Isn’t this 107 stuff complete overkill?

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?

I have no idea what you mean by that. It's not the aircraft that's stupid. It's the untrained pilots - many of whom are demonstrably ignorant of any semblance of aviation safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndrewCCM
I have no idea what you mean by that. It's not the aircraft that's stupid. It's the untrained pilots - many of whom are demonstrably ignorant of any semblance of aviation safety.
Okay, to phrase it differently, the aircraft is capable of being operated stupidly. Better?

Many of the pilots. Not all. However you want to apply the rules for all of them based upon the presumption that each and every operator of the aircraft will stretch it to the limits of all possible stupidity. How delightfully Orwellian of you.
 
Okay, to phrase it differently, the aircraft is capable of being operated stupidly. Better?

Many of the pilots. Not all. However you want to apply the rules for all of them based upon the presumption that each and every operator of the aircraft will stretch it to the limits of all possible stupidity. How delightfully Orwellian of you.

Ah - so because some pilots will figure it out for themselves, no training or certification should be required. You are not really here for an intelligent discussion, are you? The mask of your initial, superficially reasonable position on a graded approach has slipped and your posts have degenerated into mindless trolling. I’m not wasting any more time on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N017RW
Ah - so because some pilots will figure it out for themselves, no training or certification should be required. You are not really here for an intelligent discussion, are you? The mask of your initial, superficially reasonable position on a graded approach has slipped and your posts have degenerated into mindless trolling. I’m not wasting any more time on this.
No, some won’t figure it out for themselves, some will never NEED to figure it out for themselves, since they will never venture into the wilds of the NAS far enough for it to realistically be a needed part of their training. That’s been my point all along.
There’s no question that the 107 is a needed part of the regulatory landscape here: it’s simply not an appropriate level of regulation for many of the people whom it is currently imposed upon. What their drones COULD be used for is a pretty lousy way to characterize their actual activities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: weldor
I have no idea what you mean by that. It's not the aircraft that's stupid. It's the untrained pilots - many of whom are demonstrably ignorant of any semblance of aviation safety.
Ignorance isn’t as bad as stupidity. Even worse, mix someone who is not ignorant with stupidity.
 
They are teaching you how to integrate into the National Airspace System and how to do so SAFELY and efficiently.
What you're missing is that sUAS Commercial operations entail a LOT more than just Phantom flights for Real Estate. We've got to understand the pond has a lot more fish in it than just the ones we happen to be flying. If we are big boy enough to say we are "Commercial" then we are expected to be big boy enough to understand Aviation Law/Regulations and how to fly well within those regulations. Who knows you might get good enough to fly in a place that would mandate knowing more than just charging your batteries and putting a new SD Card in the slot.
What you are missing is that most of these questions are coming from people who get the odd request to do some drone photos or videos and at best would be considered semi-pro. Unfortunately, due to the actions of some idiots, politicians decided to opt for a near pilot license for a drone license. There should be some room for something in the middle. This 107 requirement is gross overkill.

Why has there been no published data on drone strikes on aircraft? When aircraft used to be designed they shot frozen poultry at the windows to test their durability.
 
I have had a ton of requests to fly a drone and get paid for it. I just cannot understand the need for this 107 thing. I looked at some of the studying sites and it looks like they’re all teaching me how to fly an airplane. What would I need that for? It’s like going to college for design and needing to take a music class. I’m sure this is just some old government BS but wouldn’t it make much more sense to have a test that basically says “Don’t do this. Don’t fly here. Don’t go this high. Do this. etc?” I mean we’re just flying drones, not a [Language Removed] airplane. I don’t need to learn about weather reports and radar garbage.
Australian drone pilots face automatic grounding under national crackdown
 
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?
Yes sir, I am. Also government control. Couldn’t get back sooner, remodeling.
 
What you are missing is that most of these questions are coming from people who get the odd request to do some drone photos or videos and at best would be considered semi-pro. Unfortunately, due to the actions of some idiots, politicians decided to opt for a near pilot license for a drone license. There should be some room for something in the middle. This 107 requirement is gross overkill.

Why has there been no published data on drone strikes on aircraft? When aircraft used to be designed they shot frozen poultry at the windows to test their durability.
There are reports and you are parroting the notion of frozen poultry as analogs for live birds.

That’s not true. The analogs are not frozen. Why use such when that’s not what is encountered in flight?

It was a miscommunication early on between US and British engineers long since corrected.

You’ve been duped.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07 and sar104
What you are missing is that most of these questions are coming from people who get the odd request to do some drone photos or videos and at best would be considered semi-pro. .

Does doing "Commercial Work" once in a while make it any LESS commercial? You are either a Hobbyist operating under Section 336 protection or you are a Civil Operation (which commercial is but one aspect of Civil) operating under Part 107. Those are your options... PERIOD! There is no "sort of Commercial but sort of Hobby" rating.

Unfortunately, due to the actions of some idiots, politicians decided to opt for a near pilot license for a drone license. There should be some room for something in the middle. This 107 requirement is gross overkill.

By any chance were you in this industry 2 years ago when it required an actual Pilot License (flying IN the plane and everything) to do this type of work legally? Do you have your Part 107?

Come on let's get real for a minute... Part 107 is $150 and a very small handful of fairly easy sUAS questions. So many people who have ZERO aviation knowledge/experience have studied for a few days and passed it without even owning a sUAS. If it's too hard for you then maybe you should look into another occupation.

Why has there been no published data on drone strikes on aircraft? When aircraft used to be designed they shot frozen poultry at the windows to test their durability.
^^^^^^ LOL


PULEASE! General Aviation aircraft usually do not have IMPACT Rated windshields. Yes commercial and military aircraft usually do but the majority of aircraft that operate primarily under 12,000' AGL have windshields that can be destroyed by a fairly small bird at low velocity.
 
To you it may be only $150, but to me that is quite a bit of money.


Did I say anything about it being a small amount of money or not? NO! I stated it's $150 and a very small handful of questions. Please don't put words in my mouth.
 
Does doing "Commercial Work" once in a while make it any LESS commercial? You are either a Hobbyist operating under Section 336 protection or you are a Civil Operation (which commercial is but one aspect of Civil) operating under Part 107. Those are your options... PERIOD! There is no "sort of Commercial but sort of Hobby" rating.



.
i’d agree that if you are getting paid for it, is commercial. What if you don’t get paid for it? I’ll put aside my farmer example for a bit: let’s say some maintenance guy gets his kid a $29.99 drone at Walmart and decides to look at some windows on the 3rd floor. He’s not getting paid to fly, he’s simply using it as a tool to make life easier. If he didn’t have the drone, he doesn’t call a pro pilot, he gets a ladder. He’s not bootlegging a commercial use, he’s just using his kid’s toy to make his own life easier.

Let’s translate that to a homeowner doing the same thing: looking at his roof after a storm. It’s not a hobbyist use, it’s not truly recreational, and it’s being used to potentially save his money on repairs. A net savings = money in his pocket. Thus commercial.

Third example; pro photographer, doing still lifes in his garage. He finds a situation where he wants to use a drone to get the shot. He flies around for an hour INSIDE his garage, for a commercial use. Under current rules (at least as I have read them, correct me if there’s an “inside your garage” exemption), his use of a drone in his garage is a threat to the safety of the NAS, and he’s required to get a 107. Does that make sense?
 
  • Like
Reactions: weldor
Hobby/336 is exempt from Part 107 (I don't agree with that... they need rules and regulations too).

Civil Operations (anything not hobby) should be held to Part 107 (or higher) standards and regulations. Money is NOT the determining factor. Commercial is but one aspect of Part 107. There are LOTS of Civil uses that have nothing to do with money. If any portion of the flight benefits a business it can not be HOBBY.

A) Maintenance Guy using a sUAS in his business (regardless if it's $29 Wally drone or $2900 custom build) is still doing something NOT HOBBY! Money, cost, purchase point does not matter.

B) Homeowner looking at his own dwelling does not benefit a business in any way. It's not a Civil flight. It's HIS home.... HIS roof... and not a business. While I can see where you are trying to create some grey area (and I can see your point) following the way the laws are written it does not penetrate the 336 bubble of protection.

C) Flying "Inside a garage" is not in NAS so long as it's enclosed and the aircraft can not "incidentally" fly into the NAS. The FAA is tasked with Safety of the NAS and flying inside (fully inside and protected from NAS) is well outside of FAA Regulations. Much like flying inside of a gymnasium, rec center, or any other enclosed structure is not regulated by the FAA. Now if it's an open top arena and the top is open to the NAS it is then flying in the NAS and regulated by the FAA.

While I fully enjoy an intelligent and stimulating debate/banter I'm afraid this one has exceeded my enjoyment level. It's now a circular discussion and more than ran it's course.
 
Hobby/336 is exempt from Part 107 (I don't agree with that... they need rules and regulations too).

Civil Operations (anything not hobby) should be held to Part 107 (or higher) standards and regulations. Money is NOT the determining factor. Commercial is but one aspect of Part 107. There are LOTS of Civil uses that have nothing to do with money. If any portion of the flight benefits a business it can not be HOBBY

B) Homeowner looking at his own dwelling does not benefit a business in any way. It's not a Civil flight. It's HIS home.... HIS roof... and not a business. While I can see where you are trying to create some grey area (and I can see your point) following the way the laws are written it does not penetrate the 336 bubble of protection.

I think one of the points being made on this thread is that a farmer inspecting HIS fields, HIS crops should be treated the same way as this homeowner. I understand that your point is that because it’s also his BUSINESS, that makes all the difference. Other posters here AFAIU are trying to say “yeah but that SHOULDN’T make the difference if it’s all MINE and I’m not doing it for hire.”

With all due respect, in your posts you keep quoting what the regulation IS as if that’s end of discussion. Others are saying what it SHOULD be. So quoting what the regulation IS over again won’t really settle that argument.

I think the salient point of disagreement, though, is that you think the homeowner inspecting his roof SHOULD be more regulated and not protected in a hobby bubble. That’s the rub.

I’m not advocating for either position I’m just trying to bring some sanity to what has become a circular discussion. You may need to agree to disagree.
 
Last edited:
Hobby/336 is exempt from Part 107 (I don't agree with that... they need rules and regulations too).

Civil Operations (anything not hobby) should be held to Part 107 (or higher) standards and regulations. Money is NOT the determining factor. Commercial is but one aspect of Part 107. There are LOTS of Civil uses that have nothing to do with money. If any portion of the flight benefits a business it can not be HOBBY.

A) Maintenance Guy using a sUAS in his business (regardless if it's $29 Wally drone or $2900 custom build) is still doing something NOT HOBBY! Money, cost, purchase point does not matter.
Well, it does blow the argument that these drones COULD take down a wayward 747 completely out of the water when the drone isn't capable of flying more than 100' away..

B) Homeowner looking at his own dwelling does not benefit a business in any way. It's not a Civil flight. It's HIS home.... HIS roof... and not a business. While I can see where you are trying to create some grey area (and I can see your point) following the way the laws are written it does not penetrate the 336 bubble of protection.
C) Flying "Inside a garage" is not in NAS so long as it's enclosed and the aircraft can not "incidentally" fly into the NAS. The FAA is tasked with Safety of the NAS and flying inside (fully inside and protected from NAS) is well outside of FAA Regulations. Much like flying inside of a gymnasium, rec center, or any other enclosed structure is not regulated by the FAA. Now if it's an open top arena and the top is open to the NAS it is then flying in the NAS and regulated by the FAA.
Where in the 107 rules does it limit the use to inside or outside? I haven't found it: if it exists I'll stand corrected, the salient point is that he's most definitely using the UAS in his business, and is thus required to be certified.

I know full well what the rules say. My point is that they aren't reasonable in the real world. The "For pay" criteria is in use in numerous other licensure applications, and works well: very little grey area there. The current 107 is awash in grey. If you want to just ban drones entirely without what amounts to a full-blown pilots license, that's a different argument of course, but as long as there is a delineation between "pro" and "hobby" this is a really lousy way to make the distinction.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: weldor
I think one of the points being made on this thread is that a farmer inspecting HIS fields, HIS crops should be treated the same way as this homeowner. I understand that your point is that because it’s also his BUSINESS, that makes all the difference. Other posters here AFAIU are trying to say “yeah but that SHOULDN’T make the difference if it’s all MINE and I’m not doing it for hire.”

But as has been explained repeatedly, the law doesn't say anything about for hire, or not for hire. It doesn't even say anything about business use or non-business use. What it does say is that you are exempt from Part 107 requirements if your flight is recreational. Under that law, even personal roof inspection is arguably not covered but, since the FAA has stated that it applies the test of "furtherance of a business", it's likely to be fine.

Beyond that there is zero ambiguity. A farmer using a drone for crop inspection fails completely to meet the Part 101 requirements - it's non-recreational and clearly furthering a business. That's the law. Why should that be changed? Hobbyists themselves are only exempt from Part 107-type requirements because Congress protected them, and the recent vote on registration shows that they are more likely to back off that protection than strengthen it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigAl07
But as has been explained repeatedly, the law doesn't say anything about for hire, or not for hire. It doesn't even say anything about business use or non-business use. What it does say is that you are exempt from Part 107 requirements if your flight is recreational. Under that law, even personal roof inspection is arguably not covered but, since the FAA has stated that it applies the test of "furtherance of a business", it's likely to be fine.

Beyond that there is zero ambiguity. A farmer using a drone for crop inspection fails completely to meet the Part 101 requirements - it's non-recreational and clearly furthering a business. That's the law. Why should that be changed? Hobbyists themselves are only exempt from Part 107-type requirements because Congress protected them, and the recent vote on registration shows that they are more likely to back off that protection than strengthen it.
Yes. I know what the law says. As do the other posters. My point is that continuing to cite a law that they disagree with doesn’t win the argument. The point of the other posters is that it SHOULD delineate for hire vs. not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: weldor
Yes. I know what the law says. As do the other posters. My point is that continuing to cite a law that they disagree with doesn’t win the argument. The point of the other posters is that it SHOULD delineate for hire vs. not.

That may be your position, and obviously you are entitled to disagree with the law however futile that may be. But at least one other poster here clearly has absolutely no clue what the law says, and no interest in understanding it.
 
Yes. I know what the law says. As do the other posters. My point is that continuing to cite a law that they disagree with doesn’t win the argument. The point of the other posters is that it SHOULD delineate for hire vs. not.

No one is going to win here.

Since when must you agree with a set of rules to debate their intent?

If you’ve ever participated in scholastic debate you’d know you are frequently asked to argue the opponents views.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sar104

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,355
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.