So, what good is "Part 107?"

The guy is trolling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
Twice wrong.
It is NOT simple. And:
If I am roofer & my boss knows I have photography hobby
& asks me to snap some hand-held photos of roof without
paying me extra for taking those images, that absolutely
does NOT make me a professional photographer.
The intent at the time of taking photos was to follow
boss request which did NOT involve extra income.
I REMAINED a photography hobbyist throughout in the
eyes of IRS, the ultimate professional-commercial
determiner-judge... I am a professional roofer, not a
professional roofer-photographer. If I later leave that
job to get hired as a "roofer with a drone that can take
roof photos regularly" then YES, that's a case made
for being a roofer-photographer...


You, my friend, are 100% WRONG! You're mixing IRS standards and FAA Regulations.... that's a bananas to corn comparison. One doesn't affect the other.

Your previous comment "YOU, SIR, ARE OVERRULED. " says it all. You are trying to justify your actions and you've done so very incorrectly per the written regulations.

The exchange of compensation (money, tickets, beer, favors etc) is not the ONLY inclusion into making a flight Commercial or not. In fact, we should exclude the word COMMERCIAL from the conversation because it's but one aspect that requires Part 107. In the US you have roughly 3 "NonMilitary" options for flying sUAS. Every flight, by default, is a Civil Flight which requires Part 107. The only way the flight isn't Civil is if you're flying under some umbrella/bubble of protection from Part 107. This could be as a Hobbyist or flying under a Public Use COA (Emergency Services, LEO etc).

In order to fly under Hobby or Public Use you have to fit 100% completely within the requirements of the protection you're claiming. If any portion of your flight (notice I said FLIGHT) falls outside of said protection your flight is, BY DEFAULT, Civil (Part 107). . Think of it as a bubble of protection against Civil/Part 107 regulations. If you pierce that protective bubble at any time during the flight it's GONE for the entire flight and you are flying under Part 107.

While INTENT of the flight is very important (this determines which set of regulations you "intend" to fly under) just because you "Claim/Intend" to fly under those rules does not change the fact that your ACTIONS during the flight can over rule your Intentions. It's not as simple as standing on the launch pad and declaring, "This flight shall forever and ever be a HOBBY flight" and then flying willy nilly doing whatever your heart desires. Your actions must match your "intentions" because your actions are actually more powerful than said intentions. Just like telling the police officer, "I'm sorry I ran the red light. I fully INTENDED to stop but I felt like it was ok to roll on through because I INTENDED to stop initially.. I just changed my mind and went through anyway."

Lastly let me close by saying, You can not HOBBY for someone else. The mere thought that you could do as your boss asked and take pictures for a business and it still be hobby is mind boggling. There are so many obvious errors in that logic that I really have to step back and ask, " Are you just trying to ruffle feathers and see how many replies you can drum up?"

Note: Before anyone jumps on the "Exemption" band wagon... yes you could be flying under an Exemption but those are rare enough to where most operators don't even know what that is let alone how to discuss or get one. I see no need in going down that long-winded rabbit hole as it would add nothing to this discussion.
 
Never send a roofer to do a lawyer’s job.
 
Last edited:
Send them this.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Twice wrong.
It is NOT simple. And:
If I am roofer & my boss knows I have photography hobby
& asks me to snap some hand-held photos of roof without
paying me extra for taking those images, that absolutely
does NOT make me a professional photographer.
The intent at the time of taking photos was to follow
boss request which did NOT involve extra income.
I simply cannot understand why, if someone is intent on breaking the law, they don't just DO IT, keep their mouth shut, and DO NOT announce it on the World Wide Web.... WTH!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MTO
Well, then, feel free. The rules could have changed without my permission. ;-)
Yes it is acceptable if the original intent was a hobbyist flight. I think it has always been that way. But I wonder if you did that a lot that you might be opening yourself up to trouble. Not sure if that is covered anywhere in writing but in my mind that would not be acceptable.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,197
Messages
1,468,416
Members
105,110
Latest member
One-Eye