Question to the group

[sar104]

I am not looking to skirt the law. I am an engineer not a lawyer. I do not read the statute as clearly as you do. I control the site. I would fly off hours and will not accept any money for my photos. I have dealt w/ enough inspectors to know many have the same personality you have displayed in this email. I also fully understand the onus is on me to know and understand the law. I don’t so I hold off on this pursuit.

If i can not put a drone in the air the day before I put shovel in the ground, then I would rather wait. perhaps this will work for the next project. Iam not looking to open myself up to any liability.

Rick

I've no idea what personality you are referring to. You asked a question and I answered it, multiple times. You wanted regulations cited, and I did. You wanted them explained, and I did. And yet you still respond as if you had not read the answers or bothered to look at the regulations. This is not rocket science. I'll quit wasting my time and yours.

 

[With The Birds]

I am not looking to skirt the law. I am an engineer not a lawyer. I do not read the statute as clearly as you do. I control the site. I would fly off hours and will not accept any money for my photos. I have dealt w/ enough inspectors to know many have the same personality you have displayed in this email. I also fully understand the onus is on me to know and understand the law. I don’t so I hold off on this pursuit.

If i can not put a drone in the air the day before I put shovel in the ground, then I would rather wait. perhaps this will work for the next project. Iam not looking to open myself up to any liability.

Rick

I wouldn’t sweat on this one. Your intended use of the AC, and any images you acquire is argauabky incidental to and iof no commercial benefit to the project. Will the use as proposed lead to increased revenue? Will it lead to cost saving? Reduced project time? Are your proposed activities likely to remove the need to engage a licenced operator?

You know as a lawyer what would need to be demonstrated to prove an offence. Intent is critical, seemingly your only intent is arguably not of a commercial nature.

If the FAA has nothing better to do as a priority than invest resources in investigating scenarios of this nature I would be amazed. This is likely an issue or labouring on a technicality of no consequence.

 

[sar104]

I wouldn’t sweat on this one. Your intended use of the AC, and any images you acquire is argauabky incidental to and iof no commercial benefit to the project. Will the use as proposed lead to increased revenue? Will it lead to cost saving? Reduced project time? Are your proposed activities likely to remove the need to engage a licenced operator?

You know as a lawyer what would need to be demonstrated to prove an offence. Intent is critical, seemingly your only intent is arguably not of a commercial nature.

If the FAA has nothing better to do as a priority than invest resources in investigating scenarios of this nature I would be amazed. This is likely an issue or labouring on a technicality of no consequence.

Really? He stated that he wants to document the construction project, get a survey deal out of it, and will use the aerial imagery in project meetings. And you still think the intent is recreational?

 

[Rick_x]

I've no idea what personality you are referring to. You asked a question and I answered it, multiple times. You wanted regulations cited, and I did. You wanted them explained, and I did. And yet you still respond as if you had not read the answers or bothered to look at the regulations. This is not rocket science. I'll quit wasting my time and yours.

Thanks for taking time out to site the reference you assumed I did not read what you posted. I did, It is still not crystal clear. I asked 1 question.

What am I doing to trigger needing a license? Please don’t answer this was just to clarify

Good day sir
Rick

 

[Rick_x]

I wouldn’t sweat on this one. Your intended use of the AC, and any images you acquire is argauabky incidental to and iof no commercial benefit to the project. Will the use as proposed lead to increased revenue? Will it lead to cost saving? Reduced project time? Are your proposed activities likely to remove the need to engage a licenced operator?

You know as a lawyer what would need to be demonstrated to prove an offence. Intent is critical, seemingly your only intent is arguably not of a commercial nature.

If the FAA has nothing better to do as a priority than invest resources in investigating scenarios of this nature I would be amazed. This is likely an issue or labouring on a technicality of no consequence.

EXACTLY MY THOUGHTS!!!

I would not want to put my job or company at risk. Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. I will continue to study and take exam for the 107. Like I said I don’t want to be taught the test, I want the knowledge.

4 months ago I had zero interest in matters of flying a quad copter the FAA aviation was no where on my radar. I know nothing other that what I have read. I just want to do this safely & legally

I just do not think I will can have my license in place by the time I start construction.If I can not fly the site before any Equipment arrives and it is just a green field then there is no point at this time.

