What defines commercial?

[Old Man]

I can't say much regarding regs for France, England, Australia, or Canada, but our FAA has been pretty darn sticky on compensation/consideration around non commercial pilots for a loooong time. It's almost impossible to even split the cost of a flight between a private pilot and a passenger that happen to be going in the same direction without violating some rule or definitions that haven't been published yet. Aviation attorneys are constantly going rounds with the FAA on the subject of consideration.

The way it stands if you gain anything other than experience from a flight it would be considered "for hire" once the FAA and NTSB get their hands on it. For those company sponsored RC "pilots" that fly product demos for product consideration or pay the absolutely fit the 107 definition of a commercial operator. If their sponsoring company pays to have their aircraft transported from demo location to location that's a form of consideration. If their airfare from one performing event to another is paid by their sponsoring employer, that's consideration. If their employers held a 333 waiver or 107 license the sponsored pilots could fly without being a licensed 107 operator themselves but the certificate holder would have to be present. What's interesting here is how the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) seems to think they their hobby activities are clearly separated from commercial activities. They most certainly are not. When the AMA sponsors events that provides cash or product awards to winners those winners instantly become compensated for their flying. So Nathan, IMO, if you shoot video that would be posted on this site and there's any possibility you would receive some type of consideration for that video you would be viewed as a commercial operator. Take the tests. I took the one at the FAA site last week and it wasn't that difficult. You need 100% to pass. Next month you can set up a test schedule with a local FAA testing center to get the rest done.

As one that is a Part 61/91 multi commercial certificate holder, but well out of currency and medical, the rules state I'll have to take both the 107 and aeronautical tests to qualify for a 107 license. This is a little amusing since I was a professional sUAS operator for a military contractor with over 2000 hours of logged real UAV flight time with hundreds of launches and recoveries. Even more amusing is one of the reasons for having to take both tests is to also be subjected to a background check. In maintaining qualification for my line of work the feds are so far up my arse they know what I'm going to eat before I do. What's very troubling is that because I am out of FAA flight currency I don't have a clue how my multirotor flights would be classed and what regulatory standards I would be held to during any kind of ramp check, be the flight for hobby or commercial purposes. Flying manned aircraft is just too darn expensive to be burning holes in the sky without a well defined purpose.

I very much agree with Chuck, sites such as this should be looking very hard at finding ways to entice the commercial operators into becoming members. A "Commercial Forum" would work out well. The growth of that class will be staggering and most will need someplace to go where people that understand commercial operations will already be hanging out. The other popular sites are not even a little bit prepared, being too busy arguing over who's brand is better, or ignoring it altogether.

 

[Eyewingsuit]

I very much agree with Chuck, sites such as this should be looking very hard at finding ways to entice the commercial operators into becoming members. A "Commercial Forum" would work out well. The growth of that class will be staggering and most will need someplace to go where people that understand commercial operations will already be hanging out. The other popular sites are not even a little bit prepared, being too busy arguing over who's brand is better, or ignoring it altogether.

Couldn't agree more. I found this site looking for other 333 and already-cert'd 107. My employment is UAV 110% of the day, and it truly gets tiring reading/finding so many "how far can you fly your Phantom?" posts. Distance isn't something I care about in the least.

I'd love to see a commercial safety practices forum. Been out on one site where there were three companies flying in the same general area, all for the same contractor. One of the "professionals" (with his P4 in a styrofoam box, no monitor, no safety gear) laughed at our launch/land setup, yellow vests, orange cones, and launch/land announcements. Strange thing, turns out the gig was more or less an "audition" to see who would be getting future work for this commercial real estate company. The VP of the company chose us, as we behaved, looked, acted pro, safe, and had a shot list prior to the shoot, even before meeting their marketing director.

 

[violetwolf]

Stick around guys. It's people like you that can build this forum into what you describe. As mentioned, there is no hope for any of the other forums that are completely overrun with the P4 / GoPro crowd.

Nathan and the guys could reach out to companies online/email and invite them on board.. (Any other suggestions to reach out?)

 

[ProfEngr]

For me, a commercial forum would help to understand just how far the FAA will stick it's nose in my attempts to enjoy the hobby. The last thing I want is to get on their radar in a bad (or any) way. Of course, it could also make me decide that it's just not worth the hassle for the experience I expect to have and I'll just take my $ to other places that fed dot gov doesn't grind under its heal. Better stop myself there I feel a rant building.

