Are 107 Holders really Pilots?

[NIