FAA rules that make no sense. Post your opinion.
- Thread starter Drone107
- Start date
Well I’m making money on the side, but I haven’t broken even yet ( I just recently started with the real estate photography though)
I meant the FAA is making money. $10k fine for real estate agency who posts pics from non 107 pilot.
Here is link to a quick video I made edited to fit on IG
The FAA has levied very few fines at all - they are mostly pursuing education as their preferred method of dealing with this issue. I guarantee that their costs of administering Part 107 have far outweighed whatever tiny income they have received from fines.
Well, I don’t want to be the one getting fined. I think the FAA will throw the book (and the weight of the Fed government) at anybody who causes personal injury of any kind. Accident or not... I’m legal and have business insurance.
That's fine but I think the facts, that there are numerous applications for drones outside of an airport environment, speak for themselves. Again, I don't think the FAA should be asked to subdivide commercial drone licensing 101 different ways but I think there is plenty of latitude to subdivide the license with respect to airport environment versus non-airport environment operations.
Right, as they should, but you stated that you think the FAA is doing this just to make money. How?
How far is not the only factor. How high is also a factor. I'm three miles from an airport doing a survey of crops and won't be above 100'. Is that the airspace really the airport environment? While it may be within five miles of an airport I wouldn't call 3 miles out at 100' the airport environment. There are 50' trees within 1 mile of the airport. Is the airspace from the surface to 50' the airport environment?
Last edited:
Well if there are somewhere around 600,000 manned pilots in the US, and now over 100,000 (just what I’ve heard) unmanned pilots in the US. That’s another 100,000 times $150 is $15,000,000 not counting fines. If the test was free than no money, $15,000,000 is a lot of money to me. And the FAA is fining people. So, does it cover the FAA budget, no. Is it a money maker yes.
I’m a police officer and police issue fines. It’s a money maker. Does it cover our annual budget, no. But it does bring in money.
The $150 doesn't go to the FAA. None of it. You are paying the testing centers, which are private companies.
And as I said, fines have been negligible, so that's not making significant money for the FAA either. It's not remotely comparable to local authority/LE income from tickets.
@sar104 well said. Many people who honestly don't know the facts think that Part~107 is just a Cash Cow for the FAA when in reality it's a Money Pit. I would absolutely LOVE to see fines come into play on a much wider range so that people would be more "incentified" to follow the FAR's.
Here's what is rubbing me wrong with this whole situation (and it's not the FAA's fault if you go all the way back to pre2012). For a couple of years I had to have a CURRENT PPL (at minimum) to fly my drone to make $$. I jumped through the hoops and submitted an insanely large amount of forms, reports, and other documents to get my Section 333 so I could utilize my existing PPL to fly my drone for $$. The wait was insanely long and the whole time I was sitting around just waiting to go and make $$ doing something I was making $$ before the FAA even had "Drones" on their radar.
Everyone (at least those in the know and involved in the industry at the time) were moaning and groaning about having to go learn to fly an airplane to be able to legally fly a drone for compensation/SAR etc. So the FAA had a knee-jerk reaction and somewhat created an easy to acquire RPIC program. This lowered the bar for admission so low that almost anyone can pass it and it does not require any Flight Ability demonstration what-so-ever. If it gets any easier you'll be able to get your RPIC in a box of Cracker Jacks for less than $2.
But even with this insanely low bar we're still seeing people moan and complain about needing to learn a few things that just happen to not apply to them that they don't ever intend to utilize. That's extremely narrow vision IMHO. If I were a delivery driver and I only drove on slow, congested city streets should I petition the DMV to simplify my test to only cover city streets and not even discuss interstate signs, driving rules, and safety?
Here's what is rubbing me wrong with this whole situation (and it's not the FAA's fault if you go all the way back to pre2012). For a couple of years I had to have a CURRENT PPL (at minimum) to fly my drone to make $$. I jumped through the hoops and submitted an insanely large amount of forms, reports, and other documents to get my Section 333 so I could utilize my existing PPL to fly my drone for $$. The wait was insanely long and the whole time I was sitting around just waiting to go and make $$ doing something I was making $$ before the FAA even had "Drones" on their radar.
Everyone (at least those in the know and involved in the industry at the time) were moaning and groaning about having to go learn to fly an airplane to be able to legally fly a drone for compensation/SAR etc. So the FAA had a knee-jerk reaction and somewhat created an easy to acquire RPIC program. This lowered the bar for admission so low that almost anyone can pass it and it does not require any Flight Ability demonstration what-so-ever. If it gets any easier you'll be able to get your RPIC in a box of Cracker Jacks for less than $2.
But even with this insanely low bar we're still seeing people moan and complain about needing to learn a few things that just happen to not apply to them that they don't ever intend to utilize. That's extremely narrow vision IMHO. If I were a delivery driver and I only drove on slow, congested city streets should I petition the DMV to simplify my test to only cover city streets and not even discuss interstate signs, driving rules, and safety?
