Pilot's license requirement might not be so silly afterall

[flatfive]

If anyone is shocked if the final rule for Part 107 still requires at least a sport pilot license, some of the comments found in various threads might help explain. Take this thread for example: Flying over Crowds

Careless reading and translation of a recommendation that fails to recognize the nuance in the language is exactly the sort of casual attitude that makes it worrisome to allow operators to fly commercially based on a simple knowledge test, especially if it is an online open book exam. If you have earned an airman certificate, you have flown thousands of feet above the ground with your living and breathing body onboard - and that demands a very serious minded person who has learned that the rules and regs are carefully crafted for very good reasons. No licensed pilot ever thinks "how can I get around this or that regulation" or decides that a given regulation is overly burdensome and is thereby safely ignored.

Pilots also know about "get-there-itis" and how to properly assess and mitigate risk when making the go/no-go decision. That ability to recognize and respond to significant risk factors, rather than rationalize and ignore them would become very important for a commercial drone operator. A client offers you a job worth $2,000, but it must be shot by the end of day tomorrow. That is a serious impediment to making decisions purely based on safety factors and compliance regs, and I don't think reading about risk management is equivalent to the experience base of a pilot who may have to accept the extreme inconvenience of cancelling a planned flight - such as the return leg of a day trip.

I was one who at first thought it was crazy that what is okay for a recreational drone flyer, was not okay for a commercial operator, the argument being if we are both flying above a house taking pictures, how can that be safe for one person but not for the other person doing exactly the same thing? Again, I think it has to do with motivational factors. The hobbyist can easily decide it's too windy, and that it's not worth losing her $1,000 drone or crashing into the neighbors house. Enter money into the equation, and I think it's another matter, and the cost of the drone is not as weighty for a commercial operator who is making a profit from it and can cost-justify its replacement. As well, commercial operators are going to be operating in unfamiliar environs on a regular basis, which also raises the level of risk and opportunity for human error.

Watching some of the drone videos on youtube is a good reminder that there are some real boneheads out there. It's not about the different level of skill required to fly a plane vs. a drone - it's about a mindset and seriousness of purpose that is demanded when flying a plane that might be a good pre-requisite for flying a drone for commercial purposes.

 

[slim.slamma]

As a hobbyist today you can fly a drone over a Ny state prison legally and stand your ground! Wise decision no!
The way I interpreted things the faa is against hobbyist being required to obtain a sports pilots license its ridiculous. Never going to happen too many drones to be sold.
So now the faa is trying to see how to safely implement flight over populated areas. Drone weights 4lb they can live with a severed eye just not a severed head in public.
If you crash a dji drone you're an idiot how easy can it be. The kill switch will be addressed dji fix that csc kill switch.

 

[seanmclean]

As a hobbyist today you can fly a drone over a Ny state prison legally and stand your ground! Wise decision no!
The way I interpreted things the faa is against hobbyist being required to obtain a sports pilots license its ridiculous. Never going to happen too many drones to be sold.
So now the faa is trying to see how to safely implement flight over populated areas. Drone weights 4lb they can live with a severed eye just not a severed head in public.
If you crash a dji drone you're an idiot how easy can it be. The kill switch will be addressed dji fix that csc kill switch.

Thank you for making the OP's point.

 

[slim.slamma]

I crashed 4 phantoms in public who got hurt? No one
How many crashed drones in public? Numerous
Sports pilot license I don't need it nor is the faa gone require me to obtain 1 to fly in public. Flying a drone and a plane is not the same thing.
Employees and employers always interpret contracts differently that's why we have arbitrators.

 

[slim.slamma]

Thank you for making the OP's point.

What's your opinion Sr? Do feel a pilots license is silly to operate a quad?
Explain please

 

[RaptorMan]

While requiring a full on pilots license might reduce the number of folks that choose not to think or care about the consequences I see no way the FAA manages to squeeze in millions of additional pilots into the system. Also, I doubt the private flight school system would be within 10% of the capacity required to handle the numbers.

But, I can see a more formal licensing scheme that requires, say, 10 hours of formal training with a test in order to be certified for one level above the casual drone operator. That level would permit additional operation but still with limitations. I can see a second higher level certification that would require an additional training with test to be able to do more.

The first level might be a lifetime certificate or perhaps a 10 year or 5 year cycle for re-certification. The second level would require more frequent re-certification. The testing would focus on the rules like flying over people and when that is and isn't permitted and by whom.