I thought the other poster would be able to shed light on my direct question. I believe they think they have...they only caused more confusion. I am sure they have much more knowledge than I do....but I can’t pick up what he is putting down...

my question is simply what I’m i doing to trigger the need of the certification?

I have no plans of making any money, this does have the potential to be a benefit to the company. After I get the science down I will most certainly be bringing to the company, just not now. I am a hobbiest just learning a new skill.

I am more interested, in maps, surveys, quantity task off, figuring out how to tie it to civil cad as built. first I will educate myself and see if all this is worth it.

Many thanks,
Rick

 

[Laar]

Asking the question is always the correct thing to do, dont get put off by the occasional snide comment. I think your best bet is to give the FAA a call like was suggested. Many on this site were initially confused by what was meant by recreational vs. Commercial, and many forget that they too needed to have that explained for them. Good luck with your project!

 

[With The Birds]

Really? He stated that he wants to document the construction project, get a survey deal out of it, and will use the aerial imagery in project meetings. And you still think the intent is recreational?

No. I think logically that an FAA investigator who had no higher priority matters to be concerned with than issues such as this would likely face complications in sustaining a penalty or securing a conviction. There are seemingly many arguments that might be put that the dominant purpose was not in the furtherance iof commercial activity. My presumption being that the presentation of the imaging product at meetings or other use might be demonstrated to have no impact on the outcome of the development, it would have proceeded in the same manner absent the OP’s UAV activity. It might be the OP simply availed himself of the opportunity to combine the enjoyment of his hobby with his occupation (specifically lawful access to the construction site which proved to be an interesting subject for practicing flight and imaging). If we had a precedent where an operator in similar circumstances was penalised it would be a different discussion.

 

[sar104]

No. I think logically that an FAA investigator who had no higher priority matters to be concerned with than issues such as this would likely face complications in sustaining a penalty or securing a conviction. There are seemingly many arguments that might be put that the dominant purpose was not in the furtherance iof commercial activity. My presumption being that the presentation of the imaging product at meetings or other use might be demonstrated to have no impact on the outcome of the development, it would have proceeded in the same manner absent the OP’s UAV activity. It might be the OP simply availed himself of the opportunity to combine the enjoyment of his hobby with his occupation (specifically lawful access to the construction site which proved to be an interesting subject for practicing flight and imaging). If we had a precedent where an operator in similar circumstances was penalised it would be a different discussion.

Well that's an interesting interpretation, but contrary to the written FAA interpretation of the Special Rule and contrary to all the answers provided by the FAA to similar questions that I'm aware of.

If the OP were simply photographing the site in his spare time and not using those images in meetings or to support his efforts to win a surveying contract, or any other work-related manner, then I'd agree, but he explicitly stated that he was planning to use them that way. No amount of mental gymnastics is going to cram that into the "purely recreational" box that the Special Rule requires.

Now, whether or not it would be easy for them to bring a case, or whether they would be likely to win such a case, is a different matter, and was not the subject of the discussion. Nor should it be, in my opinion, because you are basically telling the OP that in this case it's fine to break the law because he will likely get away with it. That's for him to decide, either based on the written laws, concurrence from the FAA (which he won't get) or advice from a lawyer.

Although in the lawyer context, note that the last discussion thread that I saw on this subject, that started when someone made a similar argument and had been told by a lawyer that he was correct, ended very rapidly when he did contact the FAA and was told very clearly that such operations were unambiguously Part 107.

 

[Rick_x]

Well that's an interesting interpretation, but contrary to the written FAA interpretation of the Special Rule and contrary to all the answers provided by the FAA to similar questions that I'm aware of.

If the OP were simply photographing the site in his spare time and not using those images in meetings or to support his efforts to win a surveying contract, or any other work-related manner, then I'd agree, but he explicitly stated that he was planning to use them that way. No amount of mental gymnastics is going to cram that into the "purely recreational" box that the Special Rule requires.

