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

[BigAl07]

That's most likely incorrect. Because you may be in violation of one of the rules for hobby flight does not automatically mean you are not flying for hobby. If I'm flying non-commercially and violate one of the rules for hobby slight does not mean I'm flying commercially. I'm not. It only means I'm in violation of the law under hobby flight. if the FAA wants to penalize me for that, they can. The violation does not change the reason why I'm flying.

I beg to differ. Everyone is flying under Part 107 (Civil Operation) unless you are hobby or flying under a Public COA. If flying as a hobbyist, if you deviate from any portion of 336 you do indeed default to Part 107. I can give you FAA contacts who can legally clarify this if needed.

If your flight does not perfectly fit inside 101 it's Part 107 by default.

 

[tcope]

I beg to differ. Everyone is flying under Part 107 (Civil Operation) unless you are hobby or flying under a Public COA. If flying as a hobbyist, if you deviate from any portion of 336 you do indeed default to Part 107. I can give you FAA contacts who can legally clarify this if needed.

I don't agree that everyone is flying under Part 107. What Section 101/336 states is that the FAA cannot regulate drone fliers beyond what is in Section 336 if they are not flying commercially. if a person violates something under Section 336, they are in violation of Section 336... it does not change the purpose of the flight. To further that, lets say I'm flying to just take photos for myself. If I fly beyond VLOS I'm not all of a sudden no longer flying for hobby use... I'm simply in violation of Section 336. In addition, if what you said were true and using my example, if I were flying for hobby use and flew beyond VLOS I'd all of a sudden be in violation of about 3 or 4 rules under Section 107 that I was not required to know anything about (no certification, perhaps above 400', etc.). But to go even further... if I'm flying for hobby use and the only thing I did not do was to call a nearby airport, you say I'm now flying under Section 107. But 107 does not require that I call the airport. So I'm perfectly fine? Or perhaps now don't have the 107 certification needed. That simply makes no sense.

If you are flying for hobby use and violate something under Section 336, you are simply in violation of that one thing. It does not change why you were flying.

 

[Helihover]

I could see this happening to someone who holds a 107 and was flying hobby. I can’t see a hobby pilot being held accountable for commercial operations.

 

[Helihover]

I beg to differ. Everyone is flying under Part 107 (Civil Operation) unless you are hobby or flying under a Public COA. If flying as a hobbyist, if you deviate from any portion of 336 you do indeed default to Part 107. I can give you FAA contacts who can legally clarify this if needed.

If your flight does not perfectly fit inside 101 it's Part 107 by default.

I’m confused now. I thought commercial operations fall under 107. Your saying 107 is for civil operations?

 

[N017RW]

I could see this happening to someone who holds a 107 and was flying hobby. I can’t see a hobby pilot being held accountable for commercial operations.

Think about what you’re saying. Why get a 107 certificate?

 

[N017RW]

I’m confused now. I thought commercial operations fall under 107. Your saying 107 is for civil operations?

Civil vs Public.... Civil is Civilian, Public is Fire, Police, SAR, etc.

A 107 is for non-hobbyist Civil pilots.

Public sUAS operation is inherently non-hobbyist and require a blanket COA.

 

[Helihover]

Think about what you’re saying. Why get a 107 certificate?

Ehhh. Yaa. I see what your saying.

Something really needs to be done about educating before anyone flys. I touched on this way back when I stated a hobby pilot should not be required to know airspace regs....

I just can’t comprehend enforcement of laws one is not aware of.

We need more training

 

[N017RW]

I just can’t comprehend enforcement of laws one is not aware of.

Seriously?
Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse.

 

[BigAl07]

If you are flying for hobby use and violate something under Section 336, you are simply in violation of that one thing. It does not change why you were flying.

No it doesn't change "why" you are flying but it does change what the legal requirements for that flight are. With hobby it's ALL or nothing.

Part 107 is everything except Public Use. Part 101 is a Carve Out for hobby operations. Think of it as Part 107 is the big circle that everyone not operating under a Public COA are inside. Then Congress mandates that the FAA "Carve Out" special rules section for hobbyist. This section is s till a smaller circle within the Part 107 circle. If any portion of your hobby flight doesn't fit inside the smaller "hobby" circle you are still well inside Part 107 regulations.

I'm not merely "interpreting" this... this was mandated in multiple FAA seminars and has been noted by many over the last 2 years. Call your local FSDO or reach out to an FAA rep directly if you have access to one.