Brian

 

[flatfive]

As a hobbyist today you can fly a drone over a Ny state prison legally and stand your ground! Wise decision no!
The way I interpreted things the faa is against hobbyist being required to obtain a sports pilots license its ridiculous. Never going to happen too many drones to be sold.
So now the faa is trying to see how to safely implement flight over populated areas. Drone weights 4lb they can live with a severed eye just not a severed head in public.
If you crash a dji drone you're an idiot how easy can it be. The kill switch will be addressed dji fix that csc kill switch.

My comments are addressing the proposed Part 107 regarding commercial use of sUAS. You may be confusing the rules and regs for Model Aircraft Operations (Model Aircraft Operations) with the recent report submitted by the micro UAS ARC on April 1, 2016, now being reviewed by the FAA.(http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/media/Micro-UAS-ARC-FINAL-Report.pdf).

When reviewing the recommendations regarding the micro UAS rules, it should be noted that all of the recommendations are bound by the regulatory requirements of the final Part 107 rules - and Part 107 is concerned with non-hobby and/or non-recreational small UAS (less than 55 lbs). The committee is suggesting a risk-based model that has been implemented in other countries for the micro class of drones, and has suggested 4 categories. You will also see there is no category other than Category 1 that is explicitly based on weight.

You have also grossly misrepresented the intent of the proposal when you state that "they can live with a severed eye just not a severed head in public." First off, you are attributing the proposed language to the FAA, when in fact the language is of the committee, which is comprised of a broad cross section of industry leaders, none of which are employees of the FAA, and more importantly, you clearly did not seek any understanding of the language.

The ARC has proposed for Category 2, that there be a '1% or less chance of “serious” injury (AIS level 3 or greater) to a person in the event of impact...'

The AIS is the Abbreviated Injury Scale, and level 3 is a serious injury carrying an 8-10% probability of death. Only in the most extreme rhetoric, which is a bit too common these days, would you construe the acceptance of a 1% risk of X to be the same as accepting any occurrence of X. We all have almost a 1% chance of being killed in a car accident in our lifetime, so by your logic we are all okay with getting killed in a car accident.

 

[slim.slamma]

I have a class A cdl license for 15 years no points against my license.
Whatever congressional law gets passed concerning drones is what I'll fly by otherwise recommendations however interpreted over a forum is just noise.
Basically I expect something similar to what you stated @RaptorMan but until something gets passed who knows how things turn out.

 

[slim.slamma]

My comments are addressing the proposed Part 107 regarding commercial use of sUAS. You may be confusing the rules and regs for Model Aircraft Operations (Model Aircraft Operations) with the recent report submitted by the micro UAS ARC on April 1, 2016, now being reviewed by the FAA.(http://www.faa.gov/uas/publications/media/Micro-UAS-ARC-FINAL-Report.pdf).

When reviewing the recommendations regarding the micro UAS rules, it should be noted that all of the recommendations are bound by the regulatory requirements of the final Part 107 rules - and Part 107 is concerned with non-hobby and/or non-recreational small UAS (less than 55 lbs). The committee is suggesting a risk-based model that has been implemented in other countries for the micro class of drones, and has suggested 4 categories. You will also see there is no category other than Category 1 that is explicitly based on weight.

You have also grossly misrepresented the intent of the proposal when you state that "they can live with a severed eye just not a severed head in public." First off, you are attributing the proposed language to the FAA, when in fact the language is of the committee, which is comprised of a broad cross section of industry leaders, none of which are employees of the FAA, and more importantly, you clearly did not seek any understanding of the language.

The ARC has proposed for Category 2, that there be a '1% or less chance of “serious” injury (AIS level 3 or greater) to a person in the event of impact...'

The AIS is the Abbreviated Injury Scale, and level 3 is a serious injury carrying an 8-10% probability of death. Only in the most extreme rhetoric, which is a bit too common these days, would you construe the acceptance of a 1% risk of X to be the same as accepting any occurrence of X. We all have almost a 1% chance of being killed in a car accident in our lifetime, so by your logic we are all okay with getting killed in a car accident.

My perspective is like your opinion. Law is law.
But I don't mind being corrected I also read 30 chance of injury not 1%.
I can laugh at myself so it doesn't hurt if others do. Could I have been confused possibly but life goes on

 

[flatfive]

While requiring a full on pilots license might reduce the number of folks that choose not to think or care about the consequences I see no way the FAA manages to squeeze in millions of additional pilots into the system. Also, I doubt the private flight school system would be within 10% of the capacity required to handle the numbers.

But, I can see a more formal licensing scheme that requires, say, 10 hours of formal training with a test in order to be certified for one level above the casual drone operator. That level would permit additional operation but still with limitations. I can see a second higher level certification that would require an additional training with test to be able to do more.

