The FAA is ruining their name

[jmaeding]

I don't think anyone disagrees it is good for the FAA to establish airspace and operational rules that help us be safe. My gripe is how they have monetized this, and made its tests ask rediculous things. I get that manned aircraft need a paid ecosystem to live in. You need people in place watching to see planes fly safely and by the rules, or people die. So those testing fees get pumped back into a system that serves the payer. With UAS though (I prefer model aircraft as the name personally), there is no useful ecosystem we are paying for. In fact, you can fly as a hobbyist and skip the certs. How the heck did that happen? It speaks volumes about reality here, because unless you are flying in a clearly dangerous location, no one asks if you have your FAA card, NO ONE. The only concerns are privacy, noise, and safety. I'm right there with them. Those 4 props are scary up close. If the tests did not have just dumb questions on what my favorite color is, and if the rules applied to everyone, and if the test fees were similar to a good hair cut, I would not complain. Then this ID beacon issue looms in the distance. That is pure entertainment, as now we get to see ultimate self government justification..."Congress made us do it..." Please.

 

[sar104]

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.

I wasn't comparing them to the general public - just noting that there is no flight training at all.

 

[jmaeding]

@sar104
That stuff is all good, and I would argue proper for all drone flyers to know. Why do they distinguish between "commercial" and not? What business does the FAA have in knowing if I am making money off my flight?
I get that commerce agencies care about taxing things involved in business, but the FAA is not that. I know they limit what a sport pilot can do based on paid flights and so on, but that is for real safety reasons. Now that I say it, its actually the hobbyists that should know the rules more than commercial fliers, as general photography will lead you into more troublesome areas than boring commercial fliers. Anyway, should be same rules for all, and not dumb secret password questions on the test.

 

[sar104]

@sar104
That stuff is all good, and I would argue proper for all drone flyers to know. Why do they distinguish between "commercial" and not? What business does the FAA have in knowing if I am making money off my flight?
I get that commerce agencies care about taxing things involved in business, but the FAA is not that. I know they limit what a sport pilot can do based on paid flights and so on, but that is for real safety reasons. Now that I say it, its actually the hobbyists that should know the rules more than commercial fliers, as general photography will lead you into more troublesome areas than boring commercial fliers. Anyway, should be same rules for all, and not dumb secret password questions on the test.

Why do they distinguish? Because Congress required them to distinguish. The model aircraft lobby was quite effective at shielding recreational flyers from almost any regulation at all.

 

[OurAngryBadger]

I wasn't comparing them to the general public - just noting that there is no flight training at all.

Flight training may not be required but some do take training courses before getting their 107. But I agree that training should be required. But I think it should be required for everyone, not just someone who might want to take a few photos for $40 of income. "Commercial pilots" are getting fleeced. It makes no sense that just because someone is making a few dollars off flying their UAV that they should be bound to rules that others arent

 

[Capt KO]

107 is cheap in my opinion. I also agree that some type of instruction is needed for new pilots. Save a lot of grief. As a former licensed pilot and often still in small planes, I just want to make sure that drones do not get into my airspace up there. 107 or not. And if I see em, I'd like to know who they are. But please, nothing like the current FAA proposal.

 

[jmaeding]

Why do they distinguish? Because Congress required them to distinguish. The model aircraft lobby was quite effective at shielding recreational flyers from almost any regulation at all.

Listen to what you are saying. the FAA does not shield anyone from anything practical yet. Each drone pilot is liable for their actions, 107'd or not, hobbyist or not. The fact that Congress distinguished between the two is wrong on several levels. For starters, all levels are safer if educated. Secondly, they target business because they then can track and tax the pilots. Oh, wait, that is exactly what they are doing with the $160.
The more we talk the dirtier it gets. Either way, the FAA could ask meaningful questions on their tests no matter who is pulling their strings.

 

[Chip]

Consider who was given seats at FAA table where the bones of RC recreational flyers in the United States were ground up and served in a casserole.

