AMA: Follow 107
- Thread starter FLYBOYJ
- Start date
From the link:
Mounting concerns about the effectiveness of Section 336 are unfounded and misdirected. ... The FAA clarifies this position by stating in Part 107 that those who do not “satisfy all of the criteria specified in Section 336 of Public Law 112-95” are required to comply with the hobbyist rules in Part 107. Section 336 operators, like AMA members, are not the problem....
(bold added)
It's also clarified, indirectly, in the language of the law itself. That's why it's called a "Special" rule for model aircraft.
This is a concept that tons of pilots have yet to understand. I was in a discussion about this very thing two days ago on this site, and the member argued adamantly that he was legal to fly out of VLOS in the U.S. provided he didn't fly commercial. It was one of the dumbest conversations I have had in this calendar year. Maybe the dumbest. I made no headway with him. He still believes he can fly out of VLOS in the U.S. today! And he's prodding others to do the same. Unbelievable.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf
It doesn't bug me so much that he flies out of VLOS - what bugs me is promoting incorrect information so that new and inexperienced recreational pilots are misled.
Mounting concerns about the effectiveness of Section 336 are unfounded and misdirected. ... The FAA clarifies this position by stating in Part 107 that those who do not “satisfy all of the criteria specified in Section 336 of Public Law 112-95” are required to comply with the hobbyist rules in Part 107. Section 336 operators, like AMA members, are not the problem....
(bold added)
It's also clarified, indirectly, in the language of the law itself. That's why it's called a "Special" rule for model aircraft.
This is a concept that tons of pilots have yet to understand. I was in a discussion about this very thing two days ago on this site, and the member argued adamantly that he was legal to fly out of VLOS in the U.S. provided he didn't fly commercial. It was one of the dumbest conversations I have had in this calendar year. Maybe the dumbest. I made no headway with him. He still believes he can fly out of VLOS in the U.S. today! And he's prodding others to do the same. Unbelievable.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf
It doesn't bug me so much that he flies out of VLOS - what bugs me is promoting incorrect information so that new and inexperienced recreational pilots are misled.
Last edited:
One thing that I can't seem to get over...
"are required to comply with the hobbyist rules in Part 107"
There are no HOBBY rules in Part 107. If you don't satisfy ALL of the requirements in 336 then you default to a Civil Operator which must operate under Part 107 rules.
I can't help but ask myself.... did they let anyone "who knows what they are talking about" to proof read these things?
"are required to comply with the hobbyist rules in Part 107"
There are no HOBBY rules in Part 107. If you don't satisfy ALL of the requirements in 336 then you default to a Civil Operator which must operate under Part 107 rules.
I can't help but ask myself.... did they let anyone "who knows what they are talking about" to proof read these things?
Yes - I think he means a would-be recreational pilot who breaks a Sec 336 rule. He'd be subject to Part 107. He can say "Yeah but I'm just a hobbyist", but he's still subject to 107.
I agree it's not clearly stated. He should have omitted the word "hobbyist."
I agree it's not clearly stated. He should have omitted the word "hobbyist."
Similar threads
