2 ms·

"Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all ofthe criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95." Then from 112-95 part 336(a)(1), " t

"Part 107 does not apply to model aircraft that satisfy all ofthe criteria specified in section 336 of Public Law 112-95." Then from 112-95 part 336(a)(1), " the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use;" So these are rules for people doing chimerical work like "property assessment" or outdoor photography. Not your hobby flyer / AMA member.

wlesieutre 10y ago
Where does "with a couple seconds of highlights posted on a monetized YouTube channel" fall in that? No longer a hobby?
- aioprisan 10y ago
  Are you asking for model aircraft or drones? I believe that if your intent is to make money from the beginning, it classifies as commercial usage vs hobbyist. But if you post a video from a drone and it winds up going viral afterwards, and then you get a payday, your original hobbyist intent still counts. If you intend to make it a career, get a commercial pilot's license, so that you can fly aircraft and drones under the same license.
- walrus01 10y ago
  The FAA has in the past sent demand letters and attempted to subpoena documents related to payments from youtube videos. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/man-who-built-gun-drone-flamethrower-drone-argues-faa-cant-regulate-him/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/man-who-built-gun...
  - aioprisan 10y ago
    The context of the request was to figure out if the stunt of firing a gun that was attached to an UAS was done with the purpose of gaining notoriety and money, and if it was in the public's interest, as it could cause harm to the public. The FAA won, drones are aircraft, and the FAA regulates all aircraft. But broadly, this was a case about public safety, not about revenue from YouTube hits: "On the broader question of the legality of arming a drone, the law prohibits recklessly endangering the public when flying an aircraft."
    - walrus01 10y ago
      not gun or flamethrower related: http://wtop.com/consumer-tech/2015/03/faa-dont-post-drone-videos-on-youtube/ http://wtop.com/consumer-tech/2015/03/faa-dont-post-drone-vi...

wlesieutre 10y ago

Where does "with a couple seconds of highlights posted on a monetized YouTube channel" fall in that? No longer a hobby?

aioprisan 10y ago
Are you asking for model aircraft or drones? I believe that if your intent is to make money from the beginning, it classifies as commercial usage vs hobbyist. But if you post a video from a drone and it winds up going viral afterwards, and then you get a payday, your original hobbyist intent still counts. If you intend to make it a career, get a commercial pilot's license, so that you can fly aircraft and drones under the same license.
walrus01 10y ago
The FAA has in the past sent demand letters and attempted to subpoena documents related to payments from youtube videos. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/man-who-built-gun-drone-flamethrower-drone-argues-faa-cant-regulate-him/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/man-who-built-gun...
- aioprisan 10y ago
  The context of the request was to figure out if the stunt of firing a gun that was attached to an UAS was done with the purpose of gaining notoriety and money, and if it was in the public's interest, as it could cause harm to the public. The FAA won, drones are aircraft, and the FAA regulates all aircraft. But broadly, this was a case about public safety, not about revenue from YouTube hits: "On the broader question of the legality of arming a drone, the law prohibits recklessly endangering the public when flying an aircraft."
  - walrus01 10y ago
    not gun or flamethrower related: http://wtop.com/consumer-tech/2015/03/faa-dont-post-drone-videos-on-youtube/ http://wtop.com/consumer-tech/2015/03/faa-dont-post-drone-vi...