Are 107 Holders really Pilots?
- Thread starter Tim Jones
- Start date
rolling56
Well-Known Member
When i was signing up at iacra it took me probably 5 mins to check the box "Pilot" and none of the other choices matched me either lol I'm all new to this stuff and being a "pilot" at 62 years old. I've always been a weather nut and grew up near Whiteman AFB and hearing the jets break the sound barrier back in the late 50's early 60's. Would make you jump every time 
I just find it funny people even debate it, when the authorizing agency uses it.
Not to mention in the purest forms the term pilot has been around a long time before flying machines.
I do agree that a skills demonstration should be part of the authorizing process.
When folks make the argument based on time spent studying I shrug.
Shouldn't you have to study more when people are on board your craft?
I know semi drivers have to study more. Not sure about bus drivers but they should have to
the higher the consequence for not knowing how to properly pilot a vehicle, the longer and harder it should be to obtain that classification
Not to mention in the purest forms the term pilot has been around a long time before flying machines.
I do agree that a skills demonstration should be part of the authorizing process.
When folks make the argument based on time spent studying I shrug.
Shouldn't you have to study more when people are on board your craft?
I know semi drivers have to study more. Not sure about bus drivers but they should have to
the higher the consequence for not knowing how to properly pilot a vehicle, the longer and harder it should be to obtain that classification
In some respects I believe it does. If the average person believes that we are not pilots, but just folk playing around with model planes then it harms our case to be recognised in the way we should be as a pilot. The same way that I always believed when I worked as a photographer that I was a professional doing a job to create artistic and beautiful images not Joe the snapper who machine guns the camera in the hope that one or two will be good.
We have all trained for our qualifications, and I am sure, trained hard and learned much. We have every right to show that and be recognised for it.
We have all trained for our qualifications, and I am sure, trained hard and learned much. We have every right to show that and be recognised for it.
agreed, and technically capturing the content / data is only a small part of the overall service no matter how you apply the technology
While I don't disagree with using the word "pilot", the is that I have with the entire certification is that its only a written test (i.e. no hands on).
PatM
Well-Known Member
I think as the FAA gets its arms around this whole process, we may see a move here in the States a little towards that direction. I know in Europe and I believe Canada; there is the need to demonstrate certain procedures. Even in RC back in the 90's to get a waiver from the AMA to fly turbine powered aircraft or aircraft over 55 pounds, there was a process where you had to demonstrate certain procedures, and have other certified pilots sign off on you.
Thanks for the info...if/when that happens then the word "pilot" will truly carry some credibility.
charles j. walker
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2018
- Messages
- 3
- Reaction score
- 0
- Age
- 65
I have been building and flying RC Helicopters and When the K boards came out building my own for years. the technology of course has evolved and it has been tough to compete with the pro companies building our machines now. They have after all the engineering to get great flight times out of their offerings but at a price. When I got my 107 license,I did so on the idea that this was a baby industry that will evolve quickly. I would fully expect the FAA to move in a direction where we will see not only the written quals but a flight test given by a certified instructor/UAS type rated. This would of course open up some new opportunities for us experienced commercial operators.
I still believe we have not seen the boom hit.
But if you can exhibit skills at the sticks I think there will be a ton of work someday
But if you can exhibit skills at the sticks I think there will be a ton of work someday
I was about to say the exact same thing...being a part 61 pilot myself and working on my instrument rating, I'm still not a commercial pilot or ATP. Nonetheless, I'm still a pilot, both, Part 61 and Part 107.
ReconnaissanceI work for an environmental services firm and I like to think of myself as the company's one-man Air Force.
Interesting discussion, and an area that until last year I held a position that drone people were operators more than pilots. Perhaps that was a position predicated on a little bit of arrogance as I've been a licensed commercial pilot since ~1990, been flying RC since the '70's, and military drones since 2005. I never associated anything I did in RC with being a pilot, although I taught RC to a few licensed pilots. My time with military UAV's clearly indicated that many flying them had virtually no understanding of pilotage, relying totally on a fully automated system to fly the aircraft while they pushed the camera controls around. When the aircraft experienced problems many of those operating them failed to take appropriate action to prevent a crash because they did not understand the principles of flight or the associated flight control systems. Those people I deemed to be more of an operator than a pilot.
With the advent of Part 333 and Part 107, along with the FAA's defining people qualified to fly with those certifications as "pilots" I have to alter my perspective. Through that definition, these people are if not in fact but certainly by legal definition, pilots. I suppose now it's more about the level of qualification, even among those that have obtained commercial certification. There are many that are totally reliant on greatly automated systems that lack the ability to guide the aircraft with the sticks, that can only use auto take off, auto land, and tap locations on a screen for the aircraft to fly to at the lowest level, while those at the higher levels have full control over their aircraft and understand the various systems and features associated with their aircraft. From a fun perspective it would be kind of neat to see the development of a more defined ability classification system for sUAS pilots, if only one used within our own community. It's probably coming sooner or later at a legislative level though.
So I guess we're all pilots.
With the advent of Part 333 and Part 107, along with the FAA's defining people qualified to fly with those certifications as "pilots" I have to alter my perspective. Through that definition, these people are if not in fact but certainly by legal definition, pilots. I suppose now it's more about the level of qualification, even among those that have obtained commercial certification. There are many that are totally reliant on greatly automated systems that lack the ability to guide the aircraft with the sticks, that can only use auto take off, auto land, and tap locations on a screen for the aircraft to fly to at the lowest level, while those at the higher levels have full control over their aircraft and understand the various systems and features associated with their aircraft. From a fun perspective it would be kind of neat to see the development of a more defined ability classification system for sUAS pilots, if only one used within our own community. It's probably coming sooner or later at a legislative level though.
