FAA ~ Recreational Drone Flying Aeronautical Test Moves Forward

[BigAl07]

Watched it, their test didn't account for airflow displacement produced by the leading edge of the wing, surprised they didn't discuss the effect that puts on the UAS, it would likely cause it to tumble over/under the wing. Also, they tested a light wing which almost has the strength of tough fabric, not your typical aircraft aluminum. Fact is bird flocks are of MUCH greater concern to professional aviator vs a single UAS and last I checked there are way more birds than UAS.

Let's talk about the highly unlikely worst case here, a UAS flying into an aircaft. It's not asking much of a competent pilot to take evasive action should a UAS fly in their path, I've dodged plenty of small birds in my 30000lbs twin engine bus. And another point, even the damage in the video isn't enough to bring down light aircaft. It takes a lot of highly unlikely events to align for a worst case scenario to happen, odds are too great and legislation not necessary. It's almost impossible to down an aircaft with a puny little UAS. (This discussion doesn't apply to a terrorism attempt with a swarm of UAS targeting an airliner at take off, which IMO is a real threat).

The laws we have in place are plenty. UAS pilots stay out of busy airspace, the dummies get prosecuted. There's some serious tech out there that can drop UAS out of the sky, that is the best solution to the problem. Punish the idiots but leave us law abiding, common sense flying folks out of the equation.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm not going down your rabbit hole with you sir.

 

[ChrisOutdoors]

Or if you want to think about comparable situations - birds hit aircraft, insects hit vehicle windshields.

Any credibility that you might have had immediately left the building at this point.

Lol, says the guy who compares a windshield to an airfoil.

 

[Photo Booth]

I personally think it should be administered just like Part 107 and every other FAA Airmen's test. Otherwise it holds no merit (not that it will hold a lot either way). Just my 2 cents.

Agreed. The recreational pilot test should be taken in person and should be comprehensive and mandatory. Further, passing it should be a requirement before you can even buy a drone.

Mark

 

[SkyDogII]

You guys are off your rocker....
I'm not showing up for an in-person test for a recreational, hobby registration. PERIOD.
That's why SOLD my M2Z and bought a Mavic Mini.

You are never going to be able to enforce that... Take a look at all the gun control laws.
I know you don't want to talk about it, but that's what this is going to become.
There are more than enough enforceable gun laws on the books at ALL levels, both federal and state, to prosecute ANYONE!
Everyone keeps asking for more sensible laws, I'll keep it brief. You don't need anymore laws to keep people safe, you don't need to ban modern sporting arms (ar-15's). When is enough enough?

When are you going to realize that it's the person and not product that is the problem.
You can't fix stupid! and you can't fix a mentally-deficient person either!

 

[PoonDog]

WOW, this went off the rail's. But it is very interesting

 

[JAW]

<snip>Starts to look like you need to produce a certificate just to purchase a machine... .

I certainly see DJI requiring anyone activating a newly purchased drone to sign off on some sort statement indicating they (the purchaser) are aware of all the pertinent laws, etc.

 

[JAW]

You guys are off your rocker....
I'm not showing up for an in-person test for a recreational, hobby registration. PERIOD.
That's why SOLD my M2Z and bought a Mavic Mini.

You are never going to be able to enforce that...

Laws that attempt to regulate behavior are either PROACTIVE---i.e., requiring drones sold to be equipped with a functioning ADS-B system, or REACTIVE---i.e., requiring a proficiency exam that, as you point out, is essentially unenforceable. These laws are applied after another unlawful act is committed---i.e., you get caught flying from a National Park and it is discovered you never took the test.

ALSO the minimum age to register as a recreational pilot is 13. Does that mean a 13 year old who wants to fly a Mavic must take a proficiency exam? If so, how hard could it be?

 

[SkyDogII]

You probably can say the same thing about any law. Especially gun legislation. Look at what happened in new Zealand after that tragic event. And you don’t need to go too far from home look what happened after the sandy hook event. I get what you are trying to say

 

[Bigbird48]

You probably can say the same thing about any law. Especially gun legislation. Look at what happened in new Zealand after that tragic event. And you don’t need to go too far from home look what happened after the sandy hook event. I get what you are trying to say

I can see it now insane drone pilot flys his mavci mini into crowd kills 13 kids . come on people be real.

 

[dirkclod]

WOW, this went off the rail's. But it is very interesting

Yes and I did ask for this to get off guns but see it has continued . Anymore talk of such will be removed
and member warned or I will just close this whole thread .
Be civil guys and continue if you like but you have been warned .

 

[Dizzy1971]

Online testing is the only feasible way, as it wouldn't be practical to require millions of recreational drone owners to suddenly pay ~$150 and schedule an in-person visit to a test center. Such a requirement would likely result in even more non-compliance with the rules.

Totally agree. Making it more difficult for people to attain permits for things like this encourages ppl to not follow the regulations. Here in Canada we have the online testing. So the transport Canada geniuses just throw in a rule “thou shalt not cheat,or you will be in deeeep deeeep trouble”....then we click the “sure”. Button... and take the test. It’s not as easy as I thought it would be,but the regs do allow for looking up the answers,which actually seems to serve a good purpose since one does get to know the answer by having to look it up. Idk, perhaps the faa will have a similarly easy process.

 

[Multi-Rotor Pilot812]

It seems to me that a lot of the pilots on here that already operate under a part 107 license are some of the most outspoken advocates for more regulations on recreational pilots. I think it would only be fitting that as more regulations are enacted on the recreational pilot that the 107 pilot requirements continue to evolve at an equal level.

After all the harder the license is to achieve and to maintain the more one’s ego can grow accordingly. Shouldn’t the 107 come with at the very least the same requirements as the private pilots certification? I mean after all that certificate isn’t even a commercial rating.

I personally think the 107 should require a full medical certificate. Wouldn’t that make you feel important? I for one wouldn’t want a 107 pilot that may well be operating a substantially heavier aircraft due to all the high tech cameras and bells and whistles to suffer a seizure, diabetic coma, or heart attack while their heavy aircraft is in the air.

This could cause an unsafe environment for the innocent bystanders on the ground not to mention their property. I think it’s only common sense for the 107 rules and regs to go in this direction don’t you? Right, that’s what I thought.

 

[DroningOn]

It seems to me that a lot of the pilots on here that already operate under a part 107 license are some of the most outspoken advocates for more regulations on recreational pilots. I think it would only be fitting that as more regulations are enacted on the recreational pilot that the 107 pilot requirements continue to evolve at an equal level.
After all the harder the license is to achieve and to maintain the more one’s ego can grow accordingly. Shouldn’t the 107 come with at the very least the same requirements as the private pilots certification? I mean after all that certificate isn’t even a commercial rating.
I personally think the 107 should require a full medical certificate. Wouldn’t that make you feel important? I for one wouldn’t want a 107 pilot that may well be operating a substantially heavier aircraft due to all the high tech cameras and bells and whistles to suffer a seizure, diabetic coma, or heart attack while their heavy aircraft is in the air. This could cause an unsafe environment for the innocent bystanders on the ground not to mention their property. I think it’s only common sense for the 107 rules and regs to go in this direction don’t you? Right, that’s what I thought.

Well stated! REAL “PILOTS” should have no problem wit such enhanced regulations. After all, we must always be proactive and minimize the potential death and destruction that these aircraft pose to others. Oh, and the ego boost is always a good thing. You can never have enough official paperwork to flash around. It’s very impressive ;-)

 

[Chip]

I think it would only be fitting that as more regulations are enacted on the recreational pilot that the 107 pilot requirements continue to evolve at an equal level. ..Shouldn’t the 107 come with at the very least the same requirements as the private pilots certification? I mean after all that certificate isn’t even a commercial rating. I personally think the 107 should require a full medical certificate...

Good point. An "aircraft" is an "aircraft." Full medical certification should be required. Maybe even random drug and alcohol testing with annual mental health evals for good measure. If nothing to hide and not a criminal, there should be no objection.

 

[BigAl07]

Ok gang. This one is getting a bit strong on the sarcasm and borderline on breaking the rules. Don't keep it going with the current "tone". If it keeps going we'll shut this one down and give infractions.

If you can't be NICE then refrain from posting because it's only going to hurt you in the long run. This is the only warning we're going to give in this thread.

Allen

 

[YearZero]

Ok gang. This one is getting a bit strong on the sarcasm and borderline on breaking the rules. Don't keep it going with the current "tone". If it keeps going we'll shut this one down and give infractions.

If you can't be NICE then refrain from posting because it's only going to hurt you in the long run. This is the only warning we're going to give in this thread.

Allen

I didn’t read sarcasm into these last few posts. As a long-time follower of the site, I have seen countless arguments documenting Mavics as true aircraft sharing the NAS and the operators of such aircraft as pilots. As such, pilots should be regulated, licensed and monitored. Given the potential danger that these craft pose to the NAS and the public at large, why wouldn’t it be prudent to require things like physicals, administered check flights and background checks etc? Am I wrong??

 

[dirkclod]

I didn’t read sarcasm into these last few posts.

That’s because they were removed.

 

[tesohn]

I personally think it should be administered just like Part 107 and every other FAA Airmen's test. Otherwise it holds no merit (not that it will hold a lot either way). Just my 2 cents.

Spoken in a lawyer type tone. Trying to make a recreational device operation into a complex of regulations and procedures.

 

[razoraerial]

This has gotten crazy. “Hey get a license so you can go buy a drone.” But no license needed to buy a car. Lol. I know It can be done, more damage with a motorcycle or car then a drone could do.btw. I deal with licensing a lot and can tell you every year I meet Many people driving a super long time and no license on either car or motorcycle. No man made device has done any harm. It’s always always the person on the controlling end. And further those that plan to do wrong don’t care about any law. I can also say if you take one device away another will be there for the job. So I boils down to online is the best option to get better odds of getting the many informed. Well that’s my side of the fence. Lol.

 

[BigAl07]

I didn’t read sarcasm into these last few posts.

As noted that's because the thread has been cleaned. Unfortunately some people can't help but be mean, rude, and insist on being argumentative. Our staff members are always working behind the scenes to keep our forums clean, KIND, and organized. The mere fact that many people didn't see the issues that were removed is a testament to their dedication and sense of urgency.

THANK YOU to our volunteer staff members who work so hard behind the curtains!!

As a long-time follower of the site, I have seen countless arguments documenting Mavics as true aircraft sharing the NAS and the operators of such aircraft as pilots. As such, pilots should be regulated, licensed and monitored. Given the potential danger that these craft pose to the NAS and the public at large, why wouldn’t it be prudent to require things like physicals, administered check flights and background checks etc? Am I wrong??

You're 100% correct IMHO. I sincerely hope that today's Part 107 becomes tomorrows Hobby/Recreation testing and Part 107 gets more indepth and requires flight tests etc.

I look at it like this... if you're going to play in the National Airspace System then why should you not also have to play by the same rules, regulations, and testing standards? That's my 2 cents.