Isn’t this 107 stuff complete overkill?

[sar104]

A

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.

Unfortunately just having existing rules demonstrably does not work. If people are not forced to take training, learn the rules, and understand the penalties for non-compliance, then many will just assume that they know best and do whatever they want.

So how should this work? Farmers don't need to be trained and certified to fly UAVs unless they live near an airport? Maybe no one needs Part 107 training unless they intend to break the Part 107 requirements.

 

[Dwilliams35]

Unfortunately just having existing rules demonstrably does not work. If people are not forced to take training, learn the rules, and understand the penalties for non-compliance, then many will just assume that they know best and do whatever they want.

So how should this work? Farmers don't need to be trained and certified to fly UAVs unless they live near an airport? Maybe no one needs Part 107 training unless they intend to break the Part 107 requirements.

No, just simply require the certifications, notifications, etc. that you already have to fly that close to an airport.... if that’s a pro drone pilot, fine. If it’s a farmer, fine. That’s a situational regulation, and makes much more sense than “because he might look at a cow and then milk it”.. Meanwhile, if a guy a hundred miles from an airport wants to look at a cow two hundred yards away, do you really think it’s going to impact public safety if he can successfully decipher an aviation map or not?


I’ll clue you in on something else.... the 107 certification is an “existing rule”, too. I think it’s already been covered here just what the noncompliance level is on that one.. the more reasonable a regulation is, the more likely it is that people will follow it.

 

[sar104]

No, just simply require the certifications, notifications, etc. that you already have to fly that close to an airport.... if that’s a pro drone pilot, fine. If it’s a farmer, fine. That’s a situational regulation, and makes much more sense than “because he might look at a cow and then milk it”.. Meanwhile, if a guy a hundred miles from an airport wants to look at a cow two hundred yards away, do you really think it’s going to impact public safety if he can successfully decipher an aviation map or not?


I’ll clue you in on something else.... the 107 certification is an “existing rule”, too. I think it’s already been covered here just what the noncompliance level is on that one.. the more reasonable a regulation is, the more likely it is that people will follow it.

But the logical extension of your argument is then that no one should need training and certification - they should just follow the rules. Or are you expecting that those who do need training will somehow self-identify that need, without prior instruction on what the need is? I'm afraid that you have a chicken and egg problem.

 

[Dwilliams35]

But the logical extension of your argument is then that no one should need training and certification - they should just follow the rules. Or are you expecting that those who do need training will somehow self-identify that need, without prior instruction on what the need is? I'm afraid that you have a chicken and egg problem.

I’m simply advocating a bit of common sense to be applied here: there’s people currently required to get a 107 who really don’t fit the mold of a commercial drone pilot. This would be akin to requiring a CDL drivers license if you ever drive to work. There’s plenty of such “divisions” in licensing already; the FAA doesn’t require a guy who just wants to fly his Cessna on weekends to be fully certified on 747’s. That’s very similar to what we’ve got here. There is simply a difference between a commercial drone pilot and a hobbyist-level drone user who may occasionally see a use for his new toy in his day to day activities at work.. Hes not hanging up his shingle as a drone pilot for hire, and public safety is utterly unaffected if he doesn’t know the force required to maintain a 30 degree bank angle.

There’s just no middle ground here as it exists today: either your training to fly a drone consists of five common sense questions to load the DJI app, or you go to the next step, which requires weeks of study, enrollment in a study course, and driving fifty miles to take a test full of questions which have little to no bearing in your planned activities. There’s some room in the middle here.

 

[BigAl07]

I’m simply advocating a bit of common sense to be applied here: there’s people currently required to get a 107 who really don’t fit the mold of a commercial drone pilot. This would be akin to requiring a CDL drivers license if you ever drive to work. There’s plenty of such “divisions” in licensing already; the FAA doesn’t require a guy who just wants to fly his Cessna on weekends to be fully certified on 747’s. That’s very similar to what we’ve got here. There is simply a difference between a commercial drone pilot and a hobbyist-level drone user who may occasionally see a use for his new toy in his day to day activities at work.. Hes not hanging up his shingle as a drone pilot for hire, and public safety is utterly unaffected if he doesn’t know the force required to maintain a 30 degree bank angle.

There’s just no middle ground here as it exists today: either your training to fly a drone consists of five common sense questions to load the DJI app, or you go to the next step, which requires weeks of study, enrollment in a study course, and driving fifty miles to take a test full of questions which have little to no bearing in your planned activities. There’s some room in the middle here.

