FAA ~ Recreational Drone Flying Aeronautical Test Moves Forward

[Deleted member 109934]

I hope this will not look like the Canadian version, which in a nutshell took legal hobbyist drone out of the sky. The idea of registration and test was to introduce so many rules where you can't fly, that you can't fly anywhere if you want to adhere to those rules, and registration and tests make you legally liable and guilty before you even take off in your own backyard.

We have 3 tests basic, advanced and some flight test, there are no guides for the tests. Just; here is what you need to know: to go learn it. I absolutely get it how few idiots broke this for everyone. Even if you pass the exam you will quickly realize you can't fly anywhere without breaking the law, and if you go for the advanced version, you will need to get a permit from Transport Canada to fly anywhere legally and pass fly tests every 2 years. Again how many people will do that just for a hobby.?

Yes, you can cheat the test, nobody cares, because the first page of the general guide has a list of fines you will get when not obeying the rules, this test was only design to legally make you liable for gov to give you fine for literally anything, it was not designed to make you safe drone operator.

Look how the document starts: lists all the fines to make you liable and guilty if someone wants to make an example, does not mean they will, but you are lost case straight from the gun. It does not start with list of how to be a safe operator, best practices etc...

Canada Gazette, Part 2, Volume 153, Number 1: Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems)

January 9, 2019, Part 2, Volume 153, Number 1, Canada Gazette

www.gazette.gc.ca

since you are taking the test, you are understanding the fines, once you start going through the sections, you will never buy a drone if you live in Ontario, if you live up north nobody cares.

in the nutshell:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This is not about training a safe drone operator and give him the knowledge to fly safe, this is a straight-up repellant, and conviction tool. Having said that I get it, there is a lot of idiots out there that will do some most stupid things on earth.

 

[dirkclod]

I’ve seen cost brought up several times in this. Did I miss what this test is going to cost or was that in reference to
the 107.

 

[Ronbo1]

This test is supposed to be nothing but basic safety rules. It should be about flying over crowds, how high you can fly, how far away you can fly, where and when you aren't allowed to fly, and yielding to other aircraft. I can't imagine much more than that would be relevant to a basic safety test. If someone reports you for perceived infractions then law enforcement will check you for your registration and safety certificate, and issue citations or fines where necessary. Anything beyond that would make it unreasonable, and one would be better off to just get a 107. It should also be free of charge.

 

[BigAl07]

I’ve seen cost brought up several times in this. Did I miss what this test is going to cost or was that in reference to
the 107.

It's probably going to be a free online test (My hunch and nothing more).

I think the cost conversation might have been related to P107 testing IIRC.

This test is supposed to be nothing but basic safety rules. It should be about flying over crowds, how high you can fly, how far away you can fly, where and when you aren't allowed to fly, and yielding to other aircraft. I can't imagine much more than that would be relevant to a basic safety test.

How about reading a sectional in order to be able to determine what specific airspace you're operating in?

.....one would be better off to just get a 107. It should also be free of charge.

The current Part 107 test is a good MIN for Hobby/Recreational operators and I think Part 107 operators should have a physical flight test.

Who do you suggest pay for Part 107 testing? The FAA makes nothing off of the tests so now do we expect them to also PAY for the testing facilities to administer Part 107? I'd guess no flying people might not be happy with their tax $$ paying to administer aviation tests.

 

[theDRONEranger]

This test is supposed to be nothing but basic safety rules. It should be about flying over crowds, how high you can fly, how far away you can fly, where and when you aren't allowed to fly, and yielding to other aircraft. I can't imagine much more than that would be relevant to a basic safety test. If someone reports you for perceived infractions then law enforcement will check you for your registration and safety certificate, and issue citations or fines where necessary. Anything beyond that would make it unreasonable, and one would be better off to just get a 107. It should also be free of charge.

The 107 is free of charge (from the FAA)! We unfortunately, have to pay a third party testing agency that is non-governmental!
EDITED: ok, you got me . . . The registration fee!

 

[Ronbo1]

Who do you suggest pay for Part 107 testing? The FAA makes nothing off of the tests so now do we expect them to also PAY for the testing facilities to administer Part 107? I'd guess no flying people might not be happy with their tax $$ paying to administer aviation tests.

The basic safety test for hobby use should be free because it will be a brief online test and you have to print your own certificate. Hardly any cost involved. I did not say that the 107 should be free.

 

[allenface]

Guns
Another forum, another time!
Not here, not now

Yea...you're right. I know this is directed at me and rightfully so. I was just trying to make a point but I may have been too pointed. Sorry!

 

[SkyDogII]

allenface, I agree with you. Gun control regulation is a fair comparison to what drone regulation could become. Anytime you need a certificate, pay a fee before you can buy something, take a test, etc., etc. that becomes a problem. You could very well have ill-intentions, with anything, insert item here (guns,car, drone, hammer, knife, stick, club, bat)... I'm done with the nanny-state, when does the regulation end?

 

[dirkclod]

Let’s get off guns guys.
Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 109934]

I believe those tests and regulations are not to fight or protect from people with ill-intentions but from the stupidity of average Joe. If someone has ill-intentions they will not use DJI drone, but build their own custom no GPS zone enabled drone that flys autonomously without radio etc. I think average Joe that decides to fly close to the airport is much more dangerous and unpredictable.
Also killing the technology will not let it grow and develop further into something that could be a much bigger threat in the hands of bad actors. So let's kill it with regulations before it gets too sophisticated and popular. Think how much money is lost to drone business because of those regulations, a big chunk of that would go into R&D etc.

 

[DanMan32]

Autonomy would need or at least be more reliable using GPS. Since using GPS is passive, there's no reason an ill-intended person not to use it as there's no way to detect someone's use of GPS.

But of course the test is to attempt to be sure the average Joe knows the rules.

 

[Deleted member 109934]

Autonomy would need or at least be more reliable using GPS. Since using GPS is passive, there's no reason an ill-intended person not to use it as there's no way to detect someone's use of GPS.

But of course the test is to attempt to be sure the average Joe knows the rules.

I was referring to DJI "no-fly GPS zones", not the GPS system itself.

 

[PoonDog]

I completely agree. No proof of passing the "requirements" no purchase allowed. I think they should be handled in exactly the same manner as dirk mentions above.

For those worried about kids etc there needs to be a classification system. For those "Mall Toys" that can't fly more than a couple hundred feet, have no GPS guidance, and no autonomous flight modes I say let's call them TOY and exclude them. The rest would be classified by weight, control distance, and autonomous flight abilities.

I honestly think the current Part 107 is more aligned with Hobby operations and it should be the bare MIN to purchase and fly recreationally.

Then there should be a higher classification/certification for Commercial operators. If you're going to be a Big Boy and dabble in the Commercial realm you should not only take the written test but there should be an actual flight proficiency portion of the test as well. Merely passing a standardized written test in no way demonstrates actual ability to safely control the aircraft. I think the flight test should be fairly broad and comprehensive including flying in wide open spaces, in more narrow spaces, how to handle various emergency scenarios and the most important of all is how to FLY THE AIRCRAFT when the training wheels quit working for you. You should have to demonstrate you can safely operate the aircraft in a wide range of likely situations/scenarios. As it is now you can study, take, and PASS the test with never even touching any type of UAS. How absurd is that?

On the plus side I know for a fact that many FAA offices are currently increasing their UAS specific staffing. One office I was on a conference call with last week is TRIPLING their UAS staff to help with education and investigation tasks. I'm hoping we see more FAA activity in our community along with increased fines and enforcement of the existing rules and framework. I think without this last part the rest of it is a waste of time and resources.

Boy, you sure can figure out a way to screw up christmas. I am starting to think we take this way to serious. Next thing they will make you get a licence to play golf. I hate Golf.

 

[SkyDogII]

The terrorists who did the 911 attacks took all the tests and training and complied with whatever regulations existed and Ill-intentions still happened. My point is it doesn’t matter what you do you can’t fix stupid. And if someone really wants to do harm, regardless of the law, regulations, fines, whatever else the nanny state implements, people will still find a way to do harm.
And if the average joe is really that dumb, maybe those genes should be eliminated from the gene pool. Ahh, Darwin was right.

I said it before you can’t fix stupid, but the nanny-state can!!

 

[ChrisOutdoors]

Aviation isn't about waiting until the problem exists and THEN try to fix it.

Keep in mind that if there is an air disaster involving a UAS (and we hope it NEVER happens) we will most likely be regulated out of the hobby/recreational realm totally. Once John Q. Public decides they aren't going to fly because of the worry (justified or not... doesn't matter in this context) and $$ is lost by the aviation industry how quickly do you think regulations (and strict ones at that) will come pouring down on all of us?

With this type of thinking you can literally make the case for ANY legislation in the name of "safety".

I'm an aviator and don't get the fear of consumer level UAS', it has a feel of being manufactured to push forward a different agenda. I fear BIRDS more than any UAS, especially when they're flying in circles right after takeoff.

 

[BigAl07]

With this type of thinking you can literally make the case for ANY legislation in the name of "safety".

I'm an aviator and don't get the fear of consumer level UAS', it has a feel of being manufactured to push forward a different agenda. I fear BIRDS more than any UAS, especially when they're flying in circles right after takeoff.

For the record I'm a aviator as well. Have been for decades now. My AGENDA is to try and restrict or at least minimize any UAS to MANNED AIRCRAFT incidents. How is that so hard to believe?

You're entitled to your opinion but physics doesn't agree with it. Did you see the Univ test on the Mooney wing with a Phantom? If everything else is the same I'd much rather have a semi soft (compressible) bird strike my aircraft than a semi rigid (in-compressible) UAS.

This is roughly 4 minutes but well worth watching in it's entirety IMHO:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Deleted member 109934]

For the record I'm a aviator as well. Have been for decades now. My AGENDA is to try and restrict or at least minimize any UAS to MANNED AIRCRAFT incidents. How is that so hard to believe?

You're entitled to your opinion but physics doesn't agree with it. Did you see the Univ test on the Mooney wing with a Phantom? If everything else is the same I'd much rather have a semi soft (compressible) bird strike my aircraft than a semi rigid (in-compressible) UAS.

This is roughly 4 minutes but well worth watching in it's entirety IMHO:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I think the best approach to minimize those incidents is to educate the user's emotions on what can happen if... People do not realize flying high is dangerous if you have no clue where you are flying. Overregulating is only an option if you want to kill the industry, and it is quite a viable option.

Video to have a maximum impact it has to play with emotions not flight books and flight manuals.
Educational Hollywood video showing Familly in the plane on takeoff or landing, and the guy playing with drone close to the airport then drone hits a plane and causing an almost tragic accident with father/mother waiting in the terminal full of blockbuster emotions would have a much bigger impact than all the regulations and red tape above. Having said that regulations are necessary in today's world.

I think MM being a micro drone is perfect tool for educating average Joe, it has enough distance and power to make people realize all the dangers, but it is small enough not to cause harm in case someone is stupid. Most people that are not thinking, will lose/crash MM on the first few flights and there is a big chance that will trigger some thinking, if not they will get discouraged with the cost of the crash. DJI should absolutely not offer DJI Care for MM, this would be more effective than anything and encourage safe flying.

Over-regulation has a similar effect on education as under regulation, we need balance. I have few friends flying for Air Canada and they never mentioned drones as a danger during their flights, but there is a lot of other stuff I hear that is mind-blowing.

 

[DanMan32]

I don't agree about not offering Care for the MM. You only get two shots the first year, only one the second if you add or renew with Plus, and it costs you roughly 10% over a new full retail package for each renew.

 

[ChrisOutdoors]

For the record I'm a aviator as well. Have been for decades now. My AGENDA is to try and restrict or at least minimize any UAS to MANNED AIRCRAFT incidents. How is that so hard to believe?

You're entitled to your opinion but physics doesn't agree with it. Did you see the Univ test on the Mooney wing with a Phantom? If everything else is the same I'd much rather have a semi soft (compressible) bird strike my aircraft than a semi rigid (in-compressible) UAS.

This is roughly 4 minutes but well worth watching in it's entirety IMHO:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

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.

 

[sar104]

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.

The argument that airflow around the wing can deflect an object of any significant mass is complete nonsense. The aircraft has an average density over 3 orders of magnitude higher than the air - it is absolutely not following the streamlines around a leading edge. Or if you want to think about comparable situations - birds hit aircraft, insects hit vehicle windshields.

Also, they tested a light wing which almost has the strength of tough fabric, not your typical aircraft aluminum.

It was an aluminum wing, and the impact of the Phantom damaged the interior structural members, not just the skin.

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.

Right - so because it's not the biggest concern, it's not a concern at all - did I get your reasoning correct there?

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).

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