400ft + structure height = well tested hobbyist limit??

It's like this... we are ALL under Part 107. EVERYONE who is not flying under a Public Use COA is under Part 107 which means CIVIL Operations. Leave Commercial, Money, Compensation, Beer whatever out of this equation. Those things are under Commercial (which is a section under P107) but 107 is EVERYTHING. It's the BIG circle.

The "Carve Out" only protects the hobbyist so long as they stay within the very precise HOBBY box. Think of it like a bubble. If you pierce the bubble it's gone and you're now sitting in the Part 107 bubble... regardless of your original intentions. You pop the hobby bubble your tail feathers are now in P107 territory.

This concept seems so simple, and yet causes such endless confusion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark The Droner
Yeah - from what I can tell, there are about eight people who get it. The other 799,992 were confused, are confused, and remain confused...

When I did my Part 107 I spent a lot of time researching the legal aspects of this, and so I guess that it is probably not as simple and self-evident as it now seems. Although I still feel that when the logical progression is spelt out it's not that hard to follow.
 
I think the confusion is most people don't realize that Part 107 is EVERYTHING and hobby is just a Safe Zone within Part 107. If you dangle our arm outside the Hobby bubble it pops and you're exposed to everything contained in Part 107.

Hobby/336 only protects you from Part 107 if you operate COMPLETELY within the bubble. You can't "sort of" be in the bubble.
 
When I did my Part 107 I spent a lot of time researching the legal aspects of this, and so I guess that it is probably not as simple and self-evident as it now seems. Although I still feel that when the logical progression is spelt out it's not that hard to follow.
I was first made aware of it in the fall of 2016.

I'm a little confused.......Question about a part of 107

I didn't get it at first, but after thinking about it, it made sense. Then when I tried to tell others, I was repeatedly laughed out of the thread. Now it's been over a year, and most are still clueless. It's really quite remarkable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07 and sar104
I was first made aware of it in the fall of 2016.

I'm a little confused.......Question about a part of 107

I didn't get it at first, but after thinking about it, it made sense. Then when I tried to tell others, I was repeatedly laughed out of the thread. Now it's been over a year, and most are still clueless. It's really quite remarkable.


You'll notice I was preaching the same stiff "way back then" LOL! It's good to go back and read older threads sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark The Droner
Hobby/Recreation flying is the, proverbial, Exception to the [107] Rule.
 
No - you are misunderstanding Part 101 - 101.41 is "applicability". "Applicability" means that it is defining the conditions that you must meet to fall under Part 101. It is the counterpart to 107.1, which says:

§107.1 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this part applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of civil small unmanned aircraft systems within the United States.

(b) This part does not apply to the following:
(1) Air carrier operations;

(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 101 of this chapter; or

(3) Any operation that a remote pilot in command elects to conduct pursuant to an exemption issued under section 333 of Public Law 112-95, unless otherwise specified in the exemption.​

which is also the section that says that Part 107 applies to all sUAS in the US other than the exceptions, one of which is Part 101.

By way of illustration, Part 107 the rules are listed in subpart B (Operating Rules), starting at 107.11. "Applicability" does not describe rules of use - it describes the conditional rules that determine whether Part 101 applies. Same word, but very different meaning. You cannot be prosecuted by the FAA under 101.41. You can be prosecuted under 101.43 or, if you fail the test of 101.41, under Part 107.

Everything you have mentioned all falls back on one assumption... that a someone who does not abide by every rule under Section 336 automatically falls under Section 107. What I'm looking for the information to confirm that it applies to everyone.

Yes, I've looked at everything that has been posted in this thread and I don't see that it completely addresses this question. In this post the important part is as follows:

(b) This part does not apply to the following:

Any operation that a remote pilot in command elects to conduct pursuant to an exemption issued under section 333 of Public Law 112-95, unless otherwise specified in the exemption.

Looking at just that, if a person elects to operate under section 333/336 then section 107 does not apply. This is easily explained at anyone who says that they are operating as a hobby flight will always fall under Section 333/336 and not 107. This does _not_ mean that not following all the rules under 333/336 won't result in a penalty.

But as I'd said before, I've not dove into 107 before very much as I've not needed to. But this raises some interest for me now so I thought I'd look into it more.
 
It's like this... we are ALL under Part 107. EVERYONE who is not flying under a Public Use COA is under Part 107 which means CIVIL Operations. Leave Commercial, Money, Compensation, Beer whatever out of this equation. Those things are under Commercial (which is a section under P107) but 107 is EVERYTHING. It's the BIG circle.
You say this but I've not seen any information yet that actually shows this is correct. You can look over my post above which points out that as long as a person "elects" to fly under 333/226 (as a hobby flier), that Part 107 does _not_ apply.

But I don't know that this covers this entire question. Still, I think it shows that the statement that everyone is subject to 107 unless they follow all of the rules under 336, is not clear and may not be correct.
 
Everything you have mentioned all falls back on one assumption... that a someone who does not abide by every rule under Section 336 automatically falls under Section 107. What I'm looking for the information to confirm that it applies to everyone.

Yes, I've looked at everything that has been posted in this thread and I don't see that it completely addresses this question. In this post the important part is as follows:

(b) This part does not apply to the following:

Any operation that a remote pilot in command elects to conduct pursuant to an exemption issued under section 333 of Public Law 112-95, unless otherwise specified in the exemption.

Looking at just that, if a person elects to operate under section 333/336 then section 107 does not apply. This is easily explained at anyone who says that they are operating as a hobby flight will always fall under Section 333/336 and not 107. This does _not_ mean that not following all the rules under 333/336 won't result in a penalty.

But as I'd said before, I've not dove into 107 before very much as I've not needed to. But this raises some interest for me now so I thought I'd look into it more.

It's not an assumption - it's written in black and white. Applicability, followed by only one operating rule (101.43). And what on earth do section 333 exemptions have to do with it? Are you confusing that with 336? 336 is not an exemption - it's a set of conditions you must meet to permit you not to be governed by Part 107 requirements. I give up. There is no more that I can do to explain this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: With The Birds
The above post was a mystery - I couldn't figure out where "assumption" was posted - until I realized there were two hidden posts, post #68 and 69, which were masked from me because I had placed that member on my Ignore List due to his argumentative and abrasive nature - two years ago.

All UAS flights fly under Part 107 - unless they are allowed to be excluded from Part 107 because, among other things, they are flying within the rules of Sec 336/Part 101.

A Sec 336 "violator" defaults back to 107 due to the language in the beginning of the Part. In fact, he's not really a 336 violator because his flight was not a 336 flight, as defined.

Specifically, this is clear from the language in part 107.1(b)(2) in conjunction with the language of Part 101.41.

PART 101 - MOORED BALLOONS, KITES, AMATEUR ROCKETS, UNMANNED FREE BALLOONS, & CERTAIN MODEL AIRCRAFT

That makes it clear as mud. But if that's still not good enough for some readers, we also have this for confirmation:

Former NTSB Member John Goglia posed this question to the FAA in August of 2016: "...Will model aircraft pilots who do not belong to the AMA have to get a remote pilot certificate under Part 107 after August 29?" ... and this was FAA's response: "The FAA does not mandate membership in any particular community-based organization. To qualify for the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, an unmanned aircraft must, among other things, be operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization. If a hobbyist can’t show that he or she is operating in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization, then he or she will have to meet the requirements of Part 107." Ref: <forbesdotcom via dronelawjournaldotcom>

...the clear meaning being that if the flight does not qualify as a Part 101 / Sec 336 flight, then it must default back to Part 107. Hence, the pilot would almost certainly be a Part 107 violator. But I emphasize, the above quote is not needed to understand the rule because closely reading the language within the parts makes the rule clear.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07 and N017RW
[Sometimes the board's software just kills me. It saves a draft and it can't be deleted. I thought I had posted this but now I'm not sure]

It's not an assumption - it's written in black and white. Applicability, followed by only one operating rule (101.43). And what on earth do section 333 exemptions have to do with it? Are you confusing that with 336? 336 is not an exemption - it's a set of conditions you must meet to permit you not to be governed by Part 107 requirements. I give up. There is no more that I can do to explain this.

I wanted to avoid confusion. Section 333 includes everything under it, including 336. Personally, I'd just call it 336 but there has been reference to 333 as well so I thought it might be better to include both of them together in my posts to avoid that confusion. I'd say that we only need to call it 336 to make it simple.

Section 336 is not written as an way to avoid Part 107. It says no such thing. It basically states that the FAA cannot make rules against a flier is they follow what is outlined in section 336. Let's not go any further with that for the time being and just see that Section 333 does not state what you mentioned. A person might see the outcome as you stated.... but it does not state as you mentioned. They FAA told us that hobby fliers were not allowed to fly over 400'. We all see now that they lied about that. When they were presented with the )_actual_ wording of 336 they recanted. So I tend not to simply take their word on things.

