Welcome, Commercial Drone Pilots!
Join our growing community today!
Sign up

Are 107 Holders really Pilots?

[QUOTE="AH-1G, post: 635, member: 64"]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.
View attachment 35 View attachment 36[/QUOTE]

I think the FAA made that decision/distinction when the registration law for recreational "pilots" was reinstated. They are now "pilots", and again held responsible for their actions as such under the "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft" rule.

As for holding a 107 pilot certificate, I believe it is an important qualifying separation between recreational and professional operators where customer perception and comfort level is concerned. When a person accepts a 107 certificate they are making a blanket statement they are aware of all the rules and understand they are bound by them. Whether or not they do and agree matters not, the certificate locks them in and makes them liable. I also believe a 107 holder that possesses a full scale license will be viewed much more favorably than someone with just a 107 certificate in many situations. Where airspace and airports are concerned I don't think there are very many basic 107 operators that have the knowledge necessary to function safely and effectively in complex aviation environments. In any case, if you operate commercially and have a business card it would be to your advantage to show you are FAA certified somewhere on the business card and on your company letterhead.
 
[QUOTE="AH-1G, post: 635, member: 64"]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.
View attachment 35 View attachment 36

I think the FAA made that decision/distinction when the registration law for recreational "pilots" was reinstated. They are now "pilots", and again held responsible for their actions as such under the "careless and reckless operation of an aircraft" rule.

As for holding a 107 pilot certificate, I believe it is an important qualifying separation between recreational and professional operators where customer perception and comfort level is concerned. When a person accepts a 107 certificate they are making a blanket statement they are aware of all the rules and understand they are bound by them. Whether or not they do and agree matters not, the certificate locks them in and makes them liable. I also believe a 107 holder that possesses a full scale license will be viewed much more favorably than someone with just a 107 certificate in many situations. Where airspace and airports are concerned I don't think there are very many basic 107 operators that have the knowledge necessary to function safely and effectively in complex aviation environments. In any case, if you operate commercially and have a business card it would be to your advantage to show you are FAA certified somewhere on the business card and on your company letterhead.[/QUOTE]

I do show it on my business card
 
Well it's the reckless fools that endanger us all, I think we can all agree on that. Someone posted this photo (see attached) on a forum just the other day. Just about everyone jumped down his throat and gave him a piece of their mind. So it's pop quiz time, how many things wrong can you see with this photo.
 

Attachments

  • 0e77fd048c2422974a51f57445235e53.jpg
    0e77fd048c2422974a51f57445235e53.jpg
    65.9 KB · Views: 10
Well it's the reckless fools that endanger us all, I think we can all agree on that. Someone posted this photo (see attached) on a forum just the other day. Just about everyone jumped down his throat and gave him a piece of their mind. So it's pop quiz time, how many things wrong can you see with this photo.

Altitude (nuts), Night flight, Clouds, 3.53 miles from Class A airport, Low voltage on battery. completely oblivious. Did I miss one? Oh yes, Doltish!
 
  • Like
Reactions: IrishmanPDX
Actually if he can descend 2361 feet within about one minute or so, he should be fine on that night flying charge -Twilight in Columbia, South Carolina on that day ended at 5:42:47 pm

On a serious note: Its really sad, when you see something like this and you you think; what are the chances he's that high near and airport and then you can't believe it. Just about in the flightpath for runway 5 to boot.

BadFlight.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: AH-1G
I think you forgot one word in the descent part "Safely". I'm pretty sure by cutting power to the motors he could make that descent....

Still, that's the most obvious dumbest part of this, the illegal irresponsible git used a screen capture that included his GPS co-ordinates. Really earning himself an A+ here.

His excuses ranged from calling people names, to suddenly claiming it was legitimate because a friend at the airport hired him to do it...

Either way, it's moron's like this that put the drone business and it's reputation in the public's eyes at risk. I'm honestly thinking it will get to the stage where people can petition an area to be a "no fly" zone just because they are afraid of what people are up to with their drones and the dangers posed by them. Let's not kid ourselves, you get enough angry scared people with petitions and you'll get some congressmen willing to lead the charge to ban drones. This risk only goes up as more and more drones get sold.

Sorry to be the doom and gloom but the way I see it, it's up to the responsible drone owners to take up the mantle and be a voice of reason and fact.
 
Depends, was he operating commercially or recreational? That distinction is everything!. If recreational he's not bound by night or altitude regulations. He had at least three miles visibility, something only applicable to commercial operators, and he was "clear of clouds". The distance from the airport rule could have been mitigated by a notification to airport management, something a recreational flyer can do while commercial operators have to obtain a waiver from the FAA. It's quite possible there were no violations at all;)

As he stated he was hired to do the shoot most of the mentioned violations apply, but had he not admitted the "for hire" he could have claimed recreational and been legal. The biggest problem with the photo is the intelligence level of the operator.
 