Now, whether or not it would be easy for them to bring a case, or whether they would be likely to win such a case, is a different matter, and was not the subject of the discussion. Nor should it be, in my opinion, because you are basically telling the OP that in this case it's fine to break the law because he will likely get away with it. That's for him to decide, either based on the written laws, concurrence from the FAA (which he won't get) or advice from a lawyer.

Although in the lawyer context, note that the last discussion thread that I saw on this subject, that started when someone made a similar argument and had been told by a lawyer that he was correct, ended very rapidly when he did contact the FAA and was told very clearly that such operations were unambiguously Part 107.

I did say I would not use the photos in meeting I can see how that is considered a benefit to the project. More than likely legal would not let me anyway, also I will fly after hrs. I want to learn that’s it. No mental gymnastics. What part of I would never jeopardize my position or company do you not get. I will get the 107 cert just don’t know if it will before I start construction.

I have tried to keep it civil but you sir are just something special. If you know so much why don’t you try to educate instead of posting links. try discussing a topic. Or is this how you feed your inferiority complex.
Like I said I have meet your kind before and make it a point to avoid their toxic personality.

Clearly I do not want to switch career paths, this not going to benefit me finically. I am trying to the right thing as well. I am just interested in Technology. You tone is argumentative, your answers are ambiguous . I am just thankful i found ppl in this community be the polar opposite of you and have been on this thread.

Rick

 

[Rick_x]

Asking the question is always the correct thing to do, dont get put off by the occasional snide comment. I think your best bet is to give the FAA a call like was suggested. Many on this site were initially confused by what was meant by recreational vs. Commercial, and many forget that they too needed to have that explained for them. Good luck with your project!

Than you! I have found most veterans of this community to much more welcoming. That have been very forthcoming with information as opposed to sitting on high trying to discourage an honest effort to enter into this space the correct way.

Regards
Rick

 

[sar104]

I did say I would not use the photos in meeting I can see how that is considered a benefit to the project. More than likely legal would not let me anyway, also I will fly after hrs. I want to learn that’s it. No mental gymnastics. What part of I would never jeopardize my position or company do you not get. I will get the 107 cert just don’t know if it will before I start construction.

I have tried to keep it civil but you sir are just something special. If you know so much why don’t you try to educate instead of posting links. try discussing a topic. Or is this how you feed your inferiority complex.
Like I said I have meet your kind before and make it a point to avoid their toxic personality.

Clearly I do not want to switch career paths, this not going to benefit me finically. I am trying to the right thing as well. I am just interested in Technology. You tone is argumentative, your answers are ambiguous . I am just thankful i found ppl in this community be the polar opposite of you and have been on this thread.

Rick

I posted the links because you asked me to cite the regulations after I had first explained the reason without citing them. In fact all I have done is provided explanations and linked to the relevant regulations - what more do you want? What do you want to discuss? What did I say that was not civil? What did I post that was even remotely ambiguous?

If you want someone to validate your misconception of the law then I can't help you. If that's being argumentative then it's your problem, not mine.

 

[With The Birds]

Well that's an interesting interpretation, but contrary to the written FAA interpretation of the Special Rule and contrary to all the answers provided by the FAA to similar questions that I'm aware of.

If the OP were simply photographing the site in his spare time and not using those images in meetings or to support his efforts to win a surveying contract, or any other work-related manner, then I'd agree, but he explicitly stated that he was planning to use them that way. No amount of mental gymnastics is going to cram that into the "purely recreational" box that the Special Rule requires.

Now, whether or not it would be easy for them to bring a case, or whether they would be likely to win such a case, is a different matter, and was not the subject of the discussion. Nor should it be, in my opinion, because you are basically telling the OP that in this case it's fine to break the law because he will likely get away with it. That's for him to decide, either based on the written laws, concurrence from the FAA (which he won't get) or advice from a lawyer.

Although in the lawyer context, note that the last discussion thread that I saw on this subject, that started when someone made a similar argument and had been told by a lawyer that he was correct, ended very rapidly when he did contact the FAA and was told very clearly that such operations were unambiguously Part 107.

I’m not telling the OP what to do nor am I saying your interpretation of the statute is not correct. I am hoping the FAA has better ways to invest taxpayers money than to pursue investigations into this type of situation. There are people who race into every thread here and chastise and lecture others for perceived misadventures from the strict interpretation of the rules. I’m sure none of us always flys to the strict letter of the law. It is quite evident the OP is trying to do things right- your wording in first raising the issue with him was almost certainly well intentioned but they tone (my view only) left plenty of opportunity to be interpreted otherwise.

 

[sar104]

I’m not telling the OP what to do nor am I saying your interpretation of the statute is not correct. I am hoping the FAA has better ways to invest taxpayers money than to pursue investigations into this type of situation. There are people who race into every thread here and chastise and lecture others for perceived misadventures from the strict interpretation of the rules. I’m sure none of us always flys to the strict letter of the law.

I was neither lecturing nor chastising the OP. I don't care in the slightest what he does. I do care that misleading and incorrect information that could get people into trouble is not propagated unchecked. Trusting that the FAA has better things to do is not a wise course of action, as others have discovered.

 

[Rick_x]

I posted the links because you asked me to cite the regulations after I had first explained the reason without citing them. In fact all I have done is provided explanations and linked to the relevant regulations - what more do you want? What do you want to discuss? What did I say that was not civil? What did I post that was even remotely ambiguous?

If you want someone to validate your misconception of the law then I can't help you. If that's being argumentative then it's your problem, not mine.

The ambiguity arises when you simply post a link and will not answer a direct question. As I read what you linked to I have. I see no problems considering myself a hobbiest . Where is my thinking flawed?

As I stated many times, I will not share any data, maps nothing w/ my company. If it does prove useful I will certainly take this info back. I am sure by this time I will have passed the certification.

I will not use any of the above in meetings

Any video I do share will be hosted on my server. I am all about BYOD. I will never use my work laptop to view edit nothing.

WHAT AM I DOING THAT WILL TRIGGER NEEDING CERTIFICATION?

I thought prefacing my question that I was very new. This would be taken into consideration.

Besides How much can a person learn in 4 months? I started researching everything from ground zero. there was nothing about aviation that interested me 4 months ago. I am way more interested in how this integrates w/ civil cad that I do about the actual act of flying.

It’s not like I am saying how do I test the waters and see if this is an idea for a viable business?

 

[With The Birds]

The ambiguity arises when you simply post a link and will not answer a direct question. As I read what you linked to I have. I see no problems considering myself a hobbiest . Where is my thinking flawed?

As I stated many times, I will not share any data, maps nothing w/ my company. If it does prove useful I will certainly take this info back. I am sure by this time I will have passed the certification.

I will not use any of the above in meetings

Any video I do share will be hosted on my server. I am all about BYOD. I will never use my work laptop to view edit nothing.

WHAT AM I DOING THAT WILL TRIGGER NEEDING CERTIFICATION?

I thought prefacing my question that I was very new. This would be taken into consideration.

Besides How much can a person learn in 4 months? I started researching everything from ground zero. there was nothing about aviation that interested me 4 months ago. I am way more interested in how this integrates w/ civil cad that I do about the actual act of flying.

It’s not like I am saying how do I test the waters and see if this is an idea for a viable business?

Here is the clarification- it’s was all a big song and dance over nothing... Welcome to the forum, it’s not always like this.

 

[With The Birds]

I was neither lecturing nor chastising the OP. I don't care in the slightest what he does. I do care that misleading and incorrect information that could get people into trouble is not propagated unchecked. Trusting that the FAA has better things to do is not a wise course of action, as others have discovered.

The OP has clarified his intent with further detail now. Seemingly the original take was correct, The FAA would be working overtime to find any issue to pursue here.

 

[sar104]

But I didn't "simply post a link", even though the links were to the definitive federal regulations. I answered your question in posts #11 and #13, and backed up those answers with the legal references in post #16. I explained the distinction, again, in even more detail, in my response to @With The Birds in post #28.

You, on the other hand, ignored all that information and instead resorted to accusations of "special", "inferiority complex", "toxic personality", "argumentativeness" etc., while at the same time having the nerve to assert that I was not being civil. You need to check the mirror, and learn to read. I'm done trying to help you.

 

[anotherlab]

Than you! I have found most veterans of this community to much more welcoming. That have been very forthcoming with information as opposed to sitting on high trying to discourage an honest effort to enter into this space the correct way.

