All this criticism directed at those who fly outside of the FAA regs

[sar104]

Come on guys quit having a go at each other as it is getting old .



#1

Yes - sorry about that. It's mostly good-natured banter though, I think. Plus he's always wrong, of course.

 

[dirkclod]

 

[drvrbob]

Common sense isn’t very common! Drone on[emoji85]

Hello neighbor! I am in Mabank.

 

[Bobby Brown]

I have a couple of great flying spots! Need to meet up.

 

[Dmanoak]

As EVERYONE knows drones are frequently dropping from high altitudes due to equipment failure and operator error. There are many accidents involving direct hits to humans and animals.
Drones should be operated on a manner that respects all living things.
Unfortunately MANY drone operators are not respectful of others. This is a shame and the reason we need laws to restrict the irresponsible individuals.

 

[Heyrob]

See his avatar and sig., LOL LOL LOL. As I recall you are the guy who thinks he is a "Pilot" because you fly a drone. Wearing your pilot hat to Starbucks, LOL LOL.

Wow, you're a piece of work. When you earn your Part 107 certificate the FAA calls you a "Remote Pilot In Charge" so it the FAA considers flying an sUAS as being a pilot, why can't a drone pilot refer to themselves as pilots? Can I loan you a ladder to climb off that high horse?

 

[FoxhallGH]

I'm not part 107 - or PfCO as we have it here in the UK, but I fly safely and within the rules. I do however have great respect for those that do put themselves through the expensive and time consuming test to become a Commercial Operator here in the UK - & anywhere else in the world. It is a commitment that has to be acknowledged and for the most part, is an investment based more on the need to pay a mortgage and feed kids, than anything elitist ...

 

[Heyrob]

This post is not aimed at anyone in particular, but covers a lot of what I've been reading in this thread, and there is a lot of misinformation in here. Hobby vs commercial flyer rules having little or no difference. In some regards hobby flyers have stricter rules i.e. no flying within 5 miles of an airport for example, while a part 107 certified pilot (both types of flyers are pilots, by definition) is extensively trained in the FAA rules, and generally given more latitude. I certainly agree that there are a lot of rules required for a part 107 certification that make no logical sense for drones, but I suppose it gives the FAA the confidence it needs to give us that latitude, i.e. flying next to an airport runway for example, (with ATC authorization). In other regards, hobby pilots are less restrictions, for example flying at night (with appropriate anti-collision lights), while a part 107 commercial flight will require a waiver that could take 90 days to obtain.

Oh and BTW as for sUAS vs manned aircraft "pilots", my ground school instructor told us that if we wanted to get your manned pilot license, sign up for ground school now, since we're 2/3 the way schooled for manned pilot ground school now. There is a lot more to the 107 exam than just chart reading and airspace, weather is also a huge part, as well as general rule knowledge, crew resource management, (including dangerous attitudes and I see a lot of "Macho" in this thread), aircraft maintenance, etc. It's true that you are not required to keep a log book, but if heaven forbid you have an accident and someone gets hurt and it gets reported to the FAA and you do not have log books to prove that you've properly maintained your drone, your batteries, props, etc., etc., etc. you'll be in far more trouble since you can't prove you're not just another negligent twit.

As for the difference between hobby and commercial flying being simply "intent" that is not factual, the definition of a flight requiring a part 107 certification according to the FAA is that the flight will be making money, no intent, just the ultimate outcome. Their definition of that is so strict in fact, that if you have a YouTube Channel that is monetized, meaning they pay you for your content, and you post your "hobby" drone videos, then you're making money with your drone and you need that Part 107 cert. Will the FAA catch you if you don't? Not likely unless someone reports you, but it does happen. I can also assure you that a practice test for the 107 exam is a very poor way to evaluate the requirements. The test has 60 questions drawn from a pool of over 300, simply looking at one of these will not give an accurate view of the content you'll be required to know to pass.

Finally, someone commented that no one has died because of a drone (YET), but there is a video on YouTube posted by a university who tested the damage a drone can do to a manned aircraft going something like 200 MPH, that little plastic drone (looked like a Phantom), went right through the leading edge of the wing. Hitting the rotor blade of a helicopter could bring it one down, or hitting the prop or windshield of a light aircraft or being sucked into a jet engine could all potentially endanger human life. These rules are there for this reason, so please don't brush them off as just an over reaction. Follow the rules, because if there are too many negative incidents the FAA will drown us in more rules, whereas if we fly responsibly and limit the stupid stuff some people are inclined to do, then maybe they will see that we as a group are responsible enough to not have to be so micromanaged.

 

[sar104]

This post is not aimed at anyone in particular, but covers a lot of what I've been reading in this thread, and there is a lot of misinformation in here. Hobby vs commercial flyer rules having little or no difference. In some regards hobby flyers have stricter rules i.e. no flying within 5 miles of an airport for example, while a part 107 certified pilot (both types of flyers are pilots, by definition) is extensively trained in the FAA rules, and generally given more latitude. I certainly agree that there are a lot of rules required for a part 107 certification that make no logical sense for drones, but I suppose it gives the FAA the confidence it needs to give us that latitude, i.e. flying next to an airport runway for example, (with ATC authorization). In other regards, hobby pilots are less restrictions, for example flying at night (with appropriate anti-collision lights), while a part 107 commercial flight will require a waiver that could take 90 days to obtain.

Oh and BTW as for sUAS vs manned aircraft "pilots", my ground school instructor told us that if we wanted to get your manned pilot license, sign up for ground school now, since we're 2/3 the way schooled for manned pilot ground school now. There is a lot more to the 107 exam than just chart reading and airspace, weather is also a huge part, as well as general rule knowledge, crew resource management, (including dangerous attitudes and I see a lot of "Macho" in this thread), aircraft maintenance, etc. It's true that you are not required to keep a log book, but if heaven forbid you have an accident and someone gets hurt and it gets reported to the FAA and you do not have log books to prove that you've properly maintained your drone, your batteries, props, etc., etc., etc. you'll be in far more trouble since you can't prove you're not just another negligent twit.

As for the difference between hobby and commercial flying being simply "intent" that is not factual, the definition of a flight requiring a part 107 certification according to the FAA is that the flight will be making money, no intent, just the ultimate outcome. Their definition of that is so strict in fact, that if you have a YouTube Channel that is monetized, meaning they pay you for your content, and you post your "hobby" drone videos, then you're making money with your drone and you need that Part 107 cert. Will the FAA catch you if you don't? Not likely unless someone reports you, but it does happen. I can also assure you that a practice test for the 107 exam is a very poor way to evaluate the requirements. The test has 60 questions drawn from a pool of over 300, simply looking at one of these will not give an accurate view of the content you'll be required to know to pass.

Finally, someone commented that no one has died because of a drone (YET), but there is a video on YouTube posted by a university who tested the damage a drone can do to a manned aircraft going something like 200 MPH, that little plastic drone (looked like a Phantom), went right through the leading edge of the wing. Hitting the rotor blade of a helicopter could bring it one down, or hitting the prop or windshield of a light aircraft or being sucked into a jet engine could all potentially endanger human life. These rules are there for this reason, so please don't brush them off as just an over reaction. Follow the rules, because if there are too many negative incidents the FAA will drown us in more rules, whereas if we fly responsibly and limit the stupid stuff some people are inclined to do, then maybe they will see that we as a group are responsible enough to not have to be so micromanaged.

With regard to your specific comments about whether intent matters, you may have been misinformed; from the perspective of whether you fall under Part 101 or Part 107, intent is everything, as has been clarified numerous times by the FAA. For example, from a May 5, 2015 FAA memorandum on this subject from the Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations:

Whether an individual taking pictures or videos or gathering other infmmation using a model ​

aircraft under the section 336 carve-out could later sell those pictures, videos, or other information ​

would depend on the person's original intentions in conducting the operation. Ifthe individual's ​

takes the pictures or videos or gathers other information as part of a hobby or recreational activity, ​

then a later decision to sell some or all of those pictures, videos, or other information would not ​

change the character of the operation as part of a hobby or recreational activity that falls within the ​

section 336 carve-out for model aircraft. No FAA authorization for that operation would be ​

required.​

​

However, if the individual is conducting the operation with the primary intention of obtaining ​

pictures, videos, or other information to sell, then the operation is commercial in nature and not ​

part of a hobby or recreational activity. As noted above, such operations currently would require ​

an authorization from the FAA. Evidence that may indicate an individual's true intentions in ​

conducting an operation may include the frequency with which pictures, videos, or other ​

information collected using an unmanned aircraft is later resold. Operations that frequently result ​

in pictures, videos, or other information that is sold to a third party may indicate that the operation ​

is in fact commercial in nature notwithstanding the individual's claim of a hobby or recreational ​

purpose. The FAA would have to consider each case on its own merits.​

 

[CountryGuy]

I'm not against people who fly outside the FAA regulations as long as they use common sense and don't endanger other persons. Why have you bought a Mavic with a 7km range and HD video transmission if you're going to fly it strictly by Visual Line Of Sight, per example?

