Part 107 required?

[Cymruflyer]

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.

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

Drone hitting people: Here you go for starters:

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

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!

And just for good measure here are a few more for you, so be careful of what you ask for on these forums, things might come back and bite you!! Also for anyone who watched the ski racing during this past winter Olympics, I'm sure you saw that drone fall out of the sky and almost hit the skier as he was racing down the course.

But do remember, I am not against drones, I own and fly one and I am not for more regulation either. Now go and tuck into that crow being served up...

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

 

[ac0j]

Drone hitting people: Here you go for starters:

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

And just for good measure here are a few more for you, so be careful of what you ask for on these forums, things might come back and bite you!! Also for anyone who watched the ski racing during this past winter Olympics, I'm sure you saw that drone fall out of the sky and almost hit the skier as he was racing down the course.

But do remember, I am not against drones, I own and fly one and I am not for more regulation either. Now go and tuck into that crow being served up...

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

HHHmmmm. STILL no death or destruction..... cuts and bruises MAYBE. Kind of like what you might get walking into a signpost while looking at your cell phone. I still see no need for tight regulations on flying toys.

 

[Jackcutrone]

It's not really a debate: if you do it recreationally, you're fine. The minute you do anything non-recreational, you need a 107. The end.

At least my reading of the new FAA reauthorization act is that everyone is going to need to be certificated. Hope I am wrong. If not everyone has to pass the test

 

[Cymruflyer]

HHHmmmm. STILL no death or destruction..... cuts and bruises MAYBE. Kind of like what you might get walking into a signpost while looking at your cell phone. I still see no need for tight regulations on flying toys.

WHAT, can't even be a man and own up to it?????

You twist and turn at every chance don't you? You made a statement asking for ANY video of a drone hitting someone because you were ohhh, so sure that no such thing existed and now you have been caught out with your own comments and are now trying to back peddle. You are not fooling any of us here, show me where you stated that it had to be a death and destruction video, I suppose next you will try and change it to showing the end of the world! You are now clutching at straws after continually being caught out in your own posts. I rest my case, you want fries with your crow?

 

[rfc]

So 5 dollars times 770000 is over 3 million dollars just from drone users, not to mention all the fixed wing fee's they collect. Hey might not come close to covering cost but it sure helps

Uhh, actually, not so much. The FAA's budget is now closing in on $20 BILLION.

 

[ac0j]

WHAT, can't even be a man and own up to it?????

You twist and turn at every chance don't you? You made a statement asking for ANY video of a drone hitting someone because you were ohhh, so sure that no such thing existed and now you have been caught out with your own comments and are now trying to back peddle. You are not fooling any of us here, show me where you stated that it had to be a death and destruction video, I suppose next you will try and change it to showing the end of the world! You are now clutching at straws after continually being caught out in your own posts. I rest my case, you want fries with your crow?

I think the discussion were were having was about whether all the study and testing for part 107 actually makes anyone SAFER. Which I am sure we can agree it does not. In fact, it almost seems like the FAA requires more from 107 pilots in some cases.
Also, I showed the Irony that this testing and registration was pretty ironic when I can fly something that I can ride on without ANY contact with the FAA.

It is fine to make safety rules. but it is sort of stupid to do what they are doing with drones, when NONE of the catastrophic events they are afraid of has EVER happened when there are 40,000,000 reported flights a year worldwide. The only thing that has been proved over and over is a drone hit is very similar to a bird strike. AND, a drone strike is going to happen once in every 20,000,000 flights as history has proven.

 

[Cymruflyer]

I think the discussion were were having was about whether all the study and testing for part 107 actually makes anyone SAFER. Which I am sure we can agree it does not. In fact, it almost seems like the FAA requires more from 107 pilots in some cases.
Also, I showed the Irony that this testing and registration was pretty ironic when I can fly something that I can ride on without ANY contact with the FAA.

It is fine to make safety rules. but it is sort of stupid to do what they are doing with drones, when NONE of the catastrophic events they are afraid of has EVER happened when there are 40,000,000 reported flights a year worldwide. The only thing that has been proved over and over is a drone hit is very similar to a bird strike. AND, a drone strike is going to happen once in every 20,000,000 flights as history has proven.

I don't know where you are coming up with your statistics, and have no clue how you can predict the future regarding what you said in your post above and I quote "AND, a drone strike is going to happen once in every 20,000,000 flights as history has proven". I can assure you that I would much prefer to be hit in the face with a bird than a drone when flying in an open cockpit aircraft, I suppose you would be happy to be hit with the drone though.

I also see you chose not to answer the other questions I posed to you, whereby you accused me of saying things that I never did. That's okay, we all know why, so I shall forget it and put it all to bed. Just be careful in future not to accuse others of saying things they clearly did not say. We are watching you, people don't really like liars.

 

[Cymruflyer]

HHHmmmm. STILL no death or destruction..... cuts and bruises MAYBE. Kind of like what you might get walking into a signpost while looking at your cell phone. I still see no need for tight regulations on flying toys.

A silly childish statement, some of those fast drone hits to the face you viewed could easily have blinded that person from props tearing into the eyeball.

 

[ac0j]

I don't know where you are coming up with your statistics, and have no clue how you can predict the future regarding what you said in your post above and I quote "AND, a drone strike is going to happen once in every 20,000,000 flights as history has proven". I can assure you that I would much prefer to be hit in the face with a bird than a drone when flying in an open cockpit aircraft, I suppose you would be happy to be hit with the drone though.

I also see you chose not to answer the other questions I posed to you, whereby you accused me of saying things that I never did. That's okay, we all know why, so I shall forget it and put it all to bed. Just be careful in future not to accuse others of saying things they clearly did not say. We are watching you.

Fact; there were 37,000,000 REPORTED flights in 2016 (worldwide). There were probably many more that were NOT reported. So I took the liberty to round up to what one would expect 2 years later and accounting for unreported to be 40,000,000.
In the last several years, there has only been 2 collisions. I also took the liberty to to only use that against ONE years worth of flights. We now KNOW how many flights were involved in drone hits, that is TWO. IF we take the words of one of the victims as fact. With this factual information one could safely say that the odds are conservatively 20,000,000 to 1.

BUT, To be FAIR, we would use the last 4 years of flights to be at least 100,000,000 (very conservative) and ALL the known drone hits (TWO) and easily agree it would be closer to 50,000,000 to 1 odds.
BUT, now you want to isolate the hits to a human head in an open cockpit? I dont think I have the math skills to estimate those odds, but it would be fair to say Not in your lifetime x10. Bird or drone would probably end up in your death in this scenario anyway.
This could be also used to figure dead on windscreen hits as it is not much bigger target than your head.
ALL of this is assuming the pilot cant see the drone and take action to avoid it, or the drone pilot doing the same for that matter.
Lets not even get into how much the odds are increased when figuring hitting only VITAL flight components.
Now I hope you understand that 20,000,000 to 1 is on the VERY VERY low end of what the actual odds would be.
Your other questions did not seem on topic to me. This is about part 107 needed. I say NO. But I know it is required for some uses. That does not mean I have to agree with it.

 

[ac0j]

A silly childish statement, some of those fast drone hits to the face you viewed could easily have blinded that person from props tearing into the eyeball.

There are a LOT of common things that can do that. A person should be aware of their surroundings. That goes for the pilots, and the random people. Accidents happen. Drones account for very very few in the scheme of things. Why do you continue to argue against drones? Are you here in error? Maybe you should be on a real pilots forum?

 

[dirkclod]

Guys this has went so far off topic it is no cleaning it so I am now just going to close it .
Issue with it write me or an Admin about it .