Regards
Rick

I don't think any of the comments have been snide, you may be reading something that was not intended. Sometimes it's hard to read the intent from the text. As someone skimming the message thread, I don't think anyone was trying to be anything less than helpful. I think it's cool that you want to use new technology to provide better information to make business decisions from.

If you are flying over the property for your own enjoyment, then that flying would be consider "hobbyist" and you would not need the part 107 license. Because you are the construction superintendent for the project on the property and you have mentioned that you want to use a drone to document the process, that would not be considered flying as a hobby under the current FAA rules. It doesn't matter that you are doing the work for yourself, the FAA would still consider it a violation if you didn't have a part 107 license.

Another way to look at this, having a part 107 license and experience with using the data collected from a drone gives you (and by extension your company) a competitive leg up over your competition. If your employer doesn't pay for the drone, you should be able to deduct the costs. Also include the costs of photo and video editing software. Let's say you used an app like Litchi to fly a set flight plan over the property. You run that flight plan over and over again, at different points of the construction schedule. At the end, you create a video that follows the flight plan, but cuts in between the video footage at different stages of construction. When your employer pitches for the next project, that would be a really cool demo video to show.

Another thing to consider, you'll want to consider having commercial insurance if you are flying it over a work site. Check with your underwriter, they may require it.

 

[sar104]

The OP has clarified his intent with further detail now. Seemingly the original take was correct, The FAA would be working overtime to find any issue to pursue here.

He did not clarify his intent - he changed his story. His original intent was quite clear.

 

[BigAl07]

Hello Rick-x and welcome to the forum.

As you can see if you ask 5 people on the forum a question you'll get 7 different answers. While I fully side with sar104, anotherlab and others in that this would most likely need/require you to have your Part 107 credentials it doesn't matter what we think. Call your local FSDO and explain to them that you are the Project Manager and you want to document this project (which you're over) but also include the following:

"I want to document the progress. I am trying to negotiate a deal so I can survey the project.

The Project is a 500,000 square foot distribution center. A ton of site work. I am doing this for me, I will use the maps i make in meetings".

So how do you think the FAA is going to believe that you're "surveying" the project that you are the Project Manager over and that there is any way in the world you wouldn't use these images to support your paying job in any way? ? ? You can stand on the roof tops yelling "I'm just a hobbyist" until the cows come home but it just not that simple. One thing we need to do is get away from "exchange of $$" as a defining factor for requiring Part 107 because it is NOT!! See more below:

Here's something I wrote out previously and have had several in-depth conversations with trusted FAA officials who dabble in this specific arena day in and day out. Hopefully this will shed some light on the whole subject and open a few eyes along the way:

CIVIL vs Hobbyist (Part 107 vs 101)
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". This is why Search & Rescue, Crop Inspections, Training & Education and many other flights require Part 107 even though they may not “directly” involve the exchange of $$.

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 and Part 107 applies.

Here is a direct quote from a friend of mine with the FAA:

"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."
***end of quote****

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 and Part 107 applies. Part 107 CIVIL Operations is the Default and Part 101 (Hobby) is a narrow exclusion to Part 107. If any portion of your flight/operation falls outside of Hobby/Part 101 then you automatically fall under Part 107 regulations. You’re either INSIDE the hobby/Part 101 box completely or you’re outside hobby/Part 101 which means operating as a Part 107 Operation and must follow those rules. A single flight is either completely Hobby or it is 100% Civil/Part 107. We can’t mix & match the regulations within a single flight. The FAA has left no grey area in this matter and closed all the Loop Holes many moons ago.

I want to say this... why open yourself and your company up to potential problems when a simple test and $150 could help avoid it?

Even though it's not likely the FAA is going to come knocking on your door for doing this series of flights why risk it? What will you do if there is some kind of "incident" and the FAA is called?

For others who might be reading this and looking for advice... just because the odds of the FAA busting you for this type of behavior is very small (so long as you aren't reported or there isn't an incident) that doesn't make operating a UAS outside of Hobby guidelines without your Part 107 LEGAL! At some point we need to at least TRY to be ethical about it.