There has been a lot of confusion and misenformation regarding the FAA's part 101 safety guidelines. We are never all going to agree as to what hobbyist can and can not do under 101 so im not even going to go they're. I do however want to touch on overflights of structures because there is a lot of confusion and misenformation regarding who can and cant fly 400 feet above structures. A lot of people think that because part 101 doesnt directly touch on the subject and part 107 does then 101 flyers cant fly 400 feet over structures.

Part 107 goes into detail explaining that you can fly sUAS's 400 feet over structures. They specifically go into structual overflights because they dont want 107 pilots filing for waivers to do something that they dont need a waiver for. Part 101 doesnt go over it because they would rather you just didnt do it but it is not specifically forebidden for 101 pilots to overfly structures. For example, if a structure is 1000 feet tall you can fly up to 1400 feet agl. This is a little misleading and confusing because the top of a structure is considered ground level.

For all intensive purposes flying 400 feet over a building is 400 feet AGL. To keep things from getting too confusing the faa just explains in part 107 educational material that you can fly 400 feet over structures. If you fly over a 1000 foot structure then you can fly up to 1400 feet but thats feet above street level because the top of the building is ground level. Fixed wing aircraft must fly no less than 500 feet over that same structure so there is still that 100 foot cushion. The FAA does not go into detail about structural overflights in part 101 for several reasons. There is no test for part 101 so a clear definition is not necissary and they have purposly left their guidelines vague and confusing. If they dont give you explicit permission then most people wont do it and there will be fewer issues.

A lot of 107 license holders will argue that only they can fly 400 feet over structures and I get it. Some people want to flash their 107 license and tell you that they can do something that you cant do. They want to feel special and I hate to bust their bubble but 107 pilots can do far less than 101 pilots can because they are regulated by the faa and must adhere to their rules and regulations. I know half of you guys are thinking "101 pilots have to follow faa rules and regulations to". Well you would be wrong.

Most of us have heard it a million times but i will say it again, the faa can not make rules and laws regarding hobby aviation, PERIOD!. "

Well it says right they're on their web site what the rules are and what the laws say". Again you would be wrong. The faa lists safety guidelines that they would like you to follow. Its worded in such a way as to come across as the law of the land and they would like you to believe that but the faa has no juristiction to make or enforce rules and regulations pertaining to hobby aviation.

The faa can not and will not ever fine you or punish you under part101 for not adhearing to their safety guidelines. Thats not to say that they wont throw you under the jail for putting civil aviation in danger but it wont be for breaking an faa regulation as there are no regulations for hobby aviation, however you will be charged with public endangerment along with any other criminal offence they can charge you with but none of that will be aviation related. You can bet they will give you the maximum penalty if you cause harm and were not following faa safety guidelines and there is an incident so keep that in mind before you go filming planes landing and taking off at your local airport.

Some people will argue that the faa says you have to follow the AMA's rules and regulation. That is not at all what the faa means when they say to follow "comunity based" safety rules. They AMA would like for you to beleive that the faa is refering to them but its just not. It also does not mean that the faa has given local munisipalities the right to make and enforce hobby aviation rules and regulations however some citys and towns think it does and have begun to do so.

Im sorry but an organization that can not itself impliment rules and regulations certainly can not give another intety the authority to do so. Come on people, lets use our brains here. That is an oxymoron if ive ever seen one. "Community based" means any group or club you fly with or are a member of. When hobbyist fly as a club they usually have strict rules that members must follow and club members are more likely to fly safely and follow their clubs rules. Failure to do so usually results in some type of backlash from the community. Just like if someone on here posts a video of themselves doing something unsafe then they will certainly hear about it from the members. If the faa cant police us then we should at least police ourselves.

In this community being unsafe and flying like a fool wont be tolerated. We will shun your ass like an amish with a face tattoo. That is why they included that in their safty guidelines which again are not laws and therefore not enforcable. Should you follow the FAA safety guidelines? Absolutely without a doubt 100% yes. Not doing so will eventually lead to laws that ground us all. With all that said, I dont want to hear that only 107 pilots can overfly a building thats over 400 feet. We can all do it. Its just that 107 pilots overflight is regulated and 101flights are not.

