What defines commercial?
- Thread starter nathan
- Start date
MombasaFlash
Heli's & Tele's bloke
Yes, Yes and, Yes it is.
A flight is considered to be aerial work if it is undertaken for ‘valuable consideration’.
Valuable consideration is defined as any gain you may make from the work undertaken.
In even simpler terms:
If, because of SUA flying, you are better off at the end of the day than when you started, you have probably been doing aerial work.
You may ignore any gain of nominal value – a pint of beer for instance, but a crate of the same is probably valuable consideration.
And by the way, as an Administrator you should be better informed. Take the time read the 'entire document' before blurting out a post.
A flight is considered to be aerial work if it is undertaken for ‘valuable consideration’.
Valuable consideration is defined as any gain you may make from the work undertaken.
In even simpler terms:
If, because of SUA flying, you are better off at the end of the day than when you started, you have probably been doing aerial work.
You may ignore any gain of nominal value – a pint of beer for instance, but a crate of the same is probably valuable consideration.
And by the way, as an Administrator you should be better informed. Take the time read the 'entire document' before blurting out a post.
Av8Chuck
Member
Ouch...
If your talking about who needs to comply with Rule 107 then I agree that it can be a bit confusing.
MombasaFlash's explanation is spot on, however it is sufficiently vague because there are things that are not considered commercial for a PPL but are for a drone operator. The FAA has certainly confused the issue of commerce.
The authority for all of this is also incredibly vague. Not sure the FAA has the authority to fine you $10K for something you post on YouTube or 1 beer isn't compensation but a six pack is?
It's going to take some time for a reasonable interpritation for commercial operations to emerge. On the surface Rule 107 doesn't appear to be very restrictive or that expensive. Since the FAA's definition of commerce is so vague, and given their propensity to enforce large fines for violating there interpretation of commerce it seems to me that complying with Rule 107 is pretty cheap insurance.
If your talking about who needs to comply with Rule 107 then I agree that it can be a bit confusing.
MombasaFlash's explanation is spot on, however it is sufficiently vague because there are things that are not considered commercial for a PPL but are for a drone operator. The FAA has certainly confused the issue of commerce.
The authority for all of this is also incredibly vague. Not sure the FAA has the authority to fine you $10K for something you post on YouTube or 1 beer isn't compensation but a six pack is?
It's going to take some time for a reasonable interpritation for commercial operations to emerge. On the surface Rule 107 doesn't appear to be very restrictive or that expensive. Since the FAA's definition of commerce is so vague, and given their propensity to enforce large fines for violating there interpretation of commerce it seems to me that complying with Rule 107 is pretty cheap insurance.
MombasaFlash
Heli's & Tele's bloke
The paragraph concerning 'Valuable Consideration' up to the crate of beer is taken straight from CAP 722. I don't see anything vague or questionable about it. If an operator is better off, either financially or in kind as a direct result of operating a SUA, it is considered commercial gain and as such requires that operator to be legally certified to operate commercially.
Valuable consideration and nominal gain is highly subjective. I guess that's the point of the question, as simplistic as it may sound-- where's the line? It seems like a reasonable question for a discussion forum.
For example, do I need the 107 if I'm just trying to make enough to pay for my drone and batteries? Do I need the 107 if I want to share my pictures on a blog and have google ads? What if I only earn "nominal income" from those ads? What if nominal to me is $50k? Maybe CAP 722 is a little clearer on the topic than the FAA at the moment.
The old motto is probably true... better safe than sorry, and as @Av8Chuck points out... cheap insurance.
For example, do I need the 107 if I'm just trying to make enough to pay for my drone and batteries? Do I need the 107 if I want to share my pictures on a blog and have google ads? What if I only earn "nominal income" from those ads? What if nominal to me is $50k? Maybe CAP 722 is a little clearer on the topic than the FAA at the moment.
The old motto is probably true... better safe than sorry, and as @Av8Chuck points out... cheap insurance.
GlassKnees
Member
I recall reading that some people who posted aerial videos on YouTube received threatening letters from the FAA, even though they were hobbyists. It seemed that the logic went something like this: If you have the "potential" for earning compensation, for example, getting revenue $$ from YouTube because your video got a lot of hits, then you are guilty of operating a drone commercially.
Whether or not this is true, I don't know. I do know that I've tried to contact the FAA for clarification and received no response. Given the plethora of aerial videos posted, I'm sure the FAA has better things to do that harass hobbyists.
