DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Part 107 required?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ohhh I'm with you 100% on the toy thing but regulating it like a real aircraft, the problem lies, I believe, in the fact that they have become so simple to fly. That means anyone can go out and fly it now and some of those or possibly many of those people are inadvertently or blatantly breaking the laws whether they are aware of them or not.

Therefore the FAA are ebing forced to get some regulation as early as possible in order to control those involved in the boom in this sector of flying, before it gets so massive and out of hand, it would be impossible to try and regulate it. On one side I have to agree that something has to be done to curb the idiots out there, but on the other hand, I wish we still had all the freedom to fly where we wanted about 4-5 years ago. Again, a difficult thing to find a happy medium.

In the past R/C aircraft required skill and training to fly well and in general, anyone who invested that sort of time and expense, were generally more careful and thoughtful of others and the rules, because to be that dedicated, you learned to respect those things.

It is a bit like photography today. In the old days you had to know a lot about photography in order to get a well exposed sharp photo, plus the cost of the film and developing and printing as well as the time factor, it meant a pro was dedicated to become good/better and had a skill set to show for it. Today, everyone who owns a camera seems to think they are or can be a pro photographer because the bloody cameras are, in general, so good at auto focusing and auto exposure, and these people want to sell their services, as crap as about 80% of them appear to be when you see work that is posted of their portfolios. Yes it may be a well exposed and sharp image but it is crap in composition, posing of the people and choice of depth of field etc.
In response to the highlighted comments, I addressed that.
Give recreational flying toys 500' and below, and make manned aircraft stay above 500' (or 1000' above a population) toys stay well away from airports and helipads. (I believe those regulations already exist anyway except at 400'). No license or permits, no registration numbers needed below 500'.
Make that LAW, and prosecute offenders. None of this TOKEN testing saying what I just did in 500 times more words. and somehow trying to separate hobby and commercial. Only by who pays the most money to register.
There is no reason for the FAA to do anything more than protect EVERYONES right to use the NAS.
Let the IRS decide who is commercial and who isn't. Commercial, as far as the FAA is concerned, SHOULD only apply to those piloting passengers or cargo and / or flying above 500'
 
You apparently have limited knowledge when it comes to commercial operations of small aircraft. When I take someone for an airtour of the resort area I live in, not only do I need a commerical liscence, but the aircraft must also be registered as commercial and be inspected every 100 hours rather then annually. It is a tangled web we weave when the federal government gets involved.....the requirements go on and on and on....
 
You apparently have limited knowledge when it comes to commercial operations of small aircraft. When I take someone for an airtour of the resort area I live in, not only do I need a commerical liscence, but the aircraft must also be registered as commercial and be inspected every 100 hours rather then annually. It is a tangled web we weave when the federal government gets involved.....the requirements go on and on and on....
And YOU apparently cant get it that we are talking about 1 pound TOYS the size of a shoe.
 
The FAA wants me to , register and pay a fee to fly my drone, I need to take a test and pay more to take pictures and sell them. I need to put an assigned Reg. # on my tiny RC quadcopter. And stay under 400' and in unaided view.

Mavic.jpg

The FAA only wants me to stay away from airports and other air traffic. No registration required for pilot or craft. No real limitations in height or distance.for all of these;
ultralight.jpg
Powerchute.jpg
Hang.jpg
chute.jpg


So, why is the whole "its for the safety of air traffic" argument ONLY drones? wouldn't ANY of these be 100 fold more deadly to collide with in an airplane? The FAA needs to figure this out, because they really look stupid.
 
Last edited:
I have flown R/c aircraft up to 1/4 scale for the last 30 years as well as full scale aircraft. I have many years and hours behind both types of sticks. I have not just jumped into a "new" sport that just started a few years ago. The advent of the affordable r/c aircraft is a great thing for the industry and sport as a whole. The fact that the newer drones are so controllable and have such safety feathers is a great step forward. The 107 is a part of that system and it has it's purpose. The fact that you can not see it, doesn't make it any less valid. You sir are the very person these stupid rules are made for and the rest of us just have to go by them.
 
The size difference is the difference.....which is easier for a pilot of an aircraft to see?????? Not a small drone I dare say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cymruflyer
I have flown R/c aircraft up to 1/4 scale for the last 30 years as well as full scale aircraft. I have many years and hours behind both types of sticks. I have not just jumped into a "new" sport that just started a few years ago. The advent of the affordable r/c aircraft is a great thing for the industry and sport as a whole. The fact that the newer drones are so controllable and have such safety feathers is a great step forward. The 107 is a part of that system and it has it's purpose. The fact that you can not see it, doesn't make it any less valid. You sir are the very person these stupid rules are made for and the rest of us just have to go by them.
I resent that. I am not a long distance record seeker, I am NOT a professional photographer, I have NEVER sold a picture from my Mavic, let alone even shared one. I have NEVER flown above 200'
I am NOT a licensed pilot, that makes me holier than thou on a toy RC forum.
It is people like yourself, that measure themselves by what permissions they have accumulated, and need to have the highest level of BS drone registration just as another badge to feel better and smarter than others flying the same thing.
Pilots that feel they dont need to fly above 500' like required are scared they will hit a drone that is supposed to be UNDER 400' so they submit reports to the FAA and cause hysteria to prevent drones from being in the NAS. The NAS belongs to EVERYONE, not just the people that own airplanes so it is easier to look down on others without hurting their necks.
It is I who am forced to comply because of people like YOU!
 
The size difference is the difference.....which is easier for a pilot of an aircraft to see?????? Not a small drone I dare say.
Yes, and we know hitting a drone would be just about exactly like a bird strike. Maybe with a smaller hole.
 
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on some aspects of the sport. I would hope we can not only share the airspace .but the airwaves as well. I do apologize for putting you in a category that is not deserving. I am not here to argue with anyone. I'm getting to old for that stuff....lol I hope to enjoy many more years of flying my drone as I am sure you are. They are so much better then what we had before and safer too.
 
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on some aspects of the sport. I would hope we can not only share the airspace .but the airwaves as well. I do apologize for putting you in a category that is not deserving. I am not here to argue with anyone. I'm getting to old for that stuff....lol I hope to enjoy many more years of flying my drone as I am sure you are. They are so much better then what we had before and safer too.
My only problem is that people that fly real aircraft seem to think these tiny toys are some how in the same category and should follow the same rules. AND are OK with the ridiculous regulations on these toys. Often ready to except further tighter, restrictions. I say we need to take a step back, assign airspace, and leave it alone. Just like our FCC tickets, more study, more limitations removed. Not the opposite that the FAA is doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: av8or
We do agree that less regulation in all aspects of our lives would be better for the most part. It seems that every four years both parties in our political system say they want smaller government....hasn't happened yet and not likely to any time soon....lol
 
The FAA wants me to , register and pay a fee to fly my drone, I need to take a test and pay more to take pictures and sell them. I need to put an assigned Reg. # on my tiny RC quadcopter. And stay under 400' and in unaided view.

View attachment 51287

The FAA only wants me to stay away from airports and other air traffic. No registration required for pilot or craft. No real limitations in height or distance.for all of these;
View attachment 51288
View attachment 51289
View attachment 51290
View attachment 51291


So, why is the whole "its for the safety of air traffic" argument ONLY drones? wouldn't ANY of these be 100 fold more deadly to collide with in an airplane? The FAA needs to figure this out, because they really look stupid.
You can not compare these manned aircraft to a toy, that you have a single camera view out of. What you can see and avoid when sitting in the aircraft, is a huge diifference to what you can see and avoid looking at a little screen from a single camera mounted on a toy. Plus everything you showed flying, if it has an engine, can glide safely to the ground should it suffer an engine failure, the drone does not, it drops like a rock. Also an ultralight does not have to stay away from airports as you stated.
 
It’s not about what you can see. It’s more about what you can or can’t do
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

I’ll take a falling drone 100 percent of the time.
 
Pilots that feel they dont need to fly above 500' like required are scared they will hit a drone that is supposed to be UNDER 400' so they submit reports to the FAA and cause hysteria to prevent drones from being in the NAS. The NAS belongs to EVERYONE, not just the people that own airplanes so it is easier to look down on others without hurting their necks.
It is I who am forced to comply because of people like YOU!

Actually any pilot worth the ink written on his license will tell you that as fun as it is flying at 500 feet, it is also much more dangerous for that pilot, should there be an engine out situation, because you have precious seconds to sort out where you expect to put it down. For safety sake, all well trained pilots will tell you they much prefer to be higher because in aviation, altitude is safety. The higher you, the more time you have to sort out a problem should you have an ailing engine and the more time, as in many minutes (If high) you have to set yourself up and pick out the best landing spot of all the one that are available to you below.

So real pilots always prefer to be at a much higher altitude than a mere 500ft as fun as it is to fly low. A well trained pilot is always making a mental note of all the places that are below them, front, back and sides, which would afford the safest place to put it down should they experience an engine out situation. At 500ft AGL that does not give you much time to get thing ready and lined up, and at 500ft if you suddenly experience a reduction in power, it does not give you much time to run through checks to try and figure out what has gone wrong, before you have descended to a critical altitude and are forced to land.

The 500ft rule is for built up areas, when flying over cities, the minimums are higher. The 400 and 500ft limits are to give both parties a safety room of 100ft, which is not much. Also people fly light little things like Piper Cubs and open cockpit aircraft. their wind shields are plexiglass, not temper high strength glass as on airliners. If a drone were to fly into one of these, especially and open cockpit aircraft (and there are pushers and pullers) the impact with a pilot's head could be catastrophic. Plus damaging a prop from the impact could also cause catastrophic results du to imbalance possible causing an engine to shake from it's mounts and if that is lost, the pilot had better have jam in his pockets, because he is toast. There is no way to fly/glide an aircraft that suddenly loses that amount of weight in the nose, it would simply pitch up and crash.

There is sooo much more to be aware of that the average drone flyer has never even thought about, because they do not know what can happen to a pilot in the air. Don't get me wrong, as a pilot and a drone flyer, I wish we had very minimal rules and regulations so that I could happily fly where I wish, but that flying would also be in consideration of the safety to those on the ground. Unfortunately too many people who buy a drone today, don't even think about the what ifs while flying, they just blinding fly about assuming it will always stay in control and always have the engines running. That is where the danger lies.
 
It’s not about what you can see. It’s more about what you can or can’t do
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

I’ll take a falling drone 100 percent of the time.
Thank you for posting great example of stupid pilots. This is more of a reason why there really should be more regulations than less (for ultralight pilot training). Lets take each one here so that you understand what was going on, because for those who are not pilots you have no idea who knows what they are doing and who does not. I was a flight instructor for many years so I can clearly see the immediate problems with the so-called pilots, in both of your posted videos.

First the idiot powered parachute pilot (?). He has no helmet, no eye protection for an insect hitting him in the eyes and it happens a lot in open cockpit aircraft and he has an unsecure hat on. Total idiot who is one of those people who is best described as having the lights flashing and the barrier down, but there just never seems to be a training coming along, if you get my meaning. You NEVER take to the air in an open cockpit with out eye protection or a helmet, yet so many people do. You never take off in a pusher aircraft as this one is, without making sure there is nothing that can possible come loose and go through the prop, as in his hat.

The man is poorly trained because you will see that the moment his hat comes off, he is startled and looks up for it. He has instantly taken his concentration away from the business at hand. That is making a smooth and safe transition from the ground into the air. He is at his highest work load of the flight, the take off, with the second highest being his landing approach and touch down. He should have immediately ignored the hat and concentrated on his flying the aircraft. Now many PPC type aircraft are rather poor at quick control on take off, because the chute is oscillating left and right and they are trying to keep things in as straight a line as they can while they climb out to a safe altitude.

Since we can not see what this idiot was looking at as he tried to take off, we do not know if he was heading for the bushes, or if he was heading in a clear unobstructed direction for takeoff. If it was the latter, then he was distracted by the loss of his hat which meant he allowed the PPC to drift off to hit the brush he went into. Had he concentrated on his flight first, he may have made it into the air. Of course then a big bumble bee might have hit him in the eye and the pain would have distracted him and the watering of the eyes would have rendered him incapable of flying the craft and he might have again crashed. Though that aircraft would just gently glide down and hit anything in his way, so not too bad plus it is soooo slow that the inertia of the crash would be very minimal, so safer for the occupant in slow moving crashes.

Next we have the three axis pilot. Very good start, he is wearing a helmet and eye protection. However, he takes off and immediately begins a low level turn over an area of ground that allows very little if any area for him to put it down, in case of an engine out situation, which as you see can and does happen. This pilot would be what I would describe as having a full six pack but lacking the little plastic things that hold all the cans together, if you get my drift here. It looked like he was taking off from a proper runway and what he should have done is climb out straight ahead, slowly gaining altitude until he is at a safe enough altitude to then do a turn to where ever he intends to go flying. That way, as his engine failed he would have simply gone into landing mode straight ahead and been perfectly safe and had a flying machine that he could have used again. So obvious pilot error putting himself and possibly others, in danger.

When you fly from an airport or field, you climb out at a shallow angle of attack and in a straight line until you reach a safe altitude that would allow you to pick a good spot to land if you suffered an engine out. Again we can not see what the area around this pilot(?) looked like, so can't make an informed conclusion to his actions. What we can determine is that his inputs on the stick were very poor because if you carefully watch his hand movement, you will see what is best described as either a low time or poorly trained pilot, doing what they feel is correct but is completely the wrong thing to do. As he lost power he started to pull back on the stick which you NEVER do because you are putting yourself into a stall situation. He then began full pull back on the stick which tells me he put the aircraft into a full stall and it fell out of the sky, even if he had somewhere to glide to. Plus as you see there were only seconds to react because why? He was too low and should never have been flying over terrain that he could not land into when at such a low altitude.

So, now that you are more informed about what you posted, take another look at each of your crash samples and see why these are two dumb pilots who may have mountains, but lack ski lifts that go all the way to the top. This is what happens to poorly trained ultralight pilots or to ultralight pilots who try and tech themselves to fly. Whether an ultralight or a jet, the air is a very unforgiving environment and if you take to it, you had better be properly trained to handle all that it can throw at you, even when flying a toy drone.
 
Last edited:
You, again are skewing things to support your point. You said drones are dangerous and falling out of the sky and could hurt someone, or damage something. I posted only 2 of the hundreds of videos of UNLICENSED, UNREGISTERED aircraft falling out of control and injuring people. These crashes just happened to be caught on video, how many were not? Show me ONE video of a drone doing that.
My point is regulate what has PROVEN itself a danger before you regulate things that have not.
MORE than enough rules are in place now. Just because enforcement is pretty much non existent, is NO reason to make more rules.

By the way, Thanks for staying civil and making a good discussion!
 
You, again are skewing things to support your point. You said drones are dangerous and falling out of the sky and could hurt someone, or damage something. I posted only 2 of the hundreds of videos of UNLICENSED, UNREGISTERED aircraft falling out of control and injuring people. These crashes just happened to be caught on video, how many were not? Show me ONE video of a drone doing that.
My point is regulate what has PROVEN itself a danger before you regulate things that have not.
MORE than enough rules are in place now. Just because enforcement is pretty much non existent, is NO reason to make more rules.

By the way, Thanks for staying civil and making a good discussion!

Ummmm, point out to me please, exactly where I am supposed to have said what you quoted me as saying i.e. "You said drones are dangerous and falling out of the sky and could hurt someone, or damage something"

We all know that drones can and do just fall out of the sky for any number of reasons and when falling you have no control. The reasons have been anything from pilot error to malfunctioning aircraft. When these ultralight type craft come down, they do not just fall out of the sky, unless it is structural failure. They are controlled to some extent by the pilots (?) on board, and I say to some extent because some are good pilots who suffer engine failure and others are crap pilots who really have no business being in charge of a flying machine.

Just for your info, when an aircraft loses engine power, it glides and most of the ultralights actually glide quite well, as in good L to D numbers. So the pilot will do their best to steer clear of anything that will do more harm than necessary. The same thing cannot be said for a drone, it just plummets once power is lost. That is the difference. I am all for drone flying, I own one and love flying it and also wish we had less regulations and do not want more and guess what, I am also a pilot and past flight instructor, imagine that!

However, as the two crashes you post are due to pilots who were doing what they really should not have been doing, as in for one at least, flying over an area that does not allow for a safe landing in the event of an engine out (and that is part of a pilot's training, to teach them to fly that way and steer their aircraft over areas that would allow a safe landing in the event of an engine out) they are a detriment to the whole flying movement, in just the same way as these drone flyers who fly above people or crowds or over city streets etc. are also a detriment to all of us other drone flyers who do fly in a responsible and safe way.

There is nothing skewed in anyway to support any point, because I do not have a point to support that would require and skewing of anything.

It is never my intention to not stay civil and I always try for a good discussion.
 
Last edited:
You, again are skewing things to support your point. You said drones are dangerous and falling out of the sky and could hurt someone, or damage something. I posted only 2 of the hundreds of videos of UNLICENSED, UNREGISTERED aircraft falling out of control and injuring people. These crashes just happened to be caught on video, how many were not? Show me ONE video of a drone doing that.

I have seen several, there is one of a wedding photographer using his drone to fly towards the embracing bride and groom and then to overfly them. Instead, she smashed it right into them at speed. That is just one of many, I am sure. If I can find it again, I shall post it for you but you may be able to google it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
134,636
Messages
1,597,096
Members
163,128
Latest member
nikdajsn
Want to Remove this Ad? Simply login or create a free account