WHY does the US legislation differentiate between amateurs and commercial pilots?

[Lady Rover]

Upfront, I'm not in the US, I can fly drones up to 2.5kg in my jurisdiction without license and can do that commercially any time I want. All I need is to comply with general drone flight legislation and have insurance. So US legislation does not affect me.

BUT I am curious to understand the logic behind the rule that commercial drone pilots need a licence in the US and amateurs do not.

One would think that commercial operators fly a lot more and by this are far more experienced, so are much less likely to have accidents or are less likely to not fly by the rules. After all their business depends on it.
The amateur flys fairly infrequently and has generally less experience.

So does anyone know the logic as to why this separation happened?
To me it sound more like the existing drone operators had the better lobby initially.

 

[Meta4]

BUT I am curious to understand the logic behind the rule that commercial drone pilots need a licence in the US and amateurs do not.

It comes from the FAA rigidly viewing drones the same way they view real planes.
To fly real planes in a commercial setting they require a higher standard of qualification.
So it was easy for the FAA to automatically believe that commercial drone flyers should have a higher qualification than recreational drone flyers.

They never saw how ridiculous it was to legally be able to fly and shoot pictures but taking those pictures for someone else would make the flight illegal.

 

[AnzacJack]

Not just the FAA unfortunately

 

[Meta4]

Not just the FAA unfortunately

It's been the case in many countries that aviation authorities think of drones as just small planes and try to formulate rules based on the existing rules for real planes.

Prior to the Part 107 the FAA had the completely bonkers 333 rules which required an actual real plane licence to be able to shoot a few real estate photos from 30 feet with a toy drone.

 

[Classic flyer]

ITS ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMIN'S...$$$$$$$...BE SMART FLY SAFE

 

[Meta4]

ITS ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMIN'S...$$$$$$$...BE SMART FLY SAFE

It's got nothing at all to do with money, it's the FAA being dinosaurs and very slow to update their thinking.
The FAA gets no additional $$ from requiring p[art 107 qualification for commercial flying.

 

[xspwhite]

It's for safety reasons. You cant have some peanut head running around flying commercially without any knowledge of fundamental rules and safety. Actually anyone can fly the aircraft as long as a licensed 107 pilot is present.

 

[Meta4]

It's for safety reasons. You cant have some peanut head running around flying commercially without any knowledge of fundamental rules and safety.

But the current system doesn't do anything to prevent many recreational flyers doing just that.
The question was why additional certification is required for commercial drone flying.

 

[PhantomFandom]

BUT I am curious to understand the logic behind the rule that commercial drone pilots need a licence in the US and amateurs do not.

The problem with your question is that you are trying to apply logic to a government entity. Bureaucrats/politicians/regulation entities and logic do not mix. At least not here in the USA. As soon as you join the government, you are required to check your common sense at the door.

 

[Classic flyer]

Well they do get a percentage of the testing fee, registration fee now multiply that by the number of 107 holders plus all the registrations, both 107 & hobby fliers and you get a lot of Benjamin's...surely you don't believe that the FAA does all that ADMINISTRATION stuff for free...because they have a big heart ...JMO...be safe fly smart

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

The problem with your question is that you are trying to apply logic to a government entity.

Bingo !

It all is evolving very quickly though, here we are having hobbyist licencing (online simple test of rules etc) like the UK introduced.
I feel one day the FAA will do the same, so at least every pilot in the sky theoretically will know the rules, label their drone, and be able to be found if theirs is involved is any sort of incident.
Prosecutions will be easier, as they will know the rules of flight and if flying somewhere they aren't supposed to, or outside rules, well . . .

What to do with all the ones that don't bother with licencing and registration etc ?
How will this be addressed ?
The cowboy flyers and bad guys don't exactly comply with any rules GOVCO puts out.

Edit PS. It amazes me commercial pilots in the US need a waiver to fly at night, hobbyists ? Go for it !! Same deal, more qualification but more restriction.

 

[dronerdave]

Well they do get a percentage of the testing fee, registration fee now multiply that by the number of 107 holders plus all the registrations, both 107 & hobby fliers and you get a lot of Benjamin's...surely you don't believe that the FAA does all that ADMINISTRATION stuff for free...because they have a big heart ...JMO...be safe fly smart

Well I could be wrong but figure big government is funded by tax dollars and a portion comes from fees. Does someone actually know how much of the 107 fee goes to the FAA...are the testing facilities even run or funded by the FAA?

