It's certainly very complicated for someone new to this hobby with zero prior aviation history other than being a passenger on jets. You go to the faa site and give them your $5 and say yes to "guidelines" with no way to understand or find out what the consequences of not following them are. Seems like you need to be a lawyer to understand any of this.
Rant time
- Thread starter Monte55
- Start date
Fundamentally it just isn't clearly defined, and I think that is because they are not able to make simple regulations due to the protection of the model aircraft rule. That's the basic reason behind all the ambiguous and vague phrasing. Even a thorough understanding of Part 107 doesn't provide a clear interpretation of how recreational "guidelines" might be enforced. The availability to the FAA of the argument that if you break the guidelines then, by definition, you are not protected by the model aircraft rule (and fall under Part 107 law) or the ability simply to go after you for endangering the public or air traffic certainly gives them teeth, but doesn't make for any kind of transparency.
It _makes_ regulation.. so it's far more powerful then telling someone they might have been in violation. It _creates_ the regulation that everyone then needs to follow as well as the regulation being used to cite someone who violates the regulation.
For example, needing to fly within VLOS is a regulation made as a "safety" issue. Now everyone needs to follow this, period. If someone is in violation they can then also fine that person.
If you are flying for a hobby, you are not subject to anything in Part 107.
I disagree with your final statement, in the sense that it is incomplete. The FAA has been clear on this point; you are not subject to Part 107 provided that you satisfy the criteria for recreational flying - which means that you follow the guidelines. That, in my view, is the key - to be flying recreationally requires more than just intending to fly recreationally, or claiming to fly recreationally - it requires flying under recreational guidelines. If you don't adhere to those guidelines then it doesn't matter what your intent - you are no longer flying recreationally and thus you are, by default, subject to all of Part 107.
I'm not sure I understand this. Part 107 _only_ applies to those that want to fly for commercial use. If you are not flying for commercial use (i.e, you are flying for hobby use) than Part 107 does not apply to you, period. I think you are saying that if you don't follow the regulations for hobby use, you are considering to be flying under Part 107. This is incorrect. If you don't have the permit for Part 107 then you are flying as a hobby. If you break the rules under hobby use, you are then subject to the fines associated with that violation. For example, if I don't have a permit under Part 107 and I charge a fee for my drone use, I'm in violation of the hobby use and am fine accordingly. I'm not all of a sudden subject to the guidelines under Part 107 is I'm flying for commercial use... you are only subject to Part 107 is you have that permit.
Or let me put it another way... If you do not have a pilot certification, Part 107 does not apply to you, period. It's like it does not exist. If you fly commercially you are not subject to Part 107, you are in violation of hobby use.
You say that the FAA is clear that not following hobby use automatically makes you subject to Part 107. Can you provide any links to this information?
Edit: I'm going to leave the above post as it is. However, the more I think about your post the more I can see your point. As mentioned, can you provide any info as I asked for above? Thanks.
I think you are both saying the same thing more or less. If a hobbyist doesn't follow the rules he/she drops into a non hobby status and is in trouble, safety or part 107 is semantics to me. This thread really has some value and I've definitely been reading the rules/guidelines stuff in-correctly it seems. My question now is who dishes out the punishment and what is it which I guess is entirely dependent on what you did wrong and what you hit (if anything).
Yes - the FAA statement linked in post #21 is the clearest description that I have seen. And it is not inconsistent with the way that Part 107 was rolled out - as the overarching FAA regulation governing UAS operations under 55 lbs. The Model Aircraft Special Rule exempts you from Part 107 but only, as it states, if you follow the model aircraft flight guidelines. Fail to follow them and you are subject to Part 107, whether or not you are trying to fly commercially or, more correctly, not trying to fly for recreation or education.
If you think that is factually incorrect or have another interpretation then I'd be very interested to hear it, because this is central to many of the issues that have been raised in relation to recreational flying.
I went back and read your information. I think it's anything but clear.
