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

[ac0j]

You are correct - you wouldn't pass the Part 107 test. You should read the regulations when you have some time though, because right now all you are doing is demonstrating why it's worthwhile.

Again, you imply my regulation list is short and ineffective, yet no offer of any sample important regulations that I missed. But only suggesting that you are better than me because you know the secret regulations because of 107.
I called this "elite status" earlier, you told me I was wildly speculating. This is the attitude I was talking about.
Bottom line on regulations, I will just quote you;
"...not surprising since there is no incentive or requirement to know that stuff."

 

[Lon Denard]

Lon, how many solos did you buy and return to Best Buy exactly?

2.. I believe. Plus 2 were replaced by 3DR. One was crashed into the river and replaced by State Farm. I got one from B&H Photo when they had the whole kit, with bag and Hero 4 Black for $535. The last one was a refurb from Best Buy I got with Gimbal for $158! I also have a couple gimbal from when they were $40 and batteries from when they were $20. Oh and props from when they were $4 a set, I believe. I went round and round with that dang drone! I was determined to not buy a DJI product because a bunch of jerks had convinced me that they were junk and pure evil! I even bought a Karma, an Autel and two Yuneecs! Lesson learned!

 

[Lon Denard]

Again, you imply my regulation list is short and ineffective, yet no offer of any sample important regulations that I missed. But only suggesting that you are better than me because you know the secret regulations because of 107.
I called this "elite status" earlier, you told me I was wildly speculating. This is the attitude I was talking about.
Bottom line on regulations, I will just quote you;
"...not surprising since there is no incentive or requirement to know that stuff."

Yea I'm gonna have to go with you on this one. I can't count how many times I've heard or seen the statement, "as a part 107 pilot..." preceding some condescending statement of why I'm a danger to all humanity because I flew 403 feet agl or just because I don't agree with them about something someone did or said. The regular licensed pilots do the same thing. I'm flying a 2lb toy around the park and they're flying a plane that weighs thousands of pounds, thousands of feet in the air but somehow it's the same thing... These guys with their flight logs, "remove before flying" tags, ''drone operation area'' warning cones and reflective "Drone Pilot" vests... Hahaha! Yeesh.

 

[Chip]

2.. I believe. Plus 2 were replaced by 3DR. One was crashed into the river and replaced by State Farm. I got one from B&H Photo when they had the whole kit, with bag and Hero 4 Black for $535. The last one was a refurb from Best Buy I got with Gimbal for $158! I also have a couple gimbal from when they were $40 and batteries from when they were $20. Oh and props from when they were $4 a set, I believe. I went round and round with that dang drone! I was determined to not buy a DJI product because a bunch of jerks had convinced me that they were junk and pure evil! I even bought a Karma, an Autel and two Yuneecs! Lesson learned!

Lon, I used to be a member of 3dr Solo pilots forum and I recall your exploits very well! Had me in stitches. You diligently reported every malfunction (gps and rc disconnects, no video, no gimbal etc.) and every time you were harshly admonished to "read the manual!" Am I right? You finally gave up, bought the Karma and what, disconnect on first day? Didnt know you ground through an Autel and 2 Yuneecs to boot, but it figures! BTW I followed your advice, got a Mavic , and doing great! Let me know if you need a solo backpack or two...

 

[sar104]

Again, you imply my regulation list is short and ineffective, yet no offer of any sample important regulations that I missed. But only suggesting that you are better than me because you know the secret regulations because of 107.
I called this "elite status" earlier, you told me I was wildly speculating. This is the attitude I was talking about.
Bottom line on regulations, I will just quote you;
"...not surprising since there is no incentive or requirement to know that stuff."

Your list is only a tiny subset of 14 CFR Part 107, which you can read online - you don't need me to nurse you through it. And if you think that agreeing with you that your current knowledge of Part 107 is so incomplete that you wouldn't pass the test constitutes elitism then that's just too bad - you are the one continually asserting that Part 107 doesn't teach anything, while repeatedly demonstrating that you can't even be bothered to read it and have no idea what's in it. I suspect that you have never read 14 CFR Part 101 subpart E or the AMA Safety Handbook either.

 

[991carreradriver]

Can you show where a drone has killed anyone? How about a life threatening injury? All I have ever heard of is cuts and bruises.
If you want to stretch it, yes a model aircraft operator could be considered a pilot (It gives a lot of them comfort thinking it is so).
BUT, no license is required to pilot a Mavic? Why is that do you suppose? Because it isnt really that big of a threat to life and limb.

