is this legit loophole for hobbyist offering aerials??

[BigAl07]

The law says "in furtherance of a business".
It doesn't matter if you take money, a hot dog, or a hand shake. It is the intent to further your or anyone else business makes it illegal.

Not exactly . . .

Actually the law doesn't mention furthering a business - although that is one of the FAA's various examples of interpretation.

BINGO!

The FAA unknowingly "screwed the pooch" then they tried to dumb-down the actual law. I don't know if they intentionally created the confusion or if those who were tasked with interpreting the law just thought it would "be a HOOT" to confuse us.... either way it left a LOT of room for error.

To make it simple look at it like this... If any portion of your flight isn't for hobby/recreation (and this can only be for you, by you, benefiting your enjoyment) then it's a CIVIL flight. If you go by this simple rule you'll see you could never "fly for someone else" and it still fall under recreational. The moment someone says, "Hey can you fly your UAS for me and. . . . " it's not recreational/hobby.

 

[dangerd]

Actually the law doesn't mention furthering a business - although that is one of the FAA's various examples of interpretation. Section 336 of Public Law 112–95 (The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012) says:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—

(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
​

The implementation, in 14 CFR Part 101 Subpart E, says, similarly:

§101.41 Applicability.

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;​

So sUAS flights that do not meet that description fall under 14 CFR Part 107:

§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.​

Yes not part of 14CFR Part 107 it's actually in section 61.101(e) that would be what defines hobby from commercial flight.

Title 14 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 61.101(e) "Recreational Pilot Privileges" states in part: "a recreational pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft— for compensation or hire, nor in furtherance of a business."

In other words if you fly "in furtherance of a business." you are not a hobby flier and must follow 14 CFR Part 107 rules.
DEFINITELY MENTIONED IN LAW.

 

[sar104]

Yes not part of 14CFR Part 107 it's actually in section 61.101(e) that would be what defines hobby from commercial flight.

Title 14 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 61.101(e) "Recreational Pilot Privileges" states in part: "a recreational pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft— for compensation or hire, nor in furtherance of a business."

In other words if you fly "in furtherance of a business." you are not a hobby flier and must follow 14 CFR Part 107 rules.
DEFINITELY MENTIONED IN LAW.

Right, but Part 61 does not govern recreational sUAS flights, nor does it define the criteria for recreational sUAS flights. The clause that you are quoting applies specifically to the Part 61 recreational manned aircraft pilot category.

 

[Avidyne]

At this time I am flying my P4 for hobby/recreational with thoughts of going Part 107 sometime in the future.
That said I have been asked via a friend who has seen my videos/pictures and has mentioned that to a friend of his who happens to be the mayor. The mayor asked him to ask me if I would consider helping him and the city police out by taking some pictures of graffiti high up on some local buildings.
Would doing this be in violation of the FAA’s view on hobby/rec vs business? Thanks in advance.

 

[Miltrez]

Geezus...
Quit spending time trying to find a loophole and go spend the $30 at a local flight supply store for the book

Learn it, read it, test it-problem solved.

I can not for the life of me figure out why people nowadays simply will not follow rules. It's always got to be about the angle. Follow the f(&;$/) law.

 

[ribjig]

" The aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;"

Let's say one has 2 hobbies:
a. flying drone to take aerial photos
b. selling aerial photos at art fairs
(no one asked dronist to sell photos
but it IS the dronist's hobby)

There are plenty of hobbies that can make $$
e.g., stamp-coin collecting, painting, woodworking, etc.

note: appreciate more recent responses in this thread
compared to earlier assumptions based on nothing...

 

[Miltrez]

Slippery slope trying to pass a hobby for profit in the governments eyes. Collecting sales tax at the art fair? Paying your share of those taxes? Here's the deal. The first time you tangle with an ASI over this, you are going to lose. All the rationality in the world over how/when payment was received and whether it was for one thing or the other will not matter to them. Don't do this to yourself. They love catching people like this.

 

[JGutz138]

Just bite the bullet, study up and pay the $150 to take the test. I know some people say its hard but it really isn't. My sister in law passed it with a 73 with zero drone experience and only studied for about a month. And I mean ZERO experience, she had literally never flown a drone but she is a hobbyist photographer with dreams of selling her work and wanted the ability to do aerial stuff... I studied for 2 weeks and passed with an 85 and didn't spend a dime on any courses or material.

 

[ribjig]

They love catching people like this.

Thanks for response.
If willing, please post supporting evidence, e.g.,
news items. Just trying to distinguish between
dronist myths-legends-assumptions & actual
verifiable FAA actions...

 

[John Tarvin]

As a hobbyist nearing end of first year P4P+ ownership,
am imagining day someone approaches me wanting to
know how much to take aerials & when I say I don't have
required licencing to make $$ from images they respond,
"why don't I pay you for hand-held shots of _______ & then
later you can take aerials & give them to me free?"

It could be a farmer, a property owner, a business owner,
an event organizer, or whatever...

So, why don't you just bite the bullet and get certified and licensed under Part 107. Consider your $150 an investment in the future.

 

[68charger440]

I can not for the life of me figure out why people nowadays simply will not follow rules. It's always got to be about the angle. Follow the f(&;$/) law.