Here is an exact quote from our FAA/UAS Liaison:
"Think of it this way: Everyone is a civil UAS operator, subject to Part 107 (Public Use excluded). Now, Congress mandated that certain operators be left alone (not subject to Part 107) if they are operating as a hobbyist and codified law to describe what a hobbyist operation must adhere to. The FAA took that law and regurgitated it into Part 101. So, if you're going to claim that you are NOT flying under Part 107, you must follow all of Part 101, or else you revert back to Part 107 regulations."

I didn't change a word or anything. It's a direct quotation from an FAA official.

 

[BigAl07]

Ehhh. Yaa. I see what your saying.

Something really needs to be done about educating before anyone flys. I touched on this way back when I stated a hobby pilot should not be required to know airspace regs....

I just can’t comprehend enforcement of laws one is not aware of.

We need more training

Careful what you ask for.

I can almost guarantee you that if Congress had not made that huge mistake in 2012 you would already see some level of training/certification for hobby operations when not conducted at a dedicated UAS Flying site. It's probably coming sooner than later anyway.

 

[WV. Rootman]

No it doesn't change "why" you are flying but it does change what the legal requirements for that flight are. With hobby it's ALL or nothing.

Part 107 is everything except Public Use. Part 101 is a Carve Out for hobby operations. Think of it as Part 107 is the big circle that everyone not operating under a Public COA are inside. Then Congress mandates that the FAA "Carve Out" special rules section for hobbyist. This section is s till a smaller circle within the Part 107 circle. If any portion of your hobby flight doesn't fit inside the smaller "hobby" circle you are still well inside Part 107 regulations.

I'm not merely "interpreting" this... this was mandated in multiple FAA seminars and has been noted by many over the last 2 years. Call your local FSDO or reach out to an FAA rep directly if you have access to one.

Here is an exact quote from our FAA/UAS Liaison:
"Think of it this way: Everyone is a civil UAS operator, subject to Part 107 (Public Use excluded). Now, Congress mandated that certain operators be left alone (not subject to Part 107) if they are operating as a hobbyist and codified law to describe what a hobbyist operation must adhere to. The FAA took that law and regurgitated it into Part 101. So, if you're going to claim that you are NOT flying under Part 107, you must follow all of Part 101, or else you revert back to Part 107 regulations."

I didn't change a word or anything. It's a direct quotation from an FAA official.

It sounded like it was aimed at 107 flyers trying to fly hobby.

 

[Helihover]

Seriously?
Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse.

Yes I’m serious. And never say never!

For one, these are not laws, they are regulations. UAS hobby flight is still in the infancy stages and for that I say yes, ignorance could be acceptable. Seems that most falling under the radar of the FAA for ignorance of the regs are just getting verbal warnings at this time. Maybe when some real laws are in place and people actually become educated about UAS hobby flight, through a proper training course and test, then I’ll probably change my view.

What and who is telling the first timer buying his p3s that he can’t fly in class B airspace? Who is telling the first timer what class B airspace is? Who (besides DJI as of a few weeks ago) is telling the first timer not to fly BVLOS? One might say the FAA website will tell you this when you register, but that only covers a few basics.

These first timers are going out and flying in the same airspace as pilots with hours of training both on paper and on the sticks. You can’t possibly expect them to be even 1/2 as knowledgeable as the Cessna pilot their flying next to, yet our current regs are allowing this to happen.

BTW, you can get out of a speeding ticket for ignorance. Don’t ask me how I know.

Edit: Its like we’re letting people with no driver license drive go carts on the street and expecting them to follow the rules even though we are not testing them or really telling them the rules.

 

[Mark The Droner]

...

For one, these are not laws, they are regulations....

Sorry - but I think this is one of those situations where you can't see the forest for all the trees...

The reason we, as hobbyists, don't have to take a course and get a certification is the AMA. They have a proven safety record without government interference. AMA has shown it's not necessary to be certified to be safe. Congress recognizes this. That is why Sec 336/Part 101 exists. To suggest you don't have to adhere to Public Law 112-95 Sec 336 because it's not a law is not going to sit well with the presiding judge.

 

[rhouser]

This topic has been discussed so many times it gets frustrating. When flying, one can only be as safe as possible and observe all precautions to the best of the OP's ability, and to the Phantom's ability. Just fly safe, and you most likely will never be questioned. Rules and laws are really only made and enacted, because of accidents or mishaps that have occurred from carelessness. Nuff said..........Happy Flying.....

+1 on what Fly Dawg said.

