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

[STKNRUD]

Because they can’t think outside of their box of manned aircraft. Look at the PRM that requires model planes (not FPV) flown from fixed sites to have ID systems and pilot licenses. Four reported fatalities in 60 years (only one a spectator) and suddenly the pilots must be “qualified”? Only because they have thrown everything into sUAV category. Next they will have “red flag” laws where you can report your buddy flew his foamie illegally.

 

[sar104]

Because they can’t think outside of their box of manned aircraft. Look at the PRM that requires model planes (not FPV) flown from fixed sites to have ID systems and pilot licenses. Four reported fatalities in 60 years (only one a spectator) and suddenly the pilots must be “qualified”? Only because they have thrown everything into sUAV category. Next they will have “red flag” laws where you can report your buddy flew his foamie illegally.

That's not quite correct. Model aircraft flown from fixed sites would not need remote ID systems.

 

[Ty Pilot]

I hope that Part 107 gets more refined over the next few years as it was a Rushed to Production Fiasco to try and cut down the whining and crying we experienced because Section 333 was too cumbersome and expensive. IMHO the more sensible thing would be something in between Section 33 and Part 107. I feel like Part 107 is more akin to hobby operations (which some slight changes) and Commercial should demand higher testing and proficiency demonstrations. Just my 2 cents.

I totally agree. The thought that practically anyone with no real flying experience can get a modern consumer drone into the air, coupled with that aircrafts' capability to maintain flight and orientation, and all the automation such as return to home; creates an environment were some pilots may never get the sense of responsibility that should go hand in hand with these operations. As never having been a full scale pilot but having over 40 years RC experience I found the study material very strange at first but as I learned it all made sense - we are operating in the NAS, why would we not want to understand what it takes to do so?

I have always thought that there should be a test for proof of proficiency in operations much like with motorcycles here in the states. Now days to get a motorcycle license you have to take and pass a course that you demonstrate safe riding skills and I think UAV's should be treated the same way.

Prior to the rise of the multi-rotor, flying fixed or rotary-winged RC took discipline and skill and typically you learned at a site were other pilots could help you and teach you the correct procedures. As you learned you could advance and fly more complex or faster aircraft if your skill-set could handle it, and if not you paid the price, and perhaps decided that you were comfortable at a different level or discipline.

This has all been eliminated by the consumer drone, and if we do not get back to a method by which pilots are given basic instruction and learn the rules to fly smart and safe, well then; the FAA will just eliminate us.

 

[skiptv]

The thought process is by flying commercially you are putting more property and people at risk, thus the FAA wants you to know you have more responsibility to protect people and property. Additionally by testing you and making you pass flight exam, when you do something wrong and get caught, you can not pledge ignorance of the law. Last but not least, starting in the next few months amateur pilots will have to take a test also, and... within a year or two ALL pilots will have to take a practical flight test where they will have to prove they know how to pre-flight a drone, take off an land safely and know what to do in an emergency such as a flyway. I teach at 3 Universities and I know for a fact that a practical test is coming.

 

[BigAl07]

I totally agree. The thought that practically anyone with no real flying experience can get a modern consumer drone into the air, coupled with that aircrafts' capability to maintain flight and orientation, and all the automation such as return to home; creates an environment were some pilots may never get the sense of responsibility that should go hand in hand with these operations. As never having been a full scale pilot but having over 40 years RC experience I found the study material very strange at first but as I learned it all made sense - we are operating in the NAS, why would we not want to understand what it takes to do so?

I have always thought that there should be a test for proof of proficiency in operations much like with motorcycles here in the states. Now days to get a motorcycle license you have to take and pass a course that you demonstrate safe riding skills and I think UAV's should be treated the same way.

Prior to the rise of the multi-rotor, flying fixed or rotary-winged RC took discipline and skill and typically you learned at a site were other pilots could help you and teach you the correct procedures. As you learned you could advance and fly more complex or faster aircraft if your skill-set could handle it, and if not you paid the price, and perhaps decided that you were comfortable at a different level or discipline.

This has all been eliminated by the consumer drone, and if we do not get back to a method by which pilots are given basic instruction and learn the rules to fly smart and safe, well then; the FAA will just eliminate us.

Well said @Ty Pilot !

 

[BanditsRoost]

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!

Not to mention the commercial airliners, helicopters, and UFO downed by hobby drone strikes. tpfic

 

[Thomas B]

Of course, the tens of thousands (which implies at least 20,000) as the number of people injured or killed in drone accidents involving unlicensed operators, is a non-verified number...

 

[Deleted member 114292]

I thought the part 107 tests was very relevant.
It’s a shame some of you didn’t really get it. For one thing if you understand weather you might understand the effect of freezing fog and strong winds, And what things are going to cause the weather to change.

If you got the risk management down you might not lose your drone so quickly because he would think about risks in a different way.

If you understood how to read a sectional chart you could go to sky vector and understand where you can and can’t fly and what a TFR looks like.
Is decoding METAR Relevant? Well it could well be because learning the abbreviations gives your knowledge of the various forms of weather.
You would have a clue what broken means in the weather report.
Is understanding cloud formations important? well maybe so because then you would be able to observe and have a clue about the local weather which is difficult to predict locally.
And I guess the section on Lipo batteries is just as a relevant right? We don’t need to know about that.
Of course the test could use improvement what couldn’t use improvement? Funny how you critics don’t really have too much to say about how it should be.
I think a skills demonstration is far less important with a suas because if you do crash The consequences are far far less than a maned aircraft. You’re not gonna take out a whole neighborhood or cause thousands of dollars of damage to a runway and the risk of even killing somebody is pretty small.

Furthermore it’s nowhere near as difficult.

Don’t consider the cost of administering a flying skills test because you wouldn’t like that. If you think the buck 50 for the written test is that bad wait to you see this cost.
As for the FAA making money that’s pretty ludicrous because their admin costs are way more considering it’s up to them to do the background check and approve the certificate and that takes personnel and time.
Even if they got the whole sum Which of course they don’t it still would be a loss.