Very good write up Newt59. I totally agree and if you get caught by the FAA violating the regulations, they aren't going to care about all the opinions you got on this site. I have posted this in a few other places, but if you want to know if you are within the regulations or not, pick up the phone and call the FAA and explain what you would like to do and they will tell you whether you need a Part 107 certification or not (after all they are their regulations that you must abide by). I am not sure what the number would be for Canada, but the one for the US is (844) 359-6982. I have called a few times and they are very polite and professional.
Personal property ?
- Thread starter Nickatnite
- Start date
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,301
- Reaction score
- 9,243
It's not that black and white.
Of the millions of people posting video to monetised Youtube channels, only a tiny fraction make any real money.
Posting to Youtube doesn't mean a flight was not recreational.
Here's what the FAA have said on the topic:
FAA Admits That They Shouldn't Be Ordering People To Delete Drone Videos
When this topic comes up with all the convoluted and specialised scenarios, members of the forum take it much more seriously that the FAA ever has.
There must have been thousands of drone flyers blatantly doing commercial work without certification and it would be easy to find plenty of them.
Can anyone find a single case where the FAA took action against a flyer for one of these cases?
I wasn't addressing the practicalities or whether the FAA will pursue you - just the law. If I understand it correctly (which quite likely I don't) there are regular YouTube channels and monetized YouTube channels, and the distinction between them is fairly clear. So yes - posting to YouTube, alone, doesn't make something non-recreational, but if your channel carries ads and makes money then it is commercial, and therefore non-recreational.
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,301
- Reaction score
- 9,243
The FAA is concerned with the flying.
If you were to fly recreationally and share videos on youtube and managed to collect $5 per year, the FAA isn't going to care.
If you are extremely successful and actually make real money (like almost no-one does with youtube videos), such that the motivation for flying was the money being made, then the FAA might view that as commercial flying.
I completely agree. As I said - I was addressing the law, which doesn't have shades of grey with respect to how much money you make - any intent to make money is a disqualifying condition for recreational flight.
Meta4
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 15,301
- Reaction score
- 9,243
The FAA know that it's possible to make chump change from Youtube but they made no mention of that in the piece I quoted in #22.
The FAA use a little more common sense in dealing with this issue than some of the people you read on forums.
Didn’t mean to stir things up with the question, I was just wanted to see if the response would be consistent with another trivial scenario. I personally don’t think that the op needs a part 107 for selling his OWN house even if he was a realtor.
Right, but that's not what that statement from the FAA addresses. Firstly, it notes that publication on the internet doesn't automatically constitute non-recreational (or commercial) activity. That's obviously true, and has never really been asserted - many social media platforms are dominated by non-commercial material, but monetized YouTube channels clearly don't fall into that category. Secondly, it suggests that realtors using material from non-Part 107 sources are not legally responsible for the breach of Part 107 - that's down to the source of the material.
Neither of those are relevant to the question at hand except peripherally - I did comment that realtors may be uncomfortable using photos or videos not acquired under Part 107, even though the FAA may not regard them as responsible for the source. That's a simple observation of fact.
Who owns the house is probably of no relavence. The purpose of the flight is. If the intent of the flight was to create footage/images for the purpose of marketing the property for sale there is a good chance it’s going to meet the definition of commercial.
Do you mean if he was a realtor selling his own house who happened to have taken photos during prior, recreational flights? If so, then agreed.
Although this is true, I don’t think the FAA will go after him. Just like a cop will not ticket you for going 57 in a 55 zone. The world is not black and white. Life is not black and white.
Even if he took pics of his own house upon deciding to sell it no matter what the regulations state, I honestly don’t think the FAA will go after him. In a perfect world one would walk a straight path and everything would be black and white. Reality is we are from being a perfect world.
Same comment I made to @Meta4 - the discussion was about what the law says, not about the probability of being pursued or caught.
Understood. Whether you think the laws are appropriate or what risk assessment you might apply in determining the prospects of being caught and the outcome are an issue for you. The fact is- as you might appreciate- the action subject of the OP’s question likely would be in contravention of the current FAA regulations.
I think that probably is poor advice. Monetary consideration is not a required element in establishing a commercial purpose.
The requirement to fly under Part 101 is not determined by whether it is commercial - it's determined by whether or not the flight is recreational. The FAA has several criteria for assessing that. Being paid is the most obvious one, but not the only one. Anything in furtherance of a business also means that it is non-recreational, whether or not the pilot is paid. And using photos or video for personal profit (e.g. to help sell a house) is non-recreational.
So is flying bvlos, and I’m willing to bet most of us have done it at one time or another.
And exactly the same considerations apply to breaking that law too. What point are you trying to make?
Similar threads