The first level might be a lifetime certificate or perhaps a 10 year or 5 year cycle for re-certification. The second level would require more frequent re-certification. The testing would focus on the rules like flying over people and when that is and isn't permitted and by whom.


Brian

I don't think anyone thinks there is a need to squeeze in millions of additional commercial sUAS operators into the system. When you are talking about the mass of sUAS buyers and operators, again you are talking about model aircraft regs, not Part 107. I haven't seen anything that threatens recreational use of sUAS, though I would expect local and state laws to eventually regulate use over certain public spaces. Imagine a dozen drones flying over a Little League baseball game and it isn't hard to see that some common sense measures will have to be implemented at the local level - but that's beyond the purview of the FAA.

The only thing being proposed that could be viewed as levels like you describe would be the micro UAS proposed rules, but even that is only related to certain craft operating over people, and is still subject to all of the requirements of Part 107 when it becomes final. I can't see them parsing this beyond micro vs small UAS in Part 107.

Just to be sure I'm not causing any undue alarm, bear in mind that I'm not talking about recreational use here. The place to look for any new language affecting recreational use would be in the FAA reauthorization act of 2016 in the language for the Special Rule for Model Aircraft.

 

[flatfive]

My perspective is like your opinion. Law is law.
But I don't mind being corrected I also read 30 chance of injury not 1%.
I can laugh at myself so it doesn't hurt if others do. Could I have been confused possibly but life goes on

That's category 3 that hits the 30% threshold, but because of that higher potential for a level 3 injury, there are additional restrictions above and beyond Category 2. I focused on Category 2 because you mentioned 4 lbs and Category 2 mentions that craft in the range of 4-5 lbs would likely meet the requirements for the "impact energy threshold" which is the actual measure not weight.

For Category 3, with a 30% chance of ASI level 3 injury, these are the additional restrictions above and beyond Cat 2:

Flight over crowds or dense concentrations of people is never permitted under Category 3.
In addition to that restriction, Category 3 UAS may only operate over people if:
(1) The operation is conducted over a closed- or restricted-access work site with the permission of the site’s owner or operator; or
(2) Overflight of people is limited to those who are transient or incidental to the operation, i.e., the overflight of people is incidental to the operation and is not sustained.

No doubt this stuff is confusing and I've been reading up on it quite a bit recently and still have more questions than answers!

 

[flatfive]

I crashed 4 phantoms in public who got hurt? No one
How many crashed drones in public? Numerous
Sports pilot license I don't need it nor is the faa gone require me to obtain 1 to fly in public. Flying a drone and a plane is not the same thing.
Employees and employers always interpret contracts differently that's why we have arbitrators.

Who said anything about you needing a Sports Pilot license to fly in public? The distinction is between recreational and commercial.

You sure are right about flying a drone and flying a plane not being the same thing. Show me a guy who can say he crashed a plane 4 times where no one got hurt.

I have to say though that you don't make me feel real good about you flying in public even recreationally. If you crashed 4 times in public areas and no one got hurt, that's called dumb luck.

 

[slim.slamma]

No harm then

That's category 3 that hits the 30% threshold, but because of that higher potential for a level 3 injury, there are additional restrictions above and beyond Category 2. I focused on Category 2 because you mentioned 4 lbs and Category 2 mentions that craft in the range of 4-5 lbs would likely meet the requirements for the "impact energy threshold" which is the actual measure not weight.

For Category 3, with a 30% chance of ASI level 3 injury, these are the additional restrictions above and beyond Cat 2:

Flight over crowds or dense concentrations of people is never permitted under Category 3.
In addition to that restriction, Category 3 UAS may only operate over people if:
(1) The operation is conducted over a closed- or restricted-access work site with the permission of the site’s owner or operator; or
(2) Overflight of people is limited to those who are transient or incidental to the operation, i.e., the overflight of people is incidental to the operation and is not sustained.

No doubt this stuff is confusing and I've been reading up on it quite a bit recently and still have more questions than answers!

No harm then thanks for your input I hate being defensive but things get nasty when we start discussing flying over crowds on the forum.
See you around hopefully on other topics as well

 

[slim.slamma]

Who said anything about you needing a Sports Pilot license to fly in public? The distinction is between recreational and commercial.

You sure are right about flying a drone and flying a plane not being the same thing. Show me a guy who can say he crashed a plane 4 times where no one got hurt.

I have to say though that you don't make me feel real good about you flying in public even recreationally. If you crashed 4 times in public areas and no one got hurt, that's called dumb luck.

