Boss asked me to record a video, do I need a 107 license?

[Robert Prior]

Where does that end? It's bizarre.

That may be true, but "not our circus, not our monkeys".

 

[umanbean]

That may be true, but "not our circus, not our monkeys".

Yessirree bob, feels like a circus down here, don't it eh?
Y'all just 'don't feed the monkey'..... OK? ?

Unless Zbip wants to come down and start a lobby in favor of making US laws more clear and concise, more sensical, and easier for the 'common man' to comprehend (and follow!)... Sounds to me like he'd make a good chairman/spokesperson...

 

[Robert Prior]

Yessirree bob, feels like a circus down here, don't it eh?

That is does. I've got two nieces and grandniece down there, and of all the craziness that leads me to worry about them (which, being political, I won't mention) this little idiosyncrasy isn't worth bothering about — especially as we have an election up here right now!

 

[Zbip57]

Unless Zbip wants to come down and start a lobby in favor of making US laws more clear and concise, more sensical, and easier for the 'common man' to comprehend (and follow!)... Sounds to me like he'd make a good chairman/spokesperson...

It's the way the law is applied to the "common man" that fires me up the most.

I get it that rules are needed for large corporations like Amazon if they intend to crowd the skies with thousands of drones to deliver packages. And I do get it that a large industry like Amazon is an entirely different beast compared to the "common man" who just wants to conduct fun flights in his backyard. They represent opposite ends of the spectrum regulated by the FAA.

The common man merely has to pass the TRUST test (which is impossible to fail) in order for him to appreciate that there are a minimum set of perfectly reasonable "don't be stupid" rules which have to be followed. That makes sense. This "common man" is thereafter "trusted" to behave responsibly whenever flying his drone.

But that exact same "common man" is not allowed to inspect his own roof gutters using his exact same drone, unless he can first demonstrate a proficiency in deciphering aeronautic sectional maps, decoding METAR weather reports and NOTAMS, understanding the effects of hypoxia, application of de-icing fluids, traffic in airport patterns, runway taxi-clearances, radio procedures, and a multitude of other obscure details that have no bearing on his roof gutters.

Flying in your backyard is okay, but looking at the roof gutters is not? Taking an aerial photo of your own house is okay, but not if you stick that photo into a real-estate advertisement? Flying in farm field for fun is okay, but studying your own crops is not okay?

It's a result of Congress inserting the exemption for "recreational" flights. But it is clearly a wacky distinction.

[...] no agency has attempted to enforce against personal gutter inspection, as far as I'm aware, that point is both moot and a straw man argument.

Maybe they haven't sunk that low yet. But they could, because it's the law. They haven't hesitated in the past when it comes to the wacky distinction between recreational versus non-recreational.

At the time, "model aircraft" were exempt from most of the FAA's jurisdiction on the condition that "model aircraft" are only used for recreational purposes. You weren't allowed to use a model aircraft for any commercial purpose.

The FAA shut down Gene Robinson when he volunteered his drone expertise to help Texas EquuSearch. This group conducted searches on horseback to find missing people. Gene proved that his camera equipped fixed-wing drones could cover larger territory far more quickly, more effectively, and more safely. His drones proved successful in many cases. But the FAA forced him to stop for the totally non-sensical reason that "model airplanes" were not legally allowed to be flown for non-recreational purposes.

The famous "Trappy" case, FAA vs Pirker, also hinged on the definition of "model aircraft" being flown for purely recreational purposes. He received payment for his flight, ergo it was non-recreational, which exposed him to the full fury of the FAA.

The law has thankfully evolved since those days. Gene is now permitted to use his drones for missing persons searches, but only with full Part 107 certification. Trappy wouldn't be permitted to repeat his antics, even with Part 107.

But the all-important artificial distinction between recreational vs non-recreational remains and I'm amazed that nobody seems concerned by that.

 

[Zbip57]

Before I'm muzzled by the moderators to stop me from riding this dead horse any further, I'd like to make one other hypothetical lobbying attempt.

What are the actual risk levels? Is there any real safety data to justify the difference between recreational vs non-recreational drone flights?

In terms of recorded fatalities the typical consumer-level unmanned aircraft, both in recreational and non-recreational use, has (so far) been proven to be literally infinitely safer than manned aircraft. Taking the ratio of number of fatalities in general aviation, divided by zero in unmanned, is infinity.

Does that mean there will never be any fatalities? Of course not. It just means that statistically (so far) it will happen only very rarely.

The FAA might claim credit for that stellar statistic as proving the effectiveness of their regulations. The mere sighting of any drone in the air is enough to cause panic and prompts sensational media coverage citing yet another nearly catastrophic near-miss, in which nothing at all happened. To ensure nothing ever can happen, the next magic bullet is remote ID.

Speaking of which, here's my hypothetical lobbying proposal...

What about something that has been statistically proven as infinitely more dangerous?

Please note! I am NOT interested in escalating this to a political debate over gun control, and certainly the moderators will immediately step in if there's any hint of this discussion heading that way. This is purely a hypothetical example.

Going back to my previous example of the deer hunter or farmer with a rifle, it is undeniably proven by recorded fatality rates that firearms are infinitely more harmful to people than any current operation of consumer grade drones.

My hypothetical lobbying proposal is that all firearms should be equipped with remote ID. ?

Think about it. Every time you so much as hear a shot being fired, you could whip out your cell phone to track what the round is aimed at and watch it go. And more importantly you could instantly see where the shooter is standing.

Just like remote ID is supposed to prevent any future problems with drones, remote ID would cure the statistically far greater gun problems, no? But just imagine the uproar from the NRA if that was ever seriously suggested.

Despite there being no actual data to support any legal distinction on the grounds of aviation safety, drone operators have meekly accepted being forced to jump through increasingly onerous legal hoops if they wish to be permitted to use their drones for any sort of beneficial purpose rather than just "for fun".

That's a done deal. Game over. It's the law.

 

[Rich QR]

My hypothetical lobbying proposal is that all firearms should be equipped with remote ID.

You clearly haven't the slightest understanding of USA lawmaking or politics. Guns have Constitutional protection. Drones do not. This forum isn't the place to discuss the reasonableness of that situation. There are plenty of other places where such ideas are discussed. They might be interested in your idea about whether regulations on activities should ever be contingent upon whether such activities are recreational or not.

 

[Zbip57]

This forum isn't the place to discuss the reasonableness of that situation.

Totally agreed. And before everyone else jumps in, to repeat what I said, it was definitely not intended as an invitation for a political debate on that subject. I realize that's a sacred cow apple pie type of subject that I ain't gonna get involved in (despite strong opinions).

I only brought up that hypothetical example to highlight that the NRA would certainly do their utmost to prevent any such a suggestion ever being seriously put forward. And by the way, I wasn't seriously suggesting it either.

It's merely a comparison of how easy it was to create more stringent regulations for non-recreational use of drones.

And yes, I also realize that the FAA wanted to create regulations equally applicable to everyone, but Congress inserted the exemptions for recreational use, because that's another one of those apple pie issues.

Still, the net result is that you have a more relaxed set of regulations for recreational users versus commercial operators, which implies that commercial use somehow inherently presents more of a danger to society, even if it's something as simple as inspecting your own gutters.

 

[DoomMeister]

Does anyone remember having a vinyl record that had an annoying skip in it where it would endlessly keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and …

 

[dirkclod]

Does anyone remember having a vinyl record that had an annoying skip in it where it would endlessly keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and …

And think it’s about to stop what you think DM ?

 

[dirkclod]

Well I do the OP’s question was answered so I see no need in

any further in this.
CLOSED.​