FAA Drone question

[Meta4]

what you guys are saying is that if i am taking photos at a funeral for my community altho i am not benefiting a single cent out of this Or bettering myself, is not considered a hobby flight?

This whole discussion got derailed before it started because that's the way things tend to go here whenever anyone asks about recreational/commercial issues.
The key was that you mentioned doing it because your boss asked and that set the hardliners off on their familiar path and once that starts anything/everything can be classified as commercial by some of them.
There are many members who take a very hardline approach to determining if a flight is/is not recreational.
Some probably take it far more seriously than the FAA would.

I think they have missed the point and what you were asking about was not commercial at all.
If you took out the word "boss" and substituted friend or brother etc, at least some of the hardline opinions would not have been made.
But quite apart from the (probably spurious) issue of commercial flight, I'd still recommend against it for the reasons I mentioned in post #13.
There are a lot of ways a new flyer can come unstuck and it takes time to gain the experience and knowledge to make sure they don't happen to you.
You need to do some learning flights in a large, open area where there's nothing to hit and gain a lot more experience before you try doing something like you were asking about.

 

[umanbean]

There are a lot of ways a new flyer can come unstuck and it takes time to gain the experience and knowledge to make sure they don't happen to you.
You need to do some learning flights in a large, open area where there's nothing to hit and gain a lot more experience before you try doing something like you were asking about.

Best answer so far

 

[sar104]

This whole discussion got derailed before it started because that's the way things tend to go here whenever anyone asks about recreational/commercial issues.
The key was that you mentioned doing it because your boss asked and that set the hardliners off on their familiar path and once that starts anything/everything can be classified as commercial by some of them.
There are many members who take a very hardline approach to determining if a flight is/is not recreational.
Some probably take it far more seriously than the FAA would.

I think they have missed the point and what you were asking about was not commercial at all.
If you took out the word "boss" and substituted friend or brother etc, at least some of the hardline opinions would not have been made.
But quite apart from the (probably spurious) issue of commercial flight, I'd still recommend against it for the reasons I mentioned in post #13.
There are a lot of ways a new flyer can come unstuck and it takes time to gain the experience and knowledge to make sure they don't happen to you.
You need to do some learning flights in a large, open area where there's nothing to hit and gain a lot more experience before you try doing something like you were asking about.

As is often the case with these questions, it's important to keep in mind the distinction between what the law says and how likely the FAA (or local LE) is to try to implement the law.

The law is clear in this case - the purpose of the flight is not recreational, therefore it is not covered by Part 101, therefore Part 107 rules apply. That's not up for interpretation or opinion unless anyone wants to try to dispute the meaning of:

§101.41 Applicability​

​

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

Would anyone care in this case? Almost certainly not with one big caveat - unless someone complains about the flight. If that happens then the FAA is obliged to investigate.

 

[bsartist]

...
The law is clear in this case - the purpose of the flight is not recreational, therefore it is not covered by Part 101, therefore Part 107 rules apply. That's not up for interpretation or opinion unless anyone wants to try to dispute the meaning of:

§101.41 Applicability​

​

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

Just to play devil’s advocate, (and I’m not a hardliner on this) just as I said that it’s not clear this IS a recreational flight, it may also not be clear that it’s NOT recreational a part 107 flight either. Because the FAA and Congress kind of copped out on defining recreational use. Which means the law still may not be clear and there may be room for interpretation. We need look no further than the FAA’s Special Rules for Model Aircraft which says:

The statute requires model aircraft to be flown strictly for hobby or recreational purposes. Because the statute and its legislative history do not elaborate on the intended meaning of “hobby or recreational purposes,” we look to their ordinary meaning and also the FAA’s previous interpretations to understand the direction provided by Congress.3 A definition of “hobby” is a “pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at www.merriam-webster.com (last accessed June 9, 2014). A definition of recreation is “refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or diversion.”
​

Based on this, one could argue that the OP gets a charge out of doing this for someone who happens to be his boss and that is enjoyment and relaxation for him. Who’s to say?