UAS ID ARC Confirmed Membership June 18, 2017

1) A3 & Aerial by Airbus
2) Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)
3) Aerospace Industries Association (AIA)
4) Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA)
5) Airborne Law Enforcement Association (ALEA)
6) Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
7) Airmap
8) Airspace Systems, Inc.
9) Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence (ASSURE)
10) Amazon Prime Air
11) American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)
12) American Petroleum Institute (API)
13) Analytical Graphics, Inc.
14) Ariascend/DUGN
15) Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)
16) ASTM International
17) AT&T
18) BNSF Railway
19) California Highway Patrol, Office of Air Operations
20) College Park, MD Airport
21) Commercial Drone Alliance
22) Consumer Technology Association (CTA)
23) CTIA/Akin Gump
24) DJI Technology
25) DLA Piper
26) Drone Aviator, Inc.
27) Dronsystems Limited
28) Fairfax County Police Department
29) Farris Technology
30) Flight Safety Foundation
31) FlyTransparent/Black River Systems Company
32) Ford Motor Company
33) General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.
34) General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA)
35) General Electric Aviation
36) Globalstar
37) Grand Forks Sheriff’s Office
38) Hangar51
39) Helicopter Association International (HAI)
40) Insitu, Inc.
41) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
42) Intel Corporation
43) International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)
44) Just Innovation
45) Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA)
46) Metropolitan Police Department
47) Miami Beach Police Department
48) Miami-Dade International Airport
49) Montgomery County Police Department
50) National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA)
51) National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO)
52) National Governors Association (NGA)
53) New York City Police Department
54) News Media Coalition (NMC)
55) Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems
56) PrecisionHawk
57) Professional Helicopter Pilots Association (PHPA)
58) Public Safety Aviation Accreditation Commission (PSAAC)
59) Qualcomm
60) RelmaTech
61) Rockwell Collins
62) RTCA
63) SAE International
64) SkyPod, USA
65) Skyward, A Verizon Company
66) Texas Department of Public Safety, Aircraft Operations Division
67) The Brookings Institution
68) The MITRE Corporation
69) The Police Foundation
70) The Toy Association
71) T-Mobile USA
72) uAvionix
73) Verizon
74) X

 

[jmaeding]

It would be quite coincidental if there were 160 names on that list
Anyone know what the part 107 actually costs to administer, assuming facility and computers are already there for their regular manned flight testing, as they always are?

 

[sar104]

Listen to what you are saying. the FAA does not shield anyone from anything practical yet. Each drone pilot is liable for their actions, 107'd or not, hobbyist or not. The fact that Congress distinguished between the two is wrong on several levels. For starters, all levels are safer if educated. Secondly, they target business because they then can track and tax the pilots. Oh, wait, that is exactly what they are doing with the $160.
The more we talk the dirtier it gets. Either way, the FAA could ask meaningful questions on their tests no matter who is pulling their strings.

No - the more we talk the less you seem to understand. At this point it appears to be close to zero and heading downwards.

 

[sar104]

Flight training may not be required but some do take training courses before getting their 107. But I agree that training should be required. But I think it should be required for everyone, not just someone who might want to take a few photos for $40 of income. "Commercial pilots" are getting fleeced. It makes no sense that just because someone is making a few dollars off flying their UAV that they should be bound to rules that others arent

I agree - it should be required of everyone flying. All you need to do is convince congress of that.

 

[zocalo]

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.

As a data point, here in the UK it's not uncommon to have a test centre fee and the exam fee to be charged separately. This is a side effect of certifying bodies outsourcing the exam to local test centres - e.g. those run by Pearson - who provide the computer you do the exam, run the appropriate script on it, and generally administer the exam. They'll generally have multiple different exams for different clients running in the same room at the same time. The last time I did one of these I paid Pearson about £20 for the use of their facility for an hour - which, given they need to provide staff, a computer, and the office space to locate it in, doesn't exactly seem like a high-margin business to me.

As for certification, come the adoption of new regulation in the UK this July we will be able to operate commercially once we have passed the basic competency test which costs just £9, and also includes some questions that at first blush seem "odd" but are actually making sure that you understand quite significant points relating to safe operations. That does, however, include some pretty severe limitations on things like proximity to people/structures, maximum altitude, maintaining VLOS, etc. which would not be compatible for many commercial endeavors. There are no waivers available either; if you need to exceed the basic requirements then you need additional Certificates of Competency which, for Class A2 drones which covers most DJI models, start at around £250 for a day-long course. Higher levels of competency on the same class of drone can be £750 or more, and that's still an improvement on the existing PfCO, which is typically a multi-day course and can cost over £1,000 - plus any travel and accommodation expenses.

Honestly, $160 for an exam that take an hour or so seems like a bargain.

 

[BigAl07]

Listen to what you are saying. the FAA does not shield anyone from anything practical yet. Each drone pilot is liable for their actions, 107'd or not, hobbyist or not. The fact that Congress distinguished between the two is wrong on several levels. For starters, all levels are safer if educated. Secondly, they target business because they then can track and tax the pilots. Oh, wait, that is exactly what they are doing with the $160.
The more we talk the dirtier it gets. Either way, the FAA could ask meaningful questions on their tests no matter who is pulling their strings.

How much do you think the test should cost? In a professional world how/why is $160 such a sticking point? That's under $7/month (taken every 24 months).

How are we Part 107 pilots being "Taxed" by the FAA?

What questions on the Part 107 test do you find so meaningless? To be honest, I think once you've been on this forum and seen some of the questions we see from "Part 107 Pilots" who have passed the test you'll come to realize that not only is Part 107 TOO EASY it is also lacking because it has no merit in terms of being able to SAFELY fly a NAS.

Remember that Part 107 is only required if you WANT To exercise the privilege of Commercial Operations. It's an option you CHOSE to delve into.

I can 100% assure you that if the FAA was not hand-tied by Congress from the 2012 Act every UAS operator would be taking a MIN test to fly their UAS today. Don't blame the FAA for Congress (Lobbyist) mistakes. Your ill will is misplaced in that respect.

 

[jmaeding]

@BigAl07
Since we pay $160 every 2 years, for no real material service no less, we are being taxed. No facilities are needed for part 107 flying, no tower, no runway, no policing system to keep people from doing unsafe things. Its poof, and your money is gone.
Sure Congress has invented another government system to somehow regulate something that cannot practically be regulated, so you register and get a card. Boy that helps. Like you say, anyone can get their 107, just remember to answer that if the sky falls, its the PIC's responsibility.
People that pretend the system works act as though they did us a favor by not making us get a sport pilot license. News flash, no one obeyed that rule before. I did not have my drone til after 107 was in place, but that rile was like lowering the speed limit to 55 again.
You just cannot regulate cats in the wild, and that is where we are at until drone radar becomes reality. It would be one thing to make everyone take a free test, but to separate commercial fliers and then charge a fee you could get your car detailed for, is fleecing.

 

[BigAl07]

You honestly aren't accurate at all. There IS enforcement! Just because it only makes it on the NEWS when something big happens does not mean enforcement isn't happening. You're very wrong.

To say that "no one obeyed that rule" (re:Section 333 Exemption) is FALSE! I can show you MANY Section 333 Holders (thousands) who obeyed that rule at great expense.

With all due respect your points are flawed.

 

[jmaeding]

@BigAl07
Sure, I get that lots of people obeyed the rule, and some had to because their company required it, but the vast majority did not.
Seriously, if a cop showed up and asked what you were doing, assuming you were following airspace rules, you could say you were flying as a hobbyist. That's it, no sport pilot license needed. Done.
But that was not reality, and is not reality now. People get hassled for privacy or safety reasons, and most don't get hassled at all.
We are kind of talking about different issues, because I am annoyed at how the system got created in the first place, while you are saying its livable and no big deal. I guess when you sit through a test where you know the things that actually affect flight planning an execution very well, and 1/2 the questions are that and easy, while the other half are on obscure rule technicalities to see if you can conjugate verbs correctly, you start to question what is going on. Then you remember you paid for the privledge, while the other guy just claims "hobbyist", its screwed up.

 

[Classic flyer]

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.... ?

Good luck with the test...be smart fly safe

 

[Bob4131]

@BigAl07
Since we pay $160 every 2 years, for no real material service no less, we are being taxed. No facilities are needed for part 107 flying, no tower, no runway, no policing system to keep people from doing unsafe things. Its poof, and your money is gone.
Sure Congress has invented another government system to somehow regulate something that cannot practically be regulated, so you register and get a card. Boy that helps. Like you say, anyone can get their 107, just remember to answer that if the sky falls, its the PIC's responsibility.
People that pretend the system works act as though they did us a favor by not making us get a sport pilot license. News flash, no one obeyed that rule before. I did not have my drone til after 107 was in place, but that rile was like lowering the speed limit to 55 again.
You just cannot regulate cats in the wild, and that is where we are at until drone radar becomes reality. It would be one thing to make everyone take a free test, but to separate commercial fliers and then charge a fee you could get your car detailed for, is fleecing.

I would suggest getting nearly immediate authorization to fly in controlled airspace near airports is real material service from the FAA for which I am grateful. B4UFLY was also funded by the FAA. BTW, those were not funded by the $160 test fee - it all does go to the test centers. The FAA funding for UAVs is from the general treasury.
Trying to see from your perspective: Maybe the test centers have to pay a large fee to the FAA - I have no idea. I believe the test fee is set by the FAA, why they don't allow test centers to compete on price - I don't know either. But I think this is such a small cost in being a commercial operator, this becomes more a philosophy discussion on the role of government. Commerical liability insurance is more than an order of magnitude more, for example.

 

[Drone on]

Amazing considering it's battery powered

 

[Donnie Frank]

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.

I'll probably get some FAA troll bashing for this, but I have always felt the 107 was *mostly* a waste of time, energy and effort. While I concede that understanding sectional charts, flight patterns and airport runways is GREAT information to have, all the METAR crap and airport signage crap (where we are NOT allowed to fly) is the biggest waste of time EVER. Clearly, understanding flight paths and glide slopes is also very valuable information, as well as understanding autorotation and the Height-Velocity diagrams. But I have not seen glide slope or autorotation discussed in any study material. This information is a thousand times more valuable than those METARs or airport signage (again, where we are NOT allowed to fly). Call me nuts, but it seems that good, working understanding of the aircraft we share the sky with is MUCH more valuable than understanding weather patterns. Understand the aircraft, and you can better understand their flight patters, which naturally leads to better avoidance skills.

Then there's understanding the drones themselves. Not a single question - NOT ONE - regarding LiPo battery safety, storage and maintenance. Not a single question regarding drone rotor velocities and the damage they can do to humans. All that said...

Everything goes in the "safety crapper" when you realize that passing the 107 guarantees absolutely NOTHING regarding safety and/or PILOT SKILLS. Without a practical test, any housewife who has never touched a radio control in her life can pass the 107. Let that sink in.

I participate in the program only because I have to. But honestly, it's a complete waste of time.

D