"But officer, the little numbers on my speedometer say I can go well over 100 MPH! Why did you stop me for only going 90 MPH in a 40 MPH zone?!?"

 

[Drgnfli]

This is a hot topic from time to time.
Since a part 107 does not give you any extended areas to fly in than part 336 can fly in. And you still must maintain altitudes below manned aircraft minimums, and follow the 336 rules. It is a weak argument at best. With no commercial flight logs required and the only thing separating a "commercial" flight from a hobby flight is "Intent" only known in the head of the pilot. It is completely unenforceable. It needs attention, It needs repair. commercial pilots should be required to keep logs of commercial flights. MANY 107's do that anyway, GOOD FOR THEM!

I have called the airport tower near me (4.75 miles) every time I fly my MP. Just last month I found out no one logs my calls let alone takes my name & direction & altitude of my flights. What a waste of time but I do it every time & record the conversation each time to cover my ***.

 

[Drgnfli]

As EVERYONE knows drones are frequently dropping from high altitudes due to equipment failure and operator error. There are many accidents involving direct hits to humans and animals.
Drones should be operated on a manner that respects all living things.
Unfortunately MANY drone operators are not respectful of others. This is a shame and the reason we need laws to restrict the irresponsible individuals.

BS!

 

[Heyrob]

With regard to your specific comments about whether intent matters, you may have been misinformed; from the perspective of whether you fall under Part 101 or Part 107, intent is everything, as has been clarified numerous times by the FAA. For example, from a May 5, 2015 FAA memorandum on this subject from the Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations:

Whether an individual taking pictures or videos or gathering other infmmation using a model ​

aircraft under the section 336 carve-out could later sell those pictures, videos, or other information ​

would depend on the person's original intentions in conducting the operation. Ifthe individual's ​

takes the pictures or videos or gathers other information as part of a hobby or recreational activity, ​

then a later decision to sell some or all of those pictures, videos, or other information would not ​

change the character of the operation as part of a hobby or recreational activity that falls within the ​

section 336 carve-out for model aircraft. No FAA authorization for that operation would be ​

required.​

​

However, if the individual is conducting the operation with the primary intention of obtaining ​

pictures, videos, or other information to sell, then the operation is commercial in nature and not ​

part of a hobby or recreational activity. As noted above, such operations currently would require ​

an authorization from the FAA. Evidence that may indicate an individual's true intentions in ​

conducting an operation may include the frequency with which pictures, videos, or other ​

information collected using an unmanned aircraft is later resold. Operations that frequently result ​

in pictures, videos, or other information that is sold to a third party may indicate that the operation ​

is in fact commercial in nature notwithstanding the individual's claim of a hobby or recreational ​

purpose. The FAA would have to consider each case on its own merits.​

Here is a comment from a law firm: (Emphasis mine)

" The FAA has consistently defined commercial operation in terms of whether the operator receives direct or indirect payment for the operation. It is not necessary that the operation be conducted for profit or even that there be any intent or ability to make a profit. The compensation is not just limited to monetary payments but includes anything of value. This broad definition of compensation has been affirmed and adopted by both the NTSB and the federal courts. Administrator v. Roundtree, 2 NTSB 1712 (1975); Administrator v. Mims, NTSB Order No. EA-3284, review denied 988 F.2d 1380; Consolidated Flower Shipments, Inc., Bay Area, 16 C.A.B. 804 (1953), aff'd. 213 F.2d 814 (2nd Cir. 1954)."

It would appear that I am not the one who is misinformed, as this plainly states that intent is not necessary, therefore I stand by my original statement that intent is not a prerequisite for a flight to require a Part 107 certificate, if you ultimately make money, it was a commercial flight, prior intent or not.

 

[sar104]

Here is a comment from a law firm: (Emphasis mine)

" The FAA has consistently defined commercial operation in terms of whether the operator receives direct or indirect payment for the operation. It is not necessary that the operation be conducted for profit or even that there be any intent or ability to make a profit. The compensation is not just limited to monetary payments but includes anything of value. This broad definition of compensation has been affirmed and adopted by both the NTSB and the federal courts. Administrator v. Roundtree, 2 NTSB 1712 (1975); Administrator v. Mims, NTSB Order No. EA-3284, review denied 988 F.2d 1380; Consolidated Flower Shipments, Inc., Bay Area, 16 C.A.B. 804 (1953), aff'd. 213 F.2d 814 (2nd Cir. 1954)."

It would appear that I am not the one who is misinformed, as this plainly states that intent is not necessary, therefore I stand by my original statement that intent is not a prerequisite for a flight to require a Part 107 certificate, if you ultimately make money, it was a commercial flight, prior intent or not.

No - you are badly misinformed - or more likely you misunderstood what you were told. As a result you have decided to take your (incorrect) interpretation of a law firm comment as more definitive than an official FAA memo that clearly states a contrary position? The FAA definition of commercial operation referred to in that statement is not in relation to 14 CFR Part 101, which never mentions commercial operation. Part 101 is purely about intent at the time of the flight, as clearly stated in the memo that I quoted from.

You are free to believe whatever you like, of course, but it would be better if you didn't post misinformation on this forum.

 

[crlmjohnson]

Who made the solo? Never heard of one

3dr

 

[Brojon]

THIS is the point some folks don't see -- Flying a UAS comes with the same responsibility as flying a manned aircraft. WE ARE PILOTS NOT GAMERS.

What if you're more gamer than pilot?

 

[991carreradriver]

What if you're more gamer than pilot?

Suggest sticking with video games

 

[Brojon]

Suggest sticking with video games

Kidding aside sometimes a little gamer goes a long way with cinematic shots. You can learn a lot about effective cinematography from watching video game cut scenes.

 

[ac0j]

Here is a comment from a law firm: (Emphasis mine)

" The FAA has consistently defined commercial operation in terms of whether the operator receives direct or indirect payment for the operation. It is not necessary that the operation be conducted for profit or even that there be any intent or ability to make a profit. The compensation is not just limited to monetary payments but includes anything of value. This broad definition of compensation has been affirmed and adopted by both the NTSB and the federal courts. Administrator v. Roundtree, 2 NTSB 1712 (1975); Administrator v. Mims, NTSB Order No. EA-3284, review denied 988 F.2d 1380; Consolidated Flower Shipments, Inc., Bay Area, 16 C.A.B. 804 (1953), aff'd. 213 F.2d 814 (2nd Cir. 1954)."

It would appear that I am not the one who is misinformed, as this plainly states that intent is not necessary, therefore I stand by my original statement that intent is not a prerequisite for a flight to require a Part 107 certificate, if you ultimately make money, it was a commercial flight, prior intent or not.

No - you are badly misinformed - or more likely you misunderstood what you were told. As a result you have decided to take your (incorrect) interpretation of a law firm comment as more definitive than an official FAA memo that clearly states a contrary position? The FAA definition of commercial operation referred to in that statement is not in relation to 14 CFR Part 101, which never mentions commercial operation. Part 101 is purely about intent at the time of the flight, as clearly stated in the memo that I quoted from.

You are free to believe whatever you like, of course, but it would be better if you didn't post misinformation on this forum.

There is NOTHING that is "clear" about anything on this matter. "Intent" or motive for a flight before it left the ground would be almost impossible to prove or disprove without actual witnesses and sufficient evidence. Anyone that thinks they have any kind of a grip on the meaning of these requirements is delusional. They are as vague as it gets.
Lots of legal sounding words strung about in several paragraphs of text does not make anything clear or enforceable. This is why we arent seeing lots of people being prosecuted for not having part 107. Until it is cleaned up and not so full of loopholes, I wouldnt worry about it. (if you want to sell products from any of your flights)

 

[Classic flyer]

Perhaps I have missed something in my exploration of the part 107 test.
does it contain different rules than the recreational rules?
I thought you just had to be able to read sectional maps so you know what airspace you are in, and where the obstacles were so you could make a safe approach to an airport. What other Knowledge did you get that makes you understand the rules?
A recreational pilot just has to know how far they are from airports, and preferably be outside the 5 mile radius, dont ever go over 400', and watch out for crazy manned aircraft flying unsafely in model aircraft airspace.

Well if you're a recreational flyer, then yes...but if you're holding a 107 cert things are different because you are considered a "PROFESSIONAL" and had to take a knowledge test , rules , chart reading, weather, weight and balance, etc. to obtain that cert. so claiming ignorance of the rules just won't fly...be safe, fly smart