You're approaching the issue from ONE side but there is another side to the issue. The other side is the individual that has been flying drones to perform a job that has nothing to do with flight operations in controlled airspace or flight operations in an airport environment, they have been do so it in a safe manner but they are now being told they have to learn procedures and regulations that have absolutely nothing to do with their type of operation. There is a legitimate argument to be made that those folks are being penalized for conducting operations totally disconnected from the new rules requiring them to be versed in a form of operation that does nothing to enhance the safety of the operations they are participating in.
You say "But even with this insanely low bar we're still seeing people moan and complain about needing to learn a few things that just happen to not apply to them that they don't ever intend to utilize. That's extremely narrow vision IMHO." I view narrow vision as believing everyone should conform to one view of things even when the facts dictate that another view is more in line with reality. Again, I don't think the FAA should have to subdivide the licensing requirements to the nth degree BUT there are a host of commercial operations that have nothing to do with operating in an airport environment.
Beyond that, as mentioned in another post, I don't consider an altitude of 200' the "airport environment" even if you're within 5 miles from an airport. If you're on a 3° glide slope you should be significantly above 1,000' when you're five miles out. How is 200' at 5 miles out the "airport environment"?
You could pretty easily make the case under the same auspices that since you COULD legitimately land a space shuttle on an interstate highway, that anybody driving a car on an interstate should be required to be certified for instrument landing of a shuttle..
Yes, a ridiculous reach, but it’s logically valid if it is also valid that I own a craft that COULD fly near an airport, ergo I must be licensed for this subject material for any flight thirty miles from the nearest airport.
Some stuff just isn’t appropriate licensure requirements for EVERYBODY... the spectacularly wide brush they are using here is slopping paint all over a lot of drone pilots that simply don’t need to know the subject matter we’re discussing here. The NAS simply isn’t any safer if a drone pilot flying a cornfield in Oklahoma is tested on landing procedures at a major international airport.
Well now that you mention it, since an airplane could land in a corn field, maybe they should be tested on the proper row spacing and fertilizer composition and irrigation requirements..,
Ok just being silly there ?
I get automatic FAA authorization, even got a unlock code from DJI to fly in a no fly zone. Now that’s the kind of stuff that should be on the test. I had to google the info. The FAA test and the knowledge I had to learn to pass said test was/is useless to me; and most drone pilots I would presume. Not all, most...
Ok I’m done posting on this thread. Like i said i agree some sort of knowledge testing should be given to new drone owner, but making me retest every 2 years for something I’m never going to do seems pointless. As somebody else mentioned, people with a CDL can’t carry hazardous material or drive a tanker without proper endorsements. Maybe for those 1 or 2 drone pilots landing at an airport there could be a special endorsement...
I would also hazard a guess that most (not all) here have flow beyond line of site... so making a law that most break seems kind of like the prohibition era.
If you make a sport bike that does 200 mph, somebody is going to try it. If you make a drone that goes 3 miles.........
Ok just being silly there ?
I get automatic FAA authorization, even got a unlock code from DJI to fly in a no fly zone. Now that’s the kind of stuff that should be on the test. I had to google the info. The FAA test and the knowledge I had to learn to pass said test was/is useless to me; and most drone pilots I would presume. Not all, most...
Ok I’m done posting on this thread. Like i said i agree some sort of knowledge testing should be given to new drone owner, but making me retest every 2 years for something I’m never going to do seems pointless. As somebody else mentioned, people with a CDL can’t carry hazardous material or drive a tanker without proper endorsements. Maybe for those 1 or 2 drone pilots landing at an airport there could be a special endorsement...
I would also hazard a guess that most (not all) here have flow beyond line of site... so making a law that most break seems kind of like the prohibition era.
If you make a sport bike that does 200 mph, somebody is going to try it. If you make a drone that goes 3 miles.........
I’m staggered at the amount of intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens by the FAA. For a country so dedicated to ‘small’ government which is so lax in so many areas such as road safety, guns, health care etc, I can’t understand how your FAA has so much power. Here in Australia, we have a much more reasonable aviation authority - CASA which works hard to be logical and fair. We are about to have an on-line licensing system to get a bit of order into the whole drone thing. At every step, CASA is trying to help those involved in flying of all sorts. Seems like your FAA is just a big beaurocracy that enjoys flexing it’s muscles without considering the pros and cons or the challenges in keeping the air space safe. Good luck!
I understand Australia has a rule that you can't fly within 50 meters of people. Do you know what process they used to come up with the 50 meter distance and why it isn't 10 meters or 100 meters? The FAA is about to revise rules regarding flights over people and I wanted to understand the reasoning behind the Australia rule.
Similar threads
