Would I need a part 107 license for this...

[sar104]

What if I do roofing as a hobby because I enjoy it? Inspection would then be part of that hobby.

And I really doubt the FAA is going to give two twitches if I inspect my own roof to then do my own work on it.

The question was not what the FAA is going to do about it, the question was does using a UAV for roof inspection require Part 107. Your attempted sophistry notwithstanding, the answer is obviously yes, because it is not recreational flying, even if you are a recreational roofer.

 

[42FrankZ]

The question was not what the FAA is going to do about it, the question was does using a UAV for roof inspection require Part 107. Your attempted sophistry notwithstanding, the answer is obviously yes, because it is not recreational flying, even if you are a recreational roofer.

Except the FAA has stated they use a dictionary definition of hobby and if I liked to fiddle with roofs, including inspecting them, as a hobby that would fit the dictionary definition of a hobby,

 

[ElGuapo]

If somebody flies a drone to take pictures or shoot video in exchange for tickets for a game that falls under part 107.

Actually that was one of the questions in my test.

To the OP, just like everybody already pointed out. Yes, what you are describing falls under part 107.

 

[sar104]

Except the FAA has stated they use a dictionary definition of hobby and if I liked to fiddle with roofs, including inspecting them, as a hobby that would fit the dictionary definition of a hobby,

If we leave aside, for a moment, the roofing example since it's not a typical hobby, the question of whether flying in support of a different hobby can be considered recreational flying is a good one. The FAA, in its 2014 Intepretation of the Special Rule (79 FR 36172), gave several examples of hobby and non-hobby use. One of the hobby examples was:

Viewing a field to determine whether crops need water when they are grown for personal enjoyment. ​

That clearly appears to be recreational flying in support of hobby farming.

Reframing that statement as:

Viewing a roof to determine whether it needs repairing when the roof is constructed for personal enjoyment.​

leads to a somewhat unlikely-sounding assertion, but I guess people do strange things for fun. The possible problem with the example is that it's unlikely that your roof is purely for personal enjoyment, i.e. having a roof, per se, is not really a hobby.

 

[42FrankZ]

The possible problem with the example is that it's unlikely that your roof is purely for personal enjoyment, i.e. having a roof, per se, is not really a hobby.

And yet I stated "fiddling" with the roof as a hobby, not merely "having" of the roof.

But at least we now agree that roof inspection could fall under hobby use.

Of course it all still means nothing until case law supports it. Once the FAA decides to take someone doing roof inspections to court and it is ruled on then we will have some guideline, as more and more roofing cases go to court the question will narrow until we have an actual rule.

Of course since this is unlikely to happen the whole concept of it being illegal is pretty silly, since if it isn't enforced it is only illegal so they have something to trip you on when you do something more egregious.

 

[sar104]

And yet I stated "fiddling" with the roof as a hobby, not merely "having" of the roof.

But at least we now agree that roof inspection could fall under hobby use.

Of course it all still means nothing until case law supports it. Once the FAA decides to take someone doing roof inspections to court and it is ruled on then we will have some guideline, as more and more roofing cases go to court the question will narrow until we have an actual rule.

Of course since this is unlikely to happen the whole concept of it being illegal is pretty silly, since if it isn't enforced it is only illegal so they have something to trip you on when you do something more egregious.

I didn't say that I agreed that it falls under hobby use - I was pointing out that it could possibly be argued that way in relation to the 2014 interpretation but that it probably doesn't really fit. And I don't think it is going to get clearer in that sense, because if they take anyone to court it's going to be someone who is obviously furthering a roofing business, whether their own or someone else's. That wasn't the question though.

As I said much earlier in the thread, I cannot see the FAA pursuing a private individual checking his own roof. But trying to argue that "fiddling with your roof", whatever that means, is a legitimate hobby seems like an overreach because it's probably essential home maintenance and if you are using a UAV to avoid paying a roofing company for any aspect of maintenance work then that's for personal gain. Now if you were painting murals on the roof - that could be different.

As another data point, many search and rescue volunteers have made the legitimate argument that they do that as a hobby, and that flying their UAVs in support of it is therefore recreational. In disputing that interpretation, the FAA has made it very clear that they regard SAR as a civil operation because it is not flying for the sake of flying.

Overall, I would say that their isolated statement about crop inspections in the 2014 interpretation is, at best, inconguent with most, if not all, of the other statements that they have made on the subject. It might be a useful defense though.

 

[42FrankZ]

I didn't say that I agreed that it falls under hobby use - I was pointing out that it could possibly be argued that way

And I stated we agreed it COULD fall under hobby use.

The FAA is not handling this one well, leaving it open to some sort of interpretation like this. They may get the first say on it but it will be a court that gets the last say, and a lot of that will depend on the question asked and the quality of the attorneys involved.

 

[sar104]

And I stated we agreed it COULD fall under hobby use.

The FAA is not handling this one well, leaving it open to some sort of interpretation like this. They may get the first say on it but it will be a court that gets the last say, and a lot of that will depend on the question asked and the quality of the attorneys involved.

Agreed. Although in their defense they are really constrained by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 that did not anticipate the rapid expansion of UAV use.

 

[Meta4]

Variations of this question come up frequently and there are always some who want to declare that inspecting your own roof or donating a few photos to a charity are serious issues that are certain to bring the FAA down hard if you don't have full commercial certification.

The FAA is not handling this one well, leaving it open to some sort of interpretation like this.

In fact the FAA is not handling this sort of thing at all and they are unlikely to.
They are understaffed and overstretched.
Whether you enjoy checking your roof isn't going to show on their radar and isn't going to rate on their top 500 issues that need attention.
Look at what prosecutions they have made up to 12 months ago in this article and think about how many flyers have been doing actual commercial work without certification. - the FAA isn't really interested.
They care about unsafe flying.
The FAA Gave Us a List of Every Drone Pilot Who Has Ever Been Fined
Forget the amateur lawyer strict fundamentalist definitions of what constitutes commercial use

 

[sar104]

Variations of this question come up frequently and there are always some who want to declare that inspecting your own roof or donating a few photos to a charity are serious issues that are certain to bring the FAA down hard if you don't have full commercial certification.

In fact the FAA is not handling this sort of thing at all and they are unlikely to.
They are understaffed and overstretched.
Whether you enjoy checking your roof isn't going to show on their radar and isn't going to rate on their top 500 issues that need attention.
Look at what prosecutions they have made up to 12 months ago in this article and think about how many flyers have been doing actual commercial work without certification. - the FAA isn't really interested.
They care about unsafe flying.
The FAA Gave Us a List of Every Drone Pilot Who Has Ever Been Fined
Forget the amateur lawyer strict fundamentalist definitions of what constitutes commercial use

But don't forget that much of the FAA's effort to enforce has been at the lower level of sending letters/calling operators who have either been reported to them or they have noticed themselves, so it gives a slightly misleading impression of their level of interest to focus on cases that made it to court.

 

[Robert Smith jr]

Hi,

Interesting thread here. Let me preface by saying that I do have my Part 107.

Some examples of some of the things mentioned, plus a few more:

Inspecting your own roof, pictures kept private -hobby (unenforceable, really)

Inspecting a neighbors roof by there request, Part 107, regardless of compensation.

Now here are a few examples to ponder:

Posting pictures to Facebook or sharing with friends electronically (email)?

Printing pictures on Canvas or other media and giving as gifts?

I was one of the first people to gain my 107 and originally thought that I would be able to build a small side business from it. It hasn't panned out the way that I thought it would, but I figure that I am covered for all of the scenarios above.

Rob

 

[Meta4]

Now here are a few examples to ponder:
Posting pictures to Facebook or sharing with friends electronically (email)?
Printing pictures on Canvas or other media and giving as gifts?

My thoughts are that it's going much too far to consider either of those commercial use.
Remember that the FAA are not there to police what you do with the photos you took.
They aren't the photo police.
The "crime" they are concerned about is commercial flying without certification not giving a print to someone or posting a picture online.

 

[Squirrel!]

As the FAA regulation and interpretation is written then yes - that would not be recreational (it would have a different purpose) and would require a Part 107 certification.

No, no, no. You are completely wrong. The ONLY time the 107 is needed is if money/compensation is involved. Flying over your own house, looking at your roof, even for inspection only purposes, does NOT fall into that category. I even did a roof inspection for my old church. No 107 required. Neither the church nor I received, or will receive compensation for the photos.

So to recap, personal use a 107 is NOT required, commercial use (AKA getting paid or benefiting financially a 107 IS required.

 

[MickATL]

"a promotional video" is designed to aid a business. It's definitely for commercial purposes. if you were flying over a trail and took your own footage for your own use, no. Once you fly with the intent of collecting media to help someone in the furtherance of their business endeavor, it's commercial. Doesn't matter if you get paid a dime. It has to do with the purpose of capturing the footage and how it will be used. If it's going on their FB, website, brochures, etc., it's commercial.

 

[sar104]

No, no, no. You are completely wrong. The ONLY time the 107 is needed is if money/compensation is involved. Flying over your own house, looking at your roof, even for inspection only purposes, does NOT fall into that category. I even did a roof inspection for my old church. No 107 required. Neither the church nor I received, or will receive compensation for the photos.

So to recap, personal use a 107 is NOT required, commercial use (AKA getting paid or benefiting financially a 107 IS required.View attachment 83659 View attachment 83660

No - actually you have it wrong. The determining factor is not money or compensation, it is whether the flight is purely recreational. The FAA made that clear in the original interpretation of the special rule:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-25/pdf/2014-14948.pdf

 

[kapiko]

The intent you described is non-recreational therefore requiring part 107 certification. I'm pretty sure that would be also the answer you'll get when you call FAA directly.

 

[schlepprock]

Thanks for the responses everyone. Yeah I figured it would fall under the part 107 and there's no way I would've done it without my part 107 but I do enjoy the real time discussion.

 

[Russ43Phantom]

If you do anything for another person, you need a commercial license whether or not money is exchanged. It's that simple. For example if someone asks you to take a picture of their country house to show the beautiful setting around it ... you need a commercial license.

 

[mdowney58]

Not quite THAT simple.
If I take pics of MY business's building to advertise on MY website then to the best of my knowledge, I need a Part 107

 

[BigAl07]

Not quite THAT simple.
If I take pics of MY business's building to advertise on MY website then to the best of my knowledge, I need a Part 107

Yes very much so.