The FAA is working on the test.

[dylanthecat]

Looks like it is still a ways off though.

 

[Thomas B]

Yep, I got an email from FAA DroneZone requesting my input on the content of the upcoming test today.

 

[kensteele]

"The FAA does not intend to administer the test or store any data."

this is all i needed to hear.

1.not going to be effective from a legal standpoint
2.considering what little i know about potential designees and entities, testing is never going to be implemented effectively or properly.

just my opinion from reading the rfi. not going to happen in 2019 or even 2020 if you ask me.

 

[dawgpilot]

"The FAA does not intend to administer the test or store any data."

this is all i needed to hear.

1.not going to be effective from a legal standpoint
2.considering what little i know about potential designees and entities, testing is never going to be implemented effectively or properly.

just my opinion from reading the rfi. not going to happen in 2019 or even 2020 if you ask me.

They already do something similar for other aviation tests. For example, the FAA's BasicMed process requires you to take an online course from either AOPA or the Mayo Clinic. At the end of the process you get a certificate that you can print out and keep to show your compliance.

 

[kensteele]

^ok, can't wait to see what they come up with.

 

[ANT0407]

Yep, I got an email from FAA DroneZone requesting my input on the content of the upcoming test today.

I got that email as well.

 

[JAW]

"The FAA is agnostic** as to the business model of the testing designees, and expects that knowledge testing services will be provided at no cost to the FAA "
Well, someone has to pay for it. Guess who?

**a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. Litteraly meaning a lack of claim to knowlege.

 

[pls1911]

I this thread referring a basic operator's certificate, a renewal, or Part 107???

 

[Drbobk]

I this thread referring a basic operator's certificate, a renewal, or Part 107???

Click the link in the first post...

 

[dawgpilot]

I this thread referring a basic operator's certificate, a renewal, or Part 107???

This is referring to the new test that is being developed for recreational pilots in the USA. Congress mandated a test when they passed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, but it's taken the FAA quite a while to develop the test and until they do, the requirement to take a test is being waived. (since no test exists yet)

 

[dronerdave]

Got the same email last week. Seems more like they are needing input on who is going to implement it. I had hoped the test would be similar to the test you take to get a forest service fire permit. They're easy enough that an average 12 year old kid can pass it, it can be taken on line for free and you simply print out the permit. IMO if this FAA test is overly complicated it won't be as effective in luring UAV owners to pass it. I understand the entitlement people will never think they need to comply but like a kid with a BB gun, there should be some basic guidelines new owners must know. I fly with several adults and in all honesty many of these people didn't have a clue that there were rules to follow. One of these guys was planning on flying over a car lot to shoot video for the dealership and even though it was very close to a class C airport, he didn't know he would be breaking rules. I'll admit that when I first started flying I didn't have a clue what was right or wrong either. Learned most from this forum.
The idea I would think is to educate new and current UAV owners so we (hopefully) have less bone head fliers out there pulling some of these stupid stunts you see from time to time. The FAA should also consider making an app (B4UFLY?) that actually is 100% correct all of the time so a Rec flier doesn't need to know how to read a sectional. Hopefully it will be a more common sense test when they finally get around to it.

 

[sar104]

"The FAA is agnostic** as to the business model of the testing designees, and expects that knowledge testing services will be provided at no cost to the FAA "
Well, someone has to pay for it. Guess who?

**a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. Litteraly meaning a lack of claim to knowlege.

Yes, but you cherry-picked the noun definition. It's also an adjective:

agnostic | aɡˈnästik |​

​

noun​

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.​

​

adjective​

relating to agnostics or agnosticism.​

• (in a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something: until now I've been fairly agnostic about electoral reform.​

• [usually in combination] Computing denoting or relating to hardware or software that is compatible with many types of platforms or operating systems: many common file formats (JPEG, MP3, etc.) are platform-agnostic.​

Who would you suggest should pay for the test?

 

[JAW]

<snip>

Who would you suggest should pay for the test?

I would suggest Uncle absorb the cost since the gov't created the requirement. In reality I think it will be the recreational pilots who absorb a portion of the cost, maybe $10(?)

 

[sar104]

I would suggest Uncle absorb the cost since the gov't created the requirement. In reality I think it will be the recreational pilots who absorb a portion of the cost, maybe $10(?)

Do you also think that drivers tests should be free since that's a government requirement?

 

[JAW]

Do you also think that drivers tests should be free since that's a government requirement?

No I do not.

 

[sar104]

No I do not.

Are those not basically equivalent? It seems reasonable to me to expect the user to pay. Otherwise it's the taxpayer further subsidizing the hobby - which they are already doing given the costs in developing regulations and frameworks that the FAA has already incurred.

 

[JAW]

Are those not basically equivalent? It seems reasonable to me to expect the user to pay. Otherwise it's the taxpayer further subsidizing the hobby - which they are already doing given the costs in developing regulations and frameworks that the FAA has already incurred.

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/a...ts/media/FY2019-39_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf

While I agree taxpayers in general should not subsidize the hobby, what I think we need to do is look at the numbers as they relate to the cost of administering the knowledge and safety test required for recreational pilots. The FAA has released its crystal ball projections for the industry from now until 2039 (see link above). A portion of this report, pages 41-47, deals solely with the sUAS industry and users. According to the FAA, there were over 900,000 registered recreational pilots as of December 31. 2018. What percentage of that 900,000 will actually take the required recreational test?

If 25% take the test and are willing to pay, let's say $10---certainly not an unreasonable amount, that would put $2.5 mil towards defraying the costs. $15 ups the amount to $3.375 mil. In comparison, again according to the FAA, 225,000 part 107 commercial jockeys forked over a total of $33.75mil to the FAA to get rated.

What I don't want to see is the test becoming a profit center. For 107 jockeys, their $150 cost plus any amount expended for part 107 courses are tax deductions. Recreational pilots have no such ability.

 

[sar104]

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/a...ts/media/FY2019-39_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf

While I agree taxpayers in general should not subsidize the hobby, what I think we need to do is look at the numbers as they relate to the cost of administering the knowledge and safety test required for recreational pilots. The FAA has released its crystal ball projections for the industry from now until 2039 (see link above). A portion of this report, pages 41-47, deals solely with the sUAS industry and users. According to the FAA, there were over 900,000 registered recreational pilots as of December 31. 2018. What percentage of that 900,000 will actually take the required recreational test?

If 25% take the test and are willing to pay, let's say $10---certainly not an unreasonable amount, that would put $2.5 mil towards defraying the costs. $15 ups the amount to $3.375 mil. In comparison, again according to the FAA, 225,000 part 107 commercial jockeys forked over a total of $33.75mil to the FAA to get rated.

What I don't want to see is the test becoming a profit center. For 107 jockeys, their $150 cost plus any amount expended for part 107 courses are tax deductions. Recreational pilots have no such ability.

Actually none of the testing fees for Part 107 went to the FAA - those fees are paid to and kept by the testing centers.

 

[JAW]

Actually none of the testing fees for Part 107 went to the FAA - those fees are paid to and kept by the testing centers.

I understand that. But the FAA must still provide the administrative functions of maintaining the records, etc. for those with remote pilot ratings. Those functions are being paid for (technically) by taxpayers. The administration of the actual test is a profit center for those who do it. What I don't think should happen is the same thing for recreational pilots taking the knowledge and safety test. If the cost is too high, say $100, many hobbyists will simply continue to fly without taking it.

An interesting aside----in the FAA Aerospace Forecast 2019-2039 linked above, drones are classified as model or non-model. Model drones are flown by recreational pilots; non-model drones are flown by 107 pilots. Non-model drones are divided into two sectors, consumer grade (average price around $2,500) and professional grade (priced over $10,000)

According to the FAA, as of 12-31-18, 90% of those who took the Remote Pilots exam passed.

 

[sar104]

I understand that.

But you wrote "In comparison, again according to the FAA, 225,000 part 107 commercial jockeys forked over a total of $33.75mil to the FAA to get rated." Hence my response.

But the FAA must still provide the administrative functions of maintaining the records, etc. for those with remote pilot ratings. Those functions are being paid for (technically) by taxpayers. The administration of the actual test is a profit center for those who do it. What I don't think should happen is the same thing for recreational pilots taking the knowledge and safety test. If the cost is too high, say $100, many hobbyists will simply continue to fly without taking it.

All government departments have administrative costs. You are saying that they shouldn't charge for the test because that will discourage people from taking it? If this is an online test, like the Part 61 RPIC test, it will most likely be no cost anyway. It's certainly not going to be $100. If it ends up with a testing center element to it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to fund it.