I am curious to understand the logic behind the rule that commercial drone pilots need a licence in the US and amateurs do not.

One would think that commercial operators fly a lot more and by this are far more experienced, so are much less likely to have accidents or are less likely to not fly by the rules. After all their business depends on it.
The amateur flys fairly infrequently and has generally less experience.

So does anyone know the logic as to why this separation happened?
To me it sound more like the existing drone operators had the better lobby initially.

I don't know. My guess is that rec flying in the past (here in the US) revolved more around the model aircraft crowd. That group basically took care of itself with a reasonable safety record and rules dealing with manned aircraft and public safety. Then you have the toy concept that might have been a factor. Never considered a Syma X5 much of a threat or requiring a license was needed. But enter FPV along with autonomous type aircraft flight and things changed. It opened up a huge business door. Infrastructure monitoring and inspections can be a profitable business but at the same time might require more complex flying than those of us in the recreational group. I'm not 107, but understand how the FAA and industry would feel that some extra training might be a good idea dealing with commercial ventures. I worked in the utility industry and as typical government requires, I had to go through so many different types of training just to be able to work... it was mind boggling.

On the recreational side of things, I think the FAA folks were probably blindsided by long distance FPV rec flying. It also opened a new door. All of a sudden they had people legally flying outside the suggested rules such as those typically seen at an AMA field. Only suggesting recreational fliers follow a CBO set of rules left rec flying much more wide open than today. There are a group of recreational fliers who don't want to give up what we had, but here we are with a test coming down on us eventually (and maybe more) so it seems the fun's over and we gotta go to church.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

blindsided by long distance FPV rec flying

We cinematic drone fliers can fly many km / miles BVLOS, outside most countries airspace rules, and some just can't help themselves to do this.
Safe or not is a question many have opinions on, but rules do have a purpose to keeping all aircraft safe, particularly manned flights.
Common sense can be applied at times (extreme remoteness), but authority tends to make simple blanket rules around the lowest common denominator, and if rules are found to keep getting broken, introduce even tighter measures, which still doesn't stop some of course (look at any law out there).

I initially thought you were referring to true FPV (goggles) type aircraft and style of flying.
I don't see that FPV as a major issue the way most fly their aircraft.
They generally require close and low flight with their aircraft to keep control in those closed environments, not to mention the lack of GPS stability etc !!

I think you are right about everyone coming into line, not sure how they can police / enforce it though with some that simply won't licence or label etc.
They will only get caught in the act, or if something happens and they can be found, and that needs much more proactive policing and penalties to deter the loose cannons.
Just increasing rules and limits of the rest of us will only punish those doing the right thing.

 

[dronerdave]

FPV using my crystal sky is still considered FPV especially if I can't see my quad. But there are those who use true FPV only using goggles that fly BVLOS. How bout the guy flying in and out of a moving train with a racing quad? While I'd say that is some great flying, personally I wouldn't do that even if I could. Just like poaching game, a certain percentage of hunters will continue to poach. Still we need rules or it would be (as I posted) "wide open". As hunting rules evolved my guess it probably upset those who had never felt a need for such rules. I'm not however promoting poor rules. The OP was asking why no test for rec fliers.

I'm saying IMO tech overran the FAA before they had a chance to deal with it.

I do think if the FAA would have had insight early on about the capabilities of something like the Phantom or Mavic aircraft, they might have suggested some sort of qualification certificate or testing prior to purchase.

 

[Classic flyer]

Well I could be wrong but figure big government is funded by tax dollars and a portion comes from fees. Does someone actually know how much of the 107 fee goes to the FAA...are the testing facilities even run or funded by the FAA?




I don't know. My guess is that rec flying in the past (here in the US) revolved more around the model aircraft crowd. That group basically took care of itself with a reasonable safety record and rules dealing with manned aircraft and public safety. Then you have the toy concept that might have been a factor. Never considered a Syma X5 much of a threat or requiring a license was needed. But enter FPV along with autonomous type aircraft flight and things changed. It opened up a huge business door. Infrastructure monitoring and inspections can be a profitable business but at the same time might require more complex flying than those of us in the recreational group. I'm not 107, but understand how the FAA and industry would feel that some extra training might be a good idea dealing with commercial ventures. I worked in the utility industry and as typical government requires, I had to go through so many different types of training just to be able to work... it was mind boggling.