You are mistaken when you toss out "Commercial Drone Pilot". Commercial is but one portion of what Part 107 covers as we are all CIVIL operators but that's a whole other discussion. And honestly, a farmer using a drone to inspect his farm/herd is considered commercial if he is in the business of farming. Why should they not have the same rules as someone inspecting their power lines? I mean in essence what is the difference? The "inspection" is just a supplement to making sure their "infrastructure" is safe and intact.

So where would you draw the lines? From my point of view there is no reason a farmer should not have to have the same training to do the same job as someone else. Just because they are a farmer doesn't exempt them from the same regulations the rest of us have to have to essentially do the same job.

 

[Dwilliams35]

You are mistaken when you toss out "Commercial Drone Pilot". Commercial is but one portion of what Part 107 covers as we are all CIVIL operators but that's a whole other discussion. And honestly, a farmer using a drone to inspect his farm/herd is considered commercial if he is in the business of farming. Why should they not have the same rules as someone inspecting their power lines? I mean in essence what is the difference? The "inspection" is just a supplement to making sure their "infrastructure" is safe and intact.

So where would you draw the lines? From my point of view there is no reason a farmer should not have to have the same training to do the same job as someone else. Just because they are a farmer doesn't exempt them from the same regulations the rest of us have to have to essentially do the same job.

Where do I draw the line? That’s simple. If you fly a drone for hire, either as a proprietor of a drone business, or as a drone pilot for your employer.

Phase two of this would be for the current “occasional use”, incidental to their actual business like the farmers, etc.: basically a fairly high level online safety course that covers in depth ALL applicable UAS laws and regulations, with a test at the end. That level certification would be limited to, just for classifications’ sake, the military group 1 weight ( under 20 pounds takeoff weight). (I’d really rather see that at five pounds or less, but I just used an existing classification). Renewals would require taking the full course again.

I’m really just basing this on the model of pesticide licenses I’m familiar with: there’s usually a “middle class” of license for private users not applying restricted pesticides for hire. It’s a much lower level of certifications than a commercial pesticide license spraying other people’s property. All the same safety rules are covered, of course, just at a lower level for somebody that doesn’t really do that for a living or place other people at risk.

What we’ve got now is basically applying the rules that are appropriate for 5% of the “commercial” drone market to 100% of the operators, including a whole lot that are basically hobby operators that just happen to be at work at the moment. That’s a sure recipe for noncompliance. Make the certification fit the need. The rules are already in place, and they don’t change depending on which piece of paper a drone pilot has in his or her pocket.

 

[N017RW]

Where do you get your data to support your claims (5%)?

It frankly just sounds like sour grapes fueled by a lack of understanding of the risks posed to manned aircraft. I also reject any notions of the often touted dismissal of what a drone would do to an aircraft. Any collision would require costly inspections, reports, repairs, more inspection and certification. Safety and accountability is the goal of the 107 and while things may change here and there 107 will be here to stay IMO.

These 4 prop craft have no redundancy and as so pose a public safety risk.

I don't expect to convince you or anyone to change your views but just offer a bit of perspective. The last thing any pilot wants is a collision and I want is a falling Chinese toy to strike me, my property, or a loved one.

Regulation ad certification is a common practice when the public is at risk and aviation is high on that list.

 

[bsartist]

Why do we need to learn all about the airspace when DJI GO will prevent us from taking off in no fly zones?

 

[weldor]

I’m simply advocating a bit of common sense to be applied here: there’s people currently required to get a 107 who really don’t fit the mold of a commercial drone pilot. This would be akin to requiring a CDL drivers license if you ever drive to work. There’s plenty of such “divisions” in licensing already; the FAA doesn’t require a guy who just wants to fly his Cessna on weekends to be fully certified on 747’s. That’s very similar to what we’ve got here. There is simply a difference between a commercial drone pilot and a hobbyist-level drone user who may occasionally see a use for his new toy in his day to day activities at work.. Hes not hanging up his shingle as a drone pilot for hire, and public safety is utterly unaffected if he doesn’t know the force required to maintain a 30 degree bank angle.

There’s just no middle ground here as it exists today: either your training to fly a drone consists of five common sense questions to load the DJI app, or you go to the next step, which requires weeks of study, enrollment in a study course, and driving fifty miles to take a test full of questions which have little to no bearing in your planned activities. There’s some room in the middle here.

That's the bets description I heard for

I’m simply advocating a bit of common sense to be applied here: there’s people currently required to get a 107 who really don’t fit the mold of a commercial drone pilot. This would be akin to requiring a CDL drivers license if you ever drive to work. There’s plenty of such “divisions” in licensing already; the FAA doesn’t require a guy who just wants to fly his Cessna on weekends to be fully certified on 747’s. That’s very similar to what we’ve got here. There is simply a difference between a commercial drone pilot and a hobbyist-level drone user who may occasionally see a use for his new toy in his day to day activities at work.. Hes not hanging up his shingle as a drone pilot for hire, and public safety is utterly unaffected if he doesn’t know the force required to maintain a 30 degree bank angle.

There’s just no middle ground here as it exists today: either your training to fly a drone consists of five common sense questions to load the DJI app, or you go to the next step, which requires weeks of study, enrollment in a study course, and driving fifty miles to take a test full of questions which have little to no bearing in your planned activities. There’s some room in the middle here.

That's the best description I've heard. Something needs to be changed and I think you described it perfectly, I think someone good with legal speak should get a proposal written up and present it to the powers that be and maybe something could be changed.

 

[Dwilliams35]

Where do you get your data to support your claims (5%)?

It frankly just sounds like sour grapes fueled by a lack of understanding of the risks posed to manned aircraft. I also reject any notions of the often touted dismissal of what a drone would do to an aircraft. Any collision would require costly inspections, reports, repairs, more inspection and certification. Safety and accountability is the goal of the 107 and while things may change here and there 107 will be here to stay IMO.

These 4 prop craft have no redundancy and as so pose a public safety risk.

I don't expect to convince you or anyone to change your views but just offer a bit of perspective. The last thing any pilot wants is a collision and I want is a falling Chinese toy to strike me, my property, or a loved one.

Regulation ad certification is a common practice when the public is at risk and aviation is high on that list.

Where did I get my data? The SWAG method, compounded with wild conjecture and personal observation. I've met quite a few folks who would legitimately be required to have a 107 for uses that are really no different than standard hobbyist flying, simply because their hobby temporarily intruded on a for-profit venture they were involved in. On the other hand, as far as "pro" drone operators whom I've met, let me add them up a bit.... um, uh, carry the two, um........ Zero. A similar number of the first group had a 107, despite the requirement to do so. I did see one bunch on the side of the road with a big two-operator rig a few months ago doing power-line surveys, just flying a bunch of rural distribution lines to mark where the brush needed cut back out of the right of way. Didn't talk to them, but they're the sum total of my personal exposure to somebody who would NEED the current iteration of the 107 certification or higher..

I haven't seen anybody here discount what would happen if a drone and a manned aircraft attempted to share the same airspace at the same time. That being said, you could just as easily just say that a 15 year old kid in Wyoming shouldn't be able to fly a Mavic in his backyard when Elon Musk is launching something in Florida, just because the risk is too high. At some point you just have to step back and realize that the risk just doesn't justify the efforts to mitigate it. If a farmer flying a one-pound drone 200 yards from his house at 50' altitude is a risk to General Aviation, then there's something wrong with the General Aviation in the area. The flying I'm talking about here is of no greater risk than any of the "hobbyist" flying, probably much less just by virtue of the fact that it's around a ground-based foci, plus the fact that it's probably somebody using the drone as an expensive tool that you just can't afford to take risky chances with, rather than just some kid seeing how high he can take the thing. It's certainly nothing that the basic existing safety rules and laws don't cover, with or without the 107.

If you want to call it sour grapes, fine. I just don't see any possible way that the current 107 test material has even the slightest applicability to the folks I'm talking about here: none. Zilch. No improvement in public safety, no reduced threat to manned aviation, no improvement of homeland security. None whatsoever. As this thread started as, it's ridiculous overkill for the need/risk/threat in the flying I'm talking about.

 

[Buk]

I guess living in a rural area in a predominately rural state in the nation, requiring a farmer to have a remote pilot’s license made me bristle from the day I first heard it. All I could think was more government over reach to collect more revenue.

Inspecting their own land, crops, livestock on their own land, they need a federal license...heck no. Do it for their neighbors’...heck yeah a license.

Inspecting their own power lines, no license. Inspecting their neighbors’ or the power company’s or local utility’s, a license. There is a clear difference of who owns what on power lines or cell phone towers or internet shelters as there are easements, leases and contracts detailing who owns what. So a farmer inspecting their own property is easily determined.

Nothing will change about what a farmer can do on their own. In my opinion, the next changes are being formulated in a secret meeting, in a closed room by the ten largest corporations desiring to control the NAS from 300 feet to 500 feet AGL.

 

[Dwilliams35]

I guess living in a rural area in a predominately rural state in the nation, requiring a farmer to have a remote pilot’s license made me bristle from the day I first heard it. All I could think was more government over reach to collect more revenue.

Inspecting their own land, crops, livestock on their own land, they need a federal license...heck no. Do it for their neighbors’...heck yeah a license.

Inspecting their own power lines, no license. Inspecting their neighbors’ or the power company’s or local utility’s, a license. There is a clear difference of who owns what on power lines or cell phone towers or internet shelters as there are easements, leases and contracts detailing who owns what. So a farmer inspecting their own property is easily determined.

Nothing will change about what a farmer can do on their own. In my opinion, the next changes are being formulated in a secret meeting, in a closed room by the ten largest corporations desiring to control the NAS from 300 feet to 500 feet AGL.

How about "Do it for their neighbors FOR PAY" instead. We can't be forcing people to get a license to be neighborly.

 

[WV. Rootman]

Humans like to naturally be legalistic. We like to make laws and dictate how things should be done. We can at times go so far we miss the intent of what we first started to do. We go so far out on a branch that we forget what the tree looks like. We get into red tape, bureaucracy to the point of becoming oppressive and dysfunctional. I don’t have the full scope even though I have read much about part 107 on this forum. There really seems to be some streamlining that needs to be done. Educate me; how can a Realtor bring down a plane filming a house if he was told only to fly under a 100 ft? Trees are taller then that! When things are made so hard, people will supersede the rules. Then there are times the rules are so technical, so legal, that you need a lawyer with you all the time. (It’s that way just to see a doctor now. Watch what you say! ) Then some poor soul will unknowingly break a little tittle of the law and spend 1000 years in jail. KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID! We will get more things done that way.

 

[BigAl07]

Why do we need to learn all about the airspace when DJI GO will prevent us from taking off in no fly zones?

You do realize that not everyone is flying DJI aircraft don't you? Part 107 is about a lot more than just Phantoms.... it's about a lot more than just quads... or more than MultiRotors for that case.

Part 107 encompasses R/C helicopters, Airplanes, Multirotors and the myriad of variations within these broad classifications. It is for all sUAS that are under 55lbs regardless of the "configuration" or manufacturer.

 

[bsartist]

You do realize that not everyone is flying DJI aircraft don't you? Part 107 is about a lot more than just Phantoms.... it's about a lot more than just quads... or more than MultiRotors for that case.

Part 107 encompasses R/C helicopters, Airplanes, Multirotors and the myriad of variations within these broad classifications. It is for all sUAS that are under 55lbs regardless of the "configuration" or manufacturer.

Yes.

It was a joke.

 

[weldor]

You do realize that not everyone is flying DJI aircraft don't you? Part 107 is about a lot more than just Phantoms.... it's about a lot more than just quads... or more than MultiRotors for that case.

Part 107 encompasses R/C helicopters, Airplanes, Multirotors and the myriad of variations within these broad classifications. It is for all sUAS that are under 55lbs regardless of the "configuration" or manufacturer.

Yes that's the whole thing I'm getting at, we need a division, maybe more than one to separate the large commercial aircraft from the small ones.

As was mentioned I will probably never fly mine over 200 ft. or out of sight.

 

[N017RW]

Where did I get my data? The SWAG method, compounded with wild conjecture and personal observation. I've met quite a few folks who would legitimately be required to have a 107 for uses that are really no different than standard hobbyist flying, simply because their hobby temporarily intruded on a for-profit venture they were involved in. On the other hand, as far as "pro" drone operators whom I've met, let me add them up a bit.... um, uh, carry the two, um........ Zero. A similar number of the first group had a 107, despite the requirement to do so. I did see one bunch on the side of the road with a big two-operator rig a few months ago doing power-line surveys, just flying a bunch of rural distribution lines to mark where the brush needed cut back out of the right of way. Didn't talk to them, but they're the sum total of my personal exposure to somebody who would NEED the current iteration of the 107 certification or higher..

I haven't seen anybody here discount what would happen if a drone and a manned aircraft attempted to share the same airspace at the same time. That being said, you could just as easily just say that a 15 year old kid in Wyoming shouldn't be able to fly a Mavic in his backyard when Elon Musk is launching something in Florida, just because the risk is too high. At some point you just have to step back and realize that the risk just doesn't justify the efforts to mitigate it. If a farmer flying a one-pound drone 200 yards from his house at 50' altitude is a risk to General Aviation, then there's something wrong with the General Aviation in the area. The flying I'm talking about here is of no greater risk than any of the "hobbyist" flying, probably much less just by virtue of the fact that it's around a ground-based foci, plus the fact that it's probably somebody using the drone as an expensive tool that you just can't afford to take risky chances with, rather than just some kid seeing how high he can take the thing. It's certainly nothing that the basic existing safety rules and laws don't cover, with or without the 107.

If you want to call it sour grapes, fine. I just don't see any possible way that the current 107 test material has even the slightest applicability to the folks I'm talking about here: none. Zilch. No improvement in public safety, no reduced threat to manned aviation, no improvement of homeland security. None whatsoever. As this thread started as, it's ridiculous overkill for the need/risk/threat in the flying I'm talking about.

Sorry. No interest in such a long post

Couldn’t get beyond data based on SWAG.

 

[bsartist]

Where do you get your data to support your claims (5%)?

It frankly just sounds like sour grapes fueled by a lack of understanding of the risks posed to manned aircraft. I also reject any notions of the often touted dismissal of what a drone would do to an aircraft. Any collision would require costly inspections, reports, repairs, more inspection and certification. Safety and accountability is the goal of the 107 and while things may change here and there 107 will be here to stay IMO.

These 4 prop craft have no redundancy and as so pose a public safety risk.

I don't expect to convince you or anyone to change your views but just offer a bit of perspective. The last thing any pilot wants is a collision and I want is a falling Chinese toy to strike me, my property, or a loved one.

Regulation ad certification is a common practice when the public is at risk and aviation is high on that list.

I agree with what you say here for the most part. Except I’m not sure what part of the part 107 certification mitigates the risk of the Chinese toy falling on a loved one. I’m studying for my part 107 now so I’m not personally arguing against it. But I haven’t yet run across anything in the training that addresses the very real risks you refer to. So I guess maybe the question is one of relevance of the certification vs. just “raising the bar for entry” to keep the numbers down.

Yet, having said that, the hobbyist activity not covered by 107 probably poses more of those risks than the activities requiring a part 107. Yes I know that some “commercial” activity are events near people etc. I get it. I’m speaking in broad general terms which I think is valid. While I don’t have any scientific or empirical data to back this up, my gut tells me that you are probably more likely to be hit by a hobbyist or your property struck by a hobby overflight than by someone doing a job. And if part 107 activities are resulting in personal injury or property damage then that brings me full circle. Is the part 107 curriculum effective and relevant to the real risks. Vs theoretical knowledge.

Again, maybe it’s “raising the bar” just to keep numbers low. But it’s not - because of the many hobbyists. So better to make the certification relevant to the risks at hand and not just raise the bar on one segment of the participants.

And as was touched on elsewhere in this thread, yes 107 applies to much more than just quadcopters. But maybe that’s a problem. Maybe that is preventing some high quality, highly relevant training and certification from being developed relevant to the explosion of quadcopter use.

 

[N017RW]

I agree with what you say here for the most part. Except I’m not sure what part of the part 107 certification mitigates the risk of the Chinese toy falling on a loved one. I’m studying for my part 107 now so I’m not personally arguing against it. But I haven’t yet run across anything in the training that addresses the very real risks you refer to. So I guess maybe the question is one of relevance of the certification vs. just “raising the bar for entry” to keep the numbers down.

Yet, having said that, the hobbyist activity not covered by 107 probably poses more of those risks than the activities requiring a part 107. Yes I know that some “commercial” activity are events near people etc. I get it. I’m speaking in broad general terms which I think is valid. While I don’t have any scientific or empirical data to back this up, my gut tells me that you are probably more likely to be hit by a hobbyist or your property struck by a hobby overflight than by someone doing a job. And if part 107 activities are resulting in personal injury or property damage then that brings me full circle. Is the part 107 curriculum effective and relevant to the real risks. Vs theoretical knowledge.

Again, maybe it’s “raising the bar” just to keep numbers low. But it’s not - because of the many hobbyists. So better to make the certification relevant to the risks at hand and not just raise the bar on one segment of the participants.

And as was touched on elsewhere in this thread, yes 107 applies to much more than just quadcopters. But maybe that’s a problem. Maybe that is preventing some high quality, highly relevant training and certification from being developed relevant to the explosion of quadcopter use.

It does not address reliability. But pronotes risk awareness and accountability and prevents some operation without proper preparation.

 

[Dwilliams35]

Sorry. No interest in such a long post

Couldn’t get beyond data based on SWAG.

You called it data. I didn't. Sorry you couldn't recognize a rhetorical number when it was presented..