Is it Recreational or Part 107? - The Game Show!

[@bmkay]

I'm a part 61 pilot with a part 107 certificate. This video confirmed for me that the rules distinguishing between recreational drone use and part 107 operations are ludicrous and require an FAA lawyer to understand.

[@RGMGFitness]

That was spot on! Just shows how complicated the rules can be and it’s never a simple black or white answer. Nice job on this video! 👍👍🤣

[@markshipman6008]

I have to say that was one of the most entertaining videos, on what otherwise would have been, a dry and boring topic. Kudos to the team for the creativity, filming and acting.

[@iamtuben2]

Greg, you guys really made my day. A funny and educational mock game show (with a prize) about flying drones. You should make it into a real show with real contestants and real prizes.... you can thank me later for the idea😂.

[@MystikSquash]

This made my day! Thanks

[@HighlanderMikeGolf]

Awesome video! Watched it earlier this week and just now with my daughter (who’s also a Part 107 pilot). We about fell out of our chairs laughing! Great job to you and the team Greg for putting some great humor into a standard scenario! Love it….you should do a weekly, or at least a monthly game show!😂😂😂

[@DDibert]

Great job. Love it when people make learning fun!

[@madpropspodcast]

As someone who makes drone related content and tries to make it entertaining, just wanted to say thanks. Y’all make it look easy and I know it’s not. Keep doing what you’re doing!

[@heiser_bill]

Creative and funny yet educational! 🤣

[@davidhayden6724]

Great video! Very entertaining and informative!

[@edruttledge342]

A good start to the day!

[@wstdrone]

Can the next game show cover flying over people? There could be 4 categories of questions!!! Most answers would be wrong.

[@Stirling_RC_Videos]

Great sketch...it was funny and fun!

[@annihilatedfilms1173]

That was a super awesome video! 😂

[@johnjajack3673]

Well done!

[@CompuTechoo7]

😂😂😂 Love it! You made my day. 😃

[@BennyTheNerd]

Is there an international certification to fly drones non-recreational, I sail my sailboat world wide, does NOT spend much time in the US, will be buying my drone(s) in the US, and are having a KZbin channel which is monetized. So my question is how can I make my drone recordings legal? Thanks

[@digconway1121]

That was great.

[@johnbaldwin22]

Scenario: Grandma buys little Billy a $40 toy drone that weighs 300 grams and can fly to a max altitude of 40'. Billy flies it at a local park that's within the inner ring of class C airspace. How many years of Juvenile detention will Billy get? He pointed the gimble down to record an overhead video of his sister riding her bicycle. Can he now be tried as an adult? The FAA and DA learned he traded the footage for Pokemon cards...? Edit: written in jest, in theory the toy could fly away but good luck getting this information to the parties involved.

[@MikeEngel]

Love it!

[@eddiec9756]

Yeah this was pretty funny because when I was trying to get my part 107 I thought that the lines between licensed and recreational crisscrossed like a bowl of spaghetti

[@MichaelHollon]

Question in regards to remote ID. If you don't currently have it on your drone are they currently in forcing it? Are they really enforcing it? And have modules come down in price to where they're actually affordable for the average consumer?

[@michaelwblade]

March 16 is the date that we need to be in compliance.

[@SlackerU]

The moment there is a drone incident, like a prison flyover or a stadium flyover... you'll be on the 'question-him' list if you are not properly flying with a RID. I'm near 3 airports who I am fairly sure can see RID far beyond what their restricted-airspace covers. If you're heavy then it doesn't hurt to let them data-log you b/c they're looking at you anyway as someone has probably called about your flying so they know you do it. When you drive through deserts you'll see signs that say 'plane surveillance' & well all cities use planes. Sometimes it's cheaper than sending a cruiser with a question-crew.

[@LIVINGINFARGO]

Thought it’s gonna suck and cringe… it’s actually funny and informative!

[@flmediasolutions]

This is awesome :)

[@johnpawlicki1184]

Entertaining but couldl be confusing. 😁

[@ICE0124]

​@@undercoverfaaguy2429I feel like if you are taking video or not it doesn't matter. It all depends on the intent of the flight. Here you would be flying for a business to get information so that business can make a business decision to get a new roof.

[@jackgill2501]

Awesome

[@wolfpack4694]

beautiful way to make the points! Mr Z Lego Maniac is quite debonaire!

[@frankstone]

Very cute tutorial!

[@ponticelli]

Super nice! 😂 well done!

[@jayangkim2064]

I love this content :)

[@txarchdroneguy4731]

Greg, I enjoyed the contest!

[@365potatochips2]

This game is a spot on fun but tell you must be having a part 107 😅

[@Montana_horseman]

Arrow "quads don't need roads" McJones actually works for the FAA, you don't want to have to deal with Arrow, so know your rules. 😅

[@JeremyStroud]

I thought the first thing to do with the drone would be to register it with the FAA? 😆

[@stevenpeck5949]

This was the best!

[@randomghost4385]

I charge $106.99 for my service so I’m within Part 107 limits

[@wulfffpv]

OK that was a good vid. Funny stuff!

[@bibleandblues6634]

Go to Bend Oregon there's a blockbuster there

[@wardie007]

Great video!!

[@packfan19281]

this is really ggod!!

[@DonBrowne]

I have mentioned before, someone on the staff is a great comedy writer. Or maybe all the staff were recruited from a comedy club?

[@PilotInstitute]

We definitely have a great comedy writer!

[@jrhager84]

To the one guy who gave this video a thumbs down - BOO

[@SW-Video]

Brilliant!

[@de3562]

That was good

[@ericholder2026]

TOTALY 100% WAY TO REDICULOUSLY COMPLICATED! SCREW FLYING FOR FUN!!

[@AveragePilot9201]

Love how the joke is how stupid the FAAs rules are

[@vonheise]

Weird, entertaining, and informational, and while the information is likely totally correct, I would do the first scenario anyway and in fact have done it as only the homeowner and I knew. No money, no harm, and I seriously doubt anyone would ever get any more than a verbal warning. The rules should be about safety and money only. My opinion is recreational as I am not getting paid and no flying is taking place...

[@re7dude]

@@undercoverfaaguy2429 Your idea of being a nice person straight from the FAA website: "Goodwill can also be considered non-recreational. This would include things like volunteering...on behalf of a non-profit organization." www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_flyers

[@Jasontyo]

Recreational is what you admit to "my intent was for recreation, officer" right?

[@bobbylefebvre6298]

Cool video

[@mattalford3932]

I just inspected my roof with my drone the other day. I'm going to do it again today too. Bet that's not part 107.

[@duanerichardson1669]

Love it 😂

[@foggytrail]

Is a church legally considered a business, though?

[@re7dude]

FAA website: "Goodwill can also be considered non-recreational. This would include things like volunteering...on behalf of a non-profit organization." If the intent of a flight is to inspect a roof, then it IS a roof inspection. www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_flyers

[@PilotInstitute]

Lack of Money exchange is not a deciding factor. The purpose of the flight is not recreational. And @undercoverfaaguy2429, that comment made no sense. Taking videos with the purpose to give it to the church is a part 107 activity, there’s no discussion there.

[@HikeFly22]

Blockbuster 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@VicMossPhotography]

❤

[@STOVLFPV2023]

I'll stick to whoops not covered in this video....

[@PilotInstitute]

All remote control aircraft are covered by FAA rules.

[@hankwojo]

Almost everyone found this video great but I found it confusing. I think there should have been a recap after the video to seriously explain each situation. I almost wasn't going to leave a comment. After reading all the positive feedback, I felt a little stupid, thinking to myself, don't I get it? But I thought maybe there's others out there who are a little confused and afraid to leave a comment.

[@NicholasColdingDK]

Uh! That's difficult..

[@bobbylefebvre6298]

Funny game show

[@tonym6920]

Funny!

[@spladam3845]

they are tired of answering your dumb questions folks

[@mavixrox1657]

Always fun to watch the playfulness of pilot institute!

[@mattalford3932]

This very company let one of their office workers fly the avata. Then used footage she captured in a monetized KZbin video in violation of part 107. But i digest. Dont do anything dangerous and the faa wont mess with you.

[@markbyfield7050]

If she shot the video originally for fun/recreationally it’s not a violation. And it’s digress, not digest.

[@scottstephenson1970]

Creative video and method to drive home the distinction between recreational and Part 107. Thank you!

[@felixruiz2838]

All these FAA rules have a point but in the real world falls apart sorry I have to say this .

[@RickyL305]

Hilarious!

[@AfterezMedia]

Great twists on each answer; don't forget the details! 😃

[@davidclifford4536]

You nailed it

[@BlueDroneBlues]

I hope Greg gets to at least keep the sticks holding the Phantom 1 together! Talk about a rigged show and a rigged prize!

[@dakotaboy80]

That host is a jerk.

[@YellowRoseDrones]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@918scott]

Silly but good information!

[@independentdronechannel170]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@IO_Darren]

Wow. I really thought that Greg was more well versed in the rules. i'm quite disappointed in his performance here. I'm really considering asking for a refund. (KIDDING!!!)

[@jhayjay-2x]

😂😂😂

[@MountaineerFPV]

The game certainly is rigged and taxed 🙊🙈🙉

[@dennishixson1908]

Can you fly recklessly next to buildings with part 107? I seen a news clip where this guy was flying recklessly next to buildings and that's just one of the reason he has been fined by the FAA.

[@PilotInstitute]

Reckless flying is definitely an FAA violation.

[@SlackerU]

I ponder these license needs a lot as I have neighbors who constantly claim privacy-violations, not-my-problem. I'm from the RC racing childhood so I've always known someone with a drone b/c they always want to test changes to tech. The squirrels are eating our lead-roofing parts to shave down their teeth, surely I don't need a 107 to go see, with my neighbors, if their roofs are being destroyed too. Given I'm not going to go get fiberglas in my hands(by roofing). Maybe we need traps to relocate the tree rodents or hunting licenses. Even the replacement lead-parts sitting outside for replacements are getting chewed by these now-pests. As for Kate... uh once you're 10% damaged you need a new-roof so to access damage is kinda irrational as none of Kate's drone footage would be used by the insurance/contractors who actually do the licensed-inspections. Plus the Government has annual eagle-view maps open to the public so Kate's findings might be publicly available anyway(in that 10% damage is a new roof, she' isn't accessing damage in a way that would change any extra need for repairs). Like if my sibling builds(contracts the contraction of) a house I can't inspect the construction of it with my non-107 drone? So will the kids need us to have a 107 to look at the home being constructed if I find odd works(I'd assume I'd hire an expert inspector to gather commercial evidence, & not the non-107 drone)... I guess they can if we enroll them in college?... Some of this 107 fear is sometimes extreme. I've seen red-OSSF(sewage) lights & had neighbors fix the issue they were accidentally violating for pubic-health(sewage on people). Surely I don't need a 107 b/c I know how sewage works to maintain pubic health. Given I don't actively search for OSSF offenses but in flying you see what you see & red-warning lights in low-light are hard to ignore for multiple days... I've also seen illegal gunfire when trying to study fireworks on new years, surely I don't need a 107 & a security company to report offensive/dangerous misdemeanors. The funniest part is though it doesn't seem like I can use the footage for public safety... it was odd that dispatch that night seemed to think my known flights were a target... I was behind them blinking as any other UFO with RID could have been(no RID now). If they had on hearing protection then they'd have heard my buzzes in-between their bangs-sessions. Illegal burning is another one I ponder as I've been flying in illegal-fire fog that was so awful I had to stop flying. Seems like we should be able to expose more without the government sending over their surveillance planes on windy-days to claim the smoke-source is difficult to see. Below 6mph winds is illegal to burn outdoors in my State(not including camp-fires in use or BBQs in use), when it is perfect weather to send up a drone. Seems like privacy should end when drone-weather doesn't need your leaf-fires.

[@NathanBronis]

Not a single aspect of this should be a thing, 400 foot flight restriction in residential areas, airspace entry/exits or crowds should be the only finable offenses. The rest is a money grab to limit folks from making a living and filming. If the actions is not posing a threat or cost then it should not require a license, this is like saying you uave to have a license to use a trail camera or remote controlled car, beyond silly.

[@mattalford3932]

Posting videos on social media is a constitutionally protected right. Even if we make money. I'm going to give drone footage to my local weatherman because he asked if he can see footage I get. I told him sure. No problem. Amd it won't ever be a problem. Because the first amendment exists.

[@MirrorUpIdaho]

#FAFO

[@ICE0124]

Guys wtf I posted a video of leaked documents and it got removed and I got arrested! Wtf government what about the constitution!

[@WOTHFPV]

I call BS. Using a drone to take pictures of a roof is NOT an "inspection". I do REAL roof inspections weekly, there is a lot more to it than taking a few pics to see damage. Anyone can buy a drone, fly it up to look at their own or anyone's roof (or anything else for that matter) and its not a commercial job. I have already spoken to the FAA in Denver about this EXACT scenario. Shame on you for suggesting otherwise. Before 107 (back in the 333 days) I flew my RC plane over homes the day after a hurricane hit Lakeland, FL. I did "property inspections" for free for anyone that wanted them. I was contacted by the FAA. After explaining what I was doing, they told me that is not a commercial operation and no 333 exemption was needed. They actually thanked me for helping and just asked that I be mindful of rescue operations. What about "inspecting" a car? A boat? Using the word "inspect" changes nothing as you really didn't even explain a real "inspection". ANYONE buy a drone, take all the pictures of a roof they want. If they wish to share those photos with a friend, so what? Now if this was roofing company, and they wanted free photos from a non 107 pilot that would be different. So are you saying that if Debbie flies her drone over a field, and the owner of the field stops by and says, "hey can you take me some pics of my field so I can "inspect" it later - that would be a commercial flight? Nonsense. This is misinformation or at the very least incomplete information. What if the pastor of the church bought his own 249g mini and took some pictures of the roof to see damage? Does the pastor need a 107? OF COURSE NOT! And you teach 107 rules to people? There is also INTENT which you guys didn't even talk about... ??? You should have covered the pilot's "intent" at the time of flight as the FAA has spoken about that many times over the years. You guys need to do better. I would go to DroneU if I wanted misinformation. ;)

[@re7dude]

If the intent of your flight is to inspect a roof, then it IS an inspection - www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_flyers

[@PilotInstitute]

Unfortunately you’re incorrect. Contact [e-mail] is you don’t believe us.

