The FAA is ruining their name

[jmaeding]

I just got done taking my Part 107 recurrent test, got a 78%, which annoyed me. I got 93% on non-recurrent test.
The questions involving weather, sectional charts, anything actually related to real issues, were fairly easy.
Then there were the ridiculous questions on little details of rules and regs.
One question was about duel registration of drone in US and foreign countries. Another was if part 107 applied to public or civil operations.
I went back and that material was in some of the study videos, but it was so obscure I did not focus on it.
I found myself guessing on a lot of questions, and then a lot of the stuff I studied for was not on the test.
Its like they read the prep test questions out there, and avoided them. It was too coincidental.
Anyway, with this new beacon requirement they are talking about, my view of the FAA is they have lost their vision.
Managing airspace is super important, but the drone regs have become a money maker for them ($160 a test??), and they are apparently investing that money into more rules and regs. Why does every government agency go this route? Seems like the more unenforceable a rule is, the more government likes it. They found a gold mine with drones.

 

[BigAl07]

First off WELCOME to the forum.

The FAA does not make any $$ off of the test. It 100% goes to the testing facility and it SHOULD go to them to administer the test. All "Airmen Tests" are handled this way and IMHO it should remain like this. That $160 is just a low bar for entry. Up until August 2016 you had to hold a min of a Pilots License (Min of $10k on average) to fly a UAS for commercial operations. I'd say taking a simple 70 question test and paying $160 is VERY reasonable when you step back and look at the BIG PICTURE.

 

[jmaeding]

@BigAl07
Thanks, looks like a great forum!
I totally get that its cheap compared to full pilot license, but I heard the money does not go to the testing center. Even if it did, that is still way too much considering I took 15 minutes of their time total, and they just provide a computer. They do it anyway as part of their full pilot program, and likely make money on top of that by advertising full flight courses. I would love to do one BTW
If there was competition, these tests would be down near $30 or so, but we are in government land.
Its the questions on the test that turned my opinion. They were just so unrelated to anything that mattered. And of course, should I fail, I pay AGAIN. I love showing my fancy blue card to people, but the FAA needs to get back to reality.

 

[BigAl07]

What gets me is this....

Most of us want to play in the big boy sandbox (NAS) but don't want to play by the same rules and fees. $160 is such a small fee to get a "Commercial" designation. Honestly it has little merit without stricter testing and at least some degree of flight proficiency demonstration but that's for another topic.

The testing center DOES get the full fee. I don't have a link handy but it's been noted/linked several times on this forum here recently. The testing facilities are in business and deserve to make $$ for the services they provide just like we do in our UAS Industry.

Which questions did you find "unrelated" to UAS specifically?

 

[jmaeding]

Ok, so if the testing center does get the money, there should have been caviar in the lobby.
Seriously, think of any service that costs $160 an hour, its because you needed a skilled person doing something. The testing center is just putting your name in the computer, like a receptionist, hence my $30 estimate. This rating as a commercial pilot is completely fake, like issuing licenses to birds to fly.
Anyway, the questions on the recurrent were all related to UAS, but in the most useless way.
Does it matter if part 107 is for "civil", or "public" use? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of, its the equivalent of knowing a secret handshake. There were many others too.
I love actual navigation and airspace classification, but we have let the FAA go too far with their fees that provide no service in return. Can you list one thing the FAA does to the drone pilot's benefit? I'd like to hear it.

 

[sar104]

Ok, so if the testing center does get the money, there should have been caviar in the lobby.
Seriously, think of any service that costs $160 an hour, its because you needed a skilled person doing something. The testing center is just putting your name in the computer, like a receptionist, hence my $30 estimate. This rating as a commercial pilot is completely fake, like issuing licenses to birds to fly.

It's the same fee for all the airman knowledge tests, most of which are of comparable length or shorter. Your expectations are out of line.

Anyway, the questions on the recurrent were all related to UAS, but in the most useless way.
Does it matter if part 107 is for "civil", or "public" use? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of, its the equivalent of knowing a secret handshake.

Of course it matters. You don't think that you need to know what categories of flying your certification applies to?

There were many others too.

Really?

I love actual navigation and airspace classification, but we have let the FAA go too far with their fees that provide no service in return.

There is no FAA fee, unless you count the $5 registration per aircraft, but don't let that get in the way of your rant.

Can you list one thing the FAA does to the drone pilot's benefit? I'd like to hear it.

They are the regulatory body. They put in place the framework to allow you to fly commercially. What would you like them to do for you? Apart from caviar, of course.

 

[jmaeding]

@sar104
"They put in place the framework for us to fly commercially..." Nope, airspace has been defined before quadcopters were born. That happens for manned flights so no cost to them, but oh, lets fleece the drone pilots. Wait, no, lets fleece the "commercial" ones only, so we add some fear since their businesses have deeper pockets. Its a joke now that I have seen it for 2 years. In engineering school they teach you to always consider the "do nothing" case. The FAA should be following this, as they can't add anything until a system of tracking drones is available that does not rely on them. But they can add fee's, they are the regulatory agency, as you say.

 

[sar104]

@sar104
"They put in place the framework for us to fly commercially..." Nope, airspace has been defined before quadcopters were born. That happens for manned flights so no cost to them, but oh, lets fleece the drone pilots. Wait, no, lets fleece the "commercial" ones only, so we add some fear since their businesses have deeper pockets. Its a joke now that I have seen it for 2 years. In engineering school they teach you to always consider the "do nothing" case. The FAA should be following this, as they can't add anything until a system of tracking drones is available that does not rely on them. But they can add fee's, they are the regulatory agency, as you say.

No - they put in place the Part 107 framework to allow you to fly - that was not in place before. And they did that because Congress required them to do so. "Do nothing" was not an option, even if they had been so short-sighted, as you clearly are, as to believe that the proliferation of remotely piloted and autonomous aircraft didn't need any kind of regulation to de-conflict with existing manned traffic. Would you have preferred that they left you with the pre-107 situation that you remember so fondly - the existing framework that required a PPL to fly sUAS commercially?

And it doesn't matter how many times you object to FAA fees - there still aren't any other than aircraft registration.

 

[BigAl07]

@sar104
"They put in place the framework for us to fly commercially..." Nope, airspace has been defined before quadcopters were born. That happens for manned flights so no cost to them, but oh, lets fleece the drone pilots. Wait, no, lets fleece the "commercial" ones only, so we add some fear since their businesses have deeper pockets. Its a joke now that I have seen it for 2 years. In engineering school they teach you to always consider the "do nothing" case. The FAA should be following this, as they can't add anything until a system of tracking drones is available that does not rely on them. But they can add fee's, they are the regulatory agency, as you say.

So you don't think there shouldn't be any UAS regulations?

I think I agree with you there... we should go back to pre-August 2016 days and require any Commercial UAS operator to follow Section 333 Exemption requirements.... if you wanted to fly for Commercial Flights you had to invest at least $10K..... take ground school fly a MIN of 40 hours in a manned aircraft, pay $150 to take your Airmen's Test (sound familiar there), and then pay $150/hr for your Check Ride to get your MANNED PILOTS LICENSE!! Yes let's hurry back to those days. . . .

The FAA isn't adding fees.... that mere statement is empty my friend. They require a Airmen Test and the testing facilities charge $160. Do you think they should work for free? Neither one of us are willing to work for free day in and day out....

 

[Chip]

The money is not in the test or application fee. Its in controlling who may transact business relating to the airspace. There is no doubt these regs were birthed by big money commercial interests but the money does not flow in or out of test centers.

 

[sar104]

The money is not in the test or application fee. Its in controlling who may transact business relating to the airspace. There is no doubt these regs were birthed by big money commercial interests but the money does not flow in or out of test centers.

But Part 107 made it much easier and cheaper to fly commercially. How is that consistent with your assertion?

 

[Chip]

But Part 107 made it much easier and cheaper to fly commercially. How is that consistent with your assertion?

Yes, many commercial operators are big winners but most if not all recreational flyers are big losers under the proposed regs. It is all about the money, just not the application fees.

 

[Chip]

I just got done taking my Part 107 recurrent test, got a 78%, which annoyed me. ..

BTW congrats a pass is a pass. You have inspired me actually. After a little more griping I shall buckle down and re-start studying myself. Sectional, did you say sectional.... ?

 

[OurAngryBadger]

But Part 107 made it much easier and cheaper to fly commercially. How is that consistent with your assertion?

Easier and cheaper to fly commercially sure. I like that, because it opened up business opportunities for me that were out of my reach before. And I don't mind paying $160 tax deductible fee every 2 years to stay certified.

What still annoys me though is how the FAA places all these rules (night flying, vlos, people, highways, etc) on us commercial pilots that have extensive training to fly safely, but lets joe schmo who go and gets a $100 drone at walmart do whatever they want with it.

Ok maybe the FAA doesn't want them flying at night or over people either but they aren't going to ever enforce it. But if a 107 pilot ever got caught flying 1 minute past civil twilight you know darn sure they'd be all over it with their $50k fines

 

[Deleted member 114292]

Some states charge more than that for your yearly car tag renewal.
Talk about money for nothing that’s a pretty expensive sticker.
As for handing out fines you’re way off on that one. You have to have a pretty major infraction to get a fine. I see no evidence that enforcement has been more vigorous with commercial drone pilots.
It would be interesting if you back up your claims with some facts because I’d really like to know about this.

 

[sar104]

Easier and cheaper to fly commercially sure. I like that, because it opened up business opportunities for me that were out of my reach before. And I don't mind paying $160 tax deductible fee every 2 years to stay certified.

What still annoys me though is how the FAA places all these rules (night flying, vlos, people, highways, etc) on us commercial pilots that have extensive training to fly safely, but lets joe schmo who go and gets a $100 drone at walmart do whatever they want with it.

Ok maybe the FAA doesn't want them flying at night or over people either but they aren't going to ever enforce it. But if a 107 pilot ever got caught flying 1 minute past civil twilight you know darn sure they'd be all over it with their $50k fines

It disappoints me that so many people make no attempt at all to understand the legislation that underpins these regulations. The limited FAA regulation of recreational flyers is because Congress prevent them from doing so - and even those regulations cause huge amounts of whining. As for "extensive training" - you don't have any of that either - all you have is one simple test to ensure that you memorized a few things.

 

[BigAl07]

The money is not in the test or application fee. Its in controlling who may transact business relating to the airspace. There is no doubt these regs were birthed by big money commercial interests but the money does not flow in or out of test centers.

Sorry bud but your statements are WAY off! The money DOES flow INTO the Test Facilities. That's their INCOME. This is a case of shoe-horning UAS operations into the NAS. It's nothing new to have an Airmen Test handled like this and it's not specific for UAS. What better way to facilitate UAS Airmen testing than using the same testing facilities as all the other Airment tests utilize? Or would you suggest they create a "special" testing system/facilities etc just for our needs? Do you think that would cost LESS than the $160?

Please provide documentation to support your claims.

 

[15PSI]

The part 107 exists to ensure that all commercial drone pilots are aware and abide by NAS rules and regulations. Initially, many new students of the part 107 education courses question the inclusion of some information that they deem unimportant to the Commercial part 107 certification, but these questions are important in rounding out the overall understanding of the current FAA regulations as applied to Commercial Drone certification. The comment regarding the Civil vs Public test question, for example, underscores the depth of knowledge that we all must master. The cost of the test is reasonable compared to the cost of training for fixed wing, manned free balloon or rotorcraft, which runs into the multiple thousands of dollars. We fly in the NAS and it is important to understand all rules and regulations that apply to manned pilot certifications and what impact that knowledge and our subsequent planning and flight interactions have on the sUAS PIC. And yes, the testing centers are the recipients of the testing fee. That fee ensures the validity of each test result by the testing administrators, overhead for the cost of maintaining the test facility and enough margin to ensure the existence of the testing facility for future use. I take all aspects of the test seriously, and I believe that every future Commercial sUAS pilot should as well.

 

[OurAngryBadger]

It disappoints me that so many people make no attempt at all to understand the legislation that underpins these regulations. The limited FAA regulation of recreational flyers is because Congress prevent them from doing so - and even those regulations cause huge amounts of whining. As for "extensive training" - you don't have any of that either - all you have is one simple test to ensure that you memorized a few things.

A few (important) things such as:

• Airspace classifications
• Where you can and can't fly
• Safety procedures
• Reporting incidents
• Understanding how weather affects flight
• Air traffic patterns
• ATC procedures
• Reading aeronautical charts
• How weight/load affects aircraft performance
• Risk management

This is 10 trillion times more information that 107 pilots learn that a "recreational flyer" won't know.

To suggest that 107 pilots aren't much more extensively trained and capable of flying safely than the general public is an absurd notion.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

When something was free and for the most part unregulated (flying in a tiny fraction of the NAS) and then a price tag and regulations have been added to that activity people are going to complain ESPECIALLY when a clear justification cannot be made for instituting those fees and regulations.

sUAV's have been sharing that small portion of the NAS for decades with an exceptional safety record. There have been a miniscule number of attempts to use a sUAV in a terrorist attack. I haven't heard of any incidences of images take using a sUAV being used to blackmail or harass an individual. Nothing I've read indicates the corporate use of drones for delivery is going to be ubiquitous to the point the skies are going to be flooded with commercial sUAS operations.