Thankfully, I know of no incidents beyond diversions on final to a runway by a manned aircraft (which is serious enough). I can tell you for certain that if a drone comes in contact with a light aircraft, it could become a fatal accident. I have known many pilots that have encountered birds and you cannot imagine the damage that was done to the aircraft. You can argue the "pilot" point all day long to me - fortunately I am not relevant. What is relevant is the regulatory governing body, who considers those that fly drones "pilots". I have read most of the relevant regulations, circulars and other information presented by the FAA. They constantly refer to Part 91. I suggest you take a look at Part 91. They think you are a pilot and if something goes wrong, you will be held to the same standards as a pilot. In case, you don't follow accidents, the NTSB almost always contributes the incident to "pilot error" - this is big time liability. If it can be proven that you violated a regulation such as busting altitude, I am not sure that unless beyond the pilot's control that insurance would even cover the pilot.

 

[Thwyllo]

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.

*cringe*

 

[Endeavor]

Still flying our 3DR drones but have been checking in here from time to time to keep updated on various DJI models as we'll be migrating to that system eventually. One thing I noticed in this forum is that when someone posts details about a particular flight where they're obviously in violation of FAA regulations, that multiple responders quickly point that out. Some gently, others not so gently.

I have to say I find this quite refreshing. I've visited other forums where someone is bragging about their 4k altitude flight, or flying over a dense populations, or flying at night, in heavy fog, etc. etc. and rather than criticism, they get what amounts to praise. "Wow-- that's so COOL!" If someone does take it upon themselves to point out the fact that they're not in compliance, rather than support, they get bashed! Nothing can be accomplished by arguing with these folks so I just leave.

I assume there's a mix of hobbyist and 107 operators here but the overall tone just seems much more professional than other discussion boards I've witnessed.

This is why we can't have nice things

 

[ac0j]

Your list is only a tiny subset of 14 CFR Part 107, which you can read online - you don't need me to nurse you through it. And if you think that agreeing with you that your current knowledge of Part 107 is so incomplete that you wouldn't pass the test constitutes elitism then that's just too bad - you are the one continually asserting that Part 107 doesn't teach anything, while repeatedly demonstrating that you can't even be bothered to read it and have no idea what's in it. I suspect that you have never read 14 CFR Part 101 subpart E or the AMA Safety Handbook either.

I have no interest in reading it. I am not of the mind that having a flying toy makes me a pilot that needs to study simple hobby regulations that I have repeated several times.
I quit having any faith in the system when you explained the "intent of the flight" debacle.
If you insist that further reading of breaking down "dont fly near other aircraft" into several chapters of examples of where shouldnt fly your toy. Followed by several more chapters explaining what the areas surrounding airports are called. ( all of which stay away from airports includes) And understanding what happens above 400' with light and heavy aircraft (that is also prohibited)
And capping it all off with, the deal is off if you "intend" something else before you take off.

I am OK if you cannot specifically cite a single regulation that a recreational pilot should know that only the 107 test study would provide them. I have given you a few chances, and in rare form you choose not to provide anything factual. be careful not to elaborate on any of the Regulations I have used, and tell me it is additional regulations.

 

[abtocmeptb]

Every single year action of government directly or indirectly causing deaths of hundreds if not thousands of innocents people. Including children.
Do you really think I give two ***** what kind of “regulation” “they” got in place?
Only two rules out there.
1. Mind your own business
2. Do what you have to do

Discuss

 

[sar104]

I have no interest in reading it. I am not of the mind that having a flying toy makes me a pilot that needs to study simple hobby regulations that I have repeated several times.
I quit having any faith in the system when you explained the "intent of the flight" debacle.
If you insist that further reading of breaking down "dont fly near other aircraft" into several chapters of examples of where shouldnt fly your toy. Followed by several more chapters explaining what the areas surrounding airports are called. ( all of which stay away from airports includes) And understanding what happens above 400' with light and heavy aircraft (that is also prohibited)
And capping it all off with, the deal is off if you "intend" something else before you take off.

I am OK if you cannot specifically cite a single regulation that a recreational pilot should know that only the 107 test study would provide them. I have given you a few chances, and in rare form you choose not to provide anything factual. be careful not to elaborate on any of the Regulations I have used, and tell me it is additional regulations.

I know that you are deliberately misunderstanding what I said but, for the sake of anyone else still reading, I'll say it again: it's not, primarily, that there is anything in Part 107 that a recreational pilot needs to know and could not get from Part 101 and the AMA handbook - it's that Part 107 tests the knowledge whereas Part 101 doesn't. So many (probably most) recreational pilots, clearly including you, have no clue about many of the regulations and guidelines. The fact that you claim to be proud of that doesn't make it any better - it just makes you irresponsible. And the fact that you studiously refuse to educate yourself at all, even when provided with functioning links to follow, and yet pontificate ignorantly at every opportunity, is just rather sad.

Is your refusal to attempt to learn about any of this rooted in the fear that you won't understand it? It's really not that difficult.

 

[ac0j]

I know that you are deliberately misunderstanding what I said but, for the sake of anyone else still reading, I'll say it again: it's not, primarily, that there is anything in Part 107 that a recreational pilot needs to know and could not get from Part 101 and the AMA handbook - it's that Part 107 tests the knowledge whereas Part 101 doesn't. So many (probably most) recreational pilots, clearly including you, have no clue about many of the regulations and guidelines. The fact that you claim to be proud of that doesn't make it any better - it just makes you irresponsible. And the fact that you studiously refuse to educate yourself at all, even when provided with functioning links to follow, and yet pontificate ignorantly at every opportunity, is just rather sad.

Is your refusal to attempt to learn about any of this rooted in the fear that you won't understand it? It's really not that difficult.

If you cant show even one example of a single regulation I dont know, I guess you just cant. Maybe its because there isnt one so what incentive is that for me to "educate myself" about things I will never need to know? Unless I just get a 107 to PROVE I know more than someone else, but that would be pretty juvenile wouldnt it?
I understand fully what I NEED to understand to fly my tiny, unmanned, TOY aircraft safely.
Instead, you just challenge me a little harder about how much more educated you are than me??
You have a 107, so I am sure the majority of your flights are commercial. Because no one spends time and money on something like that for nothing. AND, I am SURE you arent implying to hobby pilots that having a Part 107 makes you a better drone operator. Because there are some pretty questionable 107 holder stories on this very forum.

 

[sar104]

If you cant show even one example of a single regulation I dont know, I guess you just cant. Maybe its because there isnt one so what incentive is that for me to "educate myself" about things I will never need to know? Unless I just get a 107 to PROVE I know more than someone else, but that would be pretty juvenile wouldnt it?
I understand fully what I NEED to understand to fly my tiny, unmanned, TOY aircraft safely.
Instead, you just challenge me a little harder about how much more educated you are than me??
You have a 107, so I am sure the majority of your flights are commercial. Because no one spends time and money on something like that for nothing. AND, I am SURE you arent implying to hobby pilots that having a Part 107 makes you a better drone operator. Because there are some pretty questionable 107 holder stories on this very forum.

You are still completely missing the point which, you will be amazed to hear, is not about you, except to the extent that you seem unable to comprehend plain English. This started with your question about whether Part 107 contained different rules than Part 101:

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.

I pointed out that (a) it does and (b) Part 107 tests that you actually to know the regulations whereas Part 101 does not.

There's a real mixture of subject matter in Part 107, but a lot of it does focus on safe flying, especially in relation to deconflicting with other traffic. At a bare minimum it ensures that sUAS pilots are very clear on all the regulations, something that most recreational pilots appear to know almost nothing about - not surprising since there is no incentive or requirement to know that stuff.

As for why people get Part 107 certified, I think that you are speculating wildly. Some clearly intend to do non-recreational flying. Some may be doing it just to learn the material and/or challenge themselves. Maybe some do it for some kind of status, but that seems unlikely - it's a significant investment in time as well as costing $150 and who are they going to impress anyway? You seem to be far more fixated on those who are Part 107 certified than anyone who has actually done it.

You completely ignored that and, with almost painful irony, went straight back to your old theme of how Part 107 is elitist and just for show, which really kills any meaningful discussion of the merits of the system.

I don't think I've stated whether I'm Part 107 certified or not, but good guess. I don't do commercial work in the usual sense. I originally became certified because it is a requirement to use drones for search and rescue. It's also a requirement, together with pilot medical, to use them where I work. And I have certainly provided material that would be in furtherance of a business on occasion.

It doesn't address flying skills - that will probably come later. And there are indeed some iffy Part 107 stories on this forum, although I'm pretty sure a number of them lied about being certified; they seem totally ignorant of the most basic regulations and there is no way anyone is passing the test with that level of knowledge. But they are dwarfed by the level of disregard for and ignorance of the rules by the recreational community.

 

[ac0j]

thank you Sar,
I have for your information just took a look at some part 107 sample tests.
I still missed seeing any regulatory information that isnt pretty widely known.
What I did see predominantly were Questions on;
*explaining markings on sectional maps and their meanings
*deciphering the encrypted weather forecasts and conditions up to tens of thousands of feet fro TAF.
* about different airspace requirements within the radius of airports.
*What you call visual observers (that are not legal for VLOS requirements)
*what weight is considered a UAS
*stall speeds for 33lb fixedwings in a 30% bank.......

Still dont agree that the majority of those questions have much if anything to do with Mavic flying.

*TAF and Weather? LOL! you standing right there, wet your finger and put it in the air!

*Sectionals for Obstacles, airports, and towers? LOL! you are standing right there, look around!

*Other aircraft around? you should be well away from any air port, but if you stay under 500 feet planes shouldn't sneak up on you and ruin your toy aircraft, but, since you are standing right there take a look around for idiot manned aircraft pilots "bending" the rules!

 

[sar104]

thank you Sar,
I have for your information just took a look at some part 107 sample tests.
I still missed seeing any regulatory information that isnt pretty widely known.
What I did see predominantly were Questions on;
*explaining markings on sectional maps and their meanings
*deciphering the encrypted weather forecasts and conditions up to tens of thousands of feet fro TAF.
* about different airspace requirements within the radius of airports.
*What you call visual observers (that are not legal for VLOS requirements)
*what weight is considered a UAS
*stall speeds for 33lb fixedwings in a 30% bank.......

Still dont agree that the majority of those questions have much if anything to do with Mavic flying.

*TAF and Weather? LOL! you standing right there, wet your finger and put it in the air!

*Sectionals for Obstacles, airports, and towers? LOL! you are standing right there, look around!

*Other aircraft around? you should be well away from any air port, but if you stay under 500 feet planes shouldn't sneak up on you and ruin your toy aircraft, but, since you are standing right there take a look around for idiot manned aircraft pilots "bending" the rules!

As I said - the point that I was addressing was that at least the Part 107 certification tests your knowledge. Yes - it tests knowledge that recreational pilots likely don't need, and it teaches about regulations that don't (yet) apply to recreational flight. But if you want to see all the many additional regulations that apply to Part 107 then read Part 107, not the sample test questions - that will be quicker and easier.

As for whether the recreational rules are widely known - you only have to read a smattering of the posts on this forum to realize that they are not. In contrast, there is no way to pass Part 107 without a pretty comprehensive understanding of those regulations.

 

[ac0j]

As I said - the point that I was addressing was that at least the Part 107 certification tests your knowledge. Yes - it tests knowledge that recreational pilots likely don't need, and it teaches about regulations that don't (yet) apply to recreational flight. But if you want to see all the many additional regulations that apply to Part 107 then read Part 107, not the sample test questions - that will be quicker and easier.

As for whether the recreational rules are widely known - you only have to read a smattering of the posts on this forum to realize that they are not. In contrast, there is no way to pass Part 107 without a pretty comprehensive understanding of those regulations.

I agree, BUT also referring to the similar smattering of posts, it is one thing to have the knowledge, it is another to retain and use it.

 

[sar104]

I agree, BUT also referring to the similar smattering of posts, it is one thing to have the knowledge, it is another to retain and use it.

That's referred to as "education". You should give it a try some time - you might like it.

 

[ac0j]

That's referred to as "education". You should give it a try some time - you might like it.

Wow! You really have a superiority complex dont you!
Trust me, I have an education. I know a lot of stuff that you dont know, or even want to know. Like you I learn about what I want to. That is called free will, you should try that sometime and give up on the conformist attitude putting trust in almost everything you read in "official" context.
Dont worry, I wont use My skills as a reason to hold myself higher than anyone else.

 

[sar104]

Wow! You really have a superiority complex dont you!
Trust me, I have an education. I know a lot of stuff that you dont know, or even want to know. Like you I learn about what I want to. That is called free will, you should try that sometime and give up on the conformist attitude putting trust in almost everything you read in "official" context.
Dont worry, I wont use My skills as a reason to hold myself higher than anyone else.

Come on - you teed that one up so high that it would have been rude not to hit it. And there is no such thing as a "superiority complex" - it's an oxymoron generally thrown around by people with inferiority complexes.

 

[dirkclod]

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



#1