FAA Part 107 Rule Changes re: Showing RPIC to LEO etc. . .

[dawgpilot]

And I thought that you were arguing that only the RPIC certificate plus ID was required.

Indeed, that's my position; I was just pointing out that if we were to accept your view (that proof of currency has be to carried, but a recently issued certificate alone would be OK), it doesn't actually make sense since the issue date of a certificate proves nothing about when the certificate was earned. That's not being pedantic.

For example, I earned my Private Pilot certificate and subsequent Instrument Rating in the late 90s, but my issue date on that shows the date a couple years back when I last changed my address with the FAA.

 

[sar104]

Indeed, that's my position; I was just pointing out that if we were to accept your view (that proof of currency has be to carried, but a recently issued certificate alone would be OK), it doesn't actually make sense since the issue date of a certificate proves nothing about when the certificate was earned. That's not being pedantic.

For example, I earned my Private Pilot certificate and subsequent Instrument Rating in the late 90s, but my issue date on that shows the date a couple years back when I last changed my address with the FAA.

Then that just implies that you always need proof of currency with the RPIC certificate, not just when the issue date is more than two years previously. You didn't address that main point of my post #16 at all.

 

[dawgpilot]

Then that just implies that you always need proof of currency with the RPIC certificate, not just when the issue date is more than two years previously. You didn't address that main point of my post #16 at all.

As I already said, there is no requirement to be able to demonstrate currency "in the field" contained in Part 107. It only requires one to be able to provide the FAA documents showing that information when they make a request. Part 107 clearly uses the word "physically" for only certain items, and that doesn't include proof of currency. If they wanted one to also carry proof of currency, they easily could have drafted the regulation to clearly mention that.

 

[Brockrock]

Indeed, that's my position; I was just pointing out that if we were to accept your view (that proof of currency has be to carried, but a recently issued certificate alone would be OK), it doesn't actually make sense since the issue date of a certificate proves nothing about when the certificate was earned. That's not being pedantic.

For example, I earned my Private Pilot certificate and subsequent Instrument Rating in the late 90s, but my issue date on that shows the date a couple years back when I last changed my address with the FAA.

I realize that what you are asking about is the 'Letter of the Law' regarding required documentation, and although the FAR's may not specifically refer to your recurrency documentation as required paperwork to carry with you, it would be prudent to do so. It makes it easier for any authorized individual in the field to assess your state of currency, and it could save you time later on should you be asked to later produce it. I'm not trying to make lite of your question, but rather, I am just speaking to what is practical.

 

[sar104]

As I already said, there is no requirement to be able to demonstrate currency "in the field" contained in Part 107. It only requires one to be able to provide the FAA documents showing that information when they make request. Part 107 clearly uses the word "physically" for only certain items, and that doesn't include proof of currency. If they wanted one to also carry proof of currency, they easily could have drafted the regulation to clearly mention that.

Agreed. They likely omitted it originally since they had not developed the recurrent testing back in 2016, but I'm not sure why they didn't add it explicitly in the 2021 amendment to Part 107.

 

[Buffolino]

I logged in to the FAA site this morning and took the training modules and test. I'm now recurrent per the current and upcoming rule changes for 24 months. There were many additions to the prior training modules for recurrency, so it's worth taking one's time and reading everything carefully.

Did you take the ALC-677 or ALC-515? I was told even though I am current on part 107, I will need the take ALC-677 to be able to fly at night and over people.

 

[Maviac]

Agreed. They likely omitted it originally since they had not developed the recurrent testing back in 2016, but I'm not sure why they didn't add it explicitly in the 2021 amendment to Part 107.

I have not studied this extensively (I've got the little certificate I printed yesterday in my wallet) and have no interest whatsoever in getting in the middle of a debate between sar104 and dawgpilot, but standard principles of stautory construction used in US law would suggest 1) the exclusion of of recurrency proof from what has to be physically carried while other, similar items were included is generally interpreted as meaning the exclusion was intentional ("expressio unius est exclusio alterius" is one of the few Latin phrases I remember), and 2) the fact that the law was amended and it wasn't added, even though the administration was aware of the existence of the prior law and COULD have added it, is also generally interpreted as an intentional exclusion.

On the other hand, administrative agencies generally have more discretion in interpreting their own rules than the courts do in interpreting legislation, so the above is not absolutely controlling.

And this is why people don't like lawyers.

 

[sar104]

I have not studied this extensively (I've got the little certificate I printed yesterday in my wallet) and have no interest whatsoever in getting in the middle of a debate between sar104 and dawgpilot, but standard principles of stautory construction used in US law would suggest 1) the exclusion of of recurrency proof from what has to be physically carried while other, similar items were included is generally interpreted as meaning the exclusion was intentional ("expressio unius est exclusio alterius" is one of the few Latin phrases I remember), and 2) the fact that the law was amended and it wasn't added, even though the administration was aware of the existence of the prior law and COULD have added it, is also generally interpreted as an intentional exclusion.

On the other hand, administrative agencies generally have more discretion in interpreting their own rules than the courts do in interpreting legislation, so the above is not absolutely controlling.

And this is why people don't like lawyers.

Yes - as I mentioned, I suspect it was intentionally omitted in the original drafting of Part 107 because they had not figured out back then how they were going to handle recurrent qualification. Now the FAA clearly wants to see both the RPIC certificate and evidence of currency, so the omission of that clear statement in the amended Part 107 looks a bit like an oversight rather than intentional.

And if it were intentionally omitted it would be a bit strange to state it as a requirement in the recurrent training, unless it's a similar situation to the VLOS requirements where they rather obviously are trying to impose a stricter interpretation than Part 107 requires.

 

[BigAl07]

Did you take the ALC-677 or ALC-515? I was told even though I am current on part 107, I will need the take ALC-677 to be able to fly at night and over people.

Whoever told you that was WRONG! Either they don't understand the Recurrency System, Part 61/vs 107, or both but they are wrong.

If you're CURRENT (including BFR) you can take ALC-515 to become current and get all the privs of the new rules (which don't go into effect until 4/21/21).

This is a direct quote from our FAA Office:

"Taking any course (ALC-451, ALC-515, or ALC-677) as authorized (after April 6), will provide 24 calendar months of currency and the ability to operate at night without a waiver on April 21."

You may want to pass this information along and if they need further confirmation PM me and I'll be glad to connect with them one-on-on.

Allen

 

[bcfd29]

Is this discussion going down a rabbit hole of pedantry?

good scrabble word!

 

[Brockrock]

Did you take the ALC-677 or ALC-515? I was told even though I am current on part 107, I will need the take ALC-677 to be able to fly at night and over people.

Yes. I took ALC-677

 

[sar104]

good scrabble word!

Rabbit?

 

[wsalopek]

Good write-up. Thanks for posting. I did my 107 Rating via the Part 61 method as I'm an ATP rated pilot, but one of the requirements was to have a current BFR, and this applied to my recent Part 107 recurrent as well. Having not read the technical language related to the new Part 107 recurrent process (via the FAA's proposed online test), I wonder if the BFR will no longer be required. It does seem unnecessary IMO.

If you are not "current" with your "real" pilot license, then to the FAA, as far as Part 107 requirements go, it's like you don't have a "real" license at all. BFR is still required (I'm 99.99% sure.)

 

[BigAl07]

If you are not "current" with your "real" pilot license, then to the FAA, as far as Part 107 requirements go, it's like you don't have a "real" license at all. BFR is still required (I'm 99.99% sure.)

Negative! Any Part 107 holder (those who have not had it revoked which you'll be hard to find any other those but I don't digress here) can take ALC-677 and "Become Current" with Part 107.

Now if you take ALC-515 that does NOT give you Recurrency unless you are Current under Part 61 (BFR).

 

[Dogpilot]

Boy, we have a lot of circular arguments going on here. First off, real world, not the court of the internet. 47 years of serious flying I have never, ever been asked to provide my certificate in the USA. Overseas, yes, nearly every time I land. Now reality, your friendly FAA inspector and/or NTSB investigator can access your records online, all of them, with the exception of medical records, aside from you did it and the application (HIPA rules). Your BFR and IPC are not online.

So, no, as you lie on the ground next to the smoldering remains of your aircraft, do you have to produce your logbooks, the aircraft's records, all your certifications and endorsements. You do have to be able to provide them outside of your physical license and medical within a reasonable period. Personally, I have a post grad degree in Aviation Safety and am a certified accident investigator and have worked on contract for NTSB and the FAA along with the insurers. So I have seen that process from the inside.

Now if you want to get the ire of the FAA, lie to them. Tell them your current and your not will result in a huge hammer fall on your head. As I mentioned, they can get it all online in seconds. The only thing they cannot see without your logbooks is your BFR or IPC. And if you lie about it...

 

[DroneSouth DSP]

Assuming that you mean the Airman Knowledge Test Report from the in-person recurrent, I've never asked but the "DO NOT LOSE THIS REPORT" warning on the document suggests that it may not be easy to replace.

You could just take the new online recurrent training and get a shiny new certificate that way, which will also qualify you for night flights etc.

What I am/would do...MUCH EASIER!

 

[DroneSouth DSP]

I realize that what you are asking about is the 'Letter of the Law' regarding required documentation, and although the FAR's may not specifically refer to your recurrency documentation as required paperwork to carry with you, it would be prudent to do so. It makes it easier for any authorized individual in the field to assess your state of currency, and it could save you time later on should you be asked to later produce it. I'm not trying to make lite of your question, but rather, I am just speaking to what is practical.

If You have Your $#&% together and know the Rules, the Fed will leave you alone. And then within 10 days file a “NASA” Report!