IMHO it's all about shared airspace and safety. I once had to dive a fixed wing RC aircraft into the trees (total loss) to dodge a Cessna that was "sight seeing" at under 150 feet (my estimate). He didn't belong there, but, model ac rules say "give the ground" to manned aircraft.

I am an old guy (65+), with a new drone (P4P) and it is my intention is to follow all the rules to the best of my ability and understanding. If someone is going to come after me for that, then, so be it.

v/r rch

 

[sar104]

I don't agree that everyone is flying under Part 107. What Section 101/336 states is that the FAA cannot regulate drone fliers beyond what is in Section 336 if they are not flying commercially. if a person violates something under Section 336, they are in violation of Section 336... it does not change the purpose of the flight. To further that, lets say I'm flying to just take photos for myself. If I fly beyond VLOS I'm not all of a sudden no longer flying for hobby use... I'm simply in violation of Section 336. In addition, if what you said were true and using my example, if I were flying for hobby use and flew beyond VLOS I'd all of a sudden be in violation of about 3 or 4 rules under Section 107 that I was not required to know anything about (no certification, perhaps above 400', etc.). But to go even further... if I'm flying for hobby use and the only thing I did not do was to call a nearby airport, you say I'm now flying under Section 107. But 107 does not require that I call the airport. So I'm perfectly fine? Or perhaps now don't have the 107 certification needed. That simply makes no sense.

If you are flying for hobby use and violate something under Section 336, you are simply in violation of that one thing. It does not change why you were flying.

The interesting point to note about Part 101 is that most of it (101.41) comprises no rules that you can violate. 101.41 is simply "applicability" - you have to meet those "conditions" to be covered by Part 101. If you don't meet them then you have not violated any Part 101 rules - you simply do not fall under Part 101. And if you are flying a UAV and you are not flying under Part 101 then, by definition, you fall under Part 107, which does contain rules that you can violate. So @BigAl07's statement above is correct.

Technically the only "rule" that you can violate under Part 101 is 101.43 (endangering the NAS). Since 101.41 effectively requires you to follow the AMA Safety Code to be covered by Part 101, the obvious follow up question to that is how can you endanger the NAS if you follow that code? The likely answer is that it is there to makes sense of the single stated condition in 101.41 that is not in the AMA Safety Code - notification when flying within 5 miles of an airport. Since the requirement is only notification, not a request, the airport cannot deny permission, only object, which still leaves you compliant with 101.43. The FAA left themselves the recourse of 101.43 to deal with that situation.

 

[Helihover]

Sorry - but I think this is one of those situations where you can't see the forest for all the trees...

The reason we, as hobbyists, don't have to take a course and get a certification is the AMA. They have a proven safety record without government interference. AMA has shown it's not necessary to be certified to be safe. Congress recognizes this. That is why Sec 336/Part 101 exists. To suggest you don't have to adhere to Public Law 112-95 Sec 336 because it's not a law is not going to sit well with the presiding judge.

The AMA has a proven safety record from flying non GPS aircraft at designated flying fields. Not from people with zero experience flying GPS controlled craft from their backyard.

 

[tcope]

The interesting point to note about Part 101 is that most of it (101.41) comprises no rules that you can violate. 101.41 is simply "applicability" - you have to meet those "conditions" to be covered by Part 101. If you don't meet them then you have not violated any Part 101 rules - you simply do not fall under Part 101. And if you are flying a UAV and you are not flying under Part 101 then, by definition, you fall under Part 107, which does contain rules that you can violate. So @BigAl07's statement above is correct.

Part 101.41 lists the same rules as section 336 so let's just treat them as the same thing. Section 101 does list rules that you can "violate". I'll list Part 101.41 below that pertains to UAV's and bold the areas that apply to this statement:

This subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of a model aircraft (or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft) that meets all of the following conditions as set forth in section 336 of Public Law 112-95:

(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

(c) The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

(d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and

(e) When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation.


Technically the only "rule" that you can violate under Part 101 is 101.43 (endangering the NAS). Since 101.41 effectively requires you to follow the AMA Safety Code to be covered by Part 101, the obvious follow up question to that is how can you endanger the NAS if you follow that code? The likely answer is that it is there to makes sense of the single stated condition in 101.41 that is not in the AMA Safety Code - notification when flying within 5 miles of an airport. Since the requirement is only notification, not a request, the airport cannot deny permission, only object, which still leaves you compliant with 101.43. The FAA left themselves the recourse of 101.43 to deal with that situation.[/QUOTE]

Only AMA members need to follow AMA rules. They don't apply to anyone else.

