License or no license?

[DRR]

I wouldn't even atempt it without insurance in case it went horribly wrong you would get slaughtered especially in your country ,if they will insure you and deem it to be non commercial and you keep within f.a.a guidelines of distance to inhabitants or groups of people then you have a good arguement,however is it worth the hassle , it does not matter how much you do to shed a positive light it only takes one no brain to ruin it for everyone as usual !we are all judged by the one idiot amongst us always )0:

He cant get insurance because he is not licensed. I am licensed but not covered by insurance if I am not flying inside th rules.

 

[Drusha]

So it's the rules and insurance that would help if it did go wrong ,maybe that's how it should be then ,and geofencing is already carried out by responsible manufacturers like DJI educate don't procrastinate would be my way of going with this !? We could all do with learning a bit more just tell the pen pushers to stick it where the son don't shine ,teach don't preach and make sure whoever it is pays or can pay if they do hurt someone ,either by making sure they were insured and if they were not covered because they were being stupid then punish them that's what the courts are there for ,but mainly just be safe keep others safe and oh I nearly forgot "Enjoy " you have firearms licensing and the highest death rate of any country from school shootings in fact more than all the other countries combined ,more people were killed by flat pack furniture in your country than have ever been killed by Drones ,come on folks lets licence products from IKEA , Teach don't preach ! Playing the "Devils advocate "is such fun don't you think ?

 

[BigAl07]

We all use the word "commercial" in conversation about drone work, but the word "commercial" is not accurate and is misleading. The FAA has two classifications: hobby/recreational and non-hobby/recreational. If you are flying/photographing for one's own enjoyment, then it is hobby/recreational. If you are taking a photo for someone else, it is not hobby/recreational (with or without compensation). Also, your aircraft must be registered for "non-hobby/recreational" if you are flying for other than your personal enjoyment.

I think the term you're looking for is CIVIL operations. Below is an exert from a post of mine previously about this: Rant time

Ok I got some clarification. It seems some of the problem stems from our own misunderstanding of the regs and how they were intended. Part 107 does not mean strictly "Commercial Operations" even though everyone (even the FAA) associates Part 107 with Commercial Use. It's even noted as the "Commercial UAS Rules" by the FAA. Commercial Operations are but one portion of what Part 107 encompasses.

Part 107 technically "allows" for "CIVIL" UAS operations. Part of that "civil" operation can certainly be commercial operations but doesn't exclude other flights that are not "Commercial". Therefore, if you are not in compliance with Part 101 and you're not on an Exemption or Public Use COA, you are operating as a CIVIL UAS operator and Part 107 applies.

Here is a direct quote from him:

"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."


So with that guidance directly from our FAA Liaison I think it's pretty clear (at least from my stand point which may be slightly skewed) that you must fit completely inside the Hobby/Recreational (Part 101) box or you do indeed default back to Part 107 regulations.

When it doubt, whip it out. The B4UFly app, that is. (personally I prefer AirMap)

Keep in mind that B4UFLY is for hobby guidance only and not for Part 107 purposes.

 

[sgf]

Okay, so I am officially sorry I ever created this thread. My goal was two-fold, first to show what I thought were some interesting pictures to other done pilots, second was to ask the rule question I asked.

To those who took the time to share their knowledge of the rules I thank you for doing so. To those who've questioned violations, etc., here is all I can tell you.

The person who shared the pictures does not fly drones but was once an aircraft crewman so he's not oblivious to regs. I've always known him as intelligent and honest so I've no reason to question what he told me. Since my post we talked and he made the following clear. The pilot was not flying over people or, as he said, "right near them". The flying was done prior to the President's arrival. If you've every been even remotely involved in an event a head of state attends, you know they are very serious about rules, behavior and security. If the pilot was doing something dangerous or illegal I am certain it would have been stopped. I realize photo angles, etc. can make things appear different than reality. If there is any error I'm sure it's more likely my description rather than a rules violation at the event.

Frankly I'd have just dropped this but I feel bad that I may have given the wrong impression on a small piece of what was such a special day for so many.

If I could remove this thread I would. Moderator, I encourage you to do so.

 

[dgd3]

A guy I work with went to the a graduation yesterday. Since he knows I am interested in drones he was kind enough to send me these photos, which got me thinking.

I work at a small college. We had graduation in our auditorium Friday evening. It crossed my mind to bring my P3s and take pictures of the grads going into the building then upon exit as families greeted them, etc. I work for the college but would't expect or accept payment from the college or anyone else for doing this. Basically I just want to do something nice for the college and our graduates and show drones in a positive light. Since the college might use the pictures on the Website, etc. and I am a hobbyist operator with no commercial license, can I legally do this?

Its's questionable. Minister of transport Marc Garneau may have made a mistake.

 

[dgd3]

Since the drone strike in the stadium hit an empty seat there may be the ever so slight possibility that it was staged to make drones look bad, which it did.

 

[sar104]

Since the drone strike in the stadium hit an empty seat there may be the ever so slight possibility that it was staged to make drones look bad, which it did.

Over the last few days this forum has turned into some kind of nightmare game of whack-a-mole.