On the recreational side of things, I think the FAA folks were probably blindsided by long distance FPV rec flying. It also opened a new door. All of a sudden they had people legally flying outside the suggested rules such as those typically seen at an AMA field. Only suggesting recreational fliers follow a CBO set of rules left rec flying much more wide open than today. There are a group of recreational fliers who don't want to give up what we had, but here we are with a test coming down on us eventually (and maybe more) so it seems the fun's over and we gotta go to church.

Yes indeed the FAA is funded by tax dollars and they do subcontract work to the private sector, but they still get a percentage of the take...UNCLE SAM is in it to make MONEY,maybe not millions per say, but money just the same...you pay a fee to take the test pass or fail and SAM gets his share each time the fee is paid... it's all about tax revenue

 

[BigAl07]

Some bad information in this thread....

The reason there are 2 different sets of rules is because lobbyists got involved back in 2010 and in 2012 the US Congress (well before the FAA is involved) mandated that no new rules (other than ones that directly affect safety of the NAS) can be created against HOBBY operations.

I can assure you that the FAA has long since wanted to bring the same level of rules etc down on hobbyist etc who are operating in the same area etc at Commercial operations. The US Congress pretty much hand tied them with the 2012 laws.

ITS ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMIN'S...$$$$$$$...BE SMART FLY SAFE

You don't know what you're talking about. Spewing bad information doesn't help our industry in the least.

Well they do get a percentage of the testing fee, registration fee now multiply that by the number of 107 holders plus all the registrations, both 107 & hobby fliers and you get a lot of Benjamin's...surely you don't believe that the FAA does all that ADMINISTRATION stuff for free...because they have a big heart ...JMO...be safe fly smart

Please give us a link/background to show where the FAA gets a single penny from testing fees (they don't BTW).

For anyone who things that drone registration is a Cash Cow how much do you think it takes to process and support the registration process?

 

[Classic flyer]

Some bad information in this thread....

The reason there are 2 different sets of rules is because lobbyists got involved back in 2010 and in 2012 the US Congress (well before the FAA is involved) mandated that no new rules (other than ones that directly affect safety of the NAS) can be created against HOBBY operations.

I can assure you that the FAA has long since wanted to bring the same level of rules etc down on hobbyist etc who are operating in the same area etc at Commercial operations. The US Congress pretty much hand tied them with the 2012 laws.


You don't know what you're talking about. Spewing bad information doesn't help our industry in the least.



Please give us a link/background to show where the FAA gets a single penny from testing fees (they don't BTW).

For anyone who things that drone registration is a Cash Cow how much do you think it takes to process and support the registration process?

Tax revenue is the govt cash cow...show us where the gov't dosent get a percentage of the fees... they don't do it for free

 

[Meta4]

Tax revenue is the govt cash cow...show us where the gov't dosent get a percentage of the fees... they don't do it for free

The part that you got right is that they don't do it for free.
It costs the FAA to do anything.
Until you have an understanding of their costs, you don't know how much is left over after those costs (if any at all).

 

[Classic flyer]

The part that you got right is that they don't do it for free.
It costs the FAA to do anything.
Until you have an understanding of their costs, you don't know how much is left over after those costs (if any at all).

The FAA is funded with tax dollars...all monies made by the FAA are generated by tax revenue ie; drone registration, pilot licensing, fuel sales at FBOs, landing fees at airports, etc. that they use for whatever projects or programs. They're a nonprofit organization, I never said they were in it to turn a profit, just to generate tax revenue for whatever projects/programs that need additional funding...education, safety, airport improvements, etc. ... things that cost more than they're budget may not cover...extra tax revenue and that's what it is

 

[Paulf10]

Upfront, I'm not in the US, I can fly drones up to 2.5kg in my jurisdiction without license and can do that commercially any time I want. All I need is to comply with general drone flight legislation and have insurance. So US legislation does not affect me.

BUT I am curious to understand the logic behind the rule that commercial drone pilots need a licence in the US and amateurs do not.

One would think that commercial operators fly a lot more and by this are far more experienced, so are much less likely to have accidents or are less likely to not fly by the rules. After all their business depends on it.
The amateur flys fairly infrequently and has generally less experience.

So does anyone know the logic as to why this separation happened?
To me it sound more like the existing drone operators had the better lobby initially.

I believe it’s because of the tens of thousands of innocent people who have been injured, maimed, and even killed by the reckless unlicensed drone operators that have not passed the Part 107 test!