FAA rules that make no sense. Post your opinion.

The question that I thought was superfluous was how to you entering the landing pattern as you cannot operate at an airport


But you CAN operate at an airport with proper credentials and approvals. I'm not speaking hypothetically as I have operated ON airport property with a sUAS.

Take the aspect of actually flying FROM airport property out of the equation... let's assume you have approval to fly beside and airport.... you're told to remain clear or traffic entering the pattern from the SW. If you have no idea about what a traffic pattern is how can you remain clear of aircraft entering the pattern? You're flying blind.
 
And all of those what if's make for a complicated mess and fosters what to many seem like unnecessary restrictions and regulations. The what if's can be taken to the nth degree and honestly I'm not sure, especially in modern society that wants to sue and litigate everything, where the line should be drawn.


I see your point clearly. The problem is if we don't have a significant safety net and there is an incident then we, being the LOW end of the totem pole, will suffer from a major knee jerk reaction.
 
And after I land my drone at the airport... at least I know how to read the chart to figure what other frequency to tune to for fuel ?. I’ve been flying Rc for over 30 years, never hit a manned aircraft.... might have crashed a plane or two too close to roadways, maybe as a kid I should have had a drivers license to crash land on the road lol. In all serious, this is going a little far. I’m good with requiring registration, keep people honest. But to make me have a 107 certification for aerial photos???? Seems a little much. Yes I have mine, and yes I’m a police officer, and yes I think it’s over-reaching, and they are making a mess of trying to fit new tech into manned aircraft rules... jmo!!!

You have to prove you can drive a car, so prove you can pilot a uas...
 
I see your point clearly. The problem is if we don't have a significant safety net and there is an incident then we, being the LOW end of the totem pole, will suffer from a major knee jerk reaction.

How big should the safety net be? It seems the FAA recognizes some limitations to the safety net (ex. 0.55 lbs on registration).

According to a friend in Australia there is a 50 meter distance requirement from people. My question is why 50 meters? Why not 25 or 100? In my thinking the limit should be based on speed, altitude and weight. The slower you're going, the lower the altitude and/or weight the closer you can get. If we are discussing what ifs, if you lose contact and the drone takes off on its own how do you define what distance would be a safe distant?

I point out extremes to make the point that somewhere short of the extremes there is a place where the risk are so small attempting to regulate them approaches the absurd.
 
If you review the common FAA regulations associated with manned flight - CFR Part 91, Part 135, and Part 121 - you will see that there is a large safety margin built into everything associated with ones operation of an aircraft.

From the requirement for multiple, critical mechanical systems on the aircraft themselves, weather minimums for commercial operators, altitude separations in cruise, crew training...it goes on and on. This is the way the FAA thinks - their Paradigm so to speak - a nice 'fudge factor' - and it's a very good thing too, as there is a lot to lose if things go wrong.

And then it happened. A whole new industry suddenly went mainstream - in the form of readily accessible, complex UAV's flying all around - and the FAA found itself 'behind the power curve', and it had to react NOW.

Their first priority - as I see it - was to protect what they have always known - manned aircraft - from these UAV's. Next priority, integrate them both recreationally and commercially into the airspace that they are responsible for. This second priority is still in the final making, and we shall see.

So, can things be a bit disjointed right now for the guy who buys a 'drone' at Best Buy and wants to 'legally' fly it that afternoon. Yes. Will things become more clear as the FAA catches up? Yes...IMO..
^^^Most lucid, common sense, well thought post in this thread ^^^

I have no problem with the way the regulations stand right now, and I have no doubt the FAA is doing their best to make all these new forms of flight safe for all people - whether those people are in the air or on the ground.
 
Last edited:
The FAA acted quickly to deal with the evolving UAV presence, while protecting the freedom we are accustomed to flying in this country. Hats off to them. Want to fly a toy and avoid the hassles? Buy a drone weighing less than .4 oz.

Even a 0.4 oz drone is not going to avoid all the "hassles". It's still regulated as far as the airspace in which it can fly. I saw a video on YouTube about a tiny nano-drone developed for the Army that can fly over 1,000 meters and has FLIR technology for surveillance. It weights 18 grams (about 0.6 oz).

I realize there is always going to be some tension in this discussion. One concern is that the public safety argument, as important as it is, has to be ground in the dynamics of living in a world where risk exist in getting out of bed in the morning. I can create a what if scenario where using forks should be prohibited.