Not in public but in my own public space. Descending a phantom with prop guards. Something dji sales

 

[slim.slamma]

See...
So should dji be selling prop guards. NO
Otherwise no crashes just took me a minute to figure out what was the problem

 

[flatfive]

No harm then

No harm then thanks for your input I hate being defensive but things get nasty when we start discussing flying over crowds on the forum.
See you around hopefully on other topics as well

Yeah, I'm new here so I don't know what the hot buttons are, but I'll try to avoid them and will try to avoid rekindling fires already put out!

 

[flatfive]

Not in public but in my own public space. Descending a phantom with prop guards. Something dji sales

Got it - fair enough! I've crashed too while learning more advanced maneuvers in a large cornfield by my house.

 

[licensed pilot]

If anyone is shocked if the final rule for Part 107 still requires at least a sport pilot license, some of the comments found in various threads might help explain. Take this thread for example: Flying over Crowds

Careless reading and translation of a recommendation that fails to recognize the nuance in the language is exactly the sort of casual attitude that makes it worrisome to allow operators to fly commercially based on a simple knowledge test, especially if it is an online open book exam. If you have earned an airman certificate, you have flown thousands of feet above the ground with your living and breathing body onboard - and that demands a very serious minded person who has learned that the rules and regs are carefully crafted for very good reasons. No licensed pilot ever thinks "how can I get around this or that regulation" or decides that a given regulation is overly burdensome and is thereby safely ignored.

Pilots also know about "get-there-itis" and how to properly assess and mitigate risk when making the go/no-go decision. That ability to recognize and respond to significant risk factors, rather than rationalize and ignore them would become very important for a commercial drone operator. A client offers you a job worth $2,000, but it must be shot by the end of day tomorrow. That is a serious impediment to making decisions purely based on safety factors and compliance regs, and I don't think reading about risk management is equivalent to the experience base of a pilot who may have to accept the extreme inconvenience of cancelling a planned flight - such as the return leg of a day trip.

I was one who at first thought it was crazy that what is okay for a recreational drone flyer, was not okay for a commercial operator, the argument being if we are both flying above a house taking pictures, how can that be safe for one person but not for the other person doing exactly the same thing? Again, I think it has to do with motivational factors. The hobbyist can easily decide it's too windy, and that it's not worth losing her $1,000 drone or crashing into the neighbors house. Enter money into the equation, and I think it's another matter, and the cost of the drone is not as weighty for a commercial operator who is making a profit from it and can cost-justify its replacement. As well, commercial operators are going to be operating in unfamiliar environs on a regular basis, which also raises the level of risk and opportunity for human error.

Watching some of the drone videos on youtube is a good reminder that there are some real boneheads out there. It's not about the different level of skill required to fly a plane vs. a drone - it's about a mindset and seriousness of purpose that is demanded when flying a plane that might be a good pre-requisite for flying a drone for commercial purposes.

"If anyone is shocked if the final rule for Part 107 still requires at least a sport pilot license, some of the comments found in various threads might help explain. " Not sure where you are getting this from. The FAA is proposing a new UAS operator certificate. And there is no final part 107 rule yet, unless I missed something.

 

[flatfive]

"If anyone is shocked if the final rule for Part 107 still requires at least a sport pilot license, some of the comments found in various threads might help explain. " Not sure where you are getting this from. The FAA is proposing a new UAS operator certificate. And there is no final part 107 rule yet, unless I missed something.

All you missed was the second place I used the word "if" - "If anyone is shocked if the final rule for Part 107..." You probably misread it as "If anyone is shocked that the final rule..."

I think many people assume that because the proposed rule eliminates the airman certificate requirement, that this language will survive the process and remain intact in the final rule, but my point is that they get lots of comment and undergo lots of debate on each and every point. I'm saying that if the final rule turns out to require at least a sport pilot's license in spite of the proposed language, it should not be that shocking.

 

[licensed pilot]

All you missed was the second place I used the word "if" - "If anyone is shocked if the final rule for Part 107..." You probably misread it as "If anyone is shocked that the final rule..."

I think many people assume that because the proposed rule eliminates the airman certificate requirement, that this language will survive the process and remain intact in the final rule, but my point is that they get lots of comment and undergo lots of debate on each and every point. I'm saying that if the final rule turns out to require at least a sport pilot's license in spite of the proposed language, it should not be that shocking.

My mistake, I missed the double "ifs," However, I do not believe the pilot license requirement will stand. The pressure from commercial businesses on Congress is great.