What makes it even more difficult is that the FAA can't seem to maintain their own website. Click on the following line and the first link on that page is supposed to be to Part 107. It's a broken link:
Fact Sheet – Small Unmanned Aircraft Regulations (Part 107)
I don't agree that the FAA could apply Part 107 to someone if they did not follow every single safety regulation outside of Part 107. That is your version of what they state. So, your interpretation is that if I flew outside VLOS it's then be flying under part 107... when the whole reason Part 107 exists is for commercial flying. Why would flying beyond VLOS all of a sudden mean I'm subject to rules that only apply to commercial flying?
A good comparison is commercial truck driving. If I am caught driving a semi truck with a non CDL they don't say, you were driving commercially so you are all of a sudden responsible for all requirements under a CDL. I'd not have any... as I don't have a CDL.
What this would amount to is stacking a violation on top of a violation. That is, getting a violation only because a different violation exists.
Also, _never_ accept what the FAA puts out as their interpretation of the regulations. Very often they are 100% incorrect. Look at the 400" "rule". For a long time they stated that hobby flight was limited to 400'. They then needed to admit that it was not. They have said several other things that are clearly incorrect. Always go right to the regulation for accurate information. In this case I can't even get to Part 107 as most searches go to the FAAs site and their link is broken. Search for Part 107 on their website and the only links I can find are to their interpretations of the rules.
For whatever it's worth I completely agree with sar104. From what I've read and heard from the FAA directly it comes down to this:
You have 2 options and only 2 options.
A) Fly within the rules/guidelines (not law not regulation) as a hobby/recreational pilot
B) Everything else defaults to Part 107 operations regardless if it's for commerce or not.
If you do everything right you then fit completely inside the HOBBY box. If anything falls outside that box the box is completely irrelevant and you are operating under Part 107.
You have 2 options and only 2 options.
A) Fly within the rules/guidelines (not law not regulation) as a hobby/recreational pilot
B) Everything else defaults to Part 107 operations regardless if it's for commerce or not.
If you do everything right you then fit completely inside the HOBBY box. If anything falls outside that box the box is completely irrelevant and you are operating under Part 107.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2017
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 71
You do realize that you are ranting about someone else ranting.
So you started a thread you know is a controversial subject then sit back as the crap flies... please refrain from doing this in the future.
Nothing says this. If you fly for compensation of any kind you need to hold a part 107... everything else is hobby. Please show me your sources/proof as to what you claim.
These are the rules to follow to comply with hobby based flying...
- the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;
- the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set
of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide
community-based organization; (READ AMA)
- the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds unless otherwise
certified through a design, construction, inspection, flight test, and operational safety program administered by a community-based organization;
- the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
- when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air traffic control tower ... with prior notice of the operation....
I don't have it "in print" but the live video webinar with Kevin from the FAA went over this a few months back. He produced the written transcripts of it but I didn't sign up for them. I'll reach out to him and see if he can provide "documented" support to back this up.
dirkclod
Premium Pilot
Please follow the link that I provided in post #21. It is a clear (I think) statement of the FAA position. That's the source that I have been quoting in this thread. I would also argue that the text of Part 107 essentially says the same thing, but requires more patience to read.
While I'm starting to feel that I'm beating a dead horse here, I'll add a few more observations. I'm not disputing your interpretation of the model aircraft special rule - what I'm saying is that it is now subsidiary to the FAA Part 107 regulation governing UAS operations. I think that the confusion is arising because the special rule came first, and is leading to a backwards understanding of the current state of the law. Part 107 is now the FAA law on all sub-55-lbs UAS operations. As the FAA statement that I linked to clearly (IMO) states, the special rule is now a specific exemption from Part 107, but it only applies if you follow the model aircraft guidelines. It doesn't matter that those are guidelines rather than rules, laws, regulations or whatever because, if you don't follow them, you are no longer flying under the special rule, and instead are subject to the full provisions of Part 107. To put that another way, Part 107 is not a specific set of regulations that apply if you choose to fly commercially - it is the law on UAS operations unless you claim exemption under the special rule and follow the appropriate guidelines.
As I said previously - that's not some obscure interpretation that I'm making - it is spelled out in black and white by the FAA. So - if you disagree, having read the FAA interpretation that I linked to - please explain your reasoning. Simply quoting recreational guidelines does not address the overarching applicability of Part 107.
Last edited:
Similar threads
