I think the FAA is missing it with the 107 requirements

[edmartin123]

I've owned various drones for several years. I just recently upgraded to a DJI Air 3S and for various reasons, I decided to "go legit". I registered the drone with the FAA (I usually do that for my drones) and I finally took and passed the 107 exam. But I think the FAA is really making a mistake with how it works. Here's why...

US issues with DJI aside, small, inexpensive drones are everywhere... and growing. That means the number of inexperienced pilots are growing. "It's just a toy", right? We all know that's not true. But to a lot of people, these flying cameras are just innocent toys. (It's all fun and games until it hits someone or something.)

There was a lot in the 107 prep that I really liked. But to be honest, I've been flying drones long enough that I don't think there was much that was related to quadcopter that I felt was "new". What I did find "new" was all of the stuff related to fixed wing aircraft, airport taxiways and reading FAA weather reports. And I found it pretty useless - at least for what I do.

The only time I'm going to see taxiway markings is as a passenger looking through the window of a Delta jet. The only time I'm going to see a METAR or TAF report and be required to decipher what the forecast is at KMEM will be the next time I have to take a 107 renewal test. If I'm concerned about the weather, I've got an app for that (as well as a set of eyeballs) that can instantly tell me of it's worth flying my consumer drone given the weather outside my door.

My point is this: the FAA needs a "lesser" certification for the tons of "toy" drone buyers. It would be a great thing if people needed to learn the rules - and why they exist. But if I wasn't intent on finally getting a 107 cert, I would have been 10 minutes into research and practice test questions before I would have walked away. The stuff I had to study the most and had the most difficulty with in the test was all stuff that has zero bearing on me as a consumer-grade quadcopter pilot. And it would have driven me away.

I get it... now that I've passed my 107, I'm licensed to fly fixed-wing drones just as I am for my Air 3S. I could't care less; I'm not planning on ever flying a fixed wing drone. If I did, I would be happy to study and pass the cert for that. But please, don't bury the stuff I should study, understand and test for against the aircraft that I do intend to fly.

Yes, I get it... too much granularity in certifications makes it more complex to administer. I'm sorry... but this isn't about making it "easy" for the governing body. This should be about making it safe with the ever-increasing number of flying toy cameras wizzing over all of our heads.

I wish the FAA would consider a "107-lite" cert that is focused on the consumer quadcopter drone industry. Make it easier for people to want to get that cert. Don't bury them in minutia that only applies to fixed-wing pilots flying out of airports. Instead, teach the consumers the safety aspects of what they are actually going to do. And save costs (plus time and hassle) by putting the "107 lite" cert exam online.

Let me back this up with some stats. As of 10/1/24, there were ~415 thousand FAA 107 certified pilots in the US. At that same time, there were ~791 thousand registered drones. [https://www.faa.gov/node/54496]. But that's REGISTERED drones according to the FAA. Numbers vary but this report says there are roughly 3 million drones in the US (this number is lower estimate than most). [As Drones Take Flight, So Do Concerns About Safety]. 3 MILLION. If we assume 1 drone per person, that's as few as 14% of drone owners have bothered to do the 107 cert. I know the number isn't 100%, but if I hop in my car right now and drive down the highway, I'm sure 99 point-something percent of people on the road are licensed. But if I fly my drone, I'm in the minority at about 14%... while 86% are not certified/licensed. Yikes!

The FAA really needs to take steps to increase that number of certified drone pilots - for EVERYONE's sake.

I did add a note to the end of my exam when given the opportunity stating what I said here. But I thought I would put it to the community, too.


[P.S. As I write this, the weather at KMEM is 9 knot winds from the NE (50-degrees) with 8 mile visibility. There you have it - the only time in the real world that my new knowledge of METAR's will be put to use!!!]

 

[GFields]

The FAA cannot force people to become certified. They have made it easy to do so. You can’t fail the TRUST test

 

[mavic3usa]

I agree with what a lot of you said. But the FAA administration of the drone hobby at the direction of Congress is bound to fail eventually so it's worthless to even talk about it. Imagine the government trying to control a hobby. That's where it all went wrong......

 

[Starz]

all stuff that has zero bearing on me

My reason also. Thought I was the Lone Ranger until now.

I wish the FAA would consider a "107-lite" cert that is focused on the consumer quadcopter drone industry.

We can always dream.

 

[Bad Santa]

Rules are made for worst case scenarios, not most likely scenarios.
The Part 107 covers drones up to 55 pounds. That's a LOT of mass in the air.
So, for a Mini, that weighs a half pound, the rule is stupid compared to the 55 pound drone.

So, a 107 lite makes sense, but only if you're using it commercially. Which is another "rule for the extreme" that's hyperbolic.

What's funny about the 107 certification requiring so much knowledge of airports is we aren't allowed to fly anywhere near an airport. Fixed wing or not.

Call me a conspiracy nut but I think the Part 107 requirement for a one-pound drone for realtors to be allowed to take aerial shots of a property listing is there just to keep people from actually buying and flying drones at all.

 

[Vic Moss]

They do have a "107-lite" for folks who don't need the 107. It's called TRUST and it's required for anyone who flies recreationally. Under 49 USC 44809 (7), a person is required to take The Recreational UAS Safety Test before they fly a recreational drone in the NAS. And it's free.

But if you want to fly non-recreationally, you have to take the 107. Not all of it applies to every drone pilot, but there are <55 pound drones that do take off and land a smaller airports. The need to know what the marker lines mean.

I agree about the METARs though. Even manned pilots don't use them much any more. There are so many other options for weather. They also don't really apply for the vast majority of drones who don't operator near airports.

But what you want already exists. There in no need, nor any practical way, for the FAA to develop something like a 107-lite. It would be a waste of time and resources for a federal agency already short on both.

The best place to take that is here: FAA TRUST Online Portal for Recreational Drone Operators - Pilot Institute

 

[Nanny Ogg]

I agree with what a lot of you said. But the FAA administration of the drone hobby at the direction of Congress is bound to fail eventually so it's worthless to even talk about it. Imagine the government trying to control a hobby. That's where it all went wrong......

I wonder how many FAA employees have even flown a drone.

 

[Vic Moss]

I wonder how many FAA employees have even flown a drone.in the UAS Integration Office do.

Almost all employees in the UAS Integration Office do. Many have the 107.

 

[mavic3usa]

TRUST is not working. The way it is setup and administered and the information it provides is not doing a good job of keeping recreational flyers informed. I honestly believe TRUST should evolve and become that "107 lite" to separate us from the hobbyist who are not serious (and didn't learn anything from TRUST).

TRUST has become like a driver's license, you are expected to have one and it's a hoop you have to jump thru and that's about it....because it has no bearing on how much you actually know or comply with the law. No one ever saw a TRUST and said "oh, he's fine, he knows the law, nothing to see here" just like whipping out a DL during a traffic stop means little to nothing other than a gotcha mechanism and an additional hurdle that should have improved drone safety but is turning out to be something else. If you took the TRUST, all that means is "you should have known better." If someone told you they took TRUST would you automatically believe they knew something about drones and drone laws? If someone shows you a DL, does that make you think they know the rules of the road or how to operate a vehicle? Maybe a little but it's not enough. These documents need to stand for more than just accountability and responsibility.

Again, I believe TRUST should be optional in the recreational arena (which was fine when we didn't have it) and then it becomes something like a 107-lite to elevate those who do more than "fly once or twice or year in the church parking lot."

 

[Vic Moss]

TRUST is not working. The way it is setup and administered and the information it provides is not doing a good job of keeping recreational flyers informed. I honestly believe TRUST should evolve and become that "107 lite" to separate us from the hobbyist who are not serious (and didn't learn anything from TRUST).

TRUST has become like a driver's license, you are expected to have one and it's a hoop you have to jump thru and that's about it....because it has no bearing on how much you actually know or comply with the law. No one ever saw a TRUST and said "oh, he's fine, he knows the law, nothing to see here" just like whipping out a DL during a traffic stop means little to nothing other than a gotcha mechanism and an additional hurdle that should have improved drone safety but is turning out to be something else. If you took the TRUST, all that means is "you should have known better." If someone told you they took TRUST would you automatically believe they knew something about drones and drone laws? If someone shows you a DL, does that make you think they know the rules of the road or how to operate a vehicle? Maybe a little but it's not enough. These documents need to stand for more than just accountability and responsibility.

Again, I believe TRUST should be optional in the recreational arena (which was fine when we didn't have it) and then it becomes something like a 107-lite to elevate those who do more than "fly once or twice or year in the church parking lot."

TRUST works fine if people get it. Ignorance is the issue, not lack of training opportunities.

I’ll stand by my statement. We don’t need any new certifications or testing.

 

[Neal W]

Much more emphasis on safety is needed at the beginner level, maybe accomplished with an enhanced TRUST test. While I found the Part 107 material interesting, like the OP, much of it was not relevant for those of us flying a quad. The learning certainly makes me a better and safer pilot. Even though I am a hobbyist with only one 107 operation, taking photos for my church, I am glad I took the classes and passed the test.