Is my Drone flight RECREATIONAL or 107? FAA: "Most DRONE HOBBYISTS are FLYING ILLEGALLY"

[@Le-JayKRobinson]

I really like this - this is a controversial topic for all drone operators and most content creators are yet to include the FAA in the convo like you have to clarify things and clear up misconceptions.

[@AlienDrones]

Thank you so much for your kind words! Personally I always like it when someone takes the time to set up and correspond with an official person in the field of discussion and get _their_ words, so I'm happy it is useful to you as well. It may not be the answer we were looking for sometimes, but rest assured I will have future interviews to try and bring clarity on this and many more subjects. Of course, as long as the FAA will have me, I'll try to do my best to get you relevant information so we can all be as informed as we can and enjoy the hobby worry free! Good Flying! 👽🛸

[@Voltis-5]

@John Lawson when it comes down to it is all about control and $$$

[@jrs-sx5jb]

@@Voltis-5 exactly i dont understand why people dont get this. the whole point of getting a 107 is for the advanced safety training that hobbyists dont do. we dont do tower inspections or anything like that i dont need to know the upper limit of a tower that is more than 400' tall. its all about money. theres nothing inherently dangerous about flying 10' above ones vegetable garden and taking a pic of it and god forbid share it on fb or youtube. here is the real kicker... i can put a go pro on my kite and take video from 150' up or however high i let my kite go. i can then share it wherever i want. but no if a drone pilot does the exact same thing (below 400') and post that to fb they blow a gasket. unless you pay them $173 for the part 107. i can promote thyself with a kite and a camera but not promote thyself with a drone lol. #PATHETIC

[@denodan]

That's because they want to kill the hobby and they will. Why do you think DJI are playing around now producing robots? Robomaster as an example. They know the drone market will die, not as many innovation from other companies and seems to be dying. FAA will regulate you our of drones, or end up having in thr end to have a license, costing so much you won't be able to afford it. They want the 400 feet cleared so the likes of automated drones, like amazon and courier companies are working on, so the FAA make big bucks from them. Yet pose more risk to the public than the hobbist.

[@leroyaron7854]

Instablaster

[@timothythompson3068]

Why do I have this feeling that if you spoke to a different FAA employee at a different location, you would get a different answer? 🤔

[@machinegundroner9411]

Hey Timothy. The truth is, you will get a different answer. I had these conversations with three different FAA reps last year and got three different answers.

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

Because the rules on this subject are vague and because what you described happens all the time...

[@jaysee2213]

Totally agree. I'm from the UK so this is a video that has got me thinking about what the CAA over here would say but as with many rules and laws, they're open to interpretation

[@geezerpleasers_OG]

@@AlienDrones That's why God created Customer Relationship Management systems. I implemented one for one of the largest county governments in the US. One of the key points was that there would be officially reviewed and approved knowledge base articles on specific topics and questions so that each person in the government who dealt with a particular issue would reference the same document and give the constituent the same information and position. Aside from avoiding confusion and contradiction, it also recognized that people will call a dozen different times and talk to a dozen different people until they get the answer they wanted, straight from an official representative.

[@bp-ob8ic]

Kind of like using IRS advice when you file your taxes ...

[@51Drones]

Hey buddy, great interview again. Next time you talk to him, ask him this - when KZbin starts running ads on non-monetized aerial videos, is the FAA going to start fining KZbin? Also, is the FAA going to start watching everyone’s Facebook for aerial videos and start sending out egregious fines? These rules need to re-examined and better defined. The over-reach is absurd. I wonder if you put 10 different agents in a room and ask them the same question how many different answers you would get?

[@machinegundroner9411]

Hey Russ, I have to say that Covid lockdowns has allowed the "work from home" employees of the FAA have been tasked with scouring KZbin to search for violations. So, YES, the Feds are watching everyone's social media sites and sending out fines. Ask the guy from Philly that was recently fined $185,000 for his violations that were discovered by FAA folks spying his social media. That's a perfect example of government overreach in my opinion.

[@ChamplainValleyRailSnapshots]

You know I was getting curious about this with the new KZbin TOS. It seems to me they could be directly violating US FAA regs and possibly other country's drone regulations.

[@Eddy21485]

I wonder if it would make any difference to caption your videos "Not For Commercial Use"?

[@AlienDrones]

Thanks, friend! Indeed there are many interesting aspects of this that could unravel for sure. Off mic I did have additional conversations and he did confess that multiple agents in his office often have differences of opinions regarding the nuances of the rules. Whether the rules are grey because they are simply poorly written or if they are intended to be pliable so they can be "bent" and be applied to most any situation on an "as needed" basis, we may never know and perhaps it doesn't even matter why. If the intent is to publish content to public social media then it is clear 107 is the requirement according to the FAA. Regardless, it leaves us in a precarious position for sure. That being said, one thing to keep in mind is that although technically the FAA expects that all photos posted to public social media should be done with a 107 certificate, in actuality the odds that the FAA is going to search down or attempt to prosecute anyone for simply sharing a picture of the family dog playing with the kids without the certification are probably worse than getting struck by lightning, twice. They are looking for people flagrantly violating rules that endanger safety and even then they would likely follow up with "education" before trying to take it any further. So be safe and respectful and you'll likely be just fine... On another note, regarding the FAA scanning social media for violations is a great subject for another video. Oh, wait, did I mention I already have that interview recorded? Lol. Video here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZpfWhIF-gZ10rdU Good Flying!

[@ChamplainValleyRailSnapshots]

@@Eddy21485 like everything else KZbin will probably use bots. So I'm sure bots will stick ads on videos that are popular and trending but not currently monetized. Which means the bots probably won't know the difference on any drone footage. I'd think it was funny to see KZbin get a bunch of fines for violating FAA regs. They are really taking advantage of creators in the new TOS.

[@keitharoo1962]

The FAA is pushing these rules way beyond the original intent of those rules. Shooting drone video with the intent to post on your personal, non-business social media page is "furtherance of a business????" Seriously??? That is just ridiculous!

[@AlienDrones]

I can't disagree, why the FAA would care if you make the same flight, take the same pictures, but once you get home you post or don't post them and it makes a difference in the sky? "Ours not to reason why..." I guess. Seems like making money would have commercial implications beyond the FAA and would make more sense from a "business" perspective, but beyond that it is confusing. I keep thinking of the 8 year old kid with the lemonade stand needing a business license and permits from the city...

[@787UrbanApparel]

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 They don’t want drone pilots filming the FEMA camps ; They are going to push force testing for Covid-19 and the infected will be send to FEMA Camps to die . 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Drone Pilots are the only ones that could bring photography evidence of their evil deeds to the masses... is the reason they been clamping down on pilots . 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Resist The Oppression!!!!

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

I don't think that's what he meant I think this is more gray area and vagueness from the faa. I think he meant that if it's anything other than a personal hobby channel then it would be under part 107. If you post your drone video that you shot on vacation next to the pictures of your kids playing with your dog or your Christmas activities and the channel isn't monetized there's no violation.

[@keitharoo1962]

@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 Honestly, that isn't what I heard the guy say. He said if you post a picture you just happen to take while flying for fun, that was fine; but if you go out to purposely take a picture to post on social media, then it's a violation.

[@keitharoo1962]

It seems that the original intent of the rules was that it was a violation if you earn money directly or indirectly with your drone, or help someone else, including a business, to make money. The FAA has just gotten ridiculously far from the spirit of the law.

[@mkirnon3]

I guess if i throw my nikon in the air i'm considered a commercial pilot.

[@fireislandmavic5939]

that was great

[@ianjoc00]

Make sure it's a DSLR so it does not go over 400 ft. If it's mirrorless, it might go beyond the authorized height. Lol!

[@fireislandmavic5939]

@@ianjoc00 rofl

[@lindsayheyes925]

Throw it hard enough and you're an astronaut...

[@tlabus]

@@ianjoc00 Nope, doesn't need to go 400 feet according to this guy. You need the license anyway.

[@ArkansasRay]

Dear Lord. Sounds like FAA overreach instead of outreach.

[@ferretapocalypse]

Somehow I think this guy is making his own interpretation of the rules

[@divingfalconfpv4602]

Just like so many in authority

[@bp-ob8ic]

@@FlyingBuzzard His statement was that all drone flights are Pt 107, unless they meet recreational exceptions.

[@grayrock522]

This is just one person's "OPINION" from the FAA. If you go to another person at the FAA and ask them the same questions, more than likely you will get different answers. You have some great videos! Thank you!

[@AlienDrones]

Thank you!

[@uptopmikep7065]

Thank you for this. So if they are basing your flying on “intent” then there is no such thing as “hobby flying”. The FAA definition is WAYYYYYYY too ambiguous. There is NO way they can possibly judge “intent”. Bullshit! The government does not want to help nor support UAV as a “hobby”Really? They want to help educate and provide guidance to UAV pilots. Not based on your contact’s responses. Perhaps the FAA should take the lead in providing classes to educate, train and certify UAV pilots. They can offer MONTHLY 107 classes. That would go a lot further toward ensuring safe flying. Their obvious goal is “Control” not education, and punishment not support.

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

They can judge your intent by how you use the video or pictures. if you upload it to a monetized channel that's clearly intent, if you use it to promote something other than your family trip over the holidays, that's intent. If it's posted in between the mess your kids made while you were out and playing with your dog over the weekend, and the channel isn't monetized that's intent as well. The only area where it's vague is if you do something as a hobbyist and then sometime later down the road you want to repurpose it.

[@uptopmikep7065]

@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 Hmm. Interesting points however you are talking about post flight actions. I was thinking about it from a “during flight” perspective. If they catch you flying because maybe someone reported you flying and law enforcement shows up. At that time the only thing they have is your word with regard to the intent of your flight activity. Therefore I respectfully disagree. Consequently your intent would be very difficult to prove. In the final analysis it’s probably best to simply be 107 certified an follow the rules rather than waste time and money trying to fight the power. :>)

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

@@uptopmikep7065 Whether flying under part 107 or under hobbyist rules everybody should follow the rules. I just think that the FAA is nuts if they want to claim that putting your imagery on a private social media channel somehow requires part 107. If they want to do away with the hobby section and require everybody to be 107 they should just say so. However they explicitly claim they don't want to do that so they have to leave some room for people to fly as a hobby even if they decide to post on their personal channels. It's irrational for the FAA to claim that posting on a personal channel isn't part of the hobby. As far as someone trying to judge our intent while we're flying I'm not sure why that would matter. With the exception of flying at night without a daytime waiver I can't really think of a situation where it makes any difference. I haven't put much thought into it but some municipalities have created ordinances against flying drones and then to try to make their law legal they say that if you're flying according to part 107 then you're okay to fly. That might be a situation where being 107 vs hobbyist matters but I don't think those local ordinances are legal anyway. I don't think they have the legal right to ban hobbyist from the national airspace but that's a whole separate issue.

[@uptopmikep7065]

@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 I couldn’t agree with you more on all counts. It’s just big government asserting some level of imaginary control over the masses, again. Let’s face it, those in government typically aren’t thinking rationally nor logically. Someone says we are receiving complaints so those people further up the managerial food chain simply say “let’s make a bunch of rules to control the situation” even when those rules are vague, ambiguous, contradictory, divisive and are very difficult to enforce (at best). The vagueness and ambiguity is where they get you though. Ah well, just follow the rules, fly safe and if someone complains just diffuse the situation by apologizing and move on. It’s the path of least resistance. Then we can collectively work with (or fight) the powers that be to amend the silly rules and laws. As for local ordinance my expectation is that Federal law supercedes local ordinance when it comes to airspace. Perhaps I’m mistaken.

[@Steve-Kratz]

Yeah, it's almost like "Oh, I accidentally took my drone out and took a cool video." The second you think "Cool waterfall, I'll share it for my friends and family" you're a criminal?

[@GalvTexGuy]

I think the FAA is treading on the First and Fourth Amendments. If they go after KZbin content creators for posting drone videos and photographs on their channels, they better be prepared for lawsuits.

[@basspig]

Unfortunately the government has infinite resources because people pay taxes.

[@greenvilleobserver9431]

if the videos are public the FAA can watch them. no 4th amendment violation. The FAA is not fining you for posting the video or taking the video its flying without a license. If you film yourself robbing a house and post it for everyone to see including the police, the cops will arrest you for robbery and they have video evidence that YOU provided. pretty simple

[@tomsweeney9424]

There won't be any lawsuits because the rules are clear: You must have a commercial use license to use your drone to make money, and posting to youtube, facebook, etc and commercial venues. It doesn't matter if your videos aren't good enough to make any money, youtube, instgram etc are still commercial venues. There are a lot of rules and laws I don't like and having to get a Part 107 is really way far down on the list. The FAA is stepping up watching youtube and contacting offenders, Just get your license and you're good to go.

[@ConsecDesign]

Ummm... Have you actually read those amendments? Your claim is baseless. Regulating UAVs is not abridging free speech or your freedom of religion and it isnt an unreasonable search and seizure. If you feel violated, I cannot dispute that, but you clearly have very little understanding of your "rights".

[@thepoweroftruth3624]

@@greenvilleobserver9431 cops should be forced to pass part 107

[@Null-Red-Blue]

Drone owners need to come together and lobby to fight the FAA.

[@nightlightabcd]

The FAA is not the bad guy! The FAA enforces the law! The bad guys are the law makers who don't like drones!

[@seuratguy]

Still isn't super clear to me. If we go out with the intent to have fun and and we happen to capture video we like and put it on our Facebook page then that's recreational but if we go out with the intent to get video to put on our Facebook page then that's Part 107? Interesting line the FAA is drawing. Just how exactly can they determine our intent if the result is the same?

[@scottnadeau5280]

great point .......depends on there mood ???????? makes me want to sell my drone and just say fuck it

[@byhilliard]

Yeah. That's clearly bullshit.

[@AlienDrones]

Well, I suppose you could look at it both ways, that it is "grey" so pilots can be given the benefit of the doubt from the FAA, or, if anything goes wrong there is a "gotcha" available that says you intended to take video and "promote" something, and that required an advanced certificate, which you don't have, so here comes the hammer! I believe it is probably both ways. Being a good neighbor rather than posting "F#%@ the FAA" might just help push responses to the same situation one way or the other... Just a thought. 🤔 Good Flying!

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

Yeah, I said the same thing period in your example it should only be a 107 operation if that Facebook page represents something other than a personal page.

[@geezerpleasers_OG]

Pattern of behavior. It's fundamental in prosecuting many types of cases. Like, if money laundering laws require you report transactions of $10,000 or more, and you do 200 transactions of $9,999, that's a pattern of behavior that establishes intent to launder money. If you post 100 videos where you "just happened" to find some interesting footage as you flew for personal enjoyment, that ain't gonna fly (Sorry, couldn't resist)

[@thomasmaj]

So as long as the quadcopter is tethered, I'm good to sell video to realtors ? ...hmmmm ...why didn't I think of that...Hey I just did!

[@richiebricker]

yeah get some kite string

[@pdtech4524]

Or attach a camera to a kite!! Sorted. 😎👍

[@batsonelectronics]

yep, just attach a string. It limits where you can go but if all you want to do is go up and film, it would work.

[@user-kb5os9sl9y]

what a great loop-hole to stick it to the FAA!! I LOVE IT! Your honor, my drone was tethered. BRILLIANT!

[@batchboy999]

"Tethered to a string, so in effect just like a kite your honor" Lol, beautiful!

[@kevinlaster4909]

Ask the FAA representative why are they so concerned about drone pilots and trying regulate them so hard to the point of requiring them to get actual pilots license. While people who operate ultra lite aircraft and motorized parasailing are not regulated or required to have a pilot license and they are allowed to fly as high as 18 to 20 thousand feet. How is that fair??

[@jrs-sx5jb]

you hear about the guy in NYC who's drone gave him a good scalping? (he died from that haircut) morons like that guy are the reason why it will cost me $200 to get a part 107. which is why im not going to get a 107.

[@CRA677]

Proving "intent" within an obviously convoluted rule-set clearly sets the tone of the FAA towards recreational pilots. I suspect that most, if not all, recreational pilots will be on the short end of that rather large stick.

[@AlienDrones]

Stick, indeed.

[@jonemeigh5588]

They want you to shell out the money it costs to get your license under 107.

[@AdlersAesthetics]

So here I am publicly declaring I always intend of having fun flying recreationally, any storage of photography or video obtained while fllying on social media is for my own enjoyment and not for furtherance of any commercial entity. There intent clear...

[@machinegundroner9411]

Thanks for the video. My experience with the FAA started last year with this exact topic. And the answer I was given by a different rep was this: Your intent is STRONGLY taken into consideration. Well, how does the FAA determine what my intent was?? How do they read my mind?? The answer?? If you fly anything with a camera attached to it, it is ASSUMED by the FAA that your intention of that flight is to take photos of something for someone. It doesn't matter what you photograph. If you take photos, it's a 107 operation. If you fly anything with a camera, it's a 107 operation. I also spoke with an FAA rep at a training session. The topic of hobbyists came up in the class. This rep referred to hobbyists as, "the muddy water" in the bucket of drone operators. This statement led me to believe that the FAA isn't fond of hobbyists. I've been called a crazy lunatic and a nut after telling others my experience with the FAA. Personally, I believe it's a sad state of our nation when the federal government scours youtube for hours and days on end to find operators who are flying in violation and then sends them a fine. Covid lockdowns have allowed for "work at home" FAA employees the opportunity to do just that. While I believe in rules for safe operation of drones, I also believe in COMMON SENSE rules that are easy to understand. I also have to add that I believe a 107 certificate should be our "waiver" to fly. Why make all these rules restricting flight operations when there's a waiver from the FAA that will allow someone to fly outside those rules. That's why they are called "waivers" and not "endorsements", because they are waiving the rules for someone who has the piece of paper. And don't tell me that big business delivery services don't have anything to do with these policies coming into effect. The FAA has made it clear. They want complete drone integration into the "public" airspace by 2025, which will allow Fed Ex and Amazon to dominate the sky with their BVLOS operations through controlled airspace so customers can get their Prime Specials delivered the same day. Hobbyists will become a thing of the past by 2025. I guarantee it.

[@dnml4713]

If they would just define the operational factors that make it "advanced" (don't even use "commercial") it would be all clear. For example - camera, FPV, capable of speeds over xx, etc... any one of those factors is "advanced" and you need certificate. Don't talk to me about intent.

[@AlienDrones]

Indeed, the hobbyist is going the way of the Dodo bird, my friend... Good Flying!

[@jrs-sx5jb]

@@AlienDrones if they make part 107s free then i will get one. or... i will continue to fly illegally. with all the crap that they make people jump through just to have the tiniest modicum of fun then why not just make drones illegal. because they are well on their way to doing that.

[@thomasash743]

Almost every Drone sold today has a camera on it.

[@BrianC-hh1xk]

Total BS from the FAA ..... Just adding to the original intent of the rules to make $$$$$$$$$

[@mauserwinchester]

Well said, I am sick of being told that these rules are there to make our hobby safe, it is already safe as can be, regulate manned aircraft and leave us alone. All the FAA are doing is creating crimes to tax us over and fill the governments pockets.

[@mattchizmar8453]

This FAA guy seemed unsure of his own comments. So what this guy said is as a hobbyist I cannot make videos that were thought out and planned. So hobbyist aren't allowed to create content and post to show off the beauty of what things look like from above. I'm calling BS on that one.

[@user-kb5os9sl9y]

exactly. I never post my videos but will start immediately and wait for them to come after me just so I can get a payday! They are stomping on our rights!

[@joshenos77]

...of course your intent is to put it online. Why the hell do you buy a drone with a CAMERA?? Look I’m all about doing things the right way and will continue to do so but let’s be real for a second. 1. In the midst of human beings, we breed a large number of idiots, people who simply don’t care about rules or laws, this drew more attention to the hobby. 2. How long have we had RC model aircraft??? The story of the man getting hit in the face is not the first instance, I’m sure plenty of model airplanes and helicopters have had their mishaps long before drones came around sooooo, why now? What has changed that has turned a hobby into an over regulated brick wall? I’d be willing to bet Amazon and other companies that will be specializing in drone delivery simply don’t want the competition and because part 107 is time consuming and not for everyone, this explains the vague nature of the CURRENT rules. The new ones haven’t even been completed yet but make no mistake, at best we have about 2-3 years of flying before ALL RC flying will be deemed illegal UNLESS your “business”specifically deals in drone whatever. There are lobbyists everywhere so the fact the rules are changing again.....well get used to it. This will never end till it does for good. Grey State at its finest.

[@diggingattycho7908]

My drones are retired, I do not want to put up with the bureaucracy. The rules are going to change and compound. Most of the time without notice.

[@RWE870]

Playing baseball should require 107.the ball flys through FAA airspace people make money from it and people can be hurt by it.

[@Mister_Garibaldi]

Exactly! And it doesn't matter if they earn money from it, if they *intended* to earn money from it someday or something something something.

[@Steve-Kratz]

And probably cause far more personal/property damage yearly than drones.

[@Catiadr]

If it's all about safety, how does self promotion endanger anyone?

[@jrs-sx5jb]

i have yet to hear about drones taking down aircraft. canadian geese? sure they are all good when they get roasted up inside a jet engine which subsequently falls into someones backyard but god forbid you take pictures of your yard from 150 feet up... its called they want a "piece of the action"

[@Robnord1]

Thumbs up for the video. 👍👍 To the FAA who will not be happy until fees equal or exceed 'aircraft' cost ... 👎👎

[@AlienDrones]

It is unfortunate, but knowledge is power so it's good to know for sure. Hmmm, or is ignorance truly bliss? Hmmm. 😉

[@jrs-sx5jb]

@@AlienDrones i choose ignorance. i made the mistake of registering my drone. i deleted the email from the FAA a long time ago and never printed it out. i fly over houses, cars, at 394 feet and i could care less. + i take vid and photos. i will continue to do so. as far as i know no accidents have occurred, no planes have fallen out of the skys and i have yet to come across a chick in her pool worth taking a pic of. all the people around me if you saw them bathing would turn you into a cinderblock.

[@paulvanderborgt5581]

I feel like he made the gray area even grayer. I flew at a park today and took a few photos. I posted a couple to my Facebook page for my family and friends to enjoy. End of story. Part 107? According to your guest, probably! I disagree. If this is where things are going, end the division of Hobbyist/Recreational and PArt 107. BTW... I'm studying for my part 107... hope to have it soon so I can take pictures at the park, LOL! Great video and I did read your comments before posting! Keep having your FAA contacts on... ver infomative... I think ;-)

[@AlienDrones]

Thank you for reading the description ahead of time, appreciated! You are one of the elite few, for sure... Kudos on pursuing your 107, BTW! Good Flying!

[@koroba01]

My thought exactly...this is typical government doublespeak.

[@DeafDrone]

Serious questions..... Isn’t the FAA supposed to be about safety? Why the attention to furtherance of a business aspect? After all they are not the IRS. Also what happened to the recreational pilot test?

[@AlienDrones]

Indeed, good questions. The hobbyist test is still in the wind, but with the statement that "there are very, very few flights that are recreational in nature, < 55 lbs is 107..." maybe they don't need a hobbyist test anymore.

[@North_Name]

Is not about safety or the drone is about the camera, cameras are a big problem for officials

[@archaney]

@@AlienDrones And how could the guy even make a statement like that? How would he know how many recreational flights there are where the photos/video are never put on social media?

[@DeafDrone]

@@AlienDrones I never thought I would suggest a Canadian model on anything.. but their approach to drones may be a bit better than the FAA's. I don't get the differences between "Recreational" and Part 107. A drone is a drone no matter who is flying it. If they streamlined the Part 107 test to fit more with the operation of SUAS. And lowered the testing fees maybe us "Recreational Pilots" would be more willing to get our certifications. And also they need to get rid of the gray areas. Just my thoughts... Keep the calls going, it's great getting this information.

[@DeafDrone]

@@North_Name I really think they should be letting the UAS pilots in on the rule making. These bureaucrats don't know the first thing about the camera capabilities of most consumers drones.

[@jamiesullivan644]

The FAA agent's example of the toy store drone hitting someone in the face only viewed from an aviation perspective is warped. A baseball, football, Frisbee, RC Car launching off a ramp and so on... all can do similar damage if not worse and are NOT subject to FAA regulation.

[@Poorschedriver]

Any gun owners in here will recognize the connection between ATF regulations and FAA regs. Every part of the regs is grey area open to the feds interpretation. Part 107 should be defined by an exchange of money or in-kind donation; period. Me going up to take pictures of my house or pictures of a car show, vs happening to fly for fun and take pictures after the fact is beyond ridiculous. It's a money power/money grab.

[@STRThermal]

Wow, that’s clear as mud. I’m confused. I didn’t buy a Mavic air to fly for fun, I bought it cause it’s a flying camera. I wish the FAA people involved here would consider how to apply this to ultralight pilots with cameras. Or people who take a picture from their car? Or a hot balloon? What’s the difference? Or with the example he gave about the kid flying the tiny toy drone? What if that kid threw a football and hit the guy? Should the kids have gotta FAA clearance to launch his football? What about model rockets? I’ve flown model rockets well over 400ft agl.

[@JeffBolen]

I think the FAA guy is nuts

[@mickeymch876]

As of August 2021 there are an estimated 1.2 million "drones" registered in the US. There are less than 200,000 part 107 certified pilots. Some of us have been "hobbyists" for a very long time. The model aviation hobby has existed long before the FAA, their predecessor the Civil Aeronautics Administration or the part 107 certification. CBOs existed before the CAA and decades before the FAA. Until the FAA decided it was in their best interest to redefine the model aviation hobby to include "follow the guidelines of a CBO", even though there is no list of "approved CBOs" and in fact CBO guidelines are very often written for an "event" environment, not the occasional flyer that goes to the part for a bit of footage for fun. A hobby has always been any activity someone does to pass the time OR for fun. For over 80 years the definition of a "hobby" was not determined by congress or the FAA and just because they like to redefine life to fit their control agenda it certainly doesn't make it fact. Some may even say that redefining life to control the masses is nothing less than tyranny. I'm easy, if congress or the FAA wants to legislate me to be a criminal, I can be a criminal but I will never be a sheep.

[@fpvcruzer]

Thanks so much for making this call, I really appreciate this information.

[@AlienDrones]

Glad it was helpful! It's really good to go straight "to the horses mouth" to get information. It helps when we all hear the same thing! Good Flying! 🛸👽

[@thepoweroftruth3624]

If the FAA over reach includes punitive consequences regarding ignorant pilots then why doesn't that same over reach also include forcing law enforcement to pass the part 107 test? 99.9% of "concerned" people, which definitely include law enforcement, that approach a pilot, have no clue what they're talking about.

[@AlienDrones]

Thanks for the comments! While there are some law enforcement who take the time to become educated (good for them!), there are a lot that do not, and are not offered the education by their departments. Not sure how they expect an officer to enforce any regulation, or lack thereof if they themselves don't know the real rules and regulations. This could go for most townships, city councils and other regulators who pass illegal rules and laws because of ignorance of the real regulations. That's a shame for sure as it creates a big can of worms for decent UAV pilots who follow the rules and get hassled anyway... 👍

[@Xterraforce]

I really enjoy these videos of your conversations with the FAA representative. I think one thing it does is expose the fact that some at the FAA are confusing their opinions and their interpretation of the regulations with what the actual written words say. My KZbin channel isn't monetized. I do not have my own business and nothing on my channel is intended in any way to further a business. Same with my Facebook page. I post pictures and videos to share with my friends and community or anyone else who might enjoy seeing them. I'm also innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Good luck proving anything I've posted was used in furtherance of a business or proving what my intent with sharing my videos and pictures was. I probably can't even "prove" my intent, but according to the laws of the United States of America the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.

[@AlienDrones]

Thank you for your kind words! It is so interesting to hear the same thing right from the horses mouth and have hundreds, or thousands of people interpret it differently. Fascinating from a psychological perspective. I'm fairly certain the FAA doesn't give two hoots about "furthering" a business or not if someone is flying at 100' taking pictures of their kids playing with the dog in the backyard and is not going to waste 2 seconds even looking at it. But, fly at 600 feet over a stadium full of people take some video of a football game, post it and get 1M views? That's a different story... I suppose they have to draw the line somewhere, but they just happened to draw it over the hobbyist's feet. Good Flying!

[@williamivey5296]

Two questions come to mind: With all the RC aircraft videos out there that meet the FAA's definition of "commercial", why does it seem as if they are focused on drones to near exclusion when it comes to this? And why does their definition of "commercial" veer so far from established norms? For example, a photographer, taking a picture of a landscape, or even a public street scene, is NOT, as a rule, legally engaging in commercial work even if he or she sells prints of their work. It's considered artistic expression and is largely protected. (To be considered commercial work, it usually needs to be a work for hire, or sold for advertising or marketing purposes, etc.) But if that photographer took the photo from a drone hovering even inches above the ground, decades of legal rulings no longer apply? All that aside, it really does sound like no one involved in the rule making really stopped to think about it, or consulted existing rules in other fields for a baseline to work from.

[@AlienDrones]

Agreed. Seems like a big stretch being applied unequally to UAVs...

[@H.pylori]

This is an interesting video. I, like you felt that there was a clear line of distinction between 107 and hobbyist flying. That line being commercial use in any way. This FAA person generated more questions than answers. I have been practicing with my Mavic Mini. I always check the area for restricted zones and flight paths. At this point I stay below 100 feet and less than 50 yards distant. This is to learn my controls and to be able to retrieve a crashed drone easily. If an aircraft is flying at less than 100 ft, then that pilot has more severe issues to address than a drone, like crashing. My practice area is 1-2 miles off a desert paved road, and the only things around are rattlesnakes and cacti. Now, according to the FAA person, I am a hobbyist at this point, even if I take a photo or short video. The confusion seems to be if the footage is used for commercial purposes. So, I post a short video on youtube channel, which is not monetized, and is a hobby in itself. However, according to the FAA guy, it a company wanted to use a segment or steals it, they are in violation of 107, and not me. Same goes for the ads that youtube places on my video. Then the FAA guy says that if I go back to my desert flying place a second time and place it on my youtube channel, this could be perceived by some in the FAA as promoting my non-monetized, hobby youtube channel that has a grand total of 10 family members and friends followers. Then the FAA guy said that the rules were purposely made to be vague, so that the FAA can interpret the definition of 107 vs. FAA anyway they wish. So on a Monday one person in the FAA will say my video is a hobby, then on Tuesday, another FAA guy will say that the activity is a 107. I am assuming that the new regulations for drones will virtually make being a hobbyist impossible to follow. Note...I did not attack the messenger. In fact the messenger did a great job trying to make the FAA guy commit to some standard.

[@AlienDrones]

I think there's some truth to your assessment for sure... Good Flying!

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

So you thanked the FAA for a concise and clear definition, he responded saying that it's vague and a gray area lol. Unfortunately this discussion doesn't clear up the vagueness or the gray area. The FAA guy said that if you post some videos then that's a 107 flight. I think that was more vagueness and therefore incorrect. What he should have said is that if you post videos on some channel that's not strictly your personal hobbyist thing to do, then it would be a 107 flight. Lots of people have channels where they post pictures of themselves playing with their dogs and other things like that, and if you post your drone video in the same way it's not a 107 operation. If posting drone photos and video on your personal channel next to the videos of your baby, your dog, your weekend project and other stuff like that requires 107, the FAA still needs to clarify that.

[@AlienDrones]

It was clearer to me than when I started. When he said under 55 lbs is 107 except under very limited exceptions, I didn't need to hear much more... I don't plan on trying to fly under some obscure loophole exception so 107 it is for me. I'm not much for playing "what if" or "what about" games with the people who make the rules and have the authority to enforce them, it never seems to work out for me. But that's just me... Good Flying!

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

@@AlienDrones How can it be clear when the FAA guy himself calls it a gray area and vague? If somebody wants to be a hobbyist they have to play what if with the rules because there's no way around it. The way you're looking at it, is just to assume there is no hobbyist section anymore and everything is part 107. If that's what the FAA wants they should just say so.

[@dnml4713]

Yes, I do think the knowledge you gain from taking the 107 test makes you a better, safer pilot. Hell, I'm an aviation nerd and enjoyed studying and learning. The FAA knows this and wants as many people to take the test and get the knowledge - this makes sense. However, they are bending their rules to define "recreation" to force the issue. To say that "social media" or "getting likes" is not "hobby" or "recreation" is absurd. This issue needs to be forced, taken to court, and have the judge set precedent so we can get this knocked back. If you listen to this gentleman's description - he is describing a "legal test" for defining hobby or recreation. Just like you see in the criminal justice system when applying laws or judicial precedent. However, I'm guessing this was an internal FAA legal test - not decided by the courts. And he keeps talking about the "operation" yet doesn't describe "operational factors" that determine if it's hobby. He talks about the intent of footage used after the fact to determine which law applies to the operation itself. He used the word "intent" many times, yet somehow thinks the government can define my "intent". They need to juxtapose this to a commercial pilot license. Does a student or instrument pilot with a go-pro and facebook violate commercial pilot regulations? Great interview, thank you. Put me down in the "mad at FAA" column.

[@AlienDrones]

Thank you, appreciate the comments!

[@DMichaelAtLarge]

So you the aviation nerd figures you get to decide for all the rest of us that it's fun to study that useless crap? I'm perfectly happy to take a test that actually tests my safety understanding for FLYING DRONES! But why the hell do I have to learn how to safely fly an airplane in and out of an airport just to fly a drone? The real issue is not recreational vs. commercial. The real issue is, why the hell does 95% of the test cover complicated things that have nothing to do with flying a drone?

[@dnml4713]

@@DMichaelAtLarge relax old man

[@DMichaelAtLarge]

@@dnml4713 Brilliant comeback.

[@DMichaelAtLarge]

@@MinerMends You honestly can't tell the huge difference between piloting a drone and sitting in an airplane with a bunch opf other people flying in and out of commercial airpots? If you can't, kindly don't talk to me. I don't do stupid.

[@JoseArrom]

I think we need clarifying legislation. The focus should be on safety and air traffic management, not on uses or stiffling artistic communication and technological innovation. Talk to your congresspersons or senators or the Secretary of Transportation.

[@AlienDrones]

Indeed, there's no reason we can't have common sense rule. That being said, not sure why the government would start that now... Good Flying!

[@jrs-sx5jb]

@@AlienDrones " there's no reason we can't have common sense rule" ROFLMAO your kidding right?

[@theDeitz]

QUESTION: Do RC Airplane pilots have to follow the same rules as Drone operators? I ask being the other day I observed someone flying a RC Plane in a flight landing path = a no fly zone for drones. Thanks in advance ....

[@AlienDrones]

That's a great question, and absolutely, RCs are under EXACTLY the same rules as quads as they are all in the airspace. If an RC plane is in controlled airspace without authorization they are there illegally, according to the FAA. Could be very expensive if something goes wrong... Good Flying!

[@Dtipton6662]

So if I fly my drone and take pictures of the area and post them on my Instagram am I still flying as a recreational hobbyist ? I'm not trying to make money and have no intent to sell anything. If that's the case I will stop taking pictures and not post them again. I'm out to fly not to spy. Just for pure enjoyment. Thanks for this information

[@AlienDrones]

You're Welcome!

[@MS-1994]

"Land of the Free"

[@relentlessfpv1822]

Land of the fee home of the slave

[@eb4697]

Not for a long time brother.

[@Tina-bl9hg]

Do I need to follow the FAA rules if I fly my drones outside of the US and bring the footage back to the US? Basically, does the FAA has any ruling over my footage that was taken outside of the US? Thanks!

[@jimcastino]

This is an example of TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT. This interpretation as I listen to this FAA person is beyond over reach. Way too vague. And ridiculous.

[@nipperdog7777]

Exactly!!!!

[@chrisw3493]

Government has 2 jobs (1) protect my rights (2) stay the hell out of my business. That's it they dont have any ability to force us to obey. We are in charge. Its we the people not we the government.

[@fiskiee_fpv]

I went and got my 107 because I didn't want to run into those grey area operations as a hobbyist. Its not that hard, and the worst thing that can happen is I never use it as it was intended. Nothing to lose.

[@AlienDrones]

Good for you! I also obtained mine a couple of years ago and people often asked me "what does it do for you?" As I thought about it, it didn't offer a lot at the time, but now a couple of years later, AND I expect a couple of years from now with the trajectory the FAA is on (and the culture in general that equates drone = bad), it will be night and day if you have it or you don't. We'll see, but I agree, won't hurt a thing, and it's a good conversation piece at parties... 😎 Good Flying!

[@robwasnj]

I just got my drone and thought the same thing about the 107... why not? Then I was told by someone it was like getting a pilot's license and thought wow, I didn't realize but later started reading and took some of the practice tests and honestly I think it'd be pretty hard not to pass with even minimal studying. I guess I'll find out but just having some common sense and understanding psychics gets you pretty far. I think I get the weather stuff now, some of the map details and reading them still confuse me however. Nobody seems to get 100% on the test, maybe I'll make that a goal and see if I can, I did that on my boating safety test they started requiring years ago.

[@fiskiee_fpv]

@@robwasnj It really isn't that bad with a few hours of studying. I did 1-2 hours of watching KZbin videos and practice tests for the week leading up to the test and did fine.

[@AlienDrones]

@@robwasnj Indeed, it does have some trick questions but it isn't too bad. I'm not the best test taker and I think I received 92%. Guessing you won't regret it and there is a lot of interesting albeit not totally applicable information.. Good Flying!

[@robwasnj]

@@fiskiee_fpv Yeah, i trealy looks very doable, I am going to take the test for sure.

[@WilliamDaugherty]

US History is filled with federal employees making claims about regulation that do not hold up under scrutiny. Much of what this rep claims is nonsense. Intent has nothing to do with commercial vs. recreational. And certainly intending to promote one's non-monetized social media profile can be (and usually is) recreational. The court cases are what really matters.

[@Romenet310]

Exactly right HIPAA is a great example.

[@tbjr50thomas]

Very good information for everyone who flies drones/quadcopters. I am a hobbyist but I’m studying for my 107 certification. Thanks for the video it should help others in the hobby.

[@AlienDrones]

Good luck and Good Flying!

[@tbjr50thomas]

@@AlienDrones thank you

[@RemE14MZ]

Nice interview, since I take pictures for my own personal use and don't publish, I sounds like I'm a hobbiest by his description.

[@AlienDrones]

I think you're exactly correct! Easy, Peasy! Good Flying!

[@hfsjfc8111]

That is what I am interested in finding out about getting my first drone. I only want the footage I get for my own personal collection. I have no social media to put this on nor do I care for that. All because I have a camera on my phone doesn't mean I need to put pictures, I take, on Instagram. So with having a camera on a drone, I take footage for my own wants of seeing nature that I cannot normally see. But the thing that also bothers me is that anyone can just accuse me of doing something illegal just because those misinformed about the actual rules of recreational drone flying think we are just perverts or dare-devils trying not to get caught doing something illegal. Then the FAA will just assume I did something wrong until I can prove my innocence. It seems like too much hassle to even try to start flying drones in the first place. Sorry for the long rant but no one every talks about the people who want to capture footage for themselves. It's always about the people with social media accounts and I understand why. The majority of society is this way.

[@jrs-sx5jb]

@@AlienDrones keyword here is "think" lol

[@DRONefuntoo]

What’s the difference between using my camera or cell phone commercially and the faa critical view on drones

[@SunriseWaterMedia]

This is extremely relevant and helpful. Thank you.

[@AlienDrones]

Thank you, glad it was useful!

[@ke4uyp]

@@AlienDrones The real problem here is the FAA is misinterpreting the definition of a business. A business is defined as an organization or enterprising entity engaged in commercial, industrial, or professional activities. ... The term "business" also refers to the organized efforts and activities of individuals to produce and sell goods and services for profit. www.investopedia.com/terms/b/business.asp www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/business

[@joshuashackelford6696]

As an aircraft pilot this isn’t surprising. The FAA tries to make anything they can commercial so they can have more authority and oversight.

[@AlienDrones]

Makes sense. A fairly grey line and difficult to enforce but have to give them points for imagination. 😎

[@joshuashackelford6696]

@@AlienDrones yeah if we were buddies and went flying but you paid for more than half the gas they would hit me for commercial operations.

[@AlienDrones]

@@joshuashackelford6696 Okay, you're buying all the gas then... lol

[@joshuashackelford6696]

@@AlienDrones if your in the Tampa area let me know lol

[@PileofBrass]

Absolute government overreach.

[@ppipowerclass]

This is absolutely right.

[@BrianC-hh1xk]

agreed !!!! I will fly for my own intent. screw the 107

[@4WingView]

I definitely appreciate this. I believe even FPV flyers think this doesn't relate to them either. I certainly didn't think it did. It appears this covers every one.

[@AlienDrones]

Thank you! Indeed, FPV, RCs, all UAVs are covered by the same regulations...

[@frederickplummer1228]

I have been flying FPV for over 5 years and would often post recordings of my flights to a few people to get their opinions on my technique flying gates. With the VLOS, the visual observer rules, and the "intent" cause, I have put away all my drones never to fly them again. I am 71 years old and can't afford to be fined $10,000. I am so down because I have to give up a hobby I like so much. Very sad indeed.

[@hudster80]

This sounds so confusing and petty

[@harrisongould9460]

I can hear this FAA guy's position is that 'everyone is part 107' in his eyes. I am a professional photographer but sometimes I make images for myself...just because. He's saying, if I take pics/video while flying a drone and post them on Facebook for my friends to see, that's Part 107. I am just showing friends and maybe getting new ones but, within this context...it's no different if I took street pics in NYC and post them for 'my friends'. If I attached this new DJI 360 camera to a helium balloon(on a string upside-down) and had it take a tethered flight say 30' AGL and recorded images and showed my friends...because I'm in the air..."that's Part 107"? Isn't the bottom-line here for the FAA to separate the drone's airspace from the Part 91, 135 and 121 Airspace? A 400' AGL max is a great start. Flights over objects...buildings, antennas, etc. within 400' is a wonderful thing. All the rest is common sense. FYI...I am Part 107 and a Private Pilot(not current) and in my eyes...this FAA guy is reaching out a tad too far.

[@KeithsTVHD1]

I just purchased a drone yesterday, now thinking about returning it, The FAA really does not want drones in the sky.

[@AlienDrones]

I get that for sure. Kinda taking the fun out of it...

[@mkirnon3]

they just don't want our drones in the sky, but Amazon and UPS and other big companies. are ok.. Money changes the rules.

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

I wouldn't overreact and return your drone . The situation's not as bad as some people are making it out to be. Go fly your drone and take all the pictures and video you want. Don't post them to a monetized channel and don't post them post them to a channel that represents any kind of an organization. If your channel is just you and your drone videos and it doesn't represent a business or whatever then it's recreational. Besides all that it wouldn't hurt to get your 107 anyway, it's not that big a deal...

[@richiebricker]

@@mkirnon3 Amazon has already bought the skies over america with the Tax Incentives givin to them by congress. Amazon has never paid 1 cent in taxes and recieved millions and millions

[@KeithsTVHD1]

@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 Overreact? I am just being cautious at the moment.

[@oldgoldtopgoldtop6039]

I appreciate the need to regulate airspace but still think there could be some reasonable low attitude that drones could be operated without authorization with certain exceptions. The example of an injury from a toy drone seems extreme since many unregulated toys and objects cause injures on a daily basis.

[@TheBigb1973]

Lol so they want you to fly in a field as if you were flying a kite. I bought my drone as a flying camera for my personal enjoyment. Not to make money. I'm not flying in a field.

[@archaney]

Not just any field, but an FAA designated field. One where you would probably have to join a flying club and whose model aircraft members would be severely ticked off at drones taking up their air space.

[@TheBigb1973]

@@archaney thats when you buy a drone that doesn't connect to a server..like dji does

[@freiermann7]

They just have to tighten that grip. I am on board with registering the bigger drones, if it flies away an hurts someone or damages property there needs to be a way to find the responsible person. I am not on board with anything beyond that, at all. No tracking, no paying fees for nonsense, nothing. About the story with the man getting hit by the drone. He should have sued the kids family directly. There is no need for anymore rules or anything. Causing damage to person or property, regardless of how it happens, already has rules against it. We don't need more piled up.

[@AlienDrones]

Hard to argue with that, good points indeed! Good FLying!

[@Leonardokite]

What a crock. But thanks for posting it.

[@AlienDrones]

No worries!

[@Leonardokite]

@@AlienDrones just to be entirely clear. The crock is the F AA. I just appreciate that you are exposing what we are up against. The most telling was intent: as for me, I was just exploring the video capabilities of my hobby. and then, I just shared that experience.

[@loughkb]

Here's a question I haven't found an answer to. Flying inside. Inside the house, inside a gym, inside a large building. I should be able to do that and post videos on a monatized channel all I want right? The FAA can't possibly have authority over airspace inside my house, right?

[@AlienDrones]

Thanks for the comments! You are correct, the FAA does not have jurisdiction over your device creating content, only the airspace. The _indoor_ airspace such as inside a building is *not* in the airspace that is controlled by the FAA, so you are golden! Good Flying!

[@loughkb]

@@AlienDrones Thanks for your input. I take my part 107 test Tuesday anyway. :-)

[@AlienDrones]

@@loughkb Awesome! Good Luck! 🤜🏻

[@stevemarson9665]

I'm just glad I don't live in the USA. The interpretation of the 'rules' appears to be based on prejudice and a deliberate political decision to eliminate their use. I wonder what the attitude would be if DJI was a wholly US owned company like Apple.

[@Steve-Kratz]

Every "Agency" over here has been granted de-facto legislative powers. That's NOT how the founders of our country intended a Representative form of government to run. Where's the representation in the FAA, ATF, EPA, FDA, etc?

[@williebotha]

How safe are you going to fly with your 107 when something went wrong with your drone and it fall from the sky and hit someone. What will the difference be when you dont have a 107????

[@jrs-sx5jb]

not a damn thing thats why the premise of a part 107 is bullshit. being 107 certified doesnt guarantee that your drone wont fall out of the sky and kill something. part 107 is for schills who are ok with the govt taxing fun. and the FAA taxes the fun out of everything.

[@akshaybissoon6527]

Immediately subscribed after the drone hit the water in the intro 😂😆🤣

[@AlienDrones]

Thanks man! 👊 Good Flying!

[@davidward1224]

Keith, After listening to the call with the FAA, and reading through the comments here, I took the time to read Part 101.41 and Part 107.1 of the Federal Code. Those are the Applicability sections of the respective sections. Part 101.41 clearly defines the limits for operating a model aircraft. Two significant elements of the conditions are; "... strictly for hobby or recreation use;" and "... within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization." Part 107.1 clearly defines its scope; " ... this part applies to the registration, airman certification, and operation of civil small unmanned aircraft within the United States." One exception described in paragraph (b) is "(2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 101 of this chapter... " Taking these applicability sections together I think the FAA person with whom you spoke was generous in his interpretation of "hobbyist and recreational" drone flying. I'm not sure where the idea that 107 is limited to flights that are for compensation came from. But it's certainly not in these applicability statements that define the scope of FAA jurisdiction of sUAS operations in the US. I appreciate your efforts to keep us informed and safe while operating our sUAC.

[@AlienDrones]

No worries! Good Flying!

[@felixruiz2838]

FAA needs WORK !!!

[@Jayfiftyfive]

Thanks for the great videos I just purchased my first Drone a few weeks ago and this is my go to channel to get educated on the rules to be safe and legal. Question? My drone is under 249g and I just fly for recreation purposes only I do not post any photos or videos on any social media platforms. I want to be super clear Those this means as of now I do not need to register my drone or have a 107 to fly legally in the US?

[@AlienDrones]

Thanks for the question! I believe your statement is correct, other than flying in controlled airspace, which requires registration first. Beyond this, think you're golden for now! Good Flying!

[@richardniz]

So basically don't post any drone footage online unless your part 107, thanks big brother.

[@jeffherman5801]

If your sole purpose is to build a profile for hire yes. But to my knowledge after this conversation was posted if you are not going to let other people use your footage for business. Your fine

[@richardniz]

@@jeffherman5801 Think i'll play it safe and keep my footage to myself since the FAA keeps changing the definition of "in furtherance of a business"

[@jrs-sx5jb]

@@richardniz think of it like this . if you write a novel thats fine but only you can see it. if anyone else sees the novel you have to pay the govt. basically its an airspace tax. it has zero to do with safety its all about the govt wanting to make money off of you. (you can enjoy the experience alone but if anyone else enjoys the experience its gonna cost you)

[@EbonySeraphim]

There’s a problem with the presumption that those who post to social media (and know they want to) are part 107 is the fact that both the picture/video taking, and flying could both be hobby and recreation as is the case with me. It makes no sense to say that the combination is now “an operation.” If I took pictures of someone else’s house “for free” I can see that being part 107. If I was on a mission to locate something for someone else, or even myself that may be let 107. But flying and video taking cannot be it. The only thing this guy said that was consistent with other videos was the part about intent. If I don’t intend to start a business in the future with the content captured, then it’s non-commercial. Obviously it’s a gray zone I do agree that many KZbin channels are monetized and for those who have that as a part of their income, if they know they’re going to post content then that is commercial. But my channel is not monetized nor do I intend for it ever to be. If I end up loving it and decide to quit my day job in the future, then it’s commercial. Until then…hobby/recreational

[@jdthedjyt]

A well regulated Air Force, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and fly Drones, shall not be infringed. :-)

[@ChrisTietjen_00]

Thanks. It is a confidence builder to hear the direct conversation with the Authority.

[@adwenb]

If I never post flights on social media and don’t share videos or pictures I feel I am a hobbies only.

[@Binkoro]

Thank you for making this video. But just to be sure, if I’m uploading drone videos to KZbin for private use only (not categorized as public video so that I can share it with immediate family members only) that will still be considered a hobby, right? I don’t intend to, nor do I want to, share them publicly. The videos will NOT show up in any KZbin searches or recommendations based on how it is categorized on KZbin (i.e unlisted).

[@AlienDrones]

Thanks for watching! The key is that you don't flagrantly promote or try to "add value" to yourself or a business by flying in the airspace. Since _publicly_ growing your likes, shares or subscribes on social media checks those boxes (if you're posting video or pics from a UAV) that's where the line gets gray. If you have your media unlisted and not available to the general public and hence the FAA, I'd say you are doing your due diligence trying to _not_ promote yourself, so in this regard you're in good shape to fly as a hobbyist. It's important also that you follow the hobbyist rules and don't perform any operations that would be considered advanced or commercial because that wouldn't matter if you're posting or not, an advanced mission requires an advanced certificate (like flying BVLOS, for instance). Good Flying!

[@cppsage]

I love how there is already one dislike. Awesome. Facts be gone! :D

[@AlienDrones]

Indeed! There WILL be more, guaranteed!

[@jrs-sx5jb]

@@AlienDrones thumbs up for the vid thumbs down for the FAA. ok what percentage of people fly irresponsibly. im not even talking about the guy that was in israel flying like 300 feet away from planes landing. close enough you could see the props spinning...

[@toddbloomingdale5634]

Excellent Information. I personally currently don't have my 107. But sharing to such as facebook and youtube just to share for my friends and families enjoyment is frowned upon makes new drone owners really reconsider getting into the hobby. I've thought about getting 107, but with high costs of just the test alone is costly. Something I need to reevaluate and consider. But a question, does this same rules apply to hobby plane and helicopters, do they need to register as we do and does 107 apply with videos posted of their flights. I've seen many RC planes with video onboard and videos and pictures posted to social media.

[@AlienDrones]

Thank you! And yes, RC planes need to follow all the exact rules as quads, all UAVs are considered the same. So if you see them with videos posted or flying in controlled airspace, over people, etc, they are likely breaking the FAA rules and hurting the industry.

[@KTHKUHNKK]

Sorry I lost interest real fast in all of the technicality BS

[@4-6-3DP]

Not me. Very informative vid

[@theDeitz]

That's government, being I worked for a sign company at one time someone ask what are the rules for putting up a sign in the city / county. I told em that was a loaded question and sent them the 5 pages of their rules, regulations.

[@KTHKUHNKK]

@@theDeitz Yea Brother

[@KTHKUHNKK]

@@4-6-3DP Sorry for my piss poor Comment

[@scottnadeau5280]

@@KTHKUHNKK dont be sorry we are to the point we dont know whats what the gray area keeps getting grayer

[@T-Gill777]

after all that trouble I think I’m going to get rid of it it ain’t worth the headache

[@T-Gill777]

Sorry guys had to put it away just going to use it for emergency use if I need it I’m going up getting my pilot license getting out of the drone and RC field there’s only two things left free in America the air and the ability to move around on the roads I choose the air if they take that away from me we lost our freedom

[@daylonscott740]

The faa doesn't want to over regulate the hobby haha but you can't take a picture of your house or a sunset get the f out of here

[@jrs-sx5jb]

honestly there is nothing different between a hobbyist drone photographer and a part 107 pilot doing the same exact thing for example taking pictures of sunsets. the person with the 107 paid $ to get that lic/cert and can now "legally" post the content to social media. the person without the part 107 can do the same albeit "illegally" they can do that just as safe as the part 107 pilot. this is a just a "fun tax" which is a thinly veiled attempt to over regulate the drone industry to make it less tempting to newbies which will make the FAA's lives easier since it seeks to limit the number of drones. (if the hobby is less appetizing due to regulations less people will come onboard and fly which will make it easier on the FAA at the same time pertaining to the hardcore drone people will bend over backwards to appease the almighty FAA and they can make some $$ off them). Make no mistake this is just a fun tax which has almost no bearing on safety but is instead designed to make the hobby less appealing to all but the most hardcore fans. i obey the safety guidelines in my DJI manual and guess what no accidents here. a person with a part 107 is going to break the laws if they want to regardless of the lic or they will obey the laws... you know how many cessnas buzz houses here? plenty... a drone falls out of the sky crashes on someones roof, broken tile etc. a cessna crashes on your house you die, your house is destroyed and the neighbors houses are damaged or destroyed as well.

[@davidthompson3136]

The FAA rep’s comparison with the kite analogy completely missed the point which is surely about safety in the air. It is ludicrous that the FAA might apply some distinction based on a future monetisation use of any filming from the drone. Recreational q.v. commercial definitions? That has nothing to do with an assessment of whether the flight is being undertaken safely. Establish a clear set of rules of what can be flown over, altitudes, restricted zones, notifications etc and then every pilot can determine the SAFETY status of their flight before the drone leaves the ground. And a 249g drone rotor can take out an eye, so location safety provisions still need to apply. To relax airspace safety standards based on a “kite flying is for fun” approach is a ridiculous statement. No wonder there is so much debate in the US, for flying drones. Thanks for posting the interview. It is always interesting to see how the rules are developing in many countries, now that drone use is becoming so widespread. 👍😎🚀🚀🚀💥💥💥 (Subscribed)

[@AlienDrones]

Thanks! Good Flying!

[@zachcarrizales5038]

Why does the use of video intent define whether or not your are flying recreationally versus flying under regulations defined by part 107 - doesn't that seem like total subjective to anyone else?

[@nsvaluto48328]

So I have a question if want things like a sunset , a sailboat race on a lake which I reside for my personal use im not a hobbyist ?

[@AlienDrones]

I'm fairly certain that if you're taking pics and/or video for your personal use there would be no issues from the FAA. If you start to share them _publicly_ on social media you are on some level _promoting_ yourself and/or your channel ( soliciting likes, shares, subscribes, etc.) which is actually "gaining value" for your channel, which is now leaning towards a commercial operation. Still have to follow all the rules for hobbyist, but besides that you'll be golden... Good Flying!

[@nsvaluto48328]

@@AlienDrones thank you if anything social media wise I put some up in my story part of fb for friends to see thsts about it no KZbin channel here

[@kd5you1]

I'm not sure why the FAA needs to worry about intent. It doesn't matter why a drone is up in the air, because either way it is still up in the air and can still be considered a hazard if not used properly.

[@AlienDrones]

Agree, it is odd. Unless the 107 licensing fee is an income stream, not sure why this makes a difference. If that would be the case it is counter intuitive why the 107 recurrent test recently went from $150 to $0. 🤷‍♂️

[@shizackel]

Drones, drones, drones... I fly rc helicopters over 255 grams (TREX 450 and 470L). I usually video my flights from a helmet-mounted camcorder. No cameras on the helicopters. I will occasionally (rarely) post a flight to KZbin if I pull off a cool move or something unusual happens or I have a question regarding technique I can point rc forum members to. Is there a chance this could be considered 107 assuming all other rules are followed?