The FAA does bird strike testing using birds that weight 4 lbs. The engine has to be able to ingest the bird and still be safely shutdown. What methodology was used to come up with the 0.55 lbs drone registration requirement? What risk does a 0.55 lb drone present that a 0.54 drone does not?

I don't mind regulations. They are necessary. I have always said the FAA is one of the best run government agencies. But if I'm being told I have to comply with a regulation that limits some activity I'd like to be told what empirical evidences was used to develop those limits. We currently have the restrict of within five miles of an airport down to the surface. There are 30' buildings, 40' telephone poles and 50' trees within 5 miles of the airport so why is the restriction to the surface? On the face of it it makes no sense.
 
But you CAN operate at an airport with proper credentials and approvals. I'm not speaking hypothetically as I have operated ON airport property with a sUAS.

Take the aspect of actually flying FROM airport property out of the equation... let's assume you have approval to fly beside and airport.... you're told to remain clear or traffic entering the pattern from the SW. If you have no idea about what a traffic pattern is how can you remain clear of aircraft entering the pattern? You're flying blind.
I don't know if you are being sincere or not seeing the forest for the trees. You are citing examples such as flying at or near airport property with ATC approval. Does this happen? Yes. You may be hired to do building inspections, take videos or any number of things at or right next to an airport. And if so, sure, it would be important to know what the local traffic patterns are so you can steer clear of manned aircraft taking off and landing.
But That Is Not What Most Of Us Are Discussing.
We are talking about questions and scenarios given on the test as if we were flying a light plane across country by taking off from one airport and landing at a separate airport many miles away.
There are questions on the test asking you to properly identify the correct METAR for a certain day at St Louis airport and give the expected weather concerns. It asks you what the freq is to contact ATC and talks about the striped or solid lines on the taxiways at the airport. I don't need to know how to read a METAR. I have a weather app on my phone telling me the forecast for the 1/2 mile circle I will be flying in. I don't need to know the radio freq to contact ATC because we are told NOT TO GET ON A RADIO. I don't need to know about off shore winds creating fog or icing. I can't fly if I can't see my UAV so if fog rolls in I'm shutting down. And I am not flying in sleet, snow or freezing rain.
I'm sure that you can come up with a scenario where someone, somewhere is actually operating UAVs in those sorts of situations. Great. But they are extremely rare and a niche in this profession. The vast majority of us see most of this as overkill or overreach.
I see it as something which could be solved by having different "ratings" instead of a one size fits all approach. An example would be personal and commercial motor vehicles. Nearly everyone gets a basic Drivers license which rates them to operate a car or truck up to a certain size/weight. You can also get a Motorcycle endorsement to ride a motorbike on the roads. I got a Chauffeurs license which covered everything from driving an ambulance or a hotel shuttle van to a school bus.
I also graduated the JB Hunt truck driving academy in Lowell, Arkansas with a Commercial Drivers License with a Haz-Mat endorsement. You can also get additional endorsements with additional training such as "tankers" and "flatbeds" and "tandem trailers".
If you are never going to do anything but drive your car or pickup truck back and forth to work and occasionally help a friend move a couch do you need to get a Chauffeurs license? No.
If you are going to run a "hotshot" business delivering trailers loaded with valves or couplers up and down the highway to factories or chemical plans, you are going to need a CDL for sure.
Please tell me that you can't see, in any honesty, why a waiver to fly at night would be necessary in a situation like this, where a police chase ended in a snowy field and a Mavic 2 Enterprise with a spotlight attachment was sent to scout out the suspect vehicle while a M210 with zoom and thermal hovered nearby for overwatch.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
And While I'm certain that Police Dept has all of the proper waivers on hand, my point is, they are simply unnecessary.
If a farmer hears a strange sound in his back field at 2am, he should be able to launch his Phantom a couple hundred feet up and fly out over his pasture to see what is probably stalking his lifestock, without having to submit a waiver application.
THAT's the sort of stuff we are saying makes No Sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwilliams35
I don't know if you are being sincere or not seeing the forest for the trees. You are citing examples such as flying at or near airport property with ATC approval. Does this happen? Yes. You may be hired to do building inspections, take videos or any number of things at or right next to an airport. And if so, sure, it would be important to know what the local traffic patterns are so you can steer clear of manned aircraft taking off and landing.
But That Is Not What Most Of Us Are Discussing.
We are talking about questions and scenarios given on the test as if we were flying a light plane across country by taking off from one airport and landing at a separate airport many miles away.
There are questions on the test asking you to properly identify the correct METAR for a certain day at St Louis airport and give the expected weather concerns. It asks you what the freq is to contact ATC and talks about the striped or solid lines on the taxiways at the airport. I don't need to know how to read a METAR. I have a weather app on my phone telling me the forecast for the 1/2 mile circle I will be flying in. I don't need to know the radio freq to contact ATC because we are told NOT TO GET ON A RADIO. I don't need to know about off shore winds creating fog or icing. I can't fly if I can't see my UAV so if fog rolls in I'm shutting down. And I am not flying in sleet, snow or freezing rain.
I'm sure that you can come up with a scenario where someone, somewhere is actually operating UAVs in those sorts of situations. Great. But they are extremely rare and a niche in this profession. The vast majority of us see most of this as overkill or overreach.
I see it as something which could be solved by having different "ratings" instead of a one size fits all approach. An example would be personal and commercial motor vehicles. Nearly everyone gets a basic Drivers license which rates them to operate a car or truck up to a certain size/weight. You can also get a Motorcycle endorsement to ride a motorbike on the roads. I got a Chauffeurs license which covered everything from driving an ambulance or a hotel shuttle van to a school bus.
I also graduated the JB Hunt truck driving academy in Lowell, Arkansas with a Commercial Drivers License with a Haz-Mat endorsement. You can also get additional endorsements with additional training such as "tankers" and "flatbeds" and "tandem trailers".
If you are never going to do anything but drive your car or pickup truck back and forth to work and occasionally help a friend move a couch do you need to get a Chauffeurs license? No.
If you are going to run a "hotshot" business delivering trailers loaded with valves or couplers up and down the highway to factories or chemical plans, you are going to need a CDL for sure.
Please tell me that you can't see, in any honesty, why a waiver to fly at night would be necessary in a situation like this, where a police chase ended in a snowy field and a Mavic 2 Enterprise with a spotlight attachment was sent to scout out the suspect vehicle while a M210 with zoom and thermal hovered nearby for overwatch.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
And While I'm certain that Police Dept has all of the proper waivers on hand, my point is, they are simply unnecessary.
If a farmer hears a strange sound in his back field at 2am, he should be able to launch his Phantom a couple hundred feet up and fly out over his pasture to see what is probably stalking his lifestock, without having to submit a waiver application.
THAT's the sort of stuff we are saying makes No Sense.

Since you accept that Part 107 licensing allows pilots to fly in the vicinity of airports, as one example, how can you possibly defend your argument that Part 107 should not include the necessary training to do that safely? It doesn't matter what "most of us are discussing". Try getting a private pilot license and explain that, since you don't have any intention of flying in controlled airspace, all that stuff is irrelevant and you shouldn't need to be tested on it. Part 107 was not devised to satisfy your special use cases - it's a general certification. You can toss in as many contrived scenarios that don't exercise the entire curriculum as you want, but it doesn't make an argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
I don't know if you are being sincere or not seeing the forest for the trees. You are citing examples such as flying at or near airport property with ATC approval. Does this happen? Yes. You may be hired to do building inspections, take videos or any number of things at or right next to an airport. And if so, sure, it would be important to know what the local traffic patterns are so you can steer clear of manned aircraft taking off and landing.
But That Is Not What Most Of Us Are Discussing.
We are talking about questions and scenarios given on the test as if we were flying a light plane across country by taking off from one airport and landing at a separate airport many miles away.
There are questions on the test asking you to properly identify the correct METAR for a certain day at St Louis airport and give the expected weather concerns. It asks you what the freq is to contact ATC and talks about the striped or solid lines on the taxiways at the airport. I don't need to know how to read a METAR. I have a weather app on my phone telling me the forecast for the 1/2 mile circle I will be flying in. I don't need to know the radio freq to contact ATC because we are told NOT TO GET ON A RADIO. I don't need to know about off shore winds creating fog or icing. I can't fly if I can't see my UAV so if fog rolls in I'm shutting down. And I am not flying in sleet, snow or freezing rain.
I'm sure that you can come up with a scenario where someone, somewhere is actually operating UAVs in those sorts of situations. Great. But they are extremely rare and a niche in this profession. The vast majority of us see most of this as overkill or overreach.
I see it as something which could be solved by having different "ratings" instead of a one size fits all approach. An example would be personal and commercial motor vehicles. Nearly everyone gets a basic Drivers license which rates them to operate a car or truck up to a certain size/weight. You can also get a Motorcycle endorsement to ride a motorbike on the roads. I got a Chauffeurs license which covered everything from driving an ambulance or a hotel shuttle van to a school bus.
I also graduated the JB Hunt truck driving academy in Lowell, Arkansas with a Commercial Drivers License with a Haz-Mat endorsement. You can also get additional endorsements with additional training such as "tankers" and "flatbeds" and "tandem trailers".
If you are never going to do anything but drive your car or pickup truck back and forth to work and occasionally help a friend move a couch do you need to get a Chauffeurs license? No.
If you are going to run a "hotshot" business delivering trailers loaded with valves or couplers up and down the highway to factories or chemical plans, you are going to need a CDL for sure.
Please tell me that you can't see, in any honesty, why a waiver to fly at night would be necessary in a situation like this, where a police chase ended in a snowy field and a Mavic 2 Enterprise with a spotlight attachment was sent to scout out the suspect vehicle while a M210 with zoom and thermal hovered nearby for overwatch.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
And While I'm certain that Police Dept has all of the proper waivers on hand, my point is, they are simply unnecessary.
If a farmer hears a strange sound in his back field at 2am, he should be able to launch his Phantom a couple hundred feet up and fly out over his pasture to see what is probably stalking his lifestock, without having to submit a waiver application.
THAT's the sort of stuff we are saying makes No Sense.