There can be as much violation under Part 101 (Section 336) as there is under Part 107. The actual disagreement is if violation of anything in Section 336 automatically means it does not apply. My position is that your reason for flying is the first question (hobby vs commercial). If, in this case, it's hobby, you then ask if there was a violation of 336. I contend if there was it does not automatically mean that you were not flying non-commerecially (violation of 336 does not change this). You are simply in violation of one of the things you are required to due when you fly non-commercially. The intent of Section 336 is Congress telling the FAA that they don't need to regulate things like paper airplaces thrown in the air for fun or small UAVs as long as they follow certain ruled as there is no need. That is, as long as you fly safe... a boat ton of other rules don't need to apply to you. The FAA holds a commercial flight to a much higher standard. So if a person is flying as a hobby and accidently violate one rule under hobby use, why would it make sense to all of a sudden say that they are flying commercially and turn their world upside down with recision of certain rules they were suppose to follow and add other rules that they were not supposed to follow. It make much more sense to see the reason for the flight not changing at all (hobby) and simply applying a penalty for violation of the _actual_ thing the person did wrong.


Let me say in this post that I don't fly under Part 107 so I've not go through everything listed there (as there was no need and research is time intensive). Right now I'm going through 107 so I've not get commented on some of the things posted here). I'm not 100% convinced that it allows a violation against a hobby flight.

 

[WV. Rootman]

Part 101.41 lists the same rules as section 336 so let's just treat them as the same thing. Section 101 does list rules that you can "violate". I'll list Part 101.41 below that pertains to UAV's and bold the areas that apply to this statement:

This subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of a model aircraft (or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft) that meets all of the following conditions as set forth in section 336 of Public Law 112-95:

(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

(c) The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

(d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and

(e) When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation.


Technically the only "rule" that you can violate under Part 101 is 101.43 (endangering the NAS). Since 101.41 effectively requires you to follow the AMA Safety Code to be covered by Part 101, the obvious follow up question to that is how can you endanger the NAS if you follow that code? The likely answer is that it is there to makes sense of the single stated condition in 101.41 that is not in the AMA Safety Code - notification when flying within 5 miles of an airport. Since the requirement is only notification, not a request, the airport cannot deny permission, only object, which still leaves you compliant with 101.43. The FAA left themselves the recourse of 101.43 to deal with that situation.

I do not have my commercial license.
I'm not, nor have I done one thing to make money or promote an organization with my flying. How could I in any conceivable way be commercial?

 

[sar104]

Part 101.41 lists the same rules as section 336 so let's just treat them as the same thing. Section 101 does list rules that you can "violate". I'll list Part 101.41 below that pertains to UAV's and bold the areas that apply to this statement:

This subpart prescribes rules governing the operation of a model aircraft (or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft) that meets all of the following conditions as set forth in section 336 of Public Law 112-95:

(a) The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;

(b) The aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

(c) The aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;

(d) The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and

(e) When flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport) with prior notice of the operation.


Only AMA members need to follow AMA rules. They don't apply to anyone else.

There can be as much violation under Part 101 (Section 336) as there is under Part 107. The actual disagreement is if violation of anything in Section 336 automatically means it does not apply. My position is that your reason for flying is the first question (hobby vs commercial). If, in this case, it's hobby, you then ask if there was a violation of 336. I contend if there was it does not automatically mean that you were not flying non-commerecially (violation of 336 does not change this). You are simply in violation of one of the things you are required to due when you fly non-commercially. The intent of Section 336 is Congress telling the FAA that they don't need to regulate things like paper airplaces thrown in the air for fun or small UAVs as long as they follow certain ruled as there is no need. That is, as long as you fly safe... a boat ton of other rules don't need to apply to you. The FAA holds a commercial flight to a much higher standard. So if a person is flying as a hobby and accidently violate one rule under hobby use, why would it make sense to all of a sudden say that they are flying commercially and turn their world upside down with recision of certain rules they were suppose to follow and add other rules that they were not supposed to follow. It make much more sense to see the reason for the flight not changing at all (hobby) and simply applying a penalty for violation of the _actual_ thing the person did wrong.


Let me say in this post that I don't fly under Part 107 so I've not go through everything listed there (as there was no need and research is time intensive). Right now I'm going through 107 so I've not get commented on some of the things posted here). I'm not 100% convinced that it allows a violation against a hobby flight.

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.

 

[BigAl07]

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.