So I guess we're all pilots.
great point, I would have no problem being designated as an operator vs Pilot. maybe that would be more appropriate actually
IrishmanPDX
Member
How about this, as a sole part 107 holder, you may not have the full range of experiences or knowledge that an actual aircraft pilot has, but you are still expected to adhere to the set responsibilities of a UAV pilot/operator. I think "pilot" has a broad range of definitions. For instance the people who operate barges up and down the river are "river pilots", who knows how many of them can actually fly?
IrishmanPDX
Member
Maybe you're only an operator if you don't have a part 107 but are working under the instruction of a Part 107 holder (remote pilot in command). All in all, it's not actually going to matter until someone messes up and there's a court case involved....... then you'll very quickly find out who's the operator and who's the pilot!
As mentioned, There's probably a little bit of arrogance in my original assessments. I always viewed pilots as people that had expended considerable time, effort, and resources in learning how to fly a manned aircraft. There is such a tremendous amount of learning and training involved, with a continuous progression in weather prediction associated with each successive class and rating, aerial navigation, normal and emergency procedures, regulations, airspace system, etc., that I still feel places manned aviation pilots much more knowledgeable and qualified. Most of them even have to demonstrate their flight proficiency to obtain a license. We do not. Toss in type ratings that require significant understanding of aircraft controls, systems, and differences and that qualification ascends to even higher levels.
I don't have anything to substantiate the following but it's my belief that a majority of Part 107 operators obtained their certificates by memorizing possible answers to a limited number of test questions, avoiding the process of learning about the National Airspace System, regulations, airport operations, collision avoidance procedures, and charting they will eventually badly need. In short, they were good at taking a written test but in practice come up badly wanting. It is not difficult to guide today's multirotor, while those operating automated fixed wing or other rotary wing aircraft will often be better qualified, but not necessarily a lot more qualified.
However, the FAA has defined us as pilots, which places the burden of knowledge and understanding on our shoulders, especially where commercial operation is concerned. When we took and passed the test, thereby accepting a Pilot certificate, we immediately assumed all the responsibilities associated with being a pilot. In that respect part 333 and 107 operators are most definitely pilots, which would become very evident if and when they ever became involved in an FAA or NTSB proceeding, where the burden of proof falls upon the pilot.
I don't have anything to substantiate the following but it's my belief that a majority of Part 107 operators obtained their certificates by memorizing possible answers to a limited number of test questions, avoiding the process of learning about the National Airspace System, regulations, airport operations, collision avoidance procedures, and charting they will eventually badly need. In short, they were good at taking a written test but in practice come up badly wanting. It is not difficult to guide today's multirotor, while those operating automated fixed wing or other rotary wing aircraft will often be better qualified, but not necessarily a lot more qualified.
However, the FAA has defined us as pilots, which places the burden of knowledge and understanding on our shoulders, especially where commercial operation is concerned. When we took and passed the test, thereby accepting a Pilot certificate, we immediately assumed all the responsibilities associated with being a pilot. In that respect part 333 and 107 operators are most definitely pilots, which would become very evident if and when they ever became involved in an FAA or NTSB proceeding, where the burden of proof falls upon the pilot.
So those who are not certified but yet still fly as hobbyist whether 5 years old or 70 years old, are they pilots or operators, what? I agree PatR, with a more defined class. As with you I'm a Certified Private Pilot Single Engine Land.
When I go out to potential customers I show them both license, this has helped and they are more comfortable with my ability to understand airspace rules and regulations.
Case in point: I was given a flying project that required me to be next to the taxi way at a small Class A International Airport, I explained I was also Licensed pilot. I was given the approval by ATC with in 8 hours to fly the project. Of course there was help from Airport Manager, but my Piloting experience also came into play.
Notice the jet just lifting off and the second pic control tower in the back ground. My restrictions were max height 100' and 1¼ flight time at dusk.
IrishmanPDX
Member
Excellent point. Put yourself in customers shoes, they are wanting to find a drone pilot for some footage. Who are they likely to go with, the person claiming they have a part 107 commercial licence, or the person who is a fully qualified pilot and a part 107 commercial licence holder. I even know some training facilities for UAV's that insist all their trainers are actual private or commercial pilots.
My personal opinion is that the part 107 was a rushed process to cover the sudden amount of drone owners that wanted to suddenly make money with their product, and that in the coming years we'll see stricter and stricter controls implemented when it comes to drones and drone laws. For those of us that want to fly in a professional responsible matter, it will be welcomed and perhaps even shaped by them (should they choose to get involved). The risk comes from those who rush out and buy a drone (or get given one) and immediately think they can do anything they want and fly anywhere they want.
Irishman you have also an excellent point, the "rushing process". Don't get me wrong there are very qualified and intelligent people who understand the regulations and respect it by obeying them. It is as you mentioned the ones just out to ruin it for those who care. I'm still for demonstrating our flying skills and being signed off by a flying instructor who also fly's drones.
Recently on another forum I meet an individual who was flying an Yuneec Typhoon H who had no idea there were rules pertaining to height, flying at night restrictions, heep of other rules and regulations let alone VLOS
. Yes he crashed his
New Posts
-
-
-
Sharing My Music and Sound Effects - Over 2000 Tracks- Latest: Eric Matyas
-
Members online
No members online now.