Because the FAA rules are often ambiguous, and local jurisdictions often make laws which conflict with state laws, and the state laws in turn conflict with Federal laws. The FAA is no exception as evidenced by the overreaching drone registration rule which was overturned.
If you want to be a lemming and follow the rest off the cliff, that may good for you, but the questioning and exploration of the fine details of the law is necessary to the refinement of the laws so that good laws are clear and concise, and bad laws are challenged and then either overturned or modified.
Too many people accept the govt reasoning of "Because I said so" without question as if the politicians always have our best interests in mind and never make bad laws when in fact the laws are more often filled with corrupt special interest considerations (read thinly veiled bribes) and need to be challenged or at least questioned.
I would like to see more people question poorly conceived laws or rules instead of blindly following the lemming law!

 

[B3DB LLC.]

It does not matter if you charge for photos or video... What matters is if the photos or video is used commercially. If the photos taken by an un certified UAV Pilot then you can incur a fine. A prominent Real Estate Photographers web page published an article on this issue. The fine for whoever publishes the photos can be as high as 11,500.00$ and 1,500.00 for the uncertified pilot. I that person is both the pilot and publisher then a total of 13,000.00$. The test when I took it was only 165.00$ and I spent a few hours a night for a week to study for it. Go take the test.

 

[bsartist]

What is the best way to study for it? Someone mentioned a book but no title. Is there a good recommendation from people who have taken the test?

 

[adyb]

As a hobbyist nearing end of first year P4P+ ownership,
am imagining day someone approaches me wanting to
know how much to take aerials & when I say I don't have
required licencing to make $$ from images they respond,
"why don't I pay you for hand-held shots of _______ & then
later you can take aerials & give them to me free?"

It could be a farmer, a property owner, a business owner,
an event organizer, or whatever...

Just get a $5 FAA licence and add it to the bill

 

[ribjig]

"Because the FAA rules are often ambiguous, and local jurisdictions often make laws which conflict with state laws, and the state laws in turn conflict with Federal laws. The FAA is no exception as evidenced by the overreaching drone registration rule which was overturned."

Also, in US at least, being paid for editorial usage vs.
commercial usage is protected by First Amendment,
not by FAA -- AFAIK...

But I get point about how expensive it
could be, even if one wins judgement,
to find out one is right...

 

[DroneDriver419]

Four of us ( me, wife, her sister and her husband ) went wine tasting. My brother-in-law suggested I bring the P3-4k along as I've been dying to finally take some footage away from the field I've been practicing in the last couple of months. At one of the wineries there were hardly any people and I asked them if it would be alright to fly my drone. They said, "Sure. No problem. Have fun." I did and when I got home, did a quick edit job and was pleased with the short video. I put it on my facebook page and shared it with the winery. They loved it and put it on their fb page.

The intent when I took off was just to practice and use the video myself. giving it to the winery was and afterthought.

Although no money was received, it's very possible that it furthered their business. The winery's fb page is advertising for them. Was this illegal?

 

[ribjig]

"Although no money was received, it's very possible that it furthered their business."

BAM.

And if this is technically some FAA violation,
what is evidence FAA spends their time
chasing dronists for acts like this???
(no, don't want to be first to find out they do,
just want to know what's real vs. myth)

 

[sar104]

Four of us ( me, wife, her sister and her husband ) went wine tasting. My brother-in-law suggested I bring the P3-4k along as I've been dying to finally take some footage away from the field I've been practicing in the last couple of months. At one of the wineries there were hardly any people and I asked them if it would be alright to fly my drone. They said, "Sure. No problem. Have fun." I did and when I got home, did a quick edit job and was pleased with the short video. I put it on my facebook page and shared it with the winery. They loved it and put it on their fb page.

The intent when I took off was just to practice and use the video myself. giving it to the winery was and afterthought.

Although no money was received, it's very possible that it furthered their business. The winery's fb page is advertising for them. Was this illegal?

It's a grey area, but that's probably OK if the original intent of the flight was recreational. Posting recreational flight videos to FB seems to be regarded as fine. The winery using it on a business page is arguably incidental if done after the fact. Of course if that became a pattern, someone might object and report it.

 

[Scott Davis]

As a hobbyist nearing end of first year P4P+ ownership,
am imagining day someone approaches me wanting to
know how much to take aerials & when I say I don't have
required licencing to make $$ from images they respond,
"why don't I pay you for hand-held shots of _______ & then
later you can take aerials & give them to me free?"

It could be a farmer, a property owner, a business owner,
an event organizer, or whatever...

Pa
Payment or lack of it is not the issue. It is your “intent at the time of the flight” that the FAA cares about. If you take a picture of a beautiful sunset and then later someone sees it on your Facebook and wants to put it on the front page of the local paper, that is entirely legal because at the time you took that picture at your intent was personal enjoyment. If you took the picture with intent of it being on the front page of the paper, that is not allowed even if no money or free advertising changes hands.

Only you can determine intent at flight time.
~Scott

 

[Scott Davis]

As a hobbyist nearing end of first year P4P+ ownership,
am imagining day someone approaches me wanting to
know how much to take aerials & when I say I don't have
required licencing to make $$ from images they respond,
"why don't I pay you for hand-held shots of _______ & then
later you can take aerials & give them to me free?"

It could be a farmer, a property owner, a business owner,
an event organizer, or whatever...

Pa

No. It has been asked many times. People used to try to claim they gave the footage for free and only charged for the editing. The FAA see's right through that stuff. Read the description for hobby flying... it is purely for fun & relaxation. The minute you sell or give away you need your Part 107.

It is your “intent at time of flight “ . Perfectly legal to sell later if you change your mind.