just stuff around the AMA sanctioned RC field. Does my commercial or CFI cover me for part 107?
Only your CPL would help but your need a current flight review so it sounds like you need to take the written exam like everybody else. It’s called UAG: Unmanned Aircraft General. Best of luck!
I do agree monetized youtube should be part 107.
I have a question...last week I was flying from a river bank, over the river, up to 350 feet. As I was heading back to shore @ 100 feet or so, a military helicopter came barreling along the river at 200 feet or so. Luckily I was almost at shore, but if it collided with my drone, would I be at fault? I was flying in class G, uncontrolled airspace where it was 100% legal to fly.
Hi Steven,
In this case you would have been at fault because you need to yield to any other aircraft flying in the airspace.
@@PilotInstitute Thank you!
Thanks for the video, Greg. I am Sect 107 certified, but almost always fly recreationally, always requesting a LAANC authorization beforehand. If, at the time of making a flight, I intend to fly recreationally, but after viewing killer footage, I decide to post it to youtube, have I violated FAA regulations? Remember that I requested authorization recreationally. Just to be on the safe side, should I always request LAANC Commercially? Thank you in advance.
No you'd be fine because you original intent was to fly recreationally. My question to you would be: why not submit LAANC as Part 107. It's really the same process and then you don't have to worry.
I was worried but never mind. Found the offender channel (Philly Drone Life) and 1) is clearly for monetizing and 2) wow... He shows a Mini 2 flying near a skyscraper showing over a 1000 ft height and drone is catched by strong winds and he loses control and makes fun of it. The guy had it all deserved. I would never ever do something as irresponsible, part 107 or recreational. I don't even think if I was authorized to do a special video I would not take a Mini 2 to 1000 ft and high winds, only a professional drone should do that. The guy is irresponsibly enticing other users to do the same and that's why FAA just had to show discipline, otherwise people will start causing accidents and ruining the drone hobby for the rest of us. Fly responsibility.
Winds aloft can be quite different from wind on the ground, particularly around buildings. I've only flown a couple of times under Part 107 in a city and I keep a sharp eye on everything but in particular the tilt angle indicator of the drone which signifies how much wind it is fighting. I keep around a 50 percent margin of safety; if the drone can do 25 miles per hour, my wind limit is 12 mph.
About the worst thing to do in a strong wind flyaway is to hit the "return to home" button since it will CLIMB into even stronger wind to try to return home! Lower it to the ground and fly it manually and if you are making no progress, land it and walk over to it. But be sure you have stopped the propellers and leave your transmitter on. If you shut off the controller it will treat that as a lost signal, take off, go up 30 meters and away it goes.
Holy smokes. Much stupid. Nice video of Philly. Would it be so difficult to get a Part 107 and make beautiful city photos legally? Dude forgot to start the camera recorder so we all get to see the telemetry and alerts for excessive wind, excessive distance, tippy attitude, and flying directly in front of microwave antenna very likely to interfere with your control signals or worse, disrupt the control module in the drone. Some of these microwave devices (such as Ubiquiti AirFiber) operate on the same frequencies as drone control and downlink frequencies.
He's obviously having fun so in his mind it is "recreational". That's one of the 8 requirements!
@@thomasmaughan4798 there are ways of shooting buildings and high. You'll need the 107, but also a better drone that can withstand winds, has anti collision, etc. In the event of losing it to a gust, if it ever happens, the anti collision can help from hitting buildings. Using the Mini is just looking for trouble. Even Mini 2, I've seen guys running after a runaway Mini, they are meant for casual, social media footage. This guy is clearly flying irresponsibly and we don't want people to follow his example.
In my view, taking footage that could be from a helicopter is not interesting... The most interesting footage is the one only a drone can do, because of its size, it's ability to not disturb animals or people, ability to fly closer and shoot in ways neither an helicopter nor a crane could do
@@ckeledjian "The most interesting footage is the one only a drone can do"
Agreed.
Not familiar with the area in Philly but it sounded like some of these flights are in Class B, several miles away from the airport, so my guess is that LAANC is available to maybe 300-400 in that area. However, flying at 600-800 feet around those buildings would require further approval but with the right approach, may not be impossible.
the rule "flying for fun" is killing the sport. Anyone can fly for fun they could fly in the same area for fun. They could choose to share their fun flying experience with others. Today sharing experience many times means videos , photos, talking about the fun experience. The FAA should not get involved unless there is an air space violation or something not safe happening. Flying and posting a video of the flight should not involve the FAA. Any lawyers want to take up a class action suite against the FAA?
The FAA does not get involved until there is a major airspace violation that put someone's life at risk.
Thanks Greg...Very informative!
So summary is that we can only fly at CBO fields under their rules. And can not use the video for really any purpose outside our own home playback devices because they can twist intent. This is why I haven't even atempted to fly in the last few years. The FAA was given some over reaching authority in the hobby areas. And with remote ID the fixed wing aircraft are going to fall as well.
Talking about point 3, I think if not flying fpv, operator must be able see his aircraft rather than looking at the screen.
For fpv, wearing the fpv goggles, definitely a spotter is needed to communicate with operator in case of any danger that the operator cannot see from his goggles.
Was there ever a follow up to this? As of today, 4/22/22 he appears to still be doing reckless stuff on his TH-cam channel.
It's no wonder people are confused about FAA regulations when the official statements released by the FAA do not accurately reflect current law. As you pointed out, the 7th requirement is not applicable (yet). Additionally, requirement number 8 that your drone be registered and labeled is inaccurate since drones weighing less than 250 grams (0.55 lbs) do not require registration for flight under the part 44809 exception.
Question: Once an education/exam requirement is added to the 44809 exception is there any reason someone would want to fly as a hobbyist rather than getting the part 107 certificate? It seems like if you need to know the info anyway you might as well get the part 107 remote pilot certificate.
The CBO rule is why I pursued my 107 cert. The CBOs near me do not like drones.
Same here. Flying under AMA rules would be amazingly safe and not much fun.
Great great video, great information. On point from beginning to end.
I was happy to learn about this recreational pilot section as it states one may fly a drone at night if it has position and orientation lights. This conflicts with what you said in your course, which was no flying at night. Perhaps no commercial flying at night is what you meant.
Two different things indeed. Under Part 107, no night flying unless you have a waiver (this rule is likely to disappear soon). For hobbyists, you can fly at night in uncontrolled airspace but make sure you follow the guidelines of a CBO when you do so.
Awesome video. Thank u so much for posting
Clearly, if the FAA focused its authority on relevant safety issues such as scrutinizing the modification of the Boeing 737 into the radically different 737 Max with its blatant disregard for educating pilots on the deadly MCAS system, rather than the harmless flying of miniature aircraft who's ability to safely explore traditionally restricted air space warrants exception rather than scrutiny, the body count would not be as high.
Great explanation of the current rules; but I have a few questions. (I got my part 107 certification in December 2019.) Was recreational flying always carved out of Part 107 in this manner; or did this only happen through the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018? Why is the FAA so hung up about videos posted on social media? I have heard that is their determining factor on recreation flying or not; but that seems very arbitrary to me. (Maybe I am just use social media to share videos & pictures with uncle Harry who lives back East.) Do you know if anyone has pushed back against the FAA on that idea? Thanks for all your good work and keeping us informed. Merry Christmas.
Paul,
This changed in 2018 with the Reauthorization act. Before that, "Hobbyists" as it was called, was governed under a portion of 14 CFR Part 101.
I don't think the FAA is really hung up on social media. This specific video is making a point to say that it could disqualify you (although that's not a general rule) but here we are facing a lot of other violations that made it obvious this person was not flying under the 44809. "Flying for recreational purposes" is only one of the 8 things that must be checked off before you can fly under 44809.
Greg, does the "clouds" restriction include smoke (like from the recent controlled burns here in Prescott)? Would smoke that had settled over a town/city be considered akin to a 'cloud'?
With low laying smoke, you'll be worried about visibility. Since you're flying under recreational purposes, there is no visibility requirements other than being about to see the drone and maintain visual line of sight. So I wouldn't fly inside the smoke so you can continue to have visual.
@@PilotInstitute Fortunately, I was easily able to maintain VLOS with the drone the whole time I flew, even while climbing/descending thru the smoke.
Great video. Are there any follow up videos to sUAS?
Now I can as a recreational pilot post my videos to TH-cam to share with family.
Thank you for the Video! I am considering buying my first drone. I want to know the rules and regulations before I but and fly! Eventually I want to get my 701 certificate and use my drone on my sailing TH-cam Channel. From the little that I have learned getting my 701 doesn't seem too difficult or unreasonable! Most of the 701 stuff that I have seen doesn't seem too different from what I know from sailing; like reading charts, weather maps, understanding compass courses, etc. I am sure I will need to learn some new things.
So, if I join a recreational soccer league and someone takes a picture or short video and I share that online... I'm no longer playing soccer recreationally? Sounds like BS to me. I'd say it IS still purely recreational. Showing someone else a photo you took with your camera taking recreational photos(not professional) makes it now not "recreational"? I'd say no. That's ridiculous. Showing it to your friends online is no different. Recreational photography is the FUN of sharing it with friends. It's for FUN. Therefore it IS recreational. Just like playing with OTHER soccer players is where the FUN is. Doing stuff alone can actually destroy forms of recreation... especially forms like photography in which the nature of its recreation is showing the photo. Taking a photo, for recreation, is not to hide the photo in a box. As long as cash is not made by that individual it's purely for the fun and love of it.
Great Video Greg...what if I am flying as a Recreational Flyer with a DJI Mini 2 which is under the FAA Minimum Weight SO do I still need to regerter with the FAA?
No, as a rec flyer, drones under 250 grams don't have to be registered. Under Part 107 however, you do need to get it registered.
Can I fly in a park (over the lake facing side / over water) but where people are walking in the same park? Flying in populated area really confuses me
Greg I was working on my CFI when I got high blood pressure and lost my physical. I am a part 107 pilot and an instrument rated private pilot. Would you be willing to do a drone instructors course? I would love to teach others how to fly.
I think you did a good job explaining the hobby exemptions, and yes my beef is with the FAA. They are choosing how to interpret the first clause - recreational. It's pedantic. And they are defining recreational, yet the written text does not, they are internally. So the enforcement agency is setting the boundaries, and I'd prefer the courts set it through judicial precedent - just like 4th amendment cases. The police do not determine what is a "reasonable" search and seizure - courts do.
Second, the part 107 test is great knowledge and I enjoyed learning and getting it. However, if the FAA is going to take a pedantic stance and insist on applying it to an extreme - then let's make it more available. I had to go specifically to an aviation college's testing department - not even the regular community college testing center (where I can take GRE, LSAT, etc...). And the cost was more than your normal standardized of professional tests. So, if we're going to want more part 107 operations, make it more available.
In regard to this case, I thought these were "proposed" fines. I wonder if there is a "plea bargain" process. And another question - when the FAA fines you, that is civil correct? So its a different legal process, and burden of proof, than criminal, no?
Thanks.
So anything that involves photography is not exempt under recreational flying?
No, not necessarily. Plenty of situation where you can record videos and put them on TH-cam without a part 107.
Thanks so much for your I formation!
Whatever happened to phillydronelife's fines? I can't find news on this anywhere. Did he get the fines reduced? I see he is still flying, but he appears to be doing things differently now.
"In furtherance of a business" doesn't specify *your* business. It can mean *any* business. Including TH-cam. Making your done video public on TH-cam (since TH-cam gets revenue from your video) could be considered by the FAA to be in furtherance of a business.
How do I get approved by the FAA to fly in a unauthorized area? I am registered with the FAA and took the test. I have done it with DJI Fly Safe online. Do I have to as well get approved by the FAA? Enjoy your videos. Thank you. Is there a link to get approved by the FAA. Can you send the link.
There been times in the past I called them to get approved.
Head over to either the Aloft app to get approval or to the FAA DroneZone.
@@PilotInstitute do you have a link how to use the app Aloft?
Greg, I have part 107-I have a question. The only reason I ever posted on TH-cam is it takes too long to download a flight that I share with family and friends. The question is “does it make any difference If I post a flight on TH-cam and mark it private as oppposed to public”?
No it doesn't, especially since you're a Part 107 pilot. Post away and share your flights!
$182K? Guessing that the FAA is unfamiliar with the 8th Amendment. Probably unfamiliar with the 10th as well.
Most Government give little crap, about the Constitution, and our rights.
What's gonna happen when Amazon has a delivery to my next door neighbor - will they still need VLOS? Will I have to yield to their delivery? Maybe only allowed to fly between the hours of 2-4 pm? How will all this work?
Amazon will operate under Part 135 so VLOS won't be a requirement. As far as sharing the airspace, there will be airspace reservation, first come first served, it will be 4D: space and time. The airspace is big enough that we will all be able to share. They definitely won't have priority.
One of the 8 points necessary to fulfill the 44809 exception is to register your drone. No exceptions are made as relates to drone weight, specifically whether it's more or less than 250 grams. Separately, the FAA doesn't require sub 250 gram drones to be registered. But if you don't register your sub 250 drone, then you can't fly as Rec and by default are then flying under rules governing 107. Greg, does this mean that if you don't register your sub 250 drone that you have to get your 107 certificate?
Remi, great question! There's actually an exception for the drone weight, which is coded in 14 CFR Part 48.15 so you would technically still meet the 44809 requirement if you didn't register your sub 250g drone because the regulation in Part 48 allows for an exception.
