Isn’t this 107 stuff complete overkill?
- Thread starter dmcgrew
- Start date
Under the law, your drone IS an AIRCRAFT! It must comply with CFR Title 14 as it will be operating the NAS. You want to play, learn the way!!!!
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations
e-CFR data is current as of February 1, 2018
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Contents
§1.1 General definitions.
Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.
Unmanned aircraft means an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
Last edited:
I've just got back from a 4 day PfCO course - very interesting and certainly seeks to raise the bar for commercial operations. Obviously very focused on safety/process, but the flying exam was also very relevant - ATTI mode flying in gusty conditions, nose-in ATTI, clean patterns, ability to react to emergency,etc
I really enjoyed the course but I don't see how the CAA / police can clamp down on illegal operations in any meaningful way, so the course fee & time are a bit of a 'punt'
I really enjoyed the course but I don't see how the CAA / police can clamp down on illegal operations in any meaningful way, so the course fee & time are a bit of a 'punt'
Check that.
I had to complete a ground school, twenty hours flight time with a CFI, and twenty hours solo along with a X-country for my fixed wing private pilot's license. A sUAV 107 doesn't allow for normal aircraft piloting, although it might help for your private pilot's exam.
The actual flight training is another costly matter, along with a medical certificate, and a few hours each 90 days in the aircraft doing touch-and-goes, and perhaps a check-ride for the type of aircraft to be flown as well (i.e. retractable gear, turbo-prop, etc.).
What I’m getting out of this is that there’s an inability on the FAA’s part to distinguish “Commercial use” from “commercial pilot”... There’s a difference between a guy making a living inspecting cell towers on top of a high rise in a downtown area, and a guy flying 200 yards away from home to check his cows. Ditto 99% of real estate use, wedding photography, etc. In the real world, incidental and occasional use of a drone in the course of making a living is a quite different thing than presenting yourself as a certified, bonded and insured, professional UAS pilot for hire, whether the FAA sees the distinction or not. As long as the licensure system presents an unreasonable amount of requirements on people, you’re probably going to have people flying “under the radar”, so to speak.
I think the whole system really needs to be broken up into several classes: are there drone pilots that NEED the current 107 as is? Sure. However, there is a huge proportion of people out there who currently would be technically required to get the same license, while their actual drone usage would be better suited with an hour-long online safety course and certification. You’d see a lot higher compliance level as well as a result.
I think the whole system really needs to be broken up into several classes: are there drone pilots that NEED the current 107 as is? Sure. However, there is a huge proportion of people out there who currently would be technically required to get the same license, while their actual drone usage would be better suited with an hour-long online safety course and certification. You’d see a lot higher compliance level as well as a result.
Last edited:
That's absolutely true. But if took a mammoth amount of work between Congress and the FAA to get the broadly generalized version adopted. If Part 107 had been further divided and detailed, we'd still be waiting for certification.
So we accept inappropriate legislation because it’s too hard to correct it? This is pretty much on a par with saying only an MD can administer NyQuil or apply a bandaid.
Well, there was a substantial public comment period prior to the rule being enacted. I guess everyone was good with it at the time.
Part 107 is in itself a mere band-aid to appease the masses of people who wanted to get a "Commercial" license but didn't want to go all in and get a Sport/Private Pilot's in order to fly under a Section 333 Exemption.
IMHO Part 107 should be a lot more complicated but they didn't ask me and they needed to get something on the books ASAP. Keep in mind that no less than 4 deadlines were not met already when Part 107 was finally adopted and placed into law. People were complaining and whining and crying like a stuck pig begging for Part 107 and the squeaky wheel always gets the grease even if it's the wrong grease.
We were good with prohibition and slavery at one time too.. you can’t argue that the “drone landscape” is quite different today.
Somehow I doubt that the aforementioned farmer wanting to fly a wal-mart drone 200 yards and back over his own property was begging for the opportunity to get that license...
You don't understand the framework of Part 107 regulations. If you're not flying for hobby/recreation then you can't hide behind 336. it's THAT simple.
While I do think we need (and some day have) varying levels of licensing I think that the current Part 107 is VERY minimal and should be what hobby/336 flights should have to take and pass. Then you go up from there.
I think it needs a practical hands-on segment to say the least. Too many people are "studying" to pass the test as opposed to learning the subject matter. We see way to many people who have their "Part 107" credentials posting questions that were on the test extensively. Such as "I've got my Part 107 and I need to fly 3 miles from an airport in Class C airspace. Do I still need to call the tower to make notification or is there something else I need to do".
No,
. No, I’m trying to MAKE a point: that there’s a big segment of the current drone flying population for which the current 107 licensing structure and requirements are completely inappropriate. The farming is the most obvious example I can think of; you’ve basically got a situation where a guy with a thousand acres can’t fly a drone recreationally in his own backyard lest he run the risk of taking a forbidden picture of his crop... it’s hard to believe that was the intent of the 107 regulation, but that’s what we ended up with.. there’s just some activities that common sense would dictate would warrant that level of education and testing, and some that simply don’t. The current delineation between “hobby” and “commercial” just isn’t realistic by any means.
Last edited:
One can always find examples of UAV use that pose no risk to aviation or anything else, but they are specific, not general. What about the farmer with a thousand acres next to an airport - is it okay for him to fly? Does he understand the regulations? An important part of Part 107 training is to ensure that operators are knowledgeable enough to distinguish safe from unsafe, and to understand the regulations that they need to satisfy.
A
My point is that the net got cast too wide: for every farmer next to an airport, there’s a hundred that are fifty miles from an airport who are required to have the same certification for no discernible reason.
Are there not existing rules that would cover such a case? That question is covered in every drone safety list that every drone buyer is exposed to, it’s not a secret that is only accessible to 107 holders..
My point is that the net got cast too wide: for every farmer next to an airport, there’s a hundred that are fifty miles from an airport who are required to have the same certification for no discernible reason.
Similar threads