I welcome any constructive feedback and debate is certainly welcome but please dont post information that you dont know to be factual. If you think you know something but you dont know for sure then you dont know it. If I have posted something that is incorrect I welcome you to correct me in a respectful mannor as I would you with factual information and not information you heard from someone that heard it from someone else. Let the debate begin!

There's no debate.

Quote:  Part 101 doesnt go over it because they would rather you just didnt do it but it is not specifically forebidden for 101 pilots to overfly structures. For example, if a structure is 1000 feet tall you can fly up to 1400 feet agl.

Where are you getting this from?  You're just making this up.  

When one is going to throw out supposed facts in the manner that you do, the correct protocol is to back it up with a link or some sort of source that qualifies the statement.  There's nothing in your post that qualifies anything.  

Also, it's helpful to provide paragraph breaks for readability.

I think it would be helpful if you'd read the public law line by line slowly and carefully so that you understand what you're talking about.  

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-7-2 02:29
There's no debate.

Quote:  Part 101 doesnt go over it because they would rather you just didnt do it but it is not specifically forebidden for 101 pilots to overfly structures. For example, if a structure is 1000 feet tall you can fly up to 1400 feet agl.

Well show me the facts then.

The facts are that the faa doesnt regulate hoby aviation. So what are you saying, that you cant fly 400 feet over structures?

Please read the public law.  

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-7-2 06:27
Please read the public law.

What public law would you be referring to? I would very much be interested in seeing these laws pertaining to hobby aviation that you speak of.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf

Duchunter:

I'm sorry, Duchunter, but...paragraphs, please. Please?

Keep Smiling,

Augustus

Augustus Brian Posted at 2017-7-2 12:22
Duchunter:

I'm sorry, Duchunter, but...paragraphs, please. Please?

Im sorry.

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-7-2 07:51
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf

Ok, so where in that does it say that you cant fly 400 feet over a building? Im afraid I just dont know exactly  what point your trying to make. You have yet to tell me just exactly what it is that im wrong about.

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-7-2 07:51
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf

Taken from your link:

.—Notwithstanding  any  other  provision  of  law  
relating  to  the  incorporation  of  unmanned  aircraft  systems  into  
Federal  Aviation  Administration  plans  and  policies,  including  this  
subtitle,  the  Administrator  of  the  Federal  Aviation  Administration  
may  not  promulgate  any  rule  or  regulation  regarding  a  model  
aircraft,  or  an  aircraft  being  developed  as  a  model  aircraft,  if—  
(1)  the  aircraft  is  flown  strictly  for  hobby  or  recreational  
use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-
based  set  of  safety  guidelines  and  within  the  programming  
of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3)  the  aircraft  is  limited  to  not  more  than  55  pounds  
unless   otherwise   certified   through   a   design,   construction,   
inspection, flight test, and operational safety program adminis-
tered by a community-based organization;
(4)  the  aircraft  is  operated  in  a  manner  that  does  not  
interfere  with  and  gives  way  to  any  manned  aircraft;  and  
(5)  when  flown  within  5  miles  of  an  airport,  the  operator  
of  the  aircraft  provides  the  airport  operator  and  the  airport  
air  traffic  control  tower  (when  an  air  traffic  facility  is  located  
at the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft
operators  flying  from  a  permanent  location  within  5  miles  of  
an  airport  should  establish  a  mutually-agreed  upon  operating  
procedure  with  the  airport  operator  and  the  airport  air  traffic  
control  tower  (when  an  air  traffic  facility  is  located  at  the  
airport)).
(b)  S
TATUTORY
C
ONSTRUCTION
.—Nothing  in  this  section  shall  
be  construed  to  limit  the  authority  of  the  Administrator  to  pursue  
enforcement  action  against  persons  operating  model  aircraft  who  
endanger the safety of the national airspace system.

.—In this section, the term ‘‘model
aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

So as you now know, to qualify as a recreational flight, your flight must be with an aircraft which meets the definition as defined in Sec 336, and then it must satisfy all the points in Sec 336, (a), (1-5).  Do you agree?

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-7-2 13:24
So as you now know, to qualify as a recreational flight, your flight must be with an aircraft which meets the definition as defined in Sec 336, and then it must satisfy all the points in Sec 336, (a), (1-5).  Do you agree?

Ok, and?




Dont take my word for it.   

This is the definition of a hobby aircraft as stated in section 336
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating
the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

So if your flight is recreational, then it is flying under Sec 336 (a) (2) which states the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization

Do you agree?

OMG man, let me guess, your gonna say the ama right, WRONG! Where does it say you must follow AMA rules? It does not. A national community based organization can be me and 2 of my friends as long as we accept members from all over the country and we have a set of rules. In now way or where does it define just exactly what a "community based organization" is so its left wide open to interpretation. I know you AMA guys want to think that you set the rules for the entire nation but you would be wrong. If the faa wanted you to specifically follow ama rules then they would say "follow ama rules" but absolutely nowhere does it say that in the document. You ama people have propagated a farce and initiated a campaign of misinformation to bolster membership and elevate themselves to a status that they just isnt true. You can drink the ama coolaid if you want but that ama propaganda *hit aint gonna work here. Sorry, your argument is mute.

And plus, the ama's rules only apply to ama events

Please provide a link to the safety guidelines you adhere to, per Sec 336.  

This city in New Jersey thinks "community based organization" means them. So whos right?
http://www.northjersey.com/story ... backyard/371540001/

A quote from the above article:
FAA regulations allow municipalities to set their own codes for recreational flyers or hobbyists. In the FAA regulations it states operators must abide by "a community-based set of safety guidelines" if set locally.

Right now it's a moot point.  Many of us can't get off the ground lol!

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-7-2 14:08
Please provide a link to the safety guidelines you adhere to, per Sec 336.

You want to see the rules we fly under? Here ya go, directly from the president:

Fly safe, have fun.


There ya go, thats our rules.

There are 1557 Hobby aviation clubs in the US, pick one.

I guess I made my point.

Sir, it's obvious from your last five posts that you don't fly under any specific safety guidelines.  If you had, you'd have listed them, linked to them, or otherwise identified them by now.  So that means your flight example - as described in the OP - is not a qualifying Part 101 flight.  

Im just gonna leave this right here.



Key word "LIKE" the AMA meaning similar too but NOT exclusive to.

You still haven't identified what safety guidelines you use.  Why?  The only explanation is you aren't using any.   You can post obscure videos and disinformation until the cows come home, but without specific safety guidelines as described in Public Law 112-95, Sec 336, you are not flying Part 101.  It's as simple as that.  

Sure I did:
Rule number 1:Fly Safe
Rule number 2:Have fun

Addendum to the before mentioned rules:When in doubt refer to rule number 1

See look at that, we added a rule, were very progressive. See we add rules as needed.

I clearly stated that you should always follow the faa's safety guidelines and those guidelines say fly no more than 400ft agl. The top of a building just like the tops of grass and the tops of trees is ground level. Manned ac have to fly no less than 500 ft over structures, and grass, and trees. All 500 ft. Let me ask you this, If im climbing up a mountain do I have to stop at when my altimeter reads 400ft? What about if im flying and a 500 ft cliff appears in front of me. Do i have to just turn around and go back? I mean I would have to climb to 500ft to get over it so am I breaking the law. Oh, and just for the record, not that it matters, but ama does not say you cant fly over 400 ft in their rules. It says dont fly over 400 ft within 3 miles of an airport. That is their only rule regarding elevation limits.

Model aircraft pilots will: (a) Yield the right of way to all human-carrying aircraft. (b) See and avoid all aircraft and a spotter must be used when appropriate. (AMA Document #540-D.) (c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator.

Your posts are meaningless because you haven't qualified your Part 101 flight by indentifying your safety code.  You know full well "Fly safe have fun" is not a safety code that would be accepted by the United States Congress as outlined in the public law.  I believe you are a troll - as it's clear to me you never intended to post anything meaningful or productive.  

Mark The Droner Posted at 2017-7-4 04:08
Your posts are meaningless because you haven't qualified your Part 101 flight by indentifying your safety code.  You know full well "Fly safe have fun" is not a safety code that would be accepted by the United States Congress as outlined in the public law.  I believe you are a troll - as it's clear to me you never intended to post anything meaningful or productive.

