Don't have your FAA Part 107? You might be flying illegally even if for recreation purposes

[TheRock]

Well, making guns hard to get didn't really work. They just buy illegally. There will always be someone out there to screw up a good thing.

 

[sar104]

Well, making guns hard to get didn't really work. They just buy illegally. There will always be someone out there to screw up a good thing.

It has worked extremely well in the rest of the developed world, where guns are actually restricted. Guns are trivial to obtain in the US.

 

[ReadyKilowatt]

Not only should the aeronautical knowledge test be difficult enough to require real study, I feel it should be mandatory (with passing score) before anyone can BUY a drone.

Too many careless, clueless people and cowboys out there flying drones. All you have to do is read this forum once a week to see how true that is. Drones that can cause SERIOUS damage to life and property in the right circumstances.

Mark

That's basically what should be the case, but Best Buy/Walmart/Target wanted nothing to do with requiring a license be presented at checkout. And they have a lot more congressmen in their pockets than everyone building sUAVs.

 

[Prmath]

Not only should the aeronautical knowledge test be difficult enough to require real study, I feel it should be mandatory (with passing score) before anyone can BUY a drone.

Too many careless, clueless people and cowboys out there flying drones. All you have to do is read this forum once a week to see how true that is. Drones that can cause SERIOUS damage to life and property in the right circumstances.

Mark

Thats the same as letting these idiots on the road steering a 3000 pound missle down the road at 60mph.
now THAT...... scares hell outta me

 

[WildHarleyGuy]

Not only should the aeronautical knowledge test be difficult enough to require real study, I feel it should be mandatory (with passing score) before anyone can BUY a drone.

Too many careless, clueless people and cowboys out there flying drones. All you have to do is read this forum once a week to see how true that is. Drones that can cause SERIOUS damage to life and property in the right circumstances.

Mark

A license or certificate does not prevent stupid...driving drunk or stoned, shooting firearms in an irresponsible manner all require tests and studying yet $hit happens. If people are going to do stupid things, a difficult test isn’t going to stop it but I understand your point.

 

[Photo Booth]

A license or certificate does not prevent stupid...driving drunk or stoned, shooting firearms in an irresponsible manner all require tests and studying yet $hit happens. If people are going to do stupid things, a difficult test isn’t going to stop it but I understand your point.

The old "people will break the law anyway so why have laws" argument.

Mark

 

[TheRock]

"It has worked extremely well in the rest of the developed world, where guns are actually restricted. Guns are trivial to obtain in the US."

Well, the FAA is in the US as well. And that's the subject of this thread.

 

[sar104]

"It has worked extremely well in the rest of the developed world, where guns are actually restricted. Guns are trivial to obtain in the US."

Well, the FAA is in the US as well. And that's the subject of this thread.

That was my point. The reason that restricting gun availability in the US hasn't worked is because it hasn't been restricted. So it's a poor analogy for whether restricting anything works.

 

[Bobby Brown]

The old "people will break the law anyway so why have laws" argument.

Mark

Dumb *** comment!

 

[sar104]

Dumb *** comment!

It was an entirely accurate comment on the post he was responding to. What was dumb about it?

 

[Photo Booth]

Dumb *** comment!

Ditto!

Mark

 

[PropSpin]

Do driving tests encourage people to drive unlicensed?

For what it's worth - driving tests are not particularly difficult.

 

[Kenneth Coe]

Wow! Just...wow. I certainly see why they refer to the "drone police" here. There are obviously a lot of very well off "highly-educated" folks around who want to be one of the privileged elite to get to fly a Mavic Pro. Everyone else who don't want or can't afford to drop $150 for a test equivalent to a private pilot test can just stay home and throw their drone away.

Really, guys, the hateful comments are getting out of hand. I had a good friend years ago who made a very valid and intelligent statement: "The American people will not obey a law that's stupid". He was referring to the 55 mph speed limit (where is that now, by the way?). But I have to believe that a lot of what has been suggested here would fall into the "stupid law" category. Tests just as difficult and complex as possible? To fly a Mavic? Please......

Most of us out here want to be safe because of common sense and the fact that $1000 is not peanuts to us, regardless of what a certain California politician says. Of course I fly line of sight under 400 feet. It just makes sense. But idiotic laws have very little to do with my decision. And DJI's geo-fencing, which seems to be in error just about as much as it is right, will eventually open up a whole new software market.

Just a quick look at the facts:
Just how many people have been killed or seriously injured in drone accidents? (Drones like the mavic, not military drones.)
How many aircraft have crashed or lost even partial control because of drones?
Just how many drone operators are actually morons (as some of the elites on this forum have suggested)?
Do you really think that people who buy a drone and fly at low altitude to take a few videos and photos really need to read an aeronautical chart? Really?
Do they really need meteorological training to fly a 1.6 lb tiny aircraft at 200 feet and take pictures?
Does the inability to pass a private pilot exam really make someone a moron?

We already have laws that prevent people from operating any kind of aerial devices anywhere close to airports. The people at Gatwick weren't morons, they were criminals, and I hope they are prosecuted as they should be. But more laws and restrictions would not have prevented that incident.

Folks, this is America. We live in a place where the government is supposedly prevented from regulating every nook and cranny of our lives. Remember that pesky constitution thing?

It specifically limits the government's ability to regulate firearms and I believe at least the spirit of the constitution also limits regulation of automobiles, our homes, and..... yes, little tiny airplanes with little cameras on them. And the laws we DO need... are already there. Really, all it takes is a little common sense and a desire to get along.

Can we just take it down a notch or two and keep these forums friendly and helpful?

 

[sar104]

For what it's worth - driving tests are not particularly difficult.

So I've heard - I never took one in the US. So if they were more difficult, as in other countries, do you think that would encourage unlicensed driving?

 

[PropSpin]

So I've heard - I never took one in the US. So if they were more difficult, as in other countries, do you think that would encourage unlicensed driving?

I think that there are always going to be people around that are gonna do what they want to do, test or no test. For driving, I don't think that having a harder test is going to make any difference that matters. I would expect at least a slight increase in unlicensed drivers.

As for drones, I think that all drones over the .55 lb weight threshold should be required to come with a simple "warning" sheet that informs the user of the requirement for registering, along the URL for registration and basic rules, risks, and safety information (a cheat sheet if you will). If registering for recreational use, it makes sense to me to have a basic online test that the user would have to pass in order to receive the registration number. It doesn't need to be "hard", it just needs to cover the rules. If the whole process is overly complicated or the test covers material that really doesn't matter for a recreational flier I can see a lot of people doing whatever they think that they can get away with, especially with "dumb" drones. Like it or not, people are typically gonna view flying a "small" quadcopter or drone much differently than driving a 2000 plus pound vehicle. Not to mention that licensing requirements, etc. for motor vehicles have been around for close to a century now and that's what people expect to have to deal with. Not so for flying around a one or two pound drone or quadcopter.

For commercial use, I think that the test should cover whatever is required to fly safely in the national airspace, especially in congested areas (people and structures).

For violations of either category, make the penalty fit the crime.

 

[TR Ganey]

I think that there are always going to be people around that are gonna do what they want to do, test or no test. For driving, I don't think that having a harder test is going to make any difference that matters. I would expect at least a slight increase in unlicensed drivers.

As for drones, I think that all drones over the .55 lb weight threshold should be required to come with a simple "warning" sheet that informs the user of the requirement for registering, along the URL for registration and basic rules, risks, and safety information (a cheat sheet if you will). If registering for recreational use, it makes sense to me to have a basic online test that the user would have to pass in order to receive the registration number. It doesn't need to be "hard", it just needs to cover the rules. If the whole process is overly complicated or the test covers material that really doesn't matter for a recreational flier I can see a lot of people doing whatever they think that they can get away with, especially with "dumb" drones. Like it or not, people are typically gonna view flying a "small" quadcopter or drone much differently than driving a 2000 plus pound vehicle. Not to mention that licensing requirements, etc. for motor vehicles have been around for close to a century now and that's what people expect to have to deal with. Not so for flying around a one or two pound drone or quadcopter.

For commercial use, I think that the test should cover whatever is required to fly safely in the national airspace, especially in congested areas (people and structures).

For violations of either category, make the penalty fit the crime.

@PropSpin you'd better be careful with all that open and blatant use of common sense! There are those that seem determined to regulate it out of existence.

 

[WildHarleyGuy]

First off, let me clarify as people have taken my comments out of context.
There are things the manufacturer can do due restrict drones going above the FAA

Wow! Just...wow. I certainly see why they refer to the "drone police" here. There are obviously a lot of very well off "highly-educated" folks around who want to be one of the privileged elite to get to fly a Mavic Pro. Everyone else who don't want or can't afford to drop $150 for a test equivalent to a private pilot test can just stay home and throw their drone away.

Really, guys, the hateful comments are getting out of hand. I had a good friend years ago who made a very valid and intelligent statement: "The American people will not obey a law that's stupid". He was referring to the 55 mph speed limit (where is that now, by the way?). But I have to believe that a lot of what has been suggested here would fall into the "stupid law" category. Tests just as difficult and complex as possible? To fly a Mavic? Please......

Most of us out here want to be safe because of common sense and the fact that $1000 is not peanuts to us, regardless of what a certain California politician says. Of course I fly line of sight under 400 feet. It just makes sense. But idiotic laws have very little to do with my decision. And DJI's geo-fencing, which seems to be in error just about as much as it is right, will eventually open up a whole new software market.

Just a quick look at the facts:
Just how many people have been killed or seriously injured in drone accidents? (Drones like the mavic, not military drones.)
How many aircraft have crashed or lost even partial control because of drones?
Just how many drone operators are actually morons (as some of the elites on this forum have suggested)?
Do you really think that people who buy a drone and fly at low altitude to take a few videos and photos really need to read an aeronautical chart? Really?
Do they really need meteorological training to fly a 1.6 lb tiny aircraft at 200 feet and take pictures?
Does the inability to pass a private pilot exam really make someone a moron?

We already have laws that prevent people from operating any kind of aerial devices anywhere close to airports. The people at Gatwick weren't morons, they were criminals, and I hope they are prosecuted as they should be. But more laws and restrictions would not have prevented that incident.

Folks, this is America. We live in a place where the government is supposedly prevented from regulating every nook and cranny of our lives. Remember that pesky constitution thing?

It specifically limits the government's ability to regulate firearms and I believe at least the spirit of the constitution also limits regulation of automobiles, our homes, and..... yes, little tiny airplanes with little cameras on them. And the laws we DO need... are already there. Really, all it takes is a little common sense and a desire to get along.

Can we just take it down a notch or two and keep these forums friendly and helpful?

Exactly my point Kenneth!
Well said and I agree totally.

 

[Photo Booth]

The Gatwick drone pilots were, most certainly, morons. Yes, criminals too, but not intelligent ones. Only a blithering idiot would fly a drone over a busy airport (without prior authorization/clearance, etc.). It was an incredibly stupid thing to do and no person with decent intelligence and a healthy respect for the safety of others would attempt it.

Mark

 

[DerekinUT]

Oh look, another thread where certain members are advocating for MORE rules and regulations. I actually cannot believe that someone here actually wants to make an aeronautical test MANDATORY before being allowed to buy a drone. And, conducting a pass/fail flight test in ATTI mode...LOL. Speaking as someone in the US; how about no...? You crotchety old dorks need to chill with the regulating rhetoric. The truth is, there’s very little data to back-up the need for further regulations in the name of safety. As far as regulations; a certain sect of the community will choose to disobey any further regulations. Why? Because we’re tired of everything being regulated into oblivion.

“If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so”

 

[sar104]

YES,
............

Are you sure that you understood my point? Because if you did then you appear to be arguing that driving tests should be easier in order to encourage more people to take them.