[@VicMossPhotography]

@@WOTHFPV Kevin isn't part if the FAA's Communication Office anymore. And if you're looking for answers, I wouldn't go off of a FSDO response from 2016. A lot has changed in 8 years, including FSDO education. I work with Denver FSDO, they know the right answer now. As far as quoting something about 107 versus 44809, it's quite simple: 14 CFR 107 is the default set of drone regulations for ALL drones flown in the NAS. There is 49 USC 44809, which is the Recreational Exception. There are eight separate criteria for flying outside 107 under recreational rules. And the first one is the one that almost always disqualifies 44809. It states: " The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes." So if you don't satisfy that single criteria, then it's a 107 flight. For your scenarios: ~Are you inspecting the roof for recreational purposes? No, 107 flight. ~G.A. Pilot sees a broken fence during a fun flight? Obviously not 107 since he's in a manned aircraft. And a commercial manned license isn't needed either. His video is just something he saw while up flying. Would he need one to report a sunken car in a pond? Of course not, it's a silly question. ~Cindy finding using her unregistered drone to find a kitten without her taking a TRUST has multiple issues. Which by the way is also a stupid question, and your comment about PI students not flying acro shows your predisposed prejudice against Pilot Institute so it invalidates your concerns. But to answer your questions. Is Cindy flying the 160g tiny whoop for fun? If yes, it doesn't need to be registered. Once she would fly it under 107 (why would she?), then it would. Once it's outside, she does need the TRUST if she is going to fly it outside. Once she starts looking for the kitten, it is no longer recreational, and technically she would need a 107, regardless of who she gives the imagery to (also, utility companies are private companies not gov't employees). But the bigger question is who cares? The FAA certainly wouldn't. Nor would anyone with an ounce of common sense or humanity. Your questions are crafted to make PI and Greg look bad. They don't. They just make you look like someone with a bad case of sour grapes.

[@WOTHFPV]

​ @VicMossPhotography Wow Vic. I love it when you speak like you know what you are talking about. All of my questions were rhetorical Vic. I already know the answers Vic. ~Are you inspecting the roof for recreational purposes? No, 107 flight. - Do you have any idea how dumb you sound? How does one "inspect" a roof for recreational purposes? That is just so dumb. Maybe if you and Greg knew what a real roof inspection was you would understand just how silly you sound. But you keep taking your pictures with you fold up toy Vic. Using this video's first example. Kate. She can fly over a church all day long and share that video with anyone she wants. She does not need a 107 for that. Greg is wrong, and if you are that dumb - join him. "In furtherance of a business." I am well aware of the FAA's view. Who is the business? The non-profit? You see there is the issue, as non profits are also known as "non-business entities". How can one further a non-business? What if its not a church, just a friend? Can I fly up and do a "gutter inspection" of my buddy's house without a 107? YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But you go ahead and have the FAA tell me different? Lance or Abby still working the Denver FSDO? Your assumption that a 12 year girl would need a 107 to look for a kitty is also beyond dumb. Yes, she would need to take the TRUST test, again I already know the answers. That was a trick as one has to be 16 to take the 107. Remember, Cindy started her flight for fun. It was in the middle of her flight that she hears a kitty and starts looking. What was her INTENT when she started her flight? * What this video completely ignored was INTENT. I found that remarkably dumb as that matters a great deal. The acro comment was a joke, Grow up Victor. I have nothing but respect for those of you that cannot fly acro. lol So if someone makes a joke or says something you find offensive that person's concerns are now invalid??? Got it. For the record. I love what Pilot Institute does. I also appreciate what you've done for the drone community. Remember when you used to make videos with Paul Alexander/Aiken? Good times huh? How'd that work out for ya? You ever get that $15,000 they owed you? "So the bigger question is who cares?" Did you really just say that? So now the FAA doesn't care if someone flies commercially without a 107 so long as its for a good cause? PS: NOT all util companies are private. Some cities own their own power companies. City employees are Govt. employees. Aspen, CO for example. Again, I love it when you act like a know it all. Keep it up!

[@PilotInstitute]

But why not email the FAA Help Desk directly instead of relying on your own interpretation and a conversation with a FSDO person 8 years ago. If you send me your email address, I'll even do it for you and cc you on the question.