So, what good is "Part 107?"

[FlyingGary]

Isn't the intent at the time of flight
what determines license required...?
If one decides AFTER flight to make money
from results of flight then only a hobbyist
license is required...?

An example: taking aerial photos to hang
in one's own home but then sometime later
deciding to sell them at an art fair, publish
them in a book or magazine, etc....?

The roofing contractor employee mentioned above,
if he doesn't make EXTRA income from aerial inspections
then no income is made from drone & 107 not needed???

Intent at flight time isn’t relevant. If you earn money from flying and don't have a 107, it’s a violation.

Agreed. I am about to take the exam again after 2 years. I’m a bit of a drone Nazi when I see people doing work with no knowledge of what they are doing, even not having a registered drone. While I don’t think every two years is reasonable I do however feel the test should be hard, otherwise the industry would be flooded with irresponsible cowboys who can claim to be part 107 licensed. When I say hard, I mean one should understand the questions, not just be able to phone it in. I’ve never piloted a plane but feel like I could after the study time I put in to sit for the exam. I spent over 3 months with my nose in a few textbooks so I fully understood about weather, airport markings, and sectional maps. It has made me a better UAS pilot.

I had taken ground school before Part 107 and you’re right, there’s a lot in common, since we are sharing airspace with manned aircraft.

I would be in favor of requiring all drone pilots to be licensed, just as all manned flight pilots are. Too many yahoos ruining it for legit pilots.

 

[bdooley]

This is a common theme that I see replayed over and over. "The test has nothing to do with drones." If you are going to operate in the NAS, it has EVERYTHING to do with drones. And as was said earlier, the Part 107 certificate is a one-size-fits-all. Not everyone is going to fly a small multirotor.

Part 107, as it currently stands, lacks the distinction of category and class that is a big part of manned aviation. It will be coming, though, and drone pilot certificates (aka "licenses") will become more specialized and restrictive at the same time. My suggestion is to enjoy the relative ease with which you can earn a Part 107 airman certificate from the FAA. It is going to become harder.

Amen!

Those of you that claim to know people who fly commercially without the 107 should report them to the FAA. Dont simply wait and expect the FAA to find them. My understanding is that if you file a report with the FAA they MUST follow up.

 

[bdooley]

Agreed. I am about to take the exam again after 2 years. I’m a bit of a drone Nazi when I see people doing work with no knowledge of what they are doing, even not having a registered drone. While I don’t think every two years is reasonable I do however feel the test should be hard, otherwise the industry would be flooded with irresponsible cowboys who can claim to be part 107 licensed. When I say hard, I mean one should understand the questions, not just be able to phone it in. I’ve never piloted a plane but feel like I could after the study time I put in to sit for the exam. I spent over 3 months with my nose in a few textbooks so I fully understood about weather, airport markings, and sectional maps. It has made me a better UAS pilot.

Agree with you totally! It should be hard. And even though I feel the $150 is a little steep, it too dissuades the cowboys from taking the test.

I took the same attitude as you when studying for the test. Wanted to actually learn the material not just pass the test.

 

[tacocat]

This is a common theme that I see replayed over and over. "The test has nothing to do with drones." If you are going to operate in the NAS, it has EVERYTHING to do with drones. And as was said earlier, the Part 107 certificate is a one-size-fits-all. Not everyone is going to fly a small multirotor.

Part 107, as it currently stands, lacks the distinction of category and class that is a big part of manned aviation. It will be coming, though, and drone pilot certificates (aka "licenses") will become more specialized and restrictive at the same time. My suggestion is to enjoy the relative ease with which you can earn a Part 107 airman certificate from the FAA. It is going to become harder.

i could not agree more, the test is not for just one type of drone, and thanks to GOLD SEAL i was prepared for my test.My wife and i are both in our 60's and decided to try something a little different (well for my wife anyway, iv been involved with aerial mapping business for over 35 years) and started a small drone business.She has her part 107 as well . she has a really fun time setting up the flight , the planning, checking air spaces Ect.. all being part of the knowledge she gained from studding for the part 107 test. the test in my opinion, has an important purpose.

 

[airnocker]

All really good points. RC airplanes have been around for decades with the ability to fly high and fast, and some are much bigger than a DJI or other drones. Where was the FAA then? In any case, the law is so unenforceable and the test so over the top that compliance will be non-existent. But if you used to make big money flying a photographer around in your plane or chopper, and now see that business evaporating, you'd want the people taking it away to have to go through the same hoops you did, even if they're not flying humans around in a 20,000 pound flying machine filled with flammable fuel.

Back decades and decades ago, the RC transmitter/receivers were FM not spread-spectrum like today's and were pretty much line-of-sight capable between the pilot and aircraft. From the beginnings of RC and control-line aircraft it was a long established and common-sense thing to fly at designated model airplane flying fields where location to the general public was usually isolated and if your plane went down unexpectedly it was going to do so in the immediate general vicinity.

Line-of-sight RC flying with FM transmitters necessitated that one took off and landed in the safe confines of the RC airfield, and although there were no altitude restrictions per se, it is darn hard to see an RC aircraft with a 6 ft. wingspan 400 or more feet above you. You had to control the airplane or helicopter based on your ability to see and control its orientation of flight.

I heartily agree, that the cost for Part 107 license is absurd for anyone not already a licensed FAA pilot (as I have been for 50 years). The test material for me was trivial as such, but as a licensed single-engine-land pilot and knowing that today's drones and quads are capable of easily being flown up into what has been highly regulated FAA airspace, THAT I FLY IN and that ALL licensed pilots, private and commercial agree unequivocally is necessary for their safety and the public's, is in fact the reason why the range of topics and questions exist for Part 107 certification.

If a drone available for purchase today by John Q Public has built-in, unalterable limits that prevents it from flying in FAA controlled airspace, and you don't want the restriction of flying only in designated areas then you must show some degree of awareness of what is and is not okay. If you want to fly drones commercially and make money you need to show in order to limit your liability and get the added liability insurance you need that you understand safety issues and what is at stake. If you just want to fly drones as a hobbyist, you still need to understand where it is okay to fly safely because there is now plenty of evidence that many hobbyist have no common sense or consideration of others, and those that do are not contributing to a growing problem.

Maybe this insight will help. I hope so.

 

[ribjig]

Intent at flight time isn’t relevant. If you earn money from flying and don't have a 107, it’s a violation.

Oh yeah? Says who?
See question #4 & answer:

Frequently Asked Questions | Know Before You Fly

knowbeforeyoufly.org

And another forum member posted this:

Actually, the _only_ thing that matters is what was happening when the flight occurred. What happens when the drone is not in the air (later) does not matter (the FAA has confirmed this).

The FAA is not looking to go after someone who flies for fun and then later decides to sell photos or video (again, they have stated this). They are looking at people who are obviously flying to make a buck at the time (i.e. companies).

YOU, SIR, ARE OVERRULED.

 

[N017RW]

Back decades and decades ago, the RC transmitter/receivers were FM not spread-spectrum like today's and were pretty much line-of-sight capable between the pilot and aircraft. From the beginnings of RC and control-line aircraft it was a long established and common-sense thing to fly at designated model airplane flying fields where location to the general public was usually isolated and if your plane went down unexpectedly it was going to do so in the immediate general vicinity.

Line-of-sight RC flying with FM transmitters necessitated that one took off and landed in the safe confines of the RC airfield, and although there were no altitude restrictions per se, it is darn hard to see an RC aircraft with a 6 ft. wingspan 400 or more feet above you. You had to control the airplane or helicopter based on your ability to see and control its orientation of flight...

Well... notwithstanding the digital modulation or spread-spectrum (SS) type, the carrier modulation type of these SS radios is [still] FM.

It's the digital modulation/demodulation of the transmitted data stream which reduces the interference or noise, thus improving performance,

When compared to Carrier Frequency of the older analog FM R/C radios vs. the SS radios of today (72 Mhz vs. 2.4/5.8 Ghz) neither SS method has much effect on the line-of-sight performance.

Radio waves at lower frequencies propagate further than radio waves at higher frequencies. For example, a 100 MHz radio will transmit more than twice as far in free space as a 2.4 GHz radio when both radios use the same modulation and output power.

 

[airnocker]

Oh yeah? Says who?
See question #4 & answer:

Frequently Asked Questions | Know Before You Fly

knowbeforeyoufly.org

And another forum member posted this:



YOU, SIR, ARE OVERRULED.

Well... notwithstanding the digital modulation or spread-spectrum (SS) type, the carrier modulation type of these SS radios is [still] FM.

It's the digital modulation/demodulation of the transmitted data stream which reduces the interference or noise, thus improving performance,

When compared to Carrier Frequency of the older analog FM R/C radios vs. the SS radios of today (72 Mhz vs. 2.4/5.8 Ghz) neither SS method has much effect on the line-of-sight performance.

Radio waves at lower frequencies propagate further than radio waves at higher frequencies. For example, a 100 MHz radio will transmit more than twice as far in free space as a 2.4 GHz radio when both radios use the same modulation and output power.

Good clarification.

 

[jungle33]

I got my 107. I passed with a 98. I was 'shocked' 0 times.

No way! I got 95% (10% fail, the vast majority according to my testing center is in the low 80s). I thought I was the greatest aviator on the planet. LOL. Looks like I am just a number 2.

Seriously, Great work!

 

[jungle33]

Part 107, the must-have certification for drone pilots seeking to do lawful commercial work has been out for 2+ years by now. A lot drone operators decided to get theirs, and many people were shocked to find that they needed to travel quite a ways to find a testing center, shocked at how much it cost to get their Part 107, shocked to find out that it's only valid for two years, and shocked to find out during their studies that it pertained to almost NOTHING about drones.
.......................................

You know, I used to think that about the Part 107 training but not anymore. All of it, every last iota, is relevant on some level to someone somewhere, ergo, FAA is using a common sense, comprehensive approach.

The other day I was working near an airport, and I took notice of the wind direction. I checked the METARs for the airport, and looked at the predominant flight pattern. I checked NOTAMs, noted the runway headings and I confirmed aircraft maintained the normal left hand pattern. All flight traffic entered and stayed in the flight pattern to my south and southwest. I took off and flew my mission once it became apparent that the flight pattern had little use my projected airspace.

A big shift in the wind might have put the flight patterns into my mission airspace, which has happened near another airport in mountainous terrain which caused some interesting approaches from manned aircraft. Following the amazing Part 107 training I received, it was easily manageable.

It ALL pertains to drones. ALL OF IT.

 

[plant_pilot]

I only got my 107 because I'm sometimes working on public land and my employers wanted me to for liability reasons. I fly over open fields, at altitudes of 100 m max. The nearest airport is miles away. Will I ever need to worry about airplane traffic patterns, MTRs, or whether an airport is towered or untowered? No.
I personally think the idea of a test is sound, but the 107 should have had more weather and health & safety content. Those factors (flying in unsafe weather conditions, poor pilot performance due to dehydration/stress) can lead to accidents, and I think it is important for everyone who regularly flies a drone to be aware of them.

 

[CharlieU]

As a former Air Force pilot, ATP, etc, etc and now a 107 pilot, I agree that the initial test is way too much and recurring every two years (@ $150) is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.

As a former instrument rated commercial pilot, I think the whole 107 thing is a total joke. Why do I need to know everything in this Pilots Handbook to be 107 certified. Download the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge.

 

[CharlieU]

Part 107, the must-have certification for drone pilots seeking to do lawful commercial work has been out for 2+ years by now. A lot drone operators decided to get theirs, and many people were shocked to find that they needed to travel quite a ways to find a testing center, shocked at how much it cost to get their Part 107, shocked to find out that it's only valid for two years, and shocked to find out during their studies that it pertained to almost NOTHING about drones.

All these questions on the weather? You look out the window and if it looks like rain - you don't fly. All of these questions about landing at airports? This is about flying DRONES - not airplanes. The test is ridiculous when it comes to drone use.

We pay a small fee to get our driver's license, and driving an automobile down the highway is MUCH more dangerous than flying a DJI (or comparable) drone. And we don't have to take a big test and pay a large fee every two years for a drivers license. If you keep proper flight logs for your drone that you can show as proof (and you can show that you use it for a business quite often), why would you have to pay to re-test? Especially every two years. It's stupid.

I can see for general info, safety, and legal purposes. I get that. I believe in being legal, and all of our drones are FAA registered and we are part 107 as well.

But it seems every where we go, there are people doing jobs that have nothing more than their $5 FAA registration, and that's it. If we tell the people that hired them that they could be fined for hiring someone that is NOT "Part 107," they seem like they could care less. My own nephew works for a roofing contractor and he flies a drone to inspect roofs, and he's not Part 107.

It seems the more people I talk to that spent the time and investment to get their Part 107, they have decided that they are not going to re-take the test. Most of the work being done by them isn't government work anyway, so they don't care. However, I personally warned our local government NOT to hire this local guy who did not have his Part 107, but they ignored me - and hired him anyway.

Thank you for your common sense insight, something the FAA seems to lack.

 

[Meta4]

The roofing contractor employee mentioned above, if he doesn't make EXTRA income from aerial inspections then no income is made from drone & 107 not needed???

Your example is very clearly commercial flying and does require Part 107 certification.

 

[drvrbobob]

Isn't the intent at the time of flight
what determines license required...?
If one decides AFTER flight to make money
from results of flight then only a hobbyist
license is required...?

An example: taking aerial photos to hang
in one's own home but then sometime later
deciding to sell them at an art fair, publish
them in a book or magazine, etc....?

The roofing contractor employee mentioned above,
if he doesn't make EXTRA income from aerial inspections
then no income is made from drone & 107 not needed???

It's very simple you are either flying as a hobbyist or under part 107. In the example of the man working for a roofing company and using his drone he is certainly not a hobbyist he is using it to perform his job which makes them money by doing a better job or saving time having someone up on the roof to inspect it. You are trying to make the rules been to fit your situation as a hobbyist selling pictures later is legal but if you make a habit of this obviously it is your intent to not get part 107 and be a commercial operator at the same time which you cannot do just my two cents worth.

 

[ribjig]

It's very simple you are either flying as a hobbyist or under part 107. In the example of the man working for a roofing company and using his drone he is certainly not a hobbyist he is using it to perform his job which makes them money by doing a better job or saving time having someone up on the roof to inspect it.

Twice wrong.
It is NOT simple. And:
If I am roofer & my boss knows I have photography hobby
& asks me to snap some hand-held photos of roof without
paying me extra for taking those images, that absolutely
does NOT make me a professional photographer.
The intent at the time of taking photos was to follow
boss request which did NOT involve extra income.
I REMAINED a photography hobbyist throughout in the
eyes of IRS, the ultimate professional-commercial
determiner-judge... I am a professional roofer, not a
professional roofer-photographer. If I later leave that
job to get hired as a "roofer with a drone that can take
roof photos regularly" then YES, that's a case made
for being a roofer-photographer...

 

[daveisim]

RC airplanes have been around for decades with the ability to fly high and fast, and some are much bigger than a DJI or other drones.

And for the most part, flown miles away from civilization and in groups of people that self police.

 

[drvrbobob]

Twice wrong.
It is NOT simple. And:
If I am roofer & my boss knows I have photography hobby
& asks me to snap some hand-held photos of roof without
paying me extra for taking those images, that absolutely
does NOT make me a professional photographer.
The intent at the time of taking photos was to follow
boss request which did NOT involve extra income.
I REMAINED a photography hobbyist throughout in the
eyes of IRS, the ultimate professional-commercial
determiner-judge... I am a professional roofer, not a
professional roofer-photographer. If I later leave that
job to get hired as a "roofer with a drone that can take
roof photos regularly" then YES, that's a case made
for being a roofer-photographer...

 

[drvrbobob]

I'm sorry you don't understand plain English when you read the FAA regulations. You are wrong, your boss is asking you to break the law. the IRS has nothing to do with FAA regulations so keep doing what you're doing and good luck to you. I wished I knew who you where and I would be happy to turn you in myself and your boss. Better yet prove me wrong contact the FAA yourself and get them to explain it to you that is probably the only way you will understand short of a citation. I hate having to be or sound rough with you but that is apparently the only thing you understand cuz there's no way any of us on this forum will make you understand the law. you want to do what you want to do. Nuff said.

 

[mdowney58]

The intent at the time of taking photos was to follow boss request which did NOT involve extra income.

What, ....what?
Let me see if that option is in the regs....