Just because you fly in a very small area of operation doesn't mean everyone does. The FAA expects us, as professionals, to be able to pick up and move to a totally different location and be able to operate safely in ANY type of airspace we might need to.

As an example... I don't fly manned aircraft into Class BRAVO airspace simply because it's too much stress for my type of flying and I don't have BRAVO in my flying area. But I am indeed ABLE and have proven so in my testing etc in order to be a Private Pilot. Why should RPIC be any different?

Just because you don't fly your PHANTOM in other spaces than your home jurisdiction doesn't mean you shouldn't know the rules and regulations to fly anywhere in the USA. I'm a bit disappointed in your response here with you being the professional and industry leader that you are sir. Part 107 means ANY airspace in the US and flying potentially any sUAS under 55lbs and 100 mph. That pretty much applies to exactly what you do day in and day out.
 

Have you actually read this whole thread? It's been stated several times and ways how Part 107 is more than just Phantom/Mavic/Spark and as such must encompass more than just flying for Real Estate pics etc. There's a whole big world out there that's much more involved than just our Phantoms.
 
Anyone got their take on FAA drone rules? Which do you think make no sense or can not be enforced. Which should be discussed and repelled as obsolete?

Would you agreed that owning a drone is already treated almost as owning a car. With licensing, registration and insurance. Yet more restricted then driving a car. Even though being much safer if you count 30000 dead every year in car crashes.
Forget the car crashes. How about aviation crashes?

3 lb. Drone deaths = zero. Can't fly over people. 2-ton Helicopter deaths = insurmountable property damage and carnage. Can fly over people all day long. Try to figure THAT one out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cellblock776
While I agree with the majority of what you stated, the last portion is entirely wrong. Just because YOUR not flying near airport etc doesn't mean that everyone in the nation isn't flying at/near airports. I've actually flown FROM/OVER an airport runway last fall (legally and coordinated). It can happen and there are good reasons why we should know that information.

Keep in mind that Part 107 encompasses a LOT more than just Phantoms and Mavics. It covers a lot more than just Real Estate images and pretty landscape scenes. Some of us do fly at/near airports and some of us are in direct contact with ATC for some flights. Part 107 covers all nonHobby/Recreational flights that are under 55lbs which is a lot more than you'd think. Part 107, as it stands today, has to cover just about anything you can do with a sUAS outside of hobby/recreational.

I whole heartedly agree that Part 107 should have a Flight Demonstration aspect and I voiced that opinion in the comments on the new NPRM section that closed today. If you can't physically fly a sUAS safely then you should have the card in your pocket.

