The proposed Part 107 rules are for commercial operations only. Hobby flights will not be subject to FAR 107 rules.
Over/Under on when we'll be required to have pilot licenses...
- Thread starter Adam Kontras
- Start date
The proposed Part 107 rules are for commercial operations only. Hobby flights will not be subject to FAR 107 rules.
I guess we can speculate on how long it will be before the commercial operator license is extended to include non-commercial operations.
Exactly. They had a whole slew of FCC regs for amateur radio operators that went kaput or don't get enforced because it costs a lot of money that these agencies just don't have.
Probably never. It would take an act of Congress to permit the FAA to promulgate rules for hobby flight, and licensing for hobby flight would be hugely politically dangerous territory. At the most, we will see some kind of registration system to identify the drone owner by serial number. I really don't see how the FAA could or would ever want to license hobby flyers.
Really?! 6 cases in all of 2014?! Only 2 cases for all of 2013?! Like I said............... they're not enforcing them anywhere NEAR what they used to, or where they SHOULD be enforcing the regs. Those small numbers prove my point quite well.......... they simply don't have the manpower or money to handle the enforcement end. They sure can't afford to set up a bunch of new rules for drone/quad copter hobbyists, only to not be able to enforce them!
Now that I've gotten deeper into the bowels of the full proposal, it clarifies that the FAA is prohibited by statute from making rules affecting flights for purely "hobby and recreational purposes", but that those operations are still restricted by community guidelines. There could be a push that says hobby operations outside accepted community guidelines (AMA? is there a competitor) could be considered "endangering the NAS".
The text in the proposed micro-UAS class is interesting, the 2kg (4.4 pounds) limitation would include the Phantom, but exclude the Inspire. The licensing and registration requirements are certainly more friendly to the general community wishing to dabble beyond the pure hobby and sell aerial photographs and video without turning into a full time profession.
It's probably going to be some amateur yahoo that will cause a problem not commercial operators.
DJI has sold 400,000 so far, and as most of you know, when there is a news event we are all watching for that white phantom quad. There will be a 'school yard shooting' event that will change the whole picture, sadly. DJI will obey and cripple the products they can with the new flight rules. Unlicensed users limited to maybe 50 ft altitude, keeping it in the toy category. Licenses will happen, just like they happened for automobiles. If they are reasonable I'm OK with that. Quads will check with the internet for license status perhaps.
I am hoping that attention is kept on the 'drones' or multirotors. Drones are on the public's 'radar' for sure. Fpv fixed wing craft will hopefully stay free for longer, as the public is not as aware of them, as the fly much further, higher and longer. Out of sight out of mind, I hope.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Like it or not local authorities are going to want some control. They've already passed their own laws with regard to drone use, legal or not. There needs to be a Federal guideline with restrictions on what state and local authorities can/cannot do, e.g. no outright bans. But to say local authorities should have no say in what happens in and around their cities and towns is naive.
Or
Amateur Radio Operators are pretty good at self-policing. Are you confusing them with CB operators? The FCC has, in fact, abandoned enforcement of all but the most egregious violations on the CB band such as illegal amplifiers or deliberate interference.
As a Licensed Ham Radio Operator you will find the FCC actively takes down stations with large fines.
They also have groups and clubs that self enforce the rules with a passion.
Ham radio used to be an expensive hobby, now you can get a Rig setup for around $1000.00 and Hand Helds as low as $39.00.
Due to the fact that Ham radio is used for disaster and emergency services it's one not to mess with.
According to Fortune Magazine DJI has sold almost 700,000 Phantoms: "Hong Kong–based DJI claims to own a full 50% of the recreational market, selling 30,000 or more of its now ubiquitous Phantom quadrotor drones every month.", so that means there are well over a million drones of various models flying today worldwide. If each one of them has only flown two hours, that would be two million flight hours by multirotor drones.
And yet, not a single news report of an accident causing serious injury to someone not involved in the flight. Not one. (A band-aid or cold compress are not indicators of a serious injury). The general public opinion and sadly some on this forum should know better. "Dangerous" and "invasion of privacy" concerns are ridiculous, driven by paranoia borne of ignorance.
And yet, not a single news report of an accident causing serious injury to someone not involved in the flight. Not one. (A band-aid or cold compress are not indicators of a serious injury). The general public opinion and sadly some on this forum should know better. "Dangerous" and "invasion of privacy" concerns are ridiculous, driven by paranoia borne of ignorance.
Last edited:
N017RW
Premium Pilot
Early adopters of relatively expensive technical equipment tend not to abuse it. Look how long desktop computers were around before they started being used for nefarious purposes.
When drones become ubiquitous, and they will, some idiots will misuse them. Laws will follow. Still say 5-10 years.
When drones become ubiquitous, and they will, some idiots will misuse them. Laws will follow. Still say 5-10 years.
They can "want" local control all they want, but the FAA is going to be very reluctant to cede any authority over flight. The precedent could cripple future drone applications. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 established the FAA and made it responsible for the control and use of navigable airspace within the United States. The FAA is responsible for air safety from the ground up, including below 400 feet. The FAA’s position is that 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2) grants the FAA broad authority to prescribe regulations to protect individuals and property on the ground and to prevent collisions involving aircraft. Local governments have been trying for decades to claim jurisdiction of flights from local airports, and they have failed every time.
So the thought that the FAA would cede jurisdiction to local governments is absurd and naive. The precedent it would generate would be a disaster to all aviation activities and keep the FAA in court for decades.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
The FAA should have absolutely zero authority over the the air 1 foot above my property except for where aviation activities are undertaken. It is otherwise irrelevant to their remit. Furthermore, they have no capability for effectively regulating low lying airspace with respect to the safety and quiet appreciation of property owners, city and state interests.
Their job is the safe and efficient administration of aviation. It's in the name. Anything else is an overreach.
The real question is at what height does it become relevant to the FAA's remit. I'd argue that outside of aviation operations, 250ft above the tallest point of a property may be where the FAA should have some control. Anything below that is a local jurisdiction.
Their job is the safe and efficient administration of aviation. It's in the name. Anything else is an overreach.
The real question is at what height does it become relevant to the FAA's remit. I'd argue that outside of aviation operations, 250ft above the tallest point of a property may be where the FAA should have some control. Anything below that is a local jurisdiction.
Goodness. Are you a licensed ham? Have you listened to the bands lately? The FCC is simply unable to stop the craziness happening on the bands today. Like you said............ it's cheap to get on the air, and knowledge isn't a prerequisite for a lot of newcomers. The bands are filled with lids and stalkers and old geezers who think they own the frequencies. Yes......... it's getting very close to the CB debacle. It's only gotten worse over the last 15 years. My point being.................. it costs a LOT of money to properly run an "enforcement" arm, whether it's the FCC or the FAA. I merely stated that I do not see them laying down a bunch of new, unenforceable rules on us "hobbiests" and "enthusiasts".
"drones" are closer to firearms that to ham radios. When there is an uptick on drone events that cause public concern, that is when the over eager politicians will step in. Drone events are more visible and news 'worthy'. Radio waves from ham radios would only cause public outcry when the legit. uses of radio start to fail, for example cell phones, wifi, garage door openers, fire/police com., UPS delivery truck.
As a long time HAM operator (N5CRK (US)& DA1YM (Germany) I would have to agree with you. I have abandoned the FM bands (except 10mtr packet relay) and stick to the 40 & 80 mtr bands along with CW (the newbies don't do code, to hard for them) Lot's of junk on the Freq's these days. I don't even do QSL hunts any longer. When I was in the Military in Germany I ran a MARS station, lot's of fun back then, and exciting as we built most of our own rigs. Not so much any longer. Any hobby suffers when it becomes cheap and easy to get involved. When anyone with a few bucks can buy a quad, coupled with the 'I can do what I want' attitude of the entitled mentality so prevalent these days, you can bet we will have that front page 'incident' A bird strike almost always requires at least a 'Precautionary' return and land to check the aircraft for damage, we had one here at Sac yesterday. This costs not only the airlines, but passengers miss connections and disrupts the flight schedule no end. (Domino effect) Bird strikes as mentioned rarely bring down an aircraft (the people on the one that landed in the Hudson due to birds could argue that) but it only takes one, saying it rarely happens is just saying it does happen.
Similar threads