Oh but I did. So to be legal I need to provide you with a set of rules? Could you please supply me with your agent number and what office you work out of? Please provide me with some information stating who's rules I need to follow. You said the ama governs and regulates hobby aviation and that the faa gave them the exclusive authority to do so. I proved that to be wrong with the ama's own words. Please tell me where in 336 it defines what a CBO is. You can put this argument to bed if you can just do that. Your telling me what it means but thats your opinion and I have mine but neither of us can say definitively without documented clarification from the House of Representatives. Repeating someone else's interpretation means nothing. Until you can show me a Congressional document that defines CBO's then the term is completely open to interpretation. You can say whatever you like but in a court of law CBO means absolutely nothing if the courts have no documentation stating what a cbo is from the ratifying body that passed it into law. As no such clarification is in the document than cbo can literally mean whatever you think it does and as long as you can prove a good faith effort to follow the law based on your interpretation of the legislation then no law has been broken. Im sorry but that is the way it is, like it, love it, or leave it. You have no possible way to prove your argument but my argument can be proven by court president. I dont expect you to admit im right but dont just keep arguing because you dont want to admit your wrong.

Just like that cit in New Jersey. They interpret the document to mean that they are a cbo and because there is no clarification their interpretation will hold up in court and they are willing to fight anyone in court that says otherwise. We all know that municipalities is not what Congress meant when they said cbo but without a definition cbo means what they say it does and they are willing to create laws and impose a mandatory $70 registration fee  based on those 3 words. They only have two rules regarding hobby aviation. You can only fly in your yard and you must pay $70 to do so. Where are their safety rules? They claim to be a cbo and according to you a cbo must have a set of rules regarding  safety.

The law is written in English.  It doesn't need to be defined because it's already defined per the English language.  You pretend not to understand what you've read.  But I know you are deliberately ignoring key words in the law to incite and inflame and because it is convenient for you to do so.  

(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a community-based  set  of  safety  guidelines  and  within  the  programming of a nationwide community-based organization;

You are ignoring the word "nationwide" in the above sentence.  It's not a word you can arbitrarily dismiss.

Last summer, a U.S. attorney discussed Part 101 in great detail.  One of the things he talked about is the community-based organization as termed in Part 101 and the public law.  He states:

[3] You must follow the safety guidelines of the AMA.

He goes on to explain why.  The short answer is, there is no other nationwide community-based organization acknowledged by the FAA in existence.  There may be some day, but right now, there isn't.  

http://dronelawjournal.com/model-aircraft-operations/

What you're saying is, the drone attorney linked above is wrong, and you are right.  And that doesn't make any sense at all because you still haven't qualified your Part 101 flight by describing the CBO safety rules you adhere to.  In addition, you don't have any credentials.  

Note the use of sources and links in the attorney's document.  Note the use of sources and links in my posts.  Note the complete lack of sources and links in your posts, other than arbitrary links to youtube videos that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

And btw, why would you post a video of a Part 107 flight to defend a Part 101 flight?  It doesn't make any sense other than that of following a well-established pattern of random gibberish.  

Nothing in these posts of yours makes any sense.  

Im sorry but im just not inclined to believe your ama attorney so im not even gonna waste my time going to your ama link. I grew up with an attorney across the hall from me so I do know a little something about legislative law. Ive CLEARLY proven my point. Not only does the faa say that in no way does the ama govern hobby aviation but the ama does as well. First off, following someones rules as a general guide for how to fly safely does not mean that they govern, enforce, or regulate the action for which they wrote the rules. I find it quite comical that you believe the AMA, a private paid membership, for profit, organization was handed the authority to regulate hobby aviation from the United States Congress and so does the lady I spoke with at the FAA a few months back.  We both had a good chuckle over that one. I can see how they would want to make you believe that they are the supreme authority over hobby aviation but a sensible person with a 12th grade understanding of government policy and procedure  would certainly question that logic.  A person that does not will blindly follow the rest of the sheep to slaughter. A private, non governmental organization with paid membership has NEVER been given such authority and they never will. Our constitution will not allow for an arrangement such as that. The AMA themselves, in the video I posted from a week ago stated that 336 has given hobbyist free reign to police themselves so long as you follow the rules of a hobby aviation organization LIKE the ama but not necessarily or exclusively the AMA. What dictates a national cbo? What does the legislation say? It doesnt and that is the point that you seem to be missing. Any legislation that is written to be strictly adhered  too to the letter of the law will be written in great detail, well refined with well defined phrasing and a clear avenue for enforcement and every foreseeable loophole closed. These documents have page after page of legislation covering every possible challenge to its legality and enforceability. 336 has what, 5 bullet points? What avenue is their for enforcement? There is none as the document makes no effort to establish an avenue for enforcement. Im sure you think it does so give me a name of one individual hobbyist that has been fined or penalized for flying above 400ft, or beyond vlos, or for not calling a tower within 5 miles. or for any other infraction that breaks ama rules. I wouldnt waste my time because you wont find one and that very simple fact alone proves every argument ive made.  Im sure the ama would be passing out fines left and right if they could, thats free money and every organization on the planet would love to impose fine on the public but that will never happen. Get back to me when you have some provable facts that some ama stooge didnt tell you or post online. Everything you read online is true right? And just because you dont understand something doesnt make it untrue. Its obvious you dont grasp any of this or how legislation works and your just singing the ama campfire song they have been singing since September of 2012. Think for yourself, dont let other people do your thinking for you.

Duchunter Posted at 2017-7-4 12:39
Im sorry but im just not inclined to believe your ama attorney so im not even gonna waste my time going to your ama link. I grew up with an attorney across the hall from me so I do know a little something about legislative law. Ive CLEARLY proven my point. Not only does the faa say that in no way does the ama govern hobby aviation but the ama does as well. First off, following someones rules as a general guide for how to fly safely does not mean that they govern, enforce, or regulate the action for which they wrote the rules. I find it quite comical that you believe the AMA, a private paid membership, for profit, organization was handed the authority to regulate hobby aviation from the United States Congress and so does the lady I spoke with at the FAA a few months back.  We both had a good chuckle over that one. I can see how they would want to make you believe that they are the supreme authority over hobby aviation but a sensible person with a 12th grade understanding of government policy and procedure  would certainly question that logic.  A person that does not will blindly follow the rest of the sheep to slaughter. A private, non governmental organization with paid membership has NEVER been given such authority and they never will. Our constitution will not allow for an arrangement such as that. The AMA themselves, in the video I posted from a week ago stated that 336 has given hobbyist free reign to police themselves so long as you follow the rules of a hobby aviation organization LIKE the ama but not necessarily or exclusively the AMA. What dictates a national cbo? What does the legislation say? It doesnt and that is the point that you seem to be missing. Any legislation that is written to be strictly adhered  too to the letter of the law will be written in great detail, well refined with well defined phrasing and a clear avenue for enforcement and every foreseeable loophole closed. These documents have page after page of legislation covering every possible challenge to its legality and enforceability. 336 has what, 5 bullet points? What avenue is their for enforcement? There is none as the document makes no effort to establish an avenue for enforcement. Im sure you think it does so give me a name of one individual hobbyist that has been fined or penalized for flying above 400ft, or beyond vlos, or for not calling a tower within 5 miles. or for any other infraction that breaks ama rules. I wouldnt waste my time because you wont find one and that very simple fact alone proves every argument ive made.  Im sure the ama would be passing out fines left and right if they could, thats free money and every organization on the planet would love to impose fine on the public but that will never happen. Get back to me when you have some provable facts that some ama stooge didnt tell you or post online. Everything you read online is true right? And just because you dont understand something doesnt make it untrue. Its obvious you dont grasp any of this or how legislation works and your just singing the ama campfire song they have been singing since September of 2012. Think for yourself, dont let other people do your thinking for you.

No logical flow of argument, no links or sources, just another post of gibberish.  

All you had to do very early on was provide the source of your safety rules as required by law.  You could have done that two days ago and we could have cleaned this thread up very quickly.  Instead, you have avoided allowing the thread to move forward by making weak pointless posts which have nothing to do with the previous post.  This thread can't reach a conclusive point because you're not really interested in what's legal.

The irony is, it's your thread.  You have deliberately disabled your own thread.  By your own actions, you've made the thread useless to anyone who isn't inclined to read the thread from the top to the bottom.  Threads such as this one do not serve the membership.

You're an interesting individual.  

Where does 336 say I have to make a digital copy of some rules available? Available to who? Whos asking? I missed that part off 336. Ive meet the burden of proof in any US court and thats straight from an unbiased attorneys mouth and thats good enough for me. I realize Im not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine so how about we just agree to disagree and walk away friends? Hows that sound? I tell you what I will do. I will resubmit the question in email format and agree to post the reply, regardless of the answer. If im wrong, ill admit im wrong. If your wrong will you admit that your wrong. I mean we cant really argue with the faa now can we? If I cant get an email response I will call the faa, again, and record the conversation and post it. Will that be acceptable? That should give this thread a definitive conclusion and then it wont be a useless thread with no worthwhile information as you say, agreed?

One more question, what does the ama say about night flights? Im gonna be filming a fireworks display later, am I going to get arrested?

I do have a letter from the faa posted by a guy named Richard Wiser

Thank
you for your inquiry. In order to operate under section 336 of Public
Law 112-95, a model aircraft must, among other things, be “operated in
accordance
with a community based set of safety guidelines and within the
programming of a nationwide community-based organization.”  Currently,
the largest nationwide community-based organization that operates model
aircraft is the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA).
AMA's safety code specifically states, “RC night flying requires a
lighting system providing the pilot with a clear view of the model’s
attitude and orientation at all times.  Hand-held illumination systems
are inadequate for night flying operations.”
   
   
Regards,

FAA UAS Integration Office

Now I can not confirm its authenticity but it looks pretty legit to me.
Your welcome to interrogate him. Here is a link to his youtube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBVTehpdZwdMHaBYUGoSwCg  

Got another one for ya, taken directly from the FAA's know before you fly web site:

Currently, small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) may be operated for hobby and recreational purposes under specific safety guidelines as established by Congress. Small UAS flown for recreational purposes are typically known as model aircraft.

Under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, recreational UAS must be operated in accordance with several requirements, including a community-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA). Operators not operating within the safety program of a community-based organization should follow the FAA’s guidance here.

The link takes you here to the faa's sUAS page:

Safety Guidelines

    Fly at or below 400 feet
    Keep your UAS within sight
    Never fly near other aircraft, especially near airports
    Never fly over groups of people
    Never fly over stadiums or sports events
    Never fly near emergency response efforts such as fires
    Never fly under the influence
    Be aware of airspace requirements

So according to the faa's web sites if you dont fly under a cbo then you should follow their GUIDANCE. The key word being "guidance". It doesnt say rules, or laws, or mandate, or any other verbiage that would dictate that the guidelines are obligatory or that fines or penalties will be incurred if these guidelines are not followed. So the faa gives you an option as to which VOLUNTARY guidelines you would like to follow neither of which has a path to enforcement. Every LAW I know to exist has attached a class penalty system be it a criminal or non criminal penalty and a graduated system for determining that penalty. It could be a non criminal set monetary penalty, class A,B,or C misdemeanor, or a class A,B, or C felony. If one of these penalty class's  is not attached then no penalty has been established and it is not a law in the impeachable since.  
Links to the above listed quotes:
http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/for-recreational-users/
https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/fly_for_fun/

No.  If you don't fly under a CBO's safety guidelines as described in SEC 336/Part 101, then your flight is NOT a Part 101 flight.  It defaults to Part 107.  A recreational flight requires that all tests are met.  Then and only then is it a Part 101 flight.  Otherwise it is a Part 107 flight.

This is not new news.  It's not something that's up for debate.  It's been this way since last summer.  

And this is why this thread can't be concluded - you refuse to show that the flight example in the OP is a Part 101 flight by satisfying the CBO safety guideline requirement.

Well the faa's site says otherwise. Cant argue with that. You asked for links, I provided them. Where is the documentation that says that?