It goes on to say:

These uses are consistent with the FAA’s 2007 policy on model aircraft in which the Agency stated model aircraft operating guidelines did not apply to “persons or companies for business purposes.” See 72 FR at 6690.4
Any operation not conducted strictly for hobby or recreation purposes could not be operated under the special rule for model aircraft. Clearly, commercial operations would not be hobby or recreation flights.5 Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of a business, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight. Flights conducted incidental to, and within the scope of, a business where no common carriage is involved, generally may operate under FAA’s general operating rules of part 91. See Legal Interpretation to Scott C. Burgess, from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Nov. 25, 2008). Although they are not commercial operations conducted for compensation or hire, such operations do not qualify as a hobby or recreation flight because of the nexus between the operator’s business and the operation of the aircraft.
​

Based on this, the OP flight would not be commercial. The possible catch here might be the “nexus between the operator’s business and the operation of the aircraft” because he’s doing it for his boss. I admit that’s a thin reed though. Yet I also admit it may open the door to interpretation.

There are hardliners that say as long as your doing it for someone else, it can’t be recreation. I don’t personally subscribe to that restrictive a view. I do get a charge out of doing an aerial for a friend of their house for personal consumption and making them happy. That’s enjoyment for me. And, no, I don’t think them giving me a beer afterwards makes it “for compensation.” . But if someone does complain about, say, the funeral flight (as you point out) then the potential grey area in what defines recreation and enjoyment comes into play. And who has the burden of proof?

Having said all that, I agree with you that I doubt the FAA really wants nitpick at these interpretations and run for the gap. But the OP seemed to want a clear assurance that he would or not be complying with the law. And I still think it’s not clear this is a 107 flight. Just as it could be challenged as a hobby flight should something go wrong. And I have to say this was a flight with above average risks for reasons stated above by myself and others.

 

[sar104]

Just to play devil’s advocate, (and I’m not a hardliner on this) just as I said that it’s not clear this IS a recreational flight, it may also not be clear that it’s NOT recreational a part 107 flight either. Because the FAA and Congress kind of copped out on defining recreational use. Which means the law still may not be clear and there may be room for interpretation. We need look no further than the FAA’s Special Rules for Model Aircraft which says:

The statute requires model aircraft to be flown strictly for hobby or recreational purposes. Because the statute and its legislative history do not elaborate on the intended meaning of “hobby or recreational purposes,” we look to their ordinary meaning and also the FAA’s previous interpretations to understand the direction provided by Congress.3 A definition of “hobby” is a “pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at www.merriam-webster.com (last accessed June 9, 2014). A definition of recreation is “refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment or diversion.”​

​

Based on this, one could argue that the OP gets a charge out of doing this for someone who happens to be his boss and that is enjoyment and relaxation for him. Who’s to say?

It goes on to say:

These uses are consistent with the FAA’s 2007 policy on model aircraft in which the Agency stated model aircraft operating guidelines did not apply to “persons or companies for business purposes.” See 72 FR at 6690.4​

Any operation not conducted strictly for hobby or recreation purposes could not be operated under the special rule for model aircraft. Clearly, commercial operations would not be hobby or recreation flights.5 Likewise, flights that are in furtherance of a business, or incidental to a person’s business, would not be a hobby or recreation flight. Flights conducted incidental to, and within the scope of, a business where no common carriage is involved, generally may operate under FAA’s general operating rules of part 91. See Legal Interpretation to Scott C. Burgess, from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Nov. 25, 2008). Although they are not commercial operations conducted for compensation or hire, such operations do not qualify as a hobby or recreation flight because of the nexus between the operator’s business and the operation of the aircraft.​

​

Based on this, the OP flight would not be commercial. The possible catch here might be the “nexus between the operator’s business and the operation of the aircraft” because he’s doing it for his boss. I admit that’s a thin reed though. Yet I also admit it may open the door to interpretation.

There are hardliners that say as long as your doing it for someone else, it can’t be recreation. I don’t personally subscribe to that restrictive a view. I do get a charge out of doing an aerial for a friend of their house for personal consumption and making them happy. That’s enjoyment for me. And, no, I don’t think them giving me a beer afterwards makes it “for compensation.” . But if someone does complain about, say, the funeral flight (as you point out) then the potential grey area in what defines recreation and enjoyment comes into play. And who has the burden of proof?