 

[Old Man]

I understand how you feel, recognizing that for someone that doesn't actively seek/promote professional work but posts videos online without intent to generate revenue a commercial status is a bit over the top. As long as the hobby is pursued and not a job there should be little FAA interference. I think the sUAS registration thing was enacted more to define model aircraft as "aircraft" than for actual registration purposes, providing the FAA a means to establish a clear line of separation and to assure all had to follow a basic set of flight safety rules. Remain within those rules and hobbyists should not have problems. The private farmer/rancher (or similar) that uses their equipment in rural areas to assist business management will likely not experience federal encroachment because of their separation from the public. They still need to fly safely to assure the safety of their employees and themselves.

However, consider what we have experienced with the proliferation of people that insist on flying BLOS, over groups of people, in the middle of sporting events, or over the middle of busy highways in metropolitan areas. Many of those people have been and are doing what they do to garner as much attention as they can, and revenue where possible. There has to be a standardized set of rules regulating those activities, along with a means of "punishing" those that elect to avoid flying responsibly and putting the public at risk. Such also takes a step in "leveling the playing field" to a small extent, establishing a qualification level that will expand access to things like liability insurance. The FAA does not require insurance but cities and customers certainly will, and the ability to obtain and maintain coverage will shake some bad apples of the tree. They may not know how to fly but the license shows they certainly understood the rules.

As for how far the feds will go, just remember that old Beatles song "The Taxman".

 

[ProfEngr]

It'd be nice if they'd stay out of my hair as long as I'm inside my property lines and not in 'proximity' to other manned aircraft. Sort of like the DMV/Police can't really do anything if I or my car doesn't have a license while I'm on private land. Oh well.

 

[Old Man]

I don't believe they have any desire to interfere at that level. Although the regulation requirements seem over the top there's just no way to assure everyone is playing by the rules, and there needs to be a way to work the system back to those that don't.

 

[Brainstorm]

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.

The upside is that a threatening letter from the FAA about an allegedly commercial YouTube video does not easily translate to an enforcement action. Jason Koebler at Motherboard obtained a list of all FAA fines levied at sUAS operators. It turns out that not a single UAS operator was fined for commercial activity, i.e. making money off their UAS flights. All the fines were for violation of airspace or otherwise flying recklessly.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-faa-has-never-fined-anyone-for-flying-a-drone-commercially

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.

Given the FAA's now codified classification of sUAS as full-fledged "aircraft," they clearly want even hobbyists to behave more like "professionals." This approach is parallel to the one for full-scale/manned aircraft. Even private pilots who fly purely for recreational fun have to undergo training, pass written and practical tests, and stay current.

The way it stands if you gain anything other than experience from a flight it would be considered "for hire" once the FAA and NTSB get their hands on it. For those company sponsored RC "pilots" that fly product demos for product consideration or pay the absolutely fit the 107 definition of a commercial operator.

It will be interesting to see where the FAA goes on that. Until now, I don't think the FAA has given any indication that they consider sponsored RC pilots to be engaged in commercial activity. Case in point, I'm not aware of the FAA sending any threatening (cease and desist) letters to sponsored RC pilots.

That said, I can easily imagine sponsors and event organizers starting to require pilots to comply with Part 107. The corollary I would use is organizers of hot air balloon festivals, who often require participating pilots to have a CPL, even if all they get is a free hotel room and a pilot gift basket.

It'd be nice if they'd stay out of my hair as long as I'm inside my property lines and not in 'proximity' to other manned aircraft. Sort of like the DMV/Police can't really do anything if I or my car doesn't have a license while I'm on private land.

Agreed. There has to be a line beyond which the FAA's arm can't reach. Right now, flying a UAS indoors is clearly out of the FAA's jurisdiction, since indoors is not considered "navigable airspace." However, there's a case working its way through the courts in CT, which may eventually give us a new definition of "navigable airspace," with a possible exclusion for unregulated flying low over private property and/or below treetop level. I'm crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath.

 

[Old Man]

Brainstorm,

The FAA has been pretty hard on Private Pilots in the past for simply splitting costs of a flight between other people in the plane traveling to the same destination, so there's a lot of precedence for the FAA to go after hobby operators generating revenue though posted videos receiving hits at sites such as You Tube. Vimeo may be a different story because I don't believe they use a similar ad content inclusion with member videos. Aviation law is rife with cases where the FAA violated non commercial pilots for the slightest infraction of the rules, even when such rules were poorly defined. The FAA has generally won in those proceedings if money changed hands between a Private Pilot and his passengers. The lane that can be traveled is very, very narrow.

As for lines the FAA can't cross, indoor flight will certainly remain out of their reach but anything outside that could be construed as careless and reckless will likely be in their domain, even on private property if a public gathering is present. I don't think we're dealing as much with an FAA desire for expanded authority as much as with the federal government, or governments in general, in expanding their control over the population. The only thing a government does well is protect itself, and what better way to self protect than to gain control of anything external that could eventually generate some perceived threat?