I'm still not sure what "valuable consideration" is. I did an aerial shoot of a nearby Catholic Church (got their permission beforehand to do the shoot), and posted it on YouTube. I received no monetary compensation, but I gained some experience from the effort - is that considered "valuable consideration"? What if the church posts my video on their website - am I guilty of conducting a commercial enterprise if the church somehow gains (attracts visitors) from my effort even though I derived no monetary benefit?
Whether or not this is true, I don't know. I do know that I've tried to contact the FAA for clarification and received no response. Given the plethora of aerial videos posted, I'm sure the FAA has better things to do that harass hobbyists.
I'm still not sure what "valuable consideration" is. I did an aerial shoot of a nearby Catholic Church (got their permission beforehand to do the shoot), and posted it on YouTube. I received no monetary compensation, but I gained some experience from the effort - is that considered "valuable consideration"? What if the church posts my video on their website - am I guilty of conducting a commercial enterprise if the church somehow gains (attracts visitors) from my effort even though I derived no monetary benefit?
Area21
Area21
I don't usually have a rant because of my pleasant positive attitude towards life in general. But I do object to people making money from aerial work when they have not forked out money and time to attend and pass a formal CAA PfAW course that cost me the following: RUSTA course £1300. CAA PfAW application £224. Insurance £600. Excludes aircraft and time attending. And I would like to see more policing of the regulations with prosecutions and have these in the media.
Now to finish off on a pleasant note. I do enjoy social media sites and truly value aerial photos and videos taken by professionals or amateurs where they have demonstrated a level of responsibility towards compliance. This is because this is where I started from.
O and happy independence day to the UK.
Now to finish off on a pleasant note. I do enjoy social media sites and truly value aerial photos and videos taken by professionals or amateurs where they have demonstrated a level of responsibility towards compliance. This is because this is where I started from.
O and happy independence day to the UK.
MombasaFlash
Heli's & Tele's bloke
No, but the church might be guilty of infringing your copyright if they don't get permission to use it !!
Area21
Area21
I would not worry about it.
MombasaFlash
Heli's & Tele's bloke
I was joking!
As for the thread, as far as I am concerned the FAA, CAA, whateverAA can be as draconian as they like with their regulations. The stricter the better. I am far too pissed off with great unwashed masses of Johnny-Come-Lately 'Aerial Cinematography Experts' with their GoPro's and Phantoms. Not only that, I would stamp down hard on the hobby sector, because THAT is where the real problem lies with irresponsible tits who don't realise that the gyros in the Flight Control are what keeps the thing in the air, not their piloting skills.
And all those who talk about how nerve-wracking flying a drone can be. A Drone !?? The damn things fly themselves. What is there to get nervous about. Try flying a manual helicopter, i.e. a receiver and three or four servos. Most 'professional' drone pilots probably don't even know what a servo is. Bunch of *******.
Av8Chuck
Member
Your like the nicest guy I know. You must be pissed...
The reason some dronies get nervous about flying expensive camera's probably has less to do with their skills and more to do that the odds are pretty good that their toys will crash.
I keep trying to convince the guys managing this forum to focus on the commercial applications, hobbyists were so two years ago...
The reason some dronies get nervous about flying expensive camera's probably has less to do with their skills and more to do that the odds are pretty good that their toys will crash.
I keep trying to convince the guys managing this forum to focus on the commercial applications, hobbyists were so two years ago...
ProfEngr
Member
So many years ago, hobbyists were driving the train; people that tinkered with this and that to add a new feature or better the stock performance of something. I completely agree that the Phantom series made it all too easy for idiots to put an eye in the sky. That's a good reason why I'll never own one. I've tried flying my toy quad w/o the gyros and it's impossible at my current (lack of) skill level. I hope to get better at it sometime.
I blame the media as much as John Q Idiot Phantom-owner for the FAA sticking their nose where it isn't wanted or warranted. Just because it's a "drone" doesn't make it any different than any other R/C craft that's enjoyed freedom from the FAA up until a couple of years ago. </rant>
I blame the media as much as John Q Idiot Phantom-owner for the FAA sticking their nose where it isn't wanted or warranted. Just because it's a "drone" doesn't make it any different than any other R/C craft that's enjoyed freedom from the FAA up until a couple of years ago. </rant>
Av8Chuck
Member
I characterize it a bit differently. "Drone" has become the catchphrase for everything RC, which is unfortunate, but is probably most associated with multirotors.
MR's didn't really start in the RC community, nor is it a result of anything the DoD did. It's more a confluence of the Internet, a sluggish economy, the wide acceptance of open source, and compitition in the cell phone industry that formed a MR "maker" community.
Although in the early days people might not have been developing this technology for commercial purposes it was mostly being developed by professionals from the constituent technologies. There were very few "hobbyists."
It wasn't until DJI introduced the f-330 and the f-450 which had a flight controller that was much easier to setup and only required basic skills to assemble that there was an insurgence of hobbyists. Then once DJI introduced the Phantom, one of the first plug-n-play MR's the focus of MR developed shifted heavily towards the consumer.
People might be surprised at the average age of the early developers. I don't know for sure but the overwhelming majority of people I worked with from 2009-2012 were 40+.
In the beginning, MR's weren't consumer or commercial but they were professional. It was much easier to sell RTF, kits and components to the consumer market and that's when the hobbyists really immerged and MR's became a thread on most RC forums. That was probably around 2010. Shortly after that is when MRF began, sort of a respite for those professional developers looking for a place to share their understanding of the commercial application of drones.
Now that the FAA has issued Rule107 it will be interesting to see if forums will start up to service the commercial aspects of this emerging industry.
MR's didn't really start in the RC community, nor is it a result of anything the DoD did. It's more a confluence of the Internet, a sluggish economy, the wide acceptance of open source, and compitition in the cell phone industry that formed a MR "maker" community.
Although in the early days people might not have been developing this technology for commercial purposes it was mostly being developed by professionals from the constituent technologies. There were very few "hobbyists."
It wasn't until DJI introduced the f-330 and the f-450 which had a flight controller that was much easier to setup and only required basic skills to assemble that there was an insurgence of hobbyists. Then once DJI introduced the Phantom, one of the first plug-n-play MR's the focus of MR developed shifted heavily towards the consumer.
People might be surprised at the average age of the early developers. I don't know for sure but the overwhelming majority of people I worked with from 2009-2012 were 40+.
In the beginning, MR's weren't consumer or commercial but they were professional. It was much easier to sell RTF, kits and components to the consumer market and that's when the hobbyists really immerged and MR's became a thread on most RC forums. That was probably around 2010. Shortly after that is when MRF began, sort of a respite for those professional developers looking for a place to share their understanding of the commercial application of drones.
Now that the FAA has issued Rule107 it will be interesting to see if forums will start up to service the commercial aspects of this emerging industry.
ProfEngr
Member
Yeah. I see your point. Guess I'm just having trouble adjusting to the new forum layout here. And a bit frustrated at the hoops that have to be jumped courtesy of fed dot gov just for me to try to learn and have a little fun. But this is a discussion better not had or dropped in another forum. I'll leave it be since I'm likely never to be involved in MR in a commercial aspect and this is the commercial section.
Av8Chuck
Member
I don't mean to imply that this forum should be exclusive to professionals, hobbyists can certainly add value and learn in a forum that is targeted to commercial use of drones. Probably much more than professionals will take away from a forum targeted at hobbyists.
When it comes to regulatory issues everyone seems to be frustrated, I just wanted to provide a slightly different context to your previous comment.
When it comes to regulatory issues everyone seems to be frustrated, I just wanted to provide a slightly different context to your previous comment.
Rattler
Member
Your statement is the same stuff I have been hearing people wine about from the time they announced the rules were going to be mandatory. You (and others) are looking for a loophole to get out of having to comply with the rules that have been around since the 1920's. You just need to bite the bullet and join the rest of the adults in the room.
Eyewingsuit
New Member
Admittedly new to this forum, but not new to aviation either in UAV, manned aircraft, and skydiving (where much of 107 was lifted from 105).
Valuable consideration; did anyone benefit in ANY WAY other than ego? If you're promoting someone else' business but got paid nothing, you still benefitted their business? If you receive a free (or paid) battery value, it's gain. You have more because of the work. Seeking to skate the law is silly (and for a moderator, a credibility-killer, coming fresh from the outside).
It's a shock to see how many people with more $$ than brains buy a 1K drone, fly for a few hours, and then call themselves "CEO of XTraHi Films" or "Chief Pilot of Aerial Surveys Inc"(and they're a one-man shop).
If you don't have at least 50 hours of sticktime with a trainer or 100 hours of self-training in a wide variety of contrived scenarios, you have no business being in the business. Those people make it very, very difficult. I look forward to the rash of 91.13 enforcement actions that have already begun.
If you don't know Part 91, read it. Learn how you'll be managed if you screw up. Learn how you'll be charged when you do. Read and memorize the FSIM, because it is that bible that will dictate how you'll be treated.
Without this knowledge... you run a high risk of pain from the FAA.
Meanwhile..."What To Do if You're Ramp-Checked"
violetwolf
Member
Very good post. I have a pro machine (or two) have well over 100 hours stick time over the course of 3 years... STILL have a long ways to go!
Last edited: