The EASA also makes a distinction between <250g drones >250g drones, in terms of registration and permissions required.

However drones remain pretty hard to use across the EU, they're strictly forbidden in most places (cities, natural parks) and for the rest you need explicit permission from the county's aviation authority ( and sometimes even more, e.g. in Portugal if the coastline is visible you also need the Coast Guard's permission). Apparently lots of tourists are unaware and are getting fined for that, there was even a few cases recently where oblivious tourists crashed their drones in historical buildings.

> for the rest you need explicit permission from the county's aviation authority

That unfortunately won't stop people who think they need this thing because all the cool instagrammers and tiktokers have it.

Yep: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/25/tourist-crashe...

If you do anything with this drone that is commercial or non-private in nature, you still need a Part 107 certificate from the FAA to fly it. I expect that would include many influencers who wouldn't otherwise be flying drones at all.

I'm not sure where you got the "non-private" in nature piece. I took this "identification tool" on the FAA website, https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/user_identification_... , and while yes, if you are, say, taking drone photos to hawk some particular product online, that would clearly fall under Part 107.

But an influencer that's just taking vacation photos, even if it's of their impossibly fashionable vacation and it seems obvious that there is an ulterior motive of building their "brand", seems like they could easily argue they're just doing it for recreation and would thus fall under the Recreational Exemption.

That's certainly a fair interpretation of the regulation - but if one could argue that social media is one's 'job', I would also consider posts on their usual accounts as commercial content. I guess the point is the FAA has the discretion to consider your use how they want, and there isn't much good case law / precedent for this because the FAA largely hasn't been enforcing Part 107 requirements yet.

If you do anything with this drone at all, you'll be flat out violating FAA regulations regardless. It seems to be mostly autonomous, and based on marketing and support docs, doesn't appear to have a way to comply with regulations requiring the Pilot-in-Command to always have the ability to make flightpath changes. Gesturing at it or clicking a button on a phone to 'return to home' is not enough.

That doesn't seem to be a requirement of recreational drone usage: https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/

Pixy weighs just 101 grams. They could have easily gone for a more practical battery life (it seems it's around 5 minutes currently?!), but for some reason chose not to.