Isn’t this 107 stuff complete overkill?

[bsartist]

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

Not disputed. I didn’t mean to imply that there was nothing relevant. But how about swapping out load factor in banked turns knowledge for GPS stabilized vs. ATTI mode flight knowledge and maybe we are heading in the right direction? Adding in some specific risks with general risk management may be a good thing.

Yeah maybe those are DJI terms but I think it illustrates a concept that is valid. Put another way: this forum puts forth a great deal of information such as that very topic of learning to handle non-GPS stabilized flight - and many other lessons learned and suggestions for safe flight and drone specific risks. My point is that conceptually you can think of this as the basis for more targeted training in lieu of the stuff that’s not really that relevant. Make room for the good stuff.

I think BigA107 said he’d even like to see more practical hands on in the certification process. I’m neither making that case nor refuting it. But I don’t think you can even have that conversation if you aren’t willing to talk about a more targeted approach. If one is unwilling then I would have to conclude that the goal is just to make it harder to enter and keep it more exclusive.

 

[michaeljwest]

I Purchased my drone before I thought I would ever use it for any commercial purposes so I didn’t think I needed a part 107. Now that I’ve taken part 107 courses I fully understand and I would not want to fly without training. There’s too many gotchas out there the people that are here only as a hobby just don’t have a clue about. For instance I used to think that you could not fly within 5 miles of an airport regardless of the circumstances. That is just not true and I only learned that by taking some proper training.

 

[Dwilliams35]

I Purchased my drone before I thought I would ever use it for any commercial purposes so I didn’t think I needed a part 107. Now that I’ve taken part 107 courses I fully understand and I would not want to fly without training. There’s too many gotchas out there the people that are here only as a hobby just don’t have a clue about. For instance I used to think that you could not fly within 5 miles of an airport regardless of the circumstances. That is just not true and I only learned that by taking some proper training.

So you would have erred on the side of safety... I guess the rule worked even before you got the 107, with or without correct understanding of the rule.

 

[michaeljwest]

P4P costs too much to risk. Glad I did.

 

[barefootbeachcombing]

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.
.

The government is not collecting any revenue from the Part 107 licensing. The fee goes to the testing centers, which are privately run.

 

[Dwilliams35]

P4P costs too much to risk. Glad I did.

So do you really think your P4P is that much safer now that you know you CAN fly close to an airport, as opposed to when you just thought you couldn't?

 

[AndrewCCM]

I still wonder if “iJustine” of YouTube fame has her 107... LOL

 

[barefootbeachcombing]

So do you really think your P4P is that much safer now that you know you CAN fly close to an airport, as opposed to when you just thought you couldn't?

Again, you are missing the point. It's not all about "flying close to an airport".

Hopefully, someone who has successfully passed the Part 107 test has a better understanding of weather (and how it affects the operation of a drone), how to correctly discern what types of manned flights might be in the area of their potential drone operation and what to look out for, how to understand factors that might impair the flight including factors affecting the pilot and crew, how to understand what additional loading factors might impact the drone itself, and so on.

 

[BigAl07]

Again, you are missing the point. It's not all about "flying close to an airport".

Hopefully, someone who has successfully passed the Part 107 test has a better understanding of weather (and how it affects the operation of a drone), how to correctly discern what types of manned flights might be in the area of their potential drone operation and what to look out for, how to understand factors that might impair the flight including factors affecting the pilot and crew, how to understand what additional loading factors might impact the drone itself, and so on.

Very well said.

 

[Dwilliams35]

Again, you are missing the point. It's not all about "flying close to an airport".

Hopefully, someone who has successfully passed the Part 107 test has a better understanding of weather (and how it affects the operation of a drone), how to correctly discern what types of manned flights might be in the area of their potential drone operation and what to look out for, how to understand factors that might impair the flight including factors affecting the pilot and crew, how to understand what additional loading factors might impact the drone itself, and so on.

None of which would come into play in any significant way in the 50 foot altitude, 200 yard run between the house and the cow.

 

[michaeljwest]

So do you really think your P4P is that much safer now that you know you CAN fly close to an airport, as opposed to when you just thought you couldn't?

Absolutely.

 

[Dwilliams35]

Absolutely.

I’d love to hear the physics on that one...

 

[barefootbeachcombing]

None of which would come into play in any significant way in the 50 foot altitude, 200 yard run between the house and the cow.

You are wrong, but I'm done. You obviously have no desire to even try to gain even a modicum of understanding of the subject.

Good luck in your pursuits.

 

[Dwilliams35]

You are wrong, but I'm done. You obviously have no desire to even try to gain even a modicum of understanding of the subject.

Good luck in your pursuits.

Bye.


Meanwhile, I understand exactly what you’re trying to say: I simply disagree with the applicability of a lot of the current 107 curriculum to a lot of people who would be required to get it under current regulations. In the usage I’m talking about, yes you’re in the NAS: however, in the real world, manned aviation interfering with that flight (or vice versa, of course) is about #6,754 down the list of concerns, right behind an EMP attack and just ahead of a falling Russian spy satellite. Like I said, it’s 50’ high. You need to be more worried about ticked off hawks than you do wayward Cessnas.

If you think being able to calculate bank angles of fixed wing aircraft makes you a safer or better quadcopter operator, fine, you’re welcome to that belief.

Ditto understanding aviation maps, which you would likely NEVER see again, nor ever need to see again, after you walk out of that testing center...

Weather patterns? If it looks like rain or excessive wind, don’t fly. The battery won’t let you fly long enough to allow arctic temperature inversions to be a factor. You really don’t need to figure it into a flight plan that is LOS and 20 minutes long.

Would 107 certification tend to make you a better and/or safer all-around, multi-location, multi-purpose commercial drone pilot? Absolutely. Would it have the identical effect in a 200 yard x 50’ AGL bubble on your own property fifty miles from the closest airport? Very, very, VERY doubtful.

 

[WV. Rootman]

Bye.


Meanwhile, I understand exactly what you’re trying to say: I simply disagree with the applicability of a lot of the current 107 curriculum to a lot of people who would be required to get it under current regulations. In the usage I’m talking about, yes you’re in the NAS: however, in the real world, manned aviation interfering with that flight (or vice versa, of course) is about #6,754 down the list of concerns, right behind an EMP attack and just ahead of a falling Russian spy satellite. Like I said, it’s 50’ high. You need to be more worried about ticked off hawks than you do wayward Cessnas.

If you think being able to calculate bank angles of fixed wing aircraft makes you a safer or better quadcopter operator, fine, you’re welcome to that belief.

Ditto understanding aviation maps, which you would likely NEVER see again, nor ever need to see again, after you walk out of that testing center...

Weather patterns? If it looks like rain or excessive wind, don’t fly. The battery won’t let you fly long enough to allow arctic temperature inversions to be a factor. You really don’t need to figure it into a flight plan that is LOS and 20 minutes long.

Would 107 certification tend to make you a better and/or safer all-around, multi-location, multi-purpose commercial drone pilot? Absolutely. Would it have the identical effect in a 200 yard x 50’ AGL bubble on your own property fifty miles from the closest airport? Very, very, VERY doubtful.

I agree a 100%. There is a status of having a commercial license. I can just hear the news, “ real estate photographer brings down a 747.” If that sounds absurd, than why license a guy flying tree top level. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. 107 has it’s place, but not for everyone.

 

[AndrewCCM]

I agree a 100%. There is a status of having a commercial license. I can just hear the news, “ real estate photographer brings down a 747.” If that sounds absurd, than why license a guy flying tree top level. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. 107 has it’s place, but not for everyone.

But... the FAA isn’t making $ from 107 licenses from what I understand (just the company giving the tests). Even if so, how much do they really make from $150 license?

 

[sar104]

I agree a 100%. There is a status of having a commercial license. I can just hear the news, “ real estate photographer brings down a 747.” If that sounds absurd, than why license a guy flying tree top level. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. 107 has it’s place, but not for everyone.

Yes - except the point of Part 107 is precisely to teach you what you can and cannot do safely, and how to do it. That guy might be flying at tree top level today, but with equipment that can go much higher and further. And you only have to look at YouTube or read many posts on this forum to realize that many people are perfectly willing to go higher and further - much higher and further than is consistent with safe operation in the NAS. I'd wager that Part 107 pilots are, in general, much safer than many just flying under Part 101.

All of which suggests that everyone should be required to be trained if they want to use that kind of equipment, but Congress, of course, prevented that from happening, so the FAA regulated those pilots whom they were permitted to regulate.

Are you serious in suggesting that this is about money? Who do you imagine is profiting from Part 107?

 

[Dwilliams35]

Yes - except the point of Part 107 is precisely to teach you what you can and cannot do safely, and how to do it. That guy might be flying at tree top level today, but with equipment that can go much higher and further. And you only have to look at YouTube or read many posts on this forum to realize that many people are perfectly willing to go higher and further - much higher and further than is consistent with safe operation in the NAS. I'd wager that Part 107 pilots are, in general, much safer than many just flying under Part 101.

All of which suggests that everyone should be required to be trained if they want to use that kind of equipment, but Congress, of course, prevented that from happening, so the FAA regulated those pilots whom they were permitted to regulate.

Are you serious in suggesting that this is about money? Who do you imagine is profiting from Part 107?

So you’re basically into thoughtcrime regulation here? You have an aircraft that is capable of stupidity, ergo you will be stupid without a 107?

 

[Dwilliams35]

But... the FAA isn’t making $ from 107 licenses from what I understand (just the company giving the tests). Even if so, how much do they really make from $150 license?

I’m pretty sure they don’t make diddly squat. The real currency of federal bureaucracies isn’t fees and fines, it’s self-justification. If it takes an extra 200 people to process 107 certifications, it’s justification for 200 salaries in the FAA budget, and an impetus to grow their scope and reach a commensurate level.

 

[AndrewCCM]

I’m pretty sure they don’t make diddly squat. The real currency of federal bureaucracies isn’t fees and fines, it’s self-justification. If it takes an extra 200 people to process 107 certifications, it’s justification for 200 salaries in the FAA budget, and an impetus to grow their scope and reach a commensurate level.

I believe that may be a bit of exaggeration/simplification IMO. But I get what you’re saying. However, typically a cost/benefit analysis is done with any budgetary items. You don’t often see jobs (government or otherwise) last long when they don’t support a function that brings in more than the cost of doing business. Sure...they can grow out of control as many agencies do...and as you say, it could be an impetus to bigger budgets, scope creep and agency bloat. But I digress. LOL

Anyway, I do understand what you’re saying. But I disagree about this being solely about money (which seems to be implied in some of the posts)... What it is IMO again is an immature governance program hastily put in place without regards to use-cases and technology advancements in the real world.

“Y’all” take care!

Andrew