[@AlienDrones]

Interesting question that caused me to ponder... Taking video or pictures of someone else's UAV performing an operation probably wouldn't be enough by itself, BUT if you're the pilot performing the operation *and* taking pics/video *and then* "adding value" (another definition I've heard from the FAA recently in place of _furtherance of a business_ ) to yourself by posting on public social media that could be a different story. Probably _does_ meet the threshold of _intent_ even if this does split hairs and in reality probably does satisfy a 107 requirement. In all likelihood by itself though probably wouldn't be given a second look by the FAA. Thanks for the comments! Good Flying!

[@DJPete215]

It’s honestly getting to the point where they are being bullies.. You can’t enjoy the hobby anymore.. They want to completely take ownership of the skies and make money out it.. There’s even restrictions as a part 107. I think it’s simply stupid for them to get mad that we are getting likes and shares with no intentions on profiting the content with post. So now public exposure is a violation? Come on! I refuse to get a part 107 and learn wind patterns etc.. like if my drone has magnetic instrument panels. I think it’s completely stupid the test they make you do. Everything you do with the drone is completely electronic within the app. Learning wind patterns and instrument panels etc is nonsense. You can’t manually restart your drone in mid air or manually fix the errors like if your going done in a normal. Manned pilot setting. They need to provide a better UAV test! I’m selling my drone and leaving the hobby if these guys continue to push us recreational pilots onto commercial to make money from the test. They make millions already from airlines..Now I’m going to delete my wonderful videos I took flying without no intentions of commercial profit because they wanna be bullies.. this just pissed me the heck off!! Honestly!! MAKE A ACTUAL UAV COMMERCIAL FLYING TEST WITHOUT THE POINTLESS LEARNING OF MANNED AIRCRAFT PROCEDURES. Then I’ll definitely get into it but now it’s just a waste. And to be limited to day flights makes it even worst!! No thanks.. Again I’m honestly frustrated with these rules.. ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY!! Amazon FedEx ups all got approved from UAV UNMANNED DRONES flying remotely using just GPS. But they wanna attack the Lower guys just trying to have fun.. 🤬

[@Hazwaste63]

New flier here. It was telling that the gentleman from the FAA could not answer your clear and direct questions without stuttering, hemming, and hawing between every 2 or 3 words. He came across as someone who does not know his business, or has been directed to avoid clear cut answers.

[@tecgeetech1304]

Thank you for your time and effort. I appreciate the content, it was very informative to me and I am a Part 107 certificate holder. I to thought money exchange was the deciding factor. We live to learn.

[@AlienDrones]

Glad it was helpful! Good Flying!

[@TheDarkstar826]

Technically, KZbin could get in trouble for using our videos with advertising on it? Ain't that furtherance of a business if we are hobbyist? True or False?

[@AlienDrones]

On the surface it would seem like it. BUT KZbin has an army of lawyers used to working with copyrights, monetization and creative commons stuff. They are starting to place advertisements on videos on the platform even if the creator isn't receiving any benefit from it, so I imagine there's some clause somewhere that protects them somehow, but that's just a guess.

[@joec7962]

Fuck the FAA. Born free, fly free. 5 lb rock is nothing compared to a 500lb ATV hitting you, you know, those big metal objects that do not require a license... XD

[@kenronbarnes1351]

So what your saying is, I have to have a license for my Dji mini 2? but it doesn’t have to be registered ..

[@AlienDrones]

If you're doing commercial flights you have to be registered anyway... Just don't post pics/vids excessively and publicly and you'll be fine, unless you're showing breaking the rules, then don't post at all... 😎 Good Flying!

[@kenronbarnes1351]

Thanks for the advice I really appreciate that. I was a little worried I wasn’t gonna be able to fly .

[@allensampier5651]

as usual anything regulated by federal govt becomes a cluster bleep!

[@GettingthruLife]

If you have a camera on your drone, then there's a pretty good chance you need your part 107 to fly is what it comes down to. Fly a quad-copter without a camera like with the old phantom one series where you could easily take the GoPro off, then out just flying in a field for pure flying fun/recreation. The camera changes the game these days.

[@AlienDrones]

Indeed the camera changes things, but it's what you do with the footage/photos that is important as well.... Thanks for sharing! Good Flying!

[@JamesLewis-mp9zn]

How the hell did us RC Helicopter Pilots get caught up in this mess. We fly LOS (maybe 200-300' out and 50-100' high) and most don't have a camera aboard.

[@AlienDrones]

If it's in the sky, it's a target. Can't have you getting in the way of an Amazon delivery vehicle... I wish the FAA would just get on board with shielded operations, makes so much sense.

[@penultimatename6677]

If I heard correctly the FAA guy said, the recreational flight video given later to a business is still recreational because of the original intent. Nothing new here. Then I thought he said the business would be in trouble. That means the business has the responsibility of knowing if you have a 107? What if you do but in one aspect made an illegal action. That's like saying, if my electrician or plumber does something illegal I need to know the regulations to stop it. More simply I know my plumber is licensed. He has a number on the truck. How do I know it hasn't expired or possibly fake.

[@billdsb]

Thank you for the informative videos! I have a question I'm hoping you know the answer to. If I post a video on youtube and it is either unlisted or private and I maybe share that with one friend but it does not go out to the general public does this count as commercial? I also had a good chuckle at 8:53 when he said the FAA doesn't want to over regulate drone users. hahaha

[@AlienDrones]

Thanks for the question and comments! Nope, not commercial by itself at all, you're golden there! Of course, this would assume it's simply UAV pics or vids and not an advertisement or something obvious like that. The better verbiage than "intent" would be "add value" to yourself or your social media presence by doing self promotion. It's kinda grey but does make sense... Hope this helps! That being said, the FAA is NOT going to look at simple videos on social pages unless you're breaking the rules and someone turns you in. Have an interview I just finished with the FAA that will talk about that, will take me a bit to edit as I'm planning some fun stuff in it too. Stay tuned and Good Flying!

[@billdsb]

@@AlienDrones Thank you sir!

[@Atsf1976]

That was a great idea to call them and hear what they have to say on the subject since they are the ones that police the industry. Thanks for linking this from your comment in the other video.

[@AlienDrones]

You're welcome, glad it was useful to you!

[@BushidoPhoto]

I disagree. If you fly to capture footage for yourself that looks awesome, it's not for monetary purposes or professional purposes. This FAA guy is blurring the lines. If I want to fly and capture footage for myself, that's not furtherance of a business.

[@HighlanderMikeGolf]

“Intent” is one of the hardest things to prove in a civil or criminal case, unless you have someone that truly and clearly states their intent. Thanks for the video.

[@AlienDrones]

Thank you! I have a feeling that if given the chance that James would probably pick different verbiage given a little time to think about it, and in his defense I did kind of ambush him. I was considering having him on and giving him a chance to clarify, but I'm unsure if most really want to know or not and if he reads many of the comments here he might not agree to it anyway. It is certainly easier to simply decide "that FAA guy is stupid, I'm ignoring everything he said and flying the way I want to", and another video might not change that... Not sure, just thinking with my fingers... Good Flying!

[@HighlanderMikeGolf]

@@AlienDrones I agree totally. I believe James wants to help educate the drone community, and I appreciate the fact that they have people that want to listen and share their knowledge. I really appreciate you putting these conversational videos together and I’m glad the FAA allowed you to record and post them. Thanks again!!

[@GregoryBrown-fe5js]

I thought the FAA’s soul purpose was to make us safe, what is so unsafe about flying unmanned aircraft for the purpose of videos as long as a height guideline is followed. I thought the IRS look after taxes if that’s the reality.

[@Mister_Garibaldi]

The purpose is to brush aside recreational drone pilots so that Amazon can pollute our skies with constant drones buzzing all around us all the time.

[@jrs-sx5jb]

$$$ under the guise of safety bullshit. my drone flying 10 feet above the ground over my vegetable garden poses zero threat to anyone or any plane. but to post it to my fb page i need to pay them $173 plus the fee for a course if i take one. again its all about $$$

[@jrs-sx5jb]

@@Mister_Garibaldi well if an amazon drone crashes on my property im keeping the loot. and kicking the drone remains into the storm drain.

[@scottyfpv5651]

Ok, so if my dji air unit and camera always records my video bc its automatic..then its okay? But if I deliberately turn on a gopro and press record, then post it, I'm in violation?

[@pyrousa]

THANK-YOU!!!!! Glad you shared this! I didn't know this as well ,came as a total surprise to me!

[@AlienDrones]

You are so welcome! Good Flying!