Beware treating SUMMARY of rules as ACTUAL rules. As we see in the actual regulations copied below for convenience, recreational drone weight requirement is 0.55 pounds or above: [I am reminded that all non-recreational drones must be individually registered and your recreational registration may need to be replaced with a commercial registration if you intend any non-recreational flying. You can certainly treat your toy drones as recreational and your Phantom or Inspire or Matrice as commercial]
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/17/2019-10169/exception-for-limited-recreational-operations-of-unmanned-aircraft
8. The aircraft is registered and marked and proof of registration is made available to the Administrator or a designee of the Administrator or law enforcement upon request.
Registration and marking requirements for small unmanned aircraft, including recreational unmanned aircraft, can be found at 14 CFR part 48,
ecfr.federalregister.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-48
§ 48.15 Requirement to register.
No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft that is eligible for registration under 49 U.S.C. 44101-44103 *unless one of the following* criteria has been satisfied:
(a) The owner has registered and marked the aircraft in accordance with this part;
(b) *The aircraft weighs 0.55 pounds or less on takeoff* , including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft; or
@@thomasmaughan4798 A little correction here. The 0.55 lbs exception does not apply to drones flown under Part 107. All drones under 55lbs must be registered under Part 107. The 0.55 lbs rule is only for rec flyers.
@@PilotInstitute Concur. I will edit my comment to avoid adding to confusion. Any drone flown in Part 107 must be individually registered (per drone, not per operator).
Drone laws in the US are an absolute joke. Let's be real.
Two people flying their drone in the exact same way, one person monetizes and all of a sudden they can be fined for not having his part 107, yet the other person not monetizing it is perfectly fine. That's just absolutely stupid. The flying itself should determine if you need a license, not what you do with any footage after the fact.
that being said, everyone flying >250g drones should have to take a basic test and license. This way you know people have at least done a little bit of learning about actual rules.
I see the biggest problem here is that the term "for recreation" is not clearly defined. With the intent to be compensated is understood, and FAA does have somewhere the term "furthering a business". I don't consider posting on social media, whether intended or not is "furthering a business". If it were, then you could not intend to take aerials and intend to mail them to Aunt Sally, as you are furthering the postal business for use of their services, just as you are "furthering the social media business" for using their services. I highly doubt that was the intent of the distinction. However as others have said, it could be twisted that way.
Hi there
Im a little bit confused
The 8th part says need to register the drone
So, what about if im flying the mavic mini or mini 2 which are 249grams, and they do not require to be registered
So, does it means if i fly that drone without registration, but i met all other 7 parts, im not a recreational flyer?
If you read a bit more into the 8th one, it mentions PArt 48, which is where the sub 250 grams are exempt from registration. So you would still qualify for that part if you didn't register your sub-250g drone.
Greg this video aged pretty fast - seems like you should do a follow-up or give us a link to the follow-up video if you made one. It's hard to keep up with you!
What topic in this video are you interested in?
With our 107, do we need to declare our purpose/intent for filming/flying (recreational or commercial) or are we safe as long as we follow the rules we have learned? Speaking purely about intent, not to include asking to fly on private land or requesting LAANC or speaking with officials in the event we are questioned. As in, if I went out (after I pass my 107) and flew with recreation purpose following all rules (cause it sounds like the person in question didn't even follow basic safety) and took some shots that I later decide down the road work in a video I'm putting together, would I be covered since I am a 107 pilot?
Here's the simple answer. If, at the time of recording, your intent was to fly for recreational purposes, and you followed all the recreational rules (the 8 points I mentioned), then you're good to go and can later use the footage for commercial purposes.
So, if I am reading you correctly, if one is following the other 7 requirements, but enjoys sharing videos, which places intent in question, they should get 107 certified so intent is no longer a concern. Is that correct?
That's a tough one because it's all about intent of the flight. If you meet all 7 requirements but go out for fun to get footage and then post it on YT, I have a hard time believing the FAA would come after you.
If you meet all 7 but then post to a monetized or business channel on YT, then they may have a case.
I believe the line is thin there because there is no way for anyone to prove your intent so you are likely to get busted on the other 7 rather than the first one.
The bottom line with this video is, fly safely, don't post to monetized or business channel without a 107, don't break FAA regulation (107 or 44809).
If you are out flying in the middle of no where, no airports anywhere, no controlled airspace or any flight restrictions, no people, can I fly above 400ft as a Recreational only pilot? Thanks.
The best way to check all that is to use the free B4UFLY app from the FAA. But in all cases, your absolute limit is 400 feet above the ground, even in the middle of nowhere with no controlled airspace.
Your answer is unclear. If there are no restrictions in place can I fly over 500ft. Thanks
@@BC-yw2tw Sorry, I missed the part where you said "ABOVE". No, you can never fly above 400 feet above the ground as a recreational pilot. That's your absolute limit. I'm going to edit my previous answer to reflect that.
Thank you. What about if you are in the same location but have a Part 7 license. Can you go over 400ft or are you limited to 400ft.
@@BC-yw2tw The only time you can fly over 400 feet above the ground under Part 107 is if there is a man-made structure and you stay within 400 feet radius of it, then you can fly up to 400 feet on top of it, as long as you are in uncontrolled airspace and that you do not enter controlled airspace while flying higher than 400 feet above the ground.
Great video Greg, thank you for all of your videos and knowledge. I do have a question regarding FPV wings, I understand the LOS requirement of the regulation but there is a process for submitting a waiver to be able to fly BVLOS, however, they suggest to file it about 90 days prior to your operation. My thing is that what would happen if on the day it's snowing, raining, hurricane, etc.? Will it expire your permit? I saw that Kittyhawk is working on something to help with that but my main question is for the FPV wing pilot that flies long range have they talked about a plan or process? Reason I say this is due to the flight is being conducted in areas where we all know that there is no way to have VO's to keep LOS or EVLOS on the aircraft. I know it's early in the process and most likely there is no ruling that enforces this but the fact that the rules currently state LOS, VOs, or EVLOS kind of shoots any type of long range in the foot and legally cannot be conducted. What would be the best approach until they discuss this issue? Currently for the sake of being legal and still enjoy our hobby, I fly maintaining LOS or VO's for EVLOS operations. BTW I'm currently a hobby enthusiast and not Part107 yet.
Great question. At the moment, there is no waiver process available under recreational flying, so if you wanted to fly BVLOS, you'd need Part 107 and a waiver. This waiver is difficult to get because it requires you have a whole lot of equipment available on board the aircraft for sense and avoid amongst other things so it's unlikely that an individual without lots of resource would get that.
With all that said, the FAA is supposed to release new regulation in December to cover a variety of things, including BVLOS, flying over people, and night flying. So more on that soon!
@@PilotInstitute Outstanding! Thank you for your prompt reply Greg. I have 21 years of Aviation background in mtx and a&p licensed so my passion started with the little planes not the biggies. I look forward to seeing what is to come and hopefully it keeps moving in the forward direction.
So Greg if I go out and fly and say get a picture of the sunset and I put it on my Facebook to show my friends and family that steps outside of the recreational flying term so to speak and put you in the commercial part 107 side? Because my intent was just to have fun and share my fun with my friends and family
No, that's 100% recreational.
Great explanation I appreciate all the great info
So it seems to me the best option is to just get your 107. So you don’t have worry about the recreational guidelines.
Great video as always Greg ..so if I’m flying recreationally and I’m approached by FAA or other official , I should be just able to say I’m flying under AMA safety flying standards as my CBO , I’m also a AMA member .. is this correct ? Or does only apply if I’m flying at a AMA field ?
Correct. If it is indeed what you are doing, that would be the right answer :) you would not have to be at an AMA field, they are just looking for the fact that you're following their guidelines.
@@PilotInstitute or just fly under my 107 all time following all rules and regs and this is a mute point lol
@@kensmith7491 Where's the fun in that?! lol
@@PilotInstitute Interesting post from Kevin Morris from a FB group , did you see it ?
“Posting to social media does NOT automatically move the drone operation out of Section 44809 and into Part 107. When speaking of 44809(a)(1), recreational purposes, the intent of the operation (not the media obtained) is the qualifying factor.
To put it another way, it's not what you take a photo/video of, it's if you're going 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.”
@@kensmith7491 I hadn't seen it but great summary from Kevin, as always. Intent of the flight is the key!
Thanks for all info to keep us save. Great job always. ? All this it’s for the 🇺🇸? What about international drone flying? And share them to Facebook or TH-cam? Can you still get fine from the FAA?
Yes, this is only in the US. however, many countries have similar rules.
Excellent video. I'm new and trying to absorb as much as possible to keep me out of trouble and enjoy.
I wonder how long it will be before someone challenges the use of social being considered "non-recreational. Example, I was on my roof putting up a new weather station and caught a stunning sunset. I quickly took a picture and posted it to share. Does that make me a professional photographer? I want to make it clear, I am not arguing, just thinking out loud.
Again, thank you.
How many questions are on the part 107 test?