What you mentioned is really not being debated. The real issue is the question as to what happens when you don't follow those rules. Does it mean that you are simply in violation of your hobby flight and can be held accountable for that actual fault or does it mean that you are suddenly subject to all of the different regulations under Part 107.
 
If you're being a purest (and I tend to err on that side of the fence) it's not "legal" either way.

B) The FAA has purposely left this open worded. It's very common for the FAA to leave us room to "hang ourselves" without even knowing it.
This leaves very little room for "interpretation" since you've agreed to them in writing.

Thy myth about 400ft continues. Have you ever emailed to ask the FAA for clarification?

FAA RULING.jpg
 
It really seems simple to me...
If I don’t have a Commercial Drivers License and caught driving a dump truck, I expect to be cited for not having a CDL (and whatever else I may have done during such as a moving violation, etc.).

If your not operating as a hobbyist at some point of your flight and it's somehow documented and thus investigated it would seem that is what you'd be subject to (i.e.be cited for).
 
[Sometimes the board's software just kills me. It saves a draft and it can't be deleted. I thought I had posted this but now I'm not sure]



I wanted to avoid confusion. Section 333 includes everything under it, including 336. Personally, I'd just call it 336 but there has been reference to 333 as well so I thought it might be better to include both of them together in my posts to avoid that confusion. I'd say that we only need to call it 336 to make it simple.

Section 336 is not written as an way to avoid Part 107. It says no such thing. It basically states that the FAA cannot make rules against a flier is they follow what is outlined in section 336. Let's not go any further with that for the time being and just see that Section 333 does not state what you mentioned. A person might see the outcome as you stated.... but it does not state as you mentioned. They FAA told us that hobby fliers were not allowed to fly over 400'. We all see now that they lied about that. When they were presented with the )_actual_ wording of 336 they recanted. So I tend not to simply take their word on things.

What you mentioned is really not being debated. The real issue is the question as to what happens when you don't follow those rules. Does it mean that you are simply in violation of your hobby flight and can be held accountable for that actual fault or does it mean that you are suddenly subject to all of the different regulations under Part 107.

I really wanted to believe that you were trying to have an honest debate here, but I'm no longer able to do so. I'm not continuing this discussion.
 
I really wanted to believe that you were trying to have an honest debate here, but I'm no longer able to do so. I'm not continuing this discussion.


This thread is about hobby flying and that does not entail 107 certification rules. I'm sorry if a copy of a reply from the FAA about the 400ft rule bursts your bubble but there are too many people claiming the law is 400ft when even the FAA says it is not. It is simply recommended for hobby fliers.
 
This thread is about hobby flying and that does not entail 107 certification rules. I'm sorry if a copy of a reply from the FAA about the 400ft rule bursts your bubble but there are too many people claiming the law is 400ft when even the FAA says it is not. It is simply recommended for hobby fliers.

I completely I agree - I've posted that same FAA response numerous times on this forum. I wasn't arguing about that and it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was attempting to discuss with tcope.

http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/files/2016/07/FAA-400feet.pdf
 
Apologies for my confusion then. Also there is nowhere that a hobby flier falls under Part 107 rules. The two cannot be conflated.

Exactly - that's the whole point - if you satisfy the applicability requirements set forth in 101.41 then you do not fall under the Part 107 rules. If you don't satisfy 101.41 then you do fall under Part 107. There is nothing to conflate.
 
Too many pilots regard Part 101 and Part 107 as two independent entities. And that is understandable at first glance. But that's not correct, and thinking of it in that way leads to confusion.

Once one spends a few minutes and studies the Parts, he will see that this isn't so. They are not two different entities. He will see that Part 107 is all-encompassing, it applies to everybody, and that Part 101 is a "carve-out" from Part 107. And if a pilot fails to follow the rules of Part 101, his flight defaults back to Part 107 where it would have been anyway if Part 101/Sec 336 didn't exist. His flight becomes a Part 107 violation and the pilot becomes a Part 107 violator.

There's no grey area here. There's nothing to debate. If this is not understood, then the individual who doesn't understand it needs to read this thread again and/or further study the language within the Parts. The language is clear. The quote from the FAA is clear. The U.S. drone attorneys' understanding of the rule is clear. And the evidence presented multiple times and in multiple ways within this thread is clear and overwhelming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07 and sar104

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,359
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers