the AMA fights for the rights of recreational flyers. Since the flood of drones , particularly the ones that make the news by invading airspace reserved for passenger bearing aircraft, the FAA established airspace and licensing rules for drones or UAS. Unfortunately the UAS rules are bleeding into the long established AMA type flying.
Why are the majority of drone pilots last inline
- Thread starter Drone Ace
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2019
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 10
- Age
- 74
If you look at the top of the out board wing my AMA number is displayed.
If you look at the top of the in board wing my FAA number is displayed.
I did my due diligence and called the AMA and the FAA to be in compliance.
The park I mentioned is Markham Park in Broward County Florida, 15 minute drive from my house.
My RC fleet includes two Phantom 3's, one Pro-Boat, two 5th scale gas trucks, the Losi 5-T and the Vekta 5 and now a foam Air Plane that could not damage anything.
As you can read I love RC, but the new FAA rules for hobbies has made Drone flying a real hassle.
Last edited:
my point was, the FAA rule: see below. allows someone to get a commercial license same as mine by simply applying.
there is nothing saying he or she cannot use that license in a side business. Show me the FAA ruling that applies to your stance on the issue.
there is nothing saying he or she cannot use that license in a side business. Show me the FAA ruling that applies to your stance on the issue.
Attachments
That text you quoted does in no way say that someone gets a commercial license, same as yours. Nowhere does it say that. It specifically says they are getting a waiver (COA) to perform governmental functions. That's it. No part 107 license. No ability to do side jobs anywhere else. No license rights at all outside of the scope of that COA.
Also it isn't done "simply by applying". A request for waiver is not a trivial matter and requires justification, including that the organization will indeed train and monitor the pilots in question. There's nothing simple about it. It requires much more work on the part of the organization than the work required to get a Part 107 license.
My bad, I did not zoom in enough to see it. I wasn't sure if you were one of those folks that think that multirotors are the only aircraft that are considered drones.
Agreed, they are making things more difficult for hobbyists. The AMA has been advocating for us but seems to be losing the battle at this point.
Agreed, they are making things more difficult for hobbyists. The AMA has been advocating for us but seems to be losing the battle at this point.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2019
- Messages
- 45
- Reaction score
- 10
- Age
- 74
I fly for fun and believe in safety. You can simply read the FAA and AMA safety rules.
Taking a test online for recreational flying and passing it means nothing if the person fails to comply to the rules.
We know you have to pay for registration and the cost of the test is still pending.
At this time I can no longer call the ATC and the LAANC system is still pending for recreational flying.
I don't fly to make money. What a hassle.
Taking a test online for recreational flying and passing it means nothing if the person fails to comply to the rules.
We know you have to pay for registration and the cost of the test is still pending.
At this time I can no longer call the ATC and the LAANC system is still pending for recreational flying.
I don't fly to make money. What a hassle.
I’ve been flying RC planes for 30+ years, back when you had to build them first before flying them. Believe me, after weeks or months of building, you weren’t reckless.
However, as s kid I have no idea how high I was flying... I would bet I’ve violated the 400’ height plenty back when.
Now with my phantom, it’s so much easier to fly, it’s not really even flying.
I am on the fence about all the regulations. I know there should be rules, but being regulated by the FAA seems silly. I play with my drone over my front lawn, I play with my remote control car on the street in front of my house too. I don’t have a license for that.
I’ve been a member of AMA since I heard about it when I bought my first RC hell in 2000. Before that I flew RC planes on my own property (30 acre small farm). I had to get AMA to have a guy teach me heli on AMA field.
I’ve never heard of an RC aircraft hitting full-size aircraft.
The laws are here now so I guess we all have to deal with them.
I do know that Judge Kavanaugh voted that the FAA should not regulate toy aircraft before he was Justice Kavanaugh on US Supreme Court. I wonder what would happen if people took a stand and took this to the Supreme Court instead of just allowing to government to impose crazy rules that affect millions of hobbyists.
Stay below 400’ fine. Telling hobbyists they can’t fly until the government implements LAANC seem ludicrous.
I just watched a World War II airshow, all the stunting done, flying over crowds but I can’t fly over people with my drone?
You don’t need FAA certification to fly experimental aircraft (with you in it), but they regulate toys?
Now with all that said, I have my 107 because I’m law abiding... but like previously mentioned I was having trouble getting FAA authorization for jobs. Just yesterday I got a new message “authorization rejected” while on job site. That had my heart skipping beats...
I was able to get authorization... luckily.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
These statements are really 'Fast and loose' with the facts.
>Currently LAANC only applies to Part 107 pilots/flights in B-E Controlled Airspace.
>Don't know what show you saw, when or where it was performed, but flights over people are not allowed at U.S. Airshows.
>True, no license is required for Ultralights (within some limits though) however, Experimental aircraft have required operator certificates and operational limits as well.
Point was/is... I’ve seen full size air shows go bad, planes crash into crowds but FAA still allows those.
My 3 lb drone can’t fly out of sight or at night or over people (I have 107) because it’s dangerous... it just pales in comparison (in my opinion).
Like the OP stated (or meant i think) there are more of us but we’re at the back of the line.
Yes I get it, a drone could in the wrong hands crash into a plane, but so could a bird.
Just like a faulty anti stall device in 737 Max coukd kill several hundred people but the FAA didn’t ground the planes until ordered by the President. That is crazy!
Maybe if the FAA wasn’t so concerned about miniature aircraft, they could get back to creating safe sky’s for full size.
Yes the potential exists with drones to cause crashes, but think about this... every time you drive, another car coming at you head on could swerve into you... no law is going to prevent a crazy suicidal person from doing anything!
Yes accidents could happen, but there was more of a chance of run a way RC in the past then with today’s drones. I would think it’d be pretty hard to actually try to hit a plane with a drone...
So the Government is regulating millions to prevent something that there are already laws for.
I’ve said this before, if you’re flying a drone at an airport, there were already plenty of laws to hit you with.....
To me just sounds like big government trying to get more tax payer funding to make more rules, hire more people to enforce etc.
I comply, I studied, got my 107, got my business insurance, to take photos.
A public Use COA does have testing and it's usually not just a written test but also a Hands-On test and they usually have monthly or 6-month flight requirements. A Public Use COA is a lot more work and complexity than a simple Part 107.
Also the Public Use COA absolutely does NOT allow for anything outside of what's written into the COA. In fact, a standard Public Use COA doesn't even allow for Dept/Agency work such as "flying for Demonstration/Marketing" type scenarios. Under a standard Public Use COA you couldn't fly and take pictures of your Dept/Agency to promote/market the agency. Flying "under" a Public Use COA doesn't NOT allow for a "side job" what so ever... they are VERY strict and state what is allowed. If something isn't specifically ALLOWED in the COA it is strictly NOT allowed.
While a lot of your comment is correct the Public Use COA is not a waiver. It's a totally separate application and does not go through DroneZone what so ever.
It's a complex and detailed process that involves lots of people and approvals/letters. It requires an Gvt Entity attorney to attest that your agency is indeed a Gvt/Public Safety entity, written testing standards, flight test standards, and recurrency test standards in addition to a myriad of other details. A Public Use COA involves working with the FAAs SGI division (Specia Govt Interests) and is completely different than a waiver etc.
Um no. In fact you are the one that is posting only opinions. You posted FAA verbiage which clearly does not say what you are pointing out. Please see the comments from @BigAl07 above in regards to obtaining a COA. It's a very complex and rigorous process. Not just "Hey go fly, it's free for you." as you make it sound. Do some research and you shall see that your Part 107 gives you much more flexibility, and takes much less work and effort to obtain.
It's the online portal for hobby & Part 107 operators to see their credentials, registrations, and where you apply for a Waiver (if applicable).
FAADroneZone
what I say is correct, not opinion. I paid for my 107 certification, they don't.
The only people who get Part 107 "Free" are those who have a "Current" Part 61 (manned aircraft license). No other short cuts exist. While someone who works for CATS etc might get to take their test ($150)for free that's well outside of this discussion.
Anyone who is not Part 61 Current and gets Part 107 takes the test at CATS and pays $150. Others may get "training" free but the test if $150.....
I don't know what other way to put it. No you are not in any way correct. You have a Part 107 certification (although without knowing about DroneZone, I don't know how you got your ID number to put on your drone). They do NOT have a Part 107 certification. You can fly commercially wherever you are legally allowed to do so. They are NOT.
So what you are saying is neither correct nor an opinion. It is just factually incorrect!
Similar threads