It seems most posts I’ve read appear to be from recreational sUAV pilot’s standpoint. But It is the Commercial sUAV pilot (paid for his work) who is required to hold a license. Many examples of the “unfairness” these laws pose, seem to encounter recreational, non-paid situations.

Unless the laws have changed, Recreational sUAV pilots are not required to take the test or hold a license. Yes, they do have to register their drone, which would make it easier to return a lost drone if found, or it might just as easily identify the owner in cases where illegal activity might have occurred. Drones over 0.55 pounds that are not registered might be due to the owner trying to avoid being detected.

Registering and passing the FAA 107 test can be a way of validating your intention to be an serious, informed, law-abiding pilot. Of course, commercial licensing is not for everyone. It requires dedicated studying time, but if you want to make money producing your projects or adventures, it’s a hurdle you can’t afford to miss.

If you’re just out for a recreational adventure flying the skies, the law currently does not require you to take the exam. You’ll probably be ok, unless an accident or something else happens. Then the FAA will step in and determine if the law has been broken.

Ignorance of the law does not protect you. Knowing, understanding and following current FAA 107 regulations and procedures may help keep the sUAV pilot safe from litigation or prosecution, even if the pilot doesn’t hold a license, because the pilot wouldn’t be where he’s not supposed to be.

As time goes on, FAA 107 laws will likely evolve. I really appreciate this forum giving us, the little people, the ability to voice our opinions. The drone industry seems to be exploding and with the increased traffic, the laws will have to loosen up as it will be hard to watch everyone.
 
If you fly manned aircraft, I can see having to know ATC and airport procedures because you’re landing at airports. But if I just want to sell people pictures of their houses from the air, why do I need to be a certified FAA anything. I’ve been flying Rc aircraft for 30 years... it just seems like overreach. I can see the registration... fine. I can see the rules for hobbiest, , but the $150 fee to sell aerial photos is over the top! Just them trying to make money... Remember, this started because people are afraid bad guys are going to fly bombs around. Well the bad guys aren’t going to follow the rules.., just us good guys.
 
It seems most posts I’ve read appear to be from recreational sUAV pilot’s standpoint. But It is the Commercial sUAV pilot (paid for his work) who is required to hold a license. Many examples of the “unfairness” these laws pose, seem to encounter recreational, non-paid situations.
So you think that the majority of us who are pointing out the stupidity of some of the Pt 107 requirements are speaking from a recreational pilots standpoint? How could you possibly come to such a conclusion? Recreational pilots don't care what's in the 107 test. Those of us venting our frustrations are Professional pilots who took and passed the exam and were left wondering what much of it had to do with operating a sUAV. None of the examples of "unfairness" posted in this thread have anything to do with "recreational, non-paid situations". Everything we are citing has to do directly with what is being done every day across this nation by the vast majority of Pt 107 pilots flying Paid, non-recreational missions. I have a full time job which requires me to hold a Pt 107 to be on the UAV team at work and I started my own LLC for part time jobs on my days off. If this was about recreational flying, none of us would even bother reading much less posting our problems with the Pt 107.
 
Last edited:
Good guys need to know the rules and demonstrate proof of this to become a professional. Also, if you are doing this as business, aside from earning a license, do you know what your time, skills, expertise and financial investment is worth? Before you start going door to door selling people pictures of their own home, you may want to check out these sites for tips on running a drone business:

Running A Drone Business - HiFly Photography

https://lp.precisionhawk.com/hubfs/Assets/PrecisionHawkDroneBusinessGuide2018.pdf

Jump through the hoops, give your business a name you can be proud of and develop a way for potential clients to contact you. I’m sure you’ll be glad you did.
 
Good guys need to know the rules and demonstrate proof of this to become a professional. Also, if you are doing this as business, aside from earning a license, do you know what your time, skills, expertise and financial investment is worth? Before you start going door to door selling people pictures of their own home, you may want to check out these sites for tips on running a drone business:

Running A Drone Business - HiFly Photography

https://lp.precisionhawk.com/hubfs/Assets/PrecisionHawkDroneBusinessGuide2018.pdf

Jump through the hoops, give your business a name you can be proud of and develop a way for potential clients to contact you. I’m sure you’ll be glad you did.


Ha, I’m a police officer, and still nothing on the 107 applied to me. AND the FAA still requires I get all the waivers, flying at night, flying over people, flying beyond line of site. Sounds like you like fees, well paying fees doesn’t make me feel more like a professional...
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers