The FAA is ruining their name

[Donnie Frank]

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.

Who do you prefer fly a UAV?

* 30 year AMA member, RC experienced pilot who has not taken the 107?
* Housewife who has never touched a remote control in her life who scored 100% on the 107?

I'd take the former any day. Why? Because if you read the AMA National Safety Code (which was originally published in NINETEEN SEVENTY TWO and updated in 2014), you will see a LOT in common with the 107. In other words, any AMA member has been flying by 107 standards DECADES before "UAV" was a term or the 107 was "a thing." Let that sink in.

And don't let the ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AMA SAFETY RECORD sway your choice, either.

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

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.

For $160??? Provide a (deleted by moderator) practical test. That's what.

D

 

[sar104]

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

It's certainly true that some aircraft-specific information would be valuable. Lipo information is a good example, as is the hazards of high-speed props. More generally, a flight test would be valuable, together with type ratings for specific aircraft. But now the problem becomes apparent - Part 107 applies to a far broader scope than just small quads doing commercial photography or mapping. The existing test was a first effort, and has already been tweaked to add and remove material.

I disagree with some of your criticisms - the weather stuff is very relevant because the Part 107 regulations specify several weather related conditions on flight. Airport patterns are included, which addresses the issue of glide slopes. You might not fly at airports, but sUAS are often used at airports.

 

[sar104]

Who do you prefer fly a UAV?

* 30 year AMA member, RC experienced pilot who has not taken the 107?
* Housewife who has never touched a remote control in her life who scored 100% on the 107?

I'd take the former any day. Why? Because if you read the AMA National Safety Code (which was originally published in NINETEEN SEVENTY TWO and updated in 2014), you will see a LOT in common with the 107. In other words, any AMA member has been flying by 107 standards DECADES before the 107 was "a thing." Let that sink in.

D

Very few people score 100% on that test. In fact I've not seen anyone claim to have done so, although I'm sure it happens. The kind of person you are rather demeaningly calling a "housewife", by which I assume you mean someone without pre-existing knowledge of aviation, is going to have to study quite hard. At least having passed they probably won't have such an arrogant attitude as you display.

 

[sar104]

For $160??? Provide a (deleted by moderator) practical test. That's what.

D

It's a fine idea but it's going to cost a lot more, if only because it is going to require a significant increase in staffing.

 

[Classic flyer]

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

It's just another TAX

 

[OurAngryBadger]

Who do you prefer fly a UAV?

* 30 year AMA member, RC experienced pilot who has not taken the 107?
* Housewife who has never touched a remote control in her life who scored 100% on the 107?

I'd take the former any day. Why? Because if you read the AMA National Safety Code (which was originally published in NINETEEN SEVENTY TWO and updated in 2014), you will see a LOT in common with the 107. In other words, any AMA member has been flying by 107 standards DECADES before "UAV" was a term or the 107 was "a thing." Let that sink in.

And don't let the ONE HUNDRED PERCENT AMA SAFETY RECORD sway your choice, either.

D

I'm not in total disagreement with you, and my post wasn't targeting AMA flyers, it was more about people that go to walmart and get a drone, take it out the same day with no knowledge of safe operating procedures. Unfortunately in this day and age and the easy availability of purchasing a drone I get a feeling there are a lot more of those people than AMA flyers. Even the 3 verified incidents of drones colliding with manned aircraft were by people who had no clue.

Still it's only fair that AMA flyers (and all hobbyist) be required to take a knowledge test too and get a certification or license, like 107 commercial pilots.

With such great knowledge as you indicated, AMA flyers should be able to ace the exam.

A potential work-around is, if the aircraft is being flown at an AMA field, then no license necessary. I think I'm correct but I think this is something the FAA is considering for a bypass of the Remote ID.

 

[sar104]

It's just another TAX

I think it only counts as a tax if the revenue goes to the government. And even if it does, that doesn't necessarily make it a tax. Do you regard the cost of a drivers license to be a tax? How about a passport? Or do you just want everything to be free of charge?

 

[Donnie Frank]

It's certainly true that some aircraft-specific information would be valuable. Lipo information is a good example, as is the hazards of high-speed props. More generally, a flight test would be valuable, together with type ratings for specific aircraft. But now the problem becomes apparent - Part 107 applies to a far broader scope than just small quads doing commercial photography or mapping. The existing test was a first effort, and has already been tweaked to add and remove material.

Good point.

I disagree with some of your criticisms - the weather stuff is very relevant because the Part 107 regulations specify several weather related conditions on flight.

I couldn't disagree more. I have been flying professionally for years. I use windy.com for wind predictions and standard weather websites for cloud/rain predictions. These resources have been 99% accurate.

If I show up on site and it seems windier than predicted, I'll fly an ATTI mission at different altitudes to determine real-time wind speed. Why is THAT not on the test? There is no better gauge of real-time wind speed than an ATTI mode flight. Why are ATTI-mode flight questions and practical test NOT part of the 107 regimen? ATTI-mode flight skills are hugely important should one lose one's GPS lock. And, as stated already, it's one of the most valuable TOOLS for determining on-site real-time wind speeds any pilot could have in his weather arsenal. Yet, not a single word about this in the 107 or even this forum. I have published many videos on the subject.

Here's a video from almost 6 years ago. Note the complete absence of telemetry data.

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

Airport patterns are included, which addresses the issue of glide slopes.

I have not seen the subject of "glide slope" breached in any 107 prep test/video. However, I concede that I haven't looked at study material for a while. So your assertion is that they now include this in the 107? Good on the FAA if they do. Now, how about that Height-Velocity chart???

You might not fly at airports, but sUAS are often used at airports.

Not without an airport personnel escort who is watching your every move. And rest assured, they understand that environment far better than any UAV pilot does REGARDLESS of how well he did on the 107.

Thoughts?

D

 

[sar104]

I couldn't disagree more. I have been flying professionally for years. I use windy.com for wind predictions and standard weather websites for cloud/rain predictions. These resources have been 99% accurate.

I'm not talking about wind - that's not regulated by Part 107. CAV are regulated, and METARs are the authoritative source of those data.

If I show up on site and it seems windier than predicted, I'll fly an ATTI mission at different altitudes to determine real-time wind speed. Why is THAT not on the test? There is no better gauge of real-time wind speed than an ATTI mode flight. Why are ATTI-mode flight questions and practical test NOT part of the 107 regimen? ATTI-mode flight skills are hugely important should one lose one's GPS lock. And, as stated already, it's one of the most valuable TOOLS for determining on-site real-time wind speeds any pilot could have in his weather arsenal. Yet, not a single word about this in the 107 or even this forum. I have published many videos on the subject.

I agree. I'd include questions about flight control methods and how they can be used.

I have not seen the subject of "glide slope" breached in any 107 prep test/video. However, I concede that I haven't looked at study material for a while. So your assertion is that they now include this in the 107? Good on the FAA if they do. Now, how about that Height-Velocity chart???

As I said - the test covers airport patterns which includes distances and altitudes. Glide slopes are not requirements and cannot be relied on to determine traffic.

Not without an airport personnel escort who is watching your every move. And rest assured, they understand that environment far better than any UAV pilot does REGARDLESS of how well he did on the 107.

Maybe, or maybe not. But not the point - there is no guarantee that your escort is trained at that level because that's not a requirement.

 

[Donnie Frank]

I'm not talking about wind - that's not regulated by Part 107. CAV are regulated, and METARs are the authoritative source of those data.

...which are a complete waste of time. You missed my point completely. A UAV is not carrying bodies, not flying 100's of miles and NOT flying @ 20,000 ft. So unless we're flying for HOURS, we don't need to know the weather 100 miles away. Only a complete idiot doesn't understand the weather that he is literally standing in. While weather prediction IS used for booking gigs, it is real-time, on-site assessment that determines if we're actually going to fly that day. In this regard METAR's and CAV's are completely and utterly useless.

I agree. I'd include questions about flight control methods and how they can be used.

Glad we agree.

As I said - the test covers airport patterns which includes distances and altitudes.

No. You said that the 107 DID include glide-slope question.

Glide slopes are not requirements and cannot be relied on to determine traffic.

I HIGHLY disagree. Glide slopes are VERY MUCH a part of my flight prediction equation. Understanding the glide slope of a 757 vs. a Cessna are VERY MUCH part of my UAV flight safety regimen.

Maybe, or maybe not. But not the point - there is no guarantee that your escort is trained at that level because that's not a requirement.

LOL....you're funny. Dude...they don't send us out there with a janitor. TWICE I have flown airports and both times we were paired with a high-level airport employee who was in radio contact with the tower. This allows us to concentrate on what we're doing while the airport escort manages risk.

While one may argue liability in this situation, it is to the airport's GREAT ADVANTAGE to have a liaison monitor UAV activity throughout the entire operation. And that is exactly what they do.

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

The elephant in the room...

The bedrock of risk mitigation is understanding one's UAV. Yet look at this forum. It is littered DAILY with flyaways, crashes and all manner of UAV control loss. Yet, sans a mid-flight prop failure, I haven't crashed once or lost a UAV in years and hundreds of hours of flight time. Why is that? Let's do some forensics here. Let's ask a couple simple questions:

"Why is it that, in over 6 years of professional operation, with the exception of two mid-flight prop failures, I have yet to have a single fly-away or crash??"

And....

"Why is it that other pilots lose control of their drones and crash many times per day every day????"

The answer is simple. I understand what goes on under the hood of my drone. This means understanding hardware (IMU's, Compass, Flight Controllers, Accelerometers, GPS, Satellite acquisition), software, (RF, telemetry data), batteries (charging, maintenance, storage, use) and most importantly of all, FIRMWARE! NOBODY understands firmware, the result of which is multiple crashes and loss-of-craft many times per day. Every single one of these crashes could have been avoided through the simple use of good test flight paradigms and pre-flight research (NOT just "reading the manual"). But none of this IMPORTANT INFORMATION is breached on the 107. Hell...FAA personnel don't even understand it. Why? Because "firmware" is not really an issue full-scale-aviation deals with. So when you charge full scale pilots with the task of creating a test for small scale aviation, you get a HUGE disconnect.

So let's address the elephant in the room. Until UAV pilots are FORCED to FULLY UNDERSTAND their drones, the 107 is a weak BandAid™ that guarantees nothing.

Discuss.

D

 

[sar104]

...which are a complete waste of time. You missed my point completely. A UAV is not carrying bodies, not flying 100's of miles and NOT flying @ 20,000 ft. So unless we're flying for HOURS, we don't need to know the weather 100 miles away. Only a complete idiot doesn't understand the weather that he is literally standing in. While weather prediction IS used for booking gigs, it is real-time, on-site assessment that determines if we're actually going to fly that day. In this regard METAR's and CAV's are completely and utterly useless.

Okay, so you don't know the Part 107 CAV requirements or understand how to get them from METARs, or even what a METAR is. It's not a forecast. And how can CAV be useless when it's a specific requirement? You have no clue about any of this, do you?

No. You said that the 107 DID include glide-slope question.

View attachment 96115

I HIGHLY disagree. Glide slopes are VERY MUCH a part of my flight prediction equation. Understanding the glide slope of a 757 vs. a Cessna are VERY MUCH part of my UAV flight safety regimen.

Good grief - if you are going to quote posts then they should at least support your assertion. That statement doesn't mention a glide slope question - it states that understanding airport patterns includes the concept of glide slopes. And then you completely ignored my point that glide slopes are only guidance for pilots - they are not a requirement. They are bounded by approach requirements and patterns. If your safe flying depends on you understanding the difference between 757 and Cessna glide slopes then someone has a big problem. What are the differences, by the way? That was rhetorical, by the way.

LOL....you're funny. Dude...they don't send us out there with a janitor. TWICE I have flown airports and both times we were paired with a high-level airport employee who was in radio contact with the tower. This allows us to concentrate on what we're doing while the airport escort manages risk mitigation.

Ah - so having started this argument with the assertion that sUAS are not allowed to fly at airports (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.), you are now asserting that you have done so twice? And without even being Part 107 certified? If that's true then your "high-level" airport employee was completely negligent in letting you do so.

I'm having a really hard time believing much of what you claim at this point.[/QUOTE]

 

[simsurf]

For a proper commercial licence in Australia its about $5,000, maybe even more, so I wouldnt be complaining too much.

 

[Donnie Frank]

Okay, so you don't know the Part 107 CAV requirements or understand how to get them from METARs, or even what a METAR is.

OMG...now you are seriously treading into the moron zone. Of course I know what they are and how to read them, which is why can assert with 100% confidence that they are absolutely useless to any UAV pilot.

It's not a forecast. And how can CAV be useless when it's a specific requirement?

So your assertion is this: Because the FAA requires it, it MUST be useful???....SMH..... I'll remind you that my ENTIRE POINT is that the 107 test that the FAA put together has a ton of useless junk in it, including METAR's and CAV's. YES, I know what they are. YES, I understand them. YES, I can read METAR's. NO, I've never found a single use for any of it in SIX YEARS OF PROFESSIONAL UAV FLYING. For the love of all that is holy, now THAT ought to do it!!!!

You have no clue about any of this, do you?

Are you TRYING to be ironic?

Good grief - if you are going to quote posts then they should at least support your assertion.

NO. I simply quoted you after you said you didn't say something. I caught you in a lie. OWN IT.

That statement doesn't mention a glide slope question - it states that understanding airport patterns includes the concept of glide slopes.

NO, it does not. NOWHERE is "glide slope" MENTIONED ANYWHERE in the 107 test or study material. I can't say it any plainer, Skippy. You can assert all you want that the test questions ELUDE to "glide slope," but that is not the same thing as specifically MENTIONING glide slope in the study material. I don't how how to say it any clearer.

And then you completely ignored my point that glide slopes are only guidance for pilots - they are not a requirement.

OMG...again, you miss MY POINT. Which is that glide slope SHOULD BE IN THE 107 TEST QUESTIONS AND STUDY MATERIAL. MY POINT, is that the FAA SHOULD REQUIRE glide slope knowledge for all UAV pilots. MUCH more valuable than freakin' METAR's.

They are bounded by approach requirements and patterns.

Which UAV pilots SHOULD know. The 107 touches on SOME of the aspects of aviation patterns and pilot syntax regarding airport approach. My argument is that UAV pilots should know EVERYTHING about aircraft approach and take off. Call me nuts, but it seems understanding what planes are GOING TO DO and WHY they are flying the patterns they are flying is good knowledge to have.

If your safe flying depends on you understanding the difference between 757 and Cessna glide slopes then someone has a big problem.

If you think UAV flights conducted in the direct flight path of an airstrip have zero use for glide slope information, then I don't know what to tell you. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

What are the differences, by the way? That was rhetorical, by the way.

Good! I would hope so!

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

The kind of person you are rather demeaningly calling a "housewife", by which I assume you mean someone without pre-existing knowledge of aviation, is going to have to study quite hard. At least having passed they probably won't have such an arrogant attitude as you display.

What does any of this have to do with my assertion that a 107-certified housewife who has never flown a UAV in her life is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than a 30-year RC veteran who has been following AMA safety protocol for 3 decades???

I look forward to your clarification.

D

 

[Donnie Frank]

It's a fine idea but it's going to cost a lot more, if only because it is going to require a significant increase in staffing.

The $160 already takes staffing into account. How long to you think the practical test would take? 30 minutes MAYBE?? Probably closer to 15 minutes. I bet I could completely assess a pilots skills in 5 minutes of small challenges.

What should the hourly wage be for testers? $30/hour? $40/hour?

What the FAA would do is hire certified pilots to conduct the test who would:

A) Far exceed $40/hour compensation.
B) Would not be readily available.
C) Would know far less about UAV pilot skill than say a weekend FPV racer who would probably conduct the practical skills test for $15/hour.

While your argument has merit, it's only because the FAA would do the exact opposite of what would be efficient, prudent and cost-effective.

D

 

[Classic flyer]

I think it only counts as a tax if the revenue goes to the government. And even if it does, that doesn't necessarily make it a tax. Do you regard the cost of a drivers license to be a tax? How about a passport? Or do you just want everything to be free of charge?

Yes I do consider those things taxes...and no I don't expect to get things for free, I'm not a SOCIALIST...the Government can only operate as it does by generating revenue through taxation which I'm fine with...be smart fly safe

 

[sar104]

Yes I do consider those things taxes...and no I don't expect to get things for free, I'm not a SOCIALIST...the Government can only operate as it does by generating revenue through taxation which I'm fine with...be smart fly safe

So then you are good with the test fees etc. - but you just think of them as taxes?

 

[BigAl07]

Alright gang.... let's NOT get personal and heated!! If it keeps up this thread will be LOCKED which is almost always a shame as debate and learning is stifled.

Be nice or refrain from posting!!