This is a 107 flight, correct?

[bsartist]

The mental / legal gymnastics that go on over and over regarding parsing the interpretations of part 107 are probably more effort than actually getting the 107. LOL.

In my own personal opinion probably worth less than the proverbial $.02, I’d say this: if you fly around recreationally and happen to get a killer pic that people want to buy, then sell without worry. If you think you will sell enough photos to make this worth debating, then get the 107. That’s what I did. And I learned a few things along the way. But I still only sold a couple pics and did only a few real estate gigs.

 

[xspwhite]

I've got it now. Not knowing where I'm going with the images for know, it is safe to call this hobby. Besides, it sure doesn't feel like work.

Your accountant can probably settle it. If you can file the money spent and brought in as a hobby, then that's what is. If you made over whatever the hobby amount limit is; then it becomes business income.

 

[sar104]

Your accountant can probably settle it. If you can file the money spent and brought in as a hobby, then that's what is. If you made over whatever the hobby amount limit is; then it becomes business income.

It's not defined by money or compensation - those are only possible indicators of whether or not the flight is recreational in intent, which is what matters.

 

[xspwhite]

It's not defined by money or compensation - those are only possible indicators of whether or not the flight is recreational in intent, which is what matters.

The only problem is: the FAA has left no clear direction between flying for commercial or hobby. So basically if they cant prove by tax returns that he's flying for business or hobby, then they have no case. You can have a YouTube channel that makes tons of money from flying drones, but if it's just a hobby, then that's all it is. So tax returns tell the tail. I do think the FAA needs to get clear what they think is law and what isn't. They give drone pilots a 400 foot window in class g airspace, but wait a minute, a hele or plane, can fly that low as long as they dont pose a problem to the ground? So wait a minute, if they smash into a drone or kite, are they not posing a problem to the ground?

 

[sar104]

The only problem is: the FAA has left no clear direction between flying for commercial or hobby. So basically if they cant prove by tax returns that he's flying for business or hobby, then they have no case. You can have a YouTube channel that makes tons of money from flying drones, but if it's just a hobby, then that's all it is. So tax returns tell the tail. I do think the FAA needs to get clear what they think is law and what isn't.

Don't blame the FAA - whatever confusion exists is entirely down to Congress and the Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Even so, the law, itself, is fairly clear - Section 336 covers recreational flight - the FAA has made that completely clear so I don't understand the continued assertion that it is not clear. The difficulty, as you noted, is in determining whether or not a flight is recreational. The FAA's approach has been to pursue only blatant, unlicensed business use. Monetized YouTube channels risk FAA actions.

They give drone pilots a 400 foot window in class g airspace, but wait a minute, a hele or plane, can fly that low as long as they dont pose a problem to the ground? So wait a minute, if they smash into a drone or kite, are they not posing a problem to the ground?

I've no idea where you are going with that, since the law is also perfectly clear on this subject. They permit sUAS up to 400 ft AGL in Class G, but they have not given them ownership of that airspace - manned aircraft still have priority and drones must always yield to them. If a manned aircraft collides with a drone then, unless the aircraft is being flown recklessly (and possibly even then), it will always be the drone pilot at fault.

 

[xspwhite]

Don't blame the FAA - whatever confusion exists is entirely down to Congress and the Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Even so, the law, itself, is fairly clear - Section 336 covers recreational flight - the FAA has made that completely clear so I don't understand the continued assertion that it is not clear. The difficulty, as you noted, is in determining whether or not a flight is recreational. The FAA's approach has been to pursue only blatant, unlicensed business use. Monetized YouTube channels risk FAA actions.
I've no idea where you are going with that, since the law is also perfectly clear on this subject. They permit sUAS up to 400 ft AGL in Class G, but they have not given them ownership of that airspace - manned aircraft still have priority and drones must always yield to them. If a manned aircraft collides with a drone then, unless the aircraft is being flown recklessly (and possibly even then), it will always be the drone pilot at fault.

Okay? I just flew my new to me Ozone Speedster paraglider over your house. Woo!! Whoo!! Along the way, I snapped some nice pics of your yard. Now I'm knocking on your door to show you the photos, and offer to sell some of them to you. Am I flying commercial, or as a hobbyist?

 

[sar104]

Okay? I just flew my new to me Ozone Speedster paraglider over your house. Woo!! Whoo!! Along the way, I snapped some nice pics of your yard. Now I'm knocking on your door to show you the photos, and offer to sell some of them to you. Am I flying commercial, or as a hobbyist?

The discussion was about the laws governing sUAS, namely 14 CFR Part 107 and Part 101 subpart E. Paragliders fall under 14 CFR Part 103.

 

[xspwhite]

The discussion was about the laws governing sUAS, namely 14 CFR Part 107 and Part 101 subpart E. Paragliders fall under 14 CFR Part 103.

Okay, so say is was my new P4. I guess the answer is: I'm flying as a hobbyist. I have a day job, and my flying and pic taking is just my HOBBY, and I have a right to sell my hobby pics to you, so YOU can enjoy them too.

 

[sar104]

Okay, so say is was my new P4. I guess the answer is: I'm flying as a hobbyist. I have a day job, and my flying and pic taking is just my HOBBY, and I have a right to sell my hobby pics to you, so YOU can enjoy them too.

I can't figure out whether you are being serious. Hopefully not.

If the intent of the flight is to make money or further a business in any way, then it is not recreational and falls under Part 107. Therefore if the intent of your flight is to take photos or video that you plan to try to sell, then it is not recreational. The mere act of calling them "hobby pics" doesn't miraculously change the intent of the flight.

On the other hand, if it had been a purely recreational flight and an opportunity subsequently arose to sell photos then that doesn't change the original intent of the flight, and so it could legitimately be covered by Part 101.

 

[mongobird]

Since we have allot of opinions, I will offer mine. So you know where I am coming from, I have a commercial certificate, airplanes and gliders, a CFI and have been a Lead Safety Rep for the FAA for about 28 years. I deal with FAA inspectors on a frequent basis, and I have developed a concept of their modalities. Also, i have participated in my share of getting Letters of Interpretation (LOI) from the FAA over time.

When a flight in contemplated, one must look at the intent. If you are out hobby flying, and you happen to capture Mt St. Helen's blowing it's top off again, and share that photo and AP pays you $100,000 to it, but you lack a 107 certificate, IMO, you are OK. You weren't there on speculation that the volcano would blast at that time.

On the other hand, if you are a drone accessory manufacturer, and you get your buddy to fly your drone, as a hobby pilot, so that you can photograph your products in action, then that buddy may have been conducting a 107 flight. Because there is an intent associated with commerce.

How would anyone know? More than one FAA inspectors review hours of youtube videos looking for violations. When they find them, they obtain the poster's information and hunt down the pilot. Letters are written frequently on youtube postings, pictures and footage given to media, shared on social media and other sources. The inspectors are expected to do something about violations. In the end, it may be education rather than fines, but the point is, someone has the job to make sure that the public is in compliance with the rules, whether by education or enforcement or places in between.

The next point is that if you do not meet all the requirements of hobby flight, then you are presumed to be conducting an operation under 107. That is the baseline.

Perhaps this helps a little bit...

 

[BigAl07]

Since we have allot of opinions, I will offer mine. So you know where I am coming from, I have a commercial certificate, airplanes and gliders, a CFI and have been a Lead Safety Rep for the FAA for about 28 years. I deal with FAA inspectors on a frequent basis, and I have developed a concept of their modalities. Also, i have participated in my share of getting Letters of Interpretation (LOI) from the FAA over time.

When a flight in contemplated, one must look at the intent. If you are out hobby flying, and you happen to capture Mt St. Helen's blowing it's top off again, and share that photo and AP pays you $100,000 to it, but you lack a 107 certificate, IMO, you are OK. You weren't there on speculation that the volcano would blast at that time.

On the other hand, if you are a drone accessory manufacturer, and you get your buddy to fly your drone, as a hobby pilot, so that you can photograph your products in action, then that buddy may have been conducting a 107 flight. Because there is an intent associated with commerce.

How would anyone know? More than one FAA inspectors review hours of youtube videos looking for violations. When they find them, they obtain the poster's information and hunt down the pilot. Letters are written frequently on youtube postings, pictures and footage given to media, shared on social media and other sources. The inspectors are expected to do something about violations. In the end, it may be education rather than fines, but the point is, someone has the job to make sure that the public is in compliance with the rules, whether by education or enforcement or places in between.

The next point is that if you do not meet all the requirements of hobby flight, then you are presumed to be conducting an operation under 107. That is the baseline.

Perhaps this helps a little bit...

Very well written and very VERY accurate.

 

[captainmilehigh]

Since we have allot of opinions, I will offer mine. So you know where I am coming from, I have a commercial certificate, airplanes and gliders, a CFI and have been a Lead Safety Rep for the FAA for about 28 years. I deal with FAA inspectors on a frequent basis, and I have developed a concept of their modalities. Also, i have participated in my share of getting Letters of Interpretation (LOI) from the FAA over time.

When a flight in contemplated, one must look at the intent. If you are out hobby flying, and you happen to capture Mt St. Helen's blowing it's top off again, and share that photo and AP pays you $100,000 to it, but you lack a 107 certificate, IMO, you are OK. You weren't there on speculation that the volcano would blast at that time.

On the other hand, if you are a drone accessory manufacturer, and you get your buddy to fly your drone, as a hobby pilot, so that you can photograph your products in action, then that buddy may have been conducting a 107 flight. Because there is an intent associated with commerce.

How would anyone know? More than one FAA inspectors review hours of youtube videos looking for violations. When they find them, they obtain the poster's information and hunt down the pilot. Letters are written frequently on youtube postings, pictures and footage given to media, shared on social media and other sources. The inspectors are expected to do something about violations. In the end, it may be education rather than fines, but the point is, someone has the job to make sure that the public is in compliance with the rules, whether by education or enforcement or places in between.

The next point is that if you do not meet all the requirements of hobby flight, then you are presumed to be conducting an operation under 107. That is the baseline.

Perhaps this helps a little bit...

Agree also. Well stated sir.

 

[Maddy]

Thank you all for your insights and having spent the time replying to my question! I am very much appreciative and am in awe of the knowledge base here.