Yes - that would all be fine. But the nature of the assignment makes it a Part 107 flight, so it would be illegal without a Part 107 license, which the OP obviously doesn't have.
FAA Drone question
- Thread starter Matt1489
- Start date
- Status
Yes - that would all be fine. But the nature of the assignment makes it a Part 107 flight, so it would be illegal without a Part 107 license, which the OP obviously doesn't have.
The legislation, the LAW, does NOT use the word "fun". I can do something for recreation that another person can also enjoy and gain pleasure from. Free your mind. As far as search and rescue is concerned, there is a separate category of the legislation that deals with the use of a drone for emergency services that falls outside the realm of recreational use. Don't muddy the waters by mixing the two.
There is no "separate category of legislation" covering search and rescue. Stop making stuff up. Since you are convinced that you know best, call your local FSDO on Monday and ask them. You can have some recreational fun explaining to them why their answer is wrong.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2017
- Messages
- 134
- Reaction score
- 46
I must have missed the part where he said he was doing this for compensation, I read it twice and I think he said 'Im not benefiting from it or bettering a business'
Hes fine as long as he contacts the airport withing five miles of where he is flying, does not fly over people and as mentioned above and doesn't fly for compensation.
The other threads are great suggestions (dont make noise, etc.), however, his question was regarding legality.
Lets just suppose the following: A friend of his boss who has just passed and all hes asking for is an aerial of the service to give to a family member.
Nothing at all wrong with the entire scenario.
He would be flying a requested assignment - requested by his boss. That's not a purely recreational flight by any stretch of the imagination. But if you don't accept that reasoning, and do not understand why Part 101 eligibility is not defined by whether a flight is commercial even though it is plainly stated in 14 CFR Part 101, then call your local FSDO and ask them.
Read it? I use it - it's the SGI process for emergency waivers. It doesn't change the regulations at all regarding emergency operations - it simply provides a mechanism for agencies to get almost immediate FAA waivers for specific operations.
Emergency Situations
www.faa.gov
I took a video and photos, free of charge, for a friend that was helping re-landscape a disc golf course. The property is owned by the State of Oregon and used for a daytime rest area (with the disc golf) on the Pacific Coast. He, and others that maintain the park are volunteers and do this strictly for their pleasure, playing disc golf. It if free to anyone that wants to use it. ?.....Was I wrong?
OMG! (And I thought I would never use that in my life)! I couldn't help myself, that's the first thing that came to mind.
Yes, doing that was technically against FAA regulations.
Yes, you can do small things like that and get away with it.
No, you should not have announced it to the world.
geezzz
As mentioned above - technically yes - that would fall under Part 107, not Part 101. That said, the probability of anyone reporting you to the FAA seems very low. I would not be too concerned about it.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2017
- Messages
- 134
- Reaction score
- 46
This is just frivolous nonsense.
Theres nothing in Part 107 that suggests or gives any example of a pilot whos flying under recreational rules needing a Commercial license if taking photos for anyone considered a supervisor or superior outside of their place of work.
If this were accurate, he coulnt take pictures of his supervisors home for free, private pilots couldn't fly their bosses anywhere at no charge, etc, etc.
I'll step out here and get to more productive work- like mowing my lawn....
As I said - if you care to get an official response then call your FSDO. I'm sure you won't because you are clearly completely out of your depth on this subject and happy to stay that way.
I read this and I can't help but ask myself, "Does he honestly believe what he's posting?"
I'm not speaking from pie in the sky theory or random internet searches etc. I'm speaking from hours and hours of doing this, teaching this, and working with Gvt Agencies on this. While I do not know everything about this industry I'm very well versed and fully immersed in this industry, especially from the Public Safety/EMS side of the coin. To say that there is a "separate category" for SAR is nothing but wrong through and through.
Then you post our SGI process which is merely how we are able to get additional release from regulations on a case by case instance. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic at hand and ironically in order to be able to utilize the SGI process you have to hold a Part 107 or be flying under a Public Use COA for an agency.
That's pretty much what I said on my very early posts. This can go and on.
We have some here using emotions to interpret the law. That can get you in a lot of trouble and interpreting laws. Having a big heart is nice, but the law has neither and it's cold. I think it's nice that he wants to fly at this funeral. That does not make it legal for him to fly. Let's get away from emotions and personal opinions here. This could go on forever. Call someone at the FAA and find out the facts. Although I know some of BigA107 background and believe any statement he has to say regarding the law in this matter. He is more versed in this area than most of us and deals with it on a daily basis.
We have some here using emotions to interpret the law. That can get you in a lot of trouble and interpreting laws. Having a big heart is nice, but the law has neither and it's cold. I think it's nice that he wants to fly at this funeral. That does not make it legal for him to fly. Let's get away from emotions and personal opinions here. This could go on forever. Call someone at the FAA and find out the facts. Although I know some of BigA107 background and believe any statement he has to say regarding the law in this matter. He is more versed in this area than most of us and deals with it on a daily basis.
I don't think it really matters whether he believes it - at this point he just appears to be lobbing random stuff into the argument because he doesn't like the obvious conclusions.
Length of service does not necessary mean well versed in the legislation that governs that service. The black and white in the legislation says I'm absolutely correct regard a separate section of the legislation dealing with emergency services. You were wrong and I was correct so know what you're talking about before accuse me of making stuff up. Yes, in spite of your service you don't know everything.
My scenario does not fall under commercial use of a drone, period, end of store. You want to narrowly define recreational as having "fun". As mentioned, the word fun is not in the legislation and you don't definite what is "recreational" for the rest of the drone flying population.
Read it? I use it - it's the SGI process for emergency waivers. It doesn't change the regulations at all regarding emergency operations - it simply provides a mechanism for agencies to get almost immediate FAA waivers for specific operations.
Emergency Situations
Yes, and it's a separate section of the legislation dealing with emergency services. I was NOT making stuff up as I was accused.
It's very normal for these discussions to morph into related discussions that are somewhat related to the original topic.
- Status
