Welcome, Commercial Drone Pilots!
Join our growing community today!
Sign up

FAA definition of "Commercial"

Welcome to the forum Matt.

I can understand how it gets confusing at times but I can tell you without a doubt that some of the things you've posted are incorrect. It might be a difference in understanding etc but some of it is outright wrong.I am an FAA liaison (Charlotte NC region) and can speak with a good amount of certainty on this topic. While anyone with the FAA can make mistakes and say something that doesn't make sense so always keep that in mind.

  • A) Yes intent is ALWAYS what determines which set of rules you fly under. This has always been the case so that part is accurate. Anything that is NOT 100% for your own personal enjoyment requires Part 107. You have 2 options in the US (excluding Govt and Public Use):
    • 1) Part 107- by default we are all Part 107 (also known as Civil Operators).
    • 2) If your flight falls completely within the Hobby/Recreational guidelines you have "protection" from Part 107 and you're operating under a protective bubble. If any part of your flight falls outside of this protective bubble the entire flight is by default Part 107 even if you don't have your Part 107 certificate. It's like being in a submarine under water. If any portion of the submarine exterior fails everything inside is now WET regardless of what your intentions were.

  • B) Any drone with a camera attached has nothing to do with Commercial vs Hobby. Something is askew in that translation. There is ZERO logic in that statement.

  • C) Merely posting a video on YT for others to enjoy does NOT constitute Non-Hobby. Some people put every waking moment of their lives on YT and it's pure hobby. This has been clarified by the FAA on several occasions.

  • D) On the flip side if you have a business YT channel and you're posting to it that would be hard to say it's a hobby venture.

  • E) The wording in some instances can be improved but it's not as complicated as you feel like it is. It just takes some time and being deeply involved to understand. Once you get a feel for it, it gets a lot easier.. usually.

  • F) Flying over people is over people regardless if it's 1 or 1,000,000. If someone walks under your aircraft while you're flying you failed to prevent it. It's your responsiblity to either prevent someone from walking under your aircraft or not do the flight. Open Event or not you can't fly over people... To make matters worse for your interpretation... you could be flying and NOT actually over a person and still be in violation... Yep read that again. You could be flying around (not over people) keeping a fairly safe distance from people and have some type of mental or mechanical failure. If the trajectory of the aircraft takes it into a person or people you are again at fault. You are responsible for the aircraft and anything that happens to it from the moment it leaves terra firma until it touches back down again.
If you have the above correspondence in writing I would love to get a copy of it. This might bean opportunity for some additional training for one of our FAA employees. As I stated earlier they are human and do make mistakes but if the statement above is accurate we need to get some additional training to that employee ASAP! Feel free to PM me details if that works better for you.


While a Drone/sUAS could be any number of different aircraft (R/C plane, R/C Heli, MultiRotor, Model Aircraft etc) you have to understand that a Model Aircraft IS a Drone/sUAS. Drone/aUAS is all encompassing.

One thing I do agree with you.. Recreational Operators shouldn't need to worry with getting LAANC etc for flying in Controlled Airspace. They should be excluded from it until such time they are required to learn how to read and understand the FAA Sectional Charts. I have zero sympathy for not being able to fly for Kicks & Grins in Controlled Airspace.


Sincerely,
Allen


Allen,

Thank you for responding and clarifying things for me. By no means am I trying to find loopholes in the rules. Safety is of utmost importance to me. There is quite a bit of confusion about what defines "flying over people". If the FAA doesn't want drones flying over people, it should be clearly stated at the beginning of the rules, not deep into the rules and regs. Second, I believe confusion stems from FAA not keeping their websites synced and updated. On the drone zone recreational flyer dashboard at this address FAADroneZone, which the FAA directs UAS pilots to use, the guidelines say this:

Untitled.png

Nothing there says flying over people is prohibited. And if we refer to safety guidelines of a CBO, the AMA, it states to stay 25 feet away from people, structures and vehicles. Are they referring to vertical distance or horizontal???

But then go to Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations, which I didn't know about until recently, and it states the rules in detail and the "over people" rule is near the bottom. Untitled.png

So if there's room for improvement within the FAA, there it is. Same agency, different websites with differing information. I've been flying with the understanding that the drone zone rules are what I'm supposed to follow because the FAA directs me to register my drone and obtain airspace authorizations at this location since LAANC isn't available in my area, yet.

But reading the FAA's definition of "over people" you get this:
Untitled.png
What I would like to emphasize is that the words "directly over" create a loophole for confusion.
Because later, the FAA says this:

Untitled.png

So the question remains, "what is considered a "safe distance" from people? Are they referring to vertical distance? Horizontal distance??? I'm thinking 200' AGL is a safe distance, but I'm obviously wrong. One 107 pilot told me that three feet to the side of a person doesn't qualify as "over people" and is permissible. He saw that on his recurrent test.

I propose the FAA needs to update the drone zone website with the current and detailed regulations pertaining to hobbyists and be specific in their definitions. Most, if not all hobbyists, refer to dronezone and are everyday people with no knowledge of aeronautics or hidden 107 rules and waivers etc. Most hobbyists don't spend hours upon hours researching the rules to fly legally. I researched and got nothing but more questions. This will clear up a lot of confusion. Please feel free to take my complaint, for whatever it's worth, and submit it to whoever needs to see it. I'm not trying to excuse or condone any type of loopholes or violations. I want this to be as clear and easy for everyday people to be able to enjoy flying their drones without fear that the FEDS are going to beat down their door. Thank you
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
This video is a WEALTH of information but keep in mind it's for Part 107 operations. I highly suggest we all watch it start to finish but the link below starts 2min into it to get right to the point:

 
This video is a WEALTH of information but keep in mind it's for Part 107 operations. I highly suggest we all watch it start to finish but the link below starts 2min into it to get right to the point:



Thank you for the informative video. I'm a little confused by your comment, "keep in mind, it's for Part 107 operations". So does that mean if I'm flying recreationally, these rules don't apply? My initial thought was just that. If I'm not flying commercially, then I don't follow the part 107 rules. IF that's not true, then the FAA needs to explicitly state "these rules apply to all flyers, not just commercial 107 flyers". I've been flying recreationally for six months with the mindset of, "I'm a hobbyist. The commercial rules don't apply to me". Which to a point, is true. Hobbyists can fly at night without a waiver with proper lighting etc. There are no prohibitions about night flight in recreational rules, which causes more confusion. They create what seems like two sets of rules for two different types of flyers. I propose that the FAA make it simple. All flyers fly under 107 rules. Then allow licensed commercial flyers to get waivers etc. That would eliminate confusion. The title of the law causes confusion, too. "Flying under the EXCEPTION for recreational flyers". The title itself lends one to believe that recreationalists are exempt from 107 rules. Again, I'm not advocating bypassing the rules and flying unsafely. I only want clear, precise, rules that are easy to understand. There really shouldn't be a need for explainer videos from the FAA showing us what the law states in writing versus what it actually means. When I first started flying 6 months ago, I read the word "Exception" and thought to myself, "I'm not getting my 107 license. There's too many restrictions for 107 folks compared to hobbyists". For example. Flying over people "who aren't participants of the operation". My first thought is that actors in the video who give consent for a drone to fly over them are participants of the video which negates this rule. However, the FAA's definition of participants really means "crew members" of the sUAS, not actors. So why not change the wording to reflect, "No flying over people except people whom are members of the sUAS operation crew"? The study guides go in great detail about crew resource management etc. That's my whole argument. Change the wording to better reflect the FAA's intent and make it easier for everyday people to understand and difficult for people to find loopholes. Again, thank you for having this discussion with me. I believe strongly in this because I'm not the only person who's confused or afraid to fly. I love to fly and I want to do it legally and safely.
 
Last edited:
There are some "variances" between Hobby & Recreational operations yes. FWIW when you have your Part 107 credentials you know what's right and wrong and you should operate with an abundance of caution. If there was an "incident" and I was called and it was a Part 107 operator I would hold them to a higher standard. I think that splitting hairs over safety is a horrible idea and not something I'll be part of in any regard.

I completely agree that everyone should fly under Part 107 rules (or tougher for high performance of high risk applications) and I also think we need a physical Flight Test but that's just my 2 cents.

For the record, it is not the FAA's fault we have 2 sets of rules. Many moons ago Congress mandated that the FAA could not create any new rules/laws for RECREATIONAL UAS unless it pertained to SAFETY. Because our industry was screaming for something IMMEDIATELY (at the time we were required to have a Pilots License to fly UAS commercially) so the FAA created Part 107 but had to "protect" Recreational Operations. Keep in mind this whole industry, as we know it today, is still infantile and growing quickly. Regulations will catch up and be more reasonable eventually but it's not going to be an easy journey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mavic Mac
Agree Al, regulatory agencies will almost be forced to contract/shrink, and aggregate all of the "stuff" that's out there now. It'll happen, and I believe things will be much more "clear". Until then, uncommon sense needs to prevail. If your spidey sense is telling you you're operating maybe a bit too close to folks not involved with the OP, then you're probably way too close. The FAA has been trying very hard to keep up internally. They've had a huge challenge getting consistency between D.C., FSDO's, and towers. It's getting better, but taking quite a while to onboard everyone and get folks fluent. As operators, we can help by not creating incidents and exercising a ton of caution and awareness.

Start from the potential incident and work backwards to behaviors :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
4,277
Messages
37,605
Members
5,969
Latest member
KC5JIM