Having said all that, I agree with you that I doubt the FAA really wants nitpick at these interpretations and run for the gap. But the OP seemed to want a clear assurance that he would or not be complying with the law. And I still think it’s not clear this is a 107 flight. Just as it could be challenged as a hobby flight should something go wrong. And I have to say this was a flight with above average risks for reasons stated above by myself and others.

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that people will go to to try to circumvent such as clearly written statement. It's completely irrelevant whether or not the flight is commercial. Neither Part 101 nor Part 107 mentions commercial. The distinction is whether or not the flight is recreational, as stated in Part 101. As I said - if you want to play devil's advocate and argue that somehow this was a recreational flight then fine but, as posed (his boss requested him to provide photographs of an event), that's not really a tenable argument. Now if his boss had just suggested it because he thought it would be fun, and wasn't actually requesting the photographs, then that might be different.

 

[2edgesword]

Can someone direct me to the specific law or regulation regarding flying a drone and photograph at a funeral? To the OP, has the family been asked and given their o.k. about doing this?

 

[DigitalSkyPilot]

As you have said you will not be flying during the funeral . If you follow all the FAA rules I would discuss your plan with the local police. If they are ok with it, do it. I wouldn't ask a forum or the FAA for their opinion. Opinions are like rear ends. Everyone has one. Safety and the law are your only concern.

 

[bsartist]

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that people will go to to try to circumvent such as clearly written statement. It's completely irrelevant whether or not the flight is commercial. Neither Part 101 nor Part 107 mentions commercial. The distinction is whether or not the flight is recreational, as stated in Part 101. As I said - if you want to play devil's advocate and argue that somehow this was a recreational flight then fine but, as posed (his boss requested him to provide photographs of an event), that's not really a tenable argument. Now if his boss had just suggested it because he thought it would be fun, and wasn't actually requesting the photographs, then that might be different.

I don’t disagree with you per-se. I know the statute doesn’t say that. And, please, I’m not going through any lengths to circumvent anything. If you reread my admittedly lengthy post, I think you’ll see I’m just trying to say that this could be argued to be a hobby flight. Remember that I first said it looks like a part 107 to me if he’s photographing his bosses work product. But honestly I do think we don’t know enough about the nature of the request. Maybe I do need to go back and reread it. It’s important to understand that my position is *not* based on the lack of the word “commercial.” I’m well aware of that attempt by others to try and weasel out of needing a part 107 based on using that to overly narrow the requirements. Remember, I’m the one that got his 107 so I could do some volunteer work with it. My position was just that the definition of recreation has some wiggle room based on the FAA’s own docs. And they are the enforcers.

I agree with you, as I said already, that this one is hinky enough to have a good chance of being a part 107 flight. I was just challenging your assertion that the law is clear and incontrovertible on the definition of hobby or recreational.

So if the boss was also a friend and said to the OP “hey you know, I did some sculptures years ago for that cemetery and I’d love some aerials for my scrap book” seems less clearly a 107 flight. On the other hand I think the OP also said that he wanted to do something good for his community. So I agree that the story is a little unclear and I’d probably come down on your side of the interpretation on this one in particular.

 

[PhantomPilotUK]

A funeral? Seriously? I can imagine anything more disturbing than laying a loved one to rest and having a [Language removed by Moderator] drone buzzing around.

Legal or not I wouldn't touch that job with a 10ft barge pole!!

 

[sar104]

Can someone direct me to the specific law or regulation regarding flying a drone and photograph at a funeral? To the OP, has the family been asked and given their o.k. about doing this?

There is no law that addresses it directly. There is no law that addresses any specific scenario directly. The relevant FAA regulations are 14 CFR Part 107 and 14 CFR Part 101 subpart E. That has been pointed out repeatedly.

 

[sar104]

I don’t disagree with you per-se. I know the statute doesn’t say that. And, please, I’m not going through any lengths to circumvent anything. If you reread my admittedly lengthy post, I think you’ll see I’m just trying to say that this could be argued to be a hobby flight. Remember that I first said it looks like a part 107 to me if he’s photographing his bosses work product. But honestly I do think we don’t know enough about the nature of the request. Maybe I do need to go back and reread it. It’s important to understand that my position is *not* based on the lack of the word “commercial.” I’m well aware of that attempt by others to try and weasel out of needing a part 107 based on using that to overly narrow the requirements. Remember, I’m the one that got his 107 so I could do some volunteer work with it. My position was just that the definition of recreation has some wiggle room based on the FAA’s own docs. And they are the enforcers.