I think you forgot one word in the descent part "Safely". I'm pretty sure by cutting power to the motors he could make that descent....

Still, that's the most obvious dumbest part of this, the illegal irresponsible git used a screen capture that included his GPS co-ordinates. Really earning himself an A+ here.

His excuses ranged from calling people names, to suddenly claiming it was legitimate because a friend at the airport hired him to do it...

Either way, it's moron's like this that put the drone business and it's reputation in the public's eyes at risk. I'm honestly thinking it will get to the stage where people can petition an area to be a "no fly" zone just because they are afraid of what people are up to with their drones and the dangers posed by them. Let's not kid ourselves, you get enough angry scared people with petitions and you'll get some congressmen willing to lead the charge to ban drones. This risk only goes up as more and more drones get sold.

Sorry to be the doom and gloom but the way I see it, it's up to the responsible drone owners to take up the mantle and be a voice of reason and fact.
His excuses were only to justify his ignorance and unwilling to take responsibility. This is why all who purchase drones should take a mandatory class for safety and flying skills. Even if it's a little itsy bitsy teenie weenie drone.:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: PatR
Depends, was he operating commercially or recreational? That distinction is everything!. If recreational he's not bound by night or altitude regulations. He had at least three miles visibility, something only applicable to commercial operators, and he was "clear of clouds". The distance from the airport rule could have been mitigated by a notification to airport management, something a recreational flyer can do while commercial operators have to obtain a waiver from the FAA. It's quite possible there were no violations at all;)

As he stated he was hired to do the shoot most of the mentioned violations apply, but had he not admitted the "for hire" he could have claimed recreational and been legal. The biggest problem with the photo is the intelligence level of the operator.
PatR, it is my understanding speaking directly eye to eye with Billy, a FAA Safety Inspector here at the FAA Orlando Flight Standards District Office, recreational/hobbyist have to abide by 107 rules also.
 
What do you guys think about adding a skills qualification as part of 107?
I would be all for it
 
Actually PatR is correct, the distinction between the type of flight is very important if this gut is a hobbyist, thats a whole other thing

FAA's rules for non commercial are as follows:

To fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft you must:

  • Fly for hobby or recreation ONLY
  • Register your model aircraft
  • Fly within visual line-of-sight
  • Follow community-based safety guidelines and fly within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization (Follow the AMA's Rule below)
  • Fly a drone under 55 lbs. unless certified by a community-based organization
  • Never fly near other aircraft
  • Notify the airport and air traffic control tower prior to flying within 5 miles of an airport*
  • Never fly near emergency response efforts
The AMA's Rules for Radio Controlled non Commercial craft:

Rules specific to this flight

2. (c) Not fly higher than approximately 400 feet above ground level within three (3) miles of an airport without notifying the airport operator
8. RC night flying requires a lighting system providing the pilot with a clear view of the model’s attitude and orientation at all times. Hand-held illumination systems are inadequate for night flying operations

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Obviously I do not condone this guy's flying, but there is in fact a hole right through the rules that; to a responsible pilot seems impossible but it is there. We had a discussion on a sister forum about this and while it will seem odd; a commercial pilot with a 107 or a triple3 can fly under the non commercial rules. The FAA looks at each individual flight on a flight by flight basis and does not consider every flight of a commercial operator to be commercial. You cannot switch distinctions however during flight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AH-1G
PatR, it is my understanding speaking directly eye to eye with Billy, a FAA Safety Inspector here at the FAA Orlando Flight Standards District Office, recreational/hobbyist have to abide by 107 rules also.

That's the problem with FSDO offices. They are filled with people that function from opinion, not the literal text of the law. Law has to be enforced as written, there's no allowance for interpretation, which has caused many a pilot grief appealing decisions handed down at the FSDO level. The FAA most always supports them while the NTSB over rules them. It's also why we never, ever have a conversation with an FAA FSDO rep without having an attorney present.

Recreational flyers are not bound by 107 rules in any way except two that are applicable to all aero modeling, maintaining safe separation from manned aircraft and careless and reckless operation of an aircraft. If a recreational flyer fails to follow the safety rules of a community based organization they are wide open for a careless and reckless operation call. This is something the FAA made very clear in the work up of Part 107 while isolating it from 336.
 
Actually if he can descend 2361 feet within about one minute or so, he should be fine on that night flying charge -Twilight in Columbia, South Carolina on that day ended at 5:42:47 pm

That would pop your ears pretty good;) Lord help ya if you had a head cold.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
4,291
Messages
37,659
Members
5,991
Latest member
Boduku