I agree with you, as I said already, that this one is hinky enough to have a good chance of being a part 107 flight. I was just challenging your assertion that the law is clear and incontrovertible on the definition of hobby or recreational.

So if the boss was also a friend and said to the OP “hey you know, I did some sculptures years ago for that cemetery and I’d love some aerials for my scrap book” seems less clearly a 107 flight. On the other hand I think the OP also said that he wanted to do something good for his community. So I agree that the story is a little unclear and I’d probably come down on your side of the interpretation on this one in particular.

Right, and the bit that I don't even remotely follow is how you argue that fulfilling a request to provide photographs of an event constitutes recreational flying, when the FAA has repeatedly defined that as flying purely for fun or recreation. This is pure sophistry in my opinion, and I'm not interested in arguing it further. If it's not completely obvious then fine - follow @BigAl07's advice and call the local FSDO.

 

[Nightwolf]

I am asking for guidance so i can fly safe and not break anylaws. Also keep a good rep with the drone community.

Good on you for reaching out!

 

[umanbean]

A funeral? Seriously? I can imagine anything more disturbing than laying a loved one to rest and having a **** drone buzzing around.

Legal or not I wouldnt touch that job with a 10ft barge pole!!

My first thought also after reading the original post. So far the OP has not mentioned the family of the deceased at all

 

[PhantomPilotUK]

My first thought also after reading the original post. So far the OP has not mentioned the family of the deceased at all

Out of all the events I have seen people ask about flying over this is the first time I have seen mention of a funeral and it just beggars belief that anyone would want to do it.

Just when I think I have seen everything the internet rewards me with another of those "seriously?" moments!!

 

[BigAl07]

Out of all the events I have seen people ask about flying over this is the first time I have seen mention of a funeral and it just beggars belief that anyone would want to do it.

Just when I think I have seen everything the internet rewards me with another of those "seriously?" moments!!

We had a very large funeral procession here in town last week where a young man, who saved many lives at a college shooting but was killed by the sick shooter, was brought home to his final resting place on Earth. About 10 minutes into the procession (My office is about 100yds from where it was coming through) my phone rings and it's a local News Reporter wanting to BUY my drone footage of the funeral procession. I explained to him that it was NOT our drone flying because that's very disrespectful to those around wanting to see and pay their last respects.

He hung up on me......

 

[DigitalSkyPilot]

I questioned my memory after reading some of these posts. He clearly said that he would not be flying over the funeral service so why all the noise about noise? He clearly stated that he is not being paid or compensated in any way. No need for the 107 .

 

[sar104]

I questioned my memory after reading some of these posts. He clearly said that he would not be flying over the funeral service so why all the noise about noise? He clearly stated that he is not being paid or compensated in any way. No need for the 107 .

Perhaps you should have read all the posts, and you should definitely have read the relevant laws and regulations, before posting. Payment/compensation is not the criterion for whether a flight is covered by Part 101.

 

[BigAl07]

I questioned my memory after reading some of these posts. He clearly said that he would not be flying over the funeral service so why all the noise about noise? He clearly stated that he is not being paid or compensated in any way. No need for the 107 .

Commercial is but one (of many) operations that require Part 107.

Technically EVERY sUAS operator in the United States falls under Part 107. In 2012 Congress created a "Carve Out" of protection from Part 107. If you meet ALL of the criteria as a HOBBY operator you can chose to fly within that "Carve Out" as a hobbyist. If you do not meet ALL of the criteria to fly under hobby you default back to Part 107 regulations.

 

[DigitalSkyPilot]

He said he would not fly "during" the funeral service. Then he say's he would fly "at" the funeral. A little confusing , parts unknown and a lot of overthinking. I'm out.

 

[PhantomPilotUK]

He said he would not fly "during" the funeral service. Then he say's he would fly "at" the funeral. A little confusing , parts unknown and a lot of overthinking. I'm out.

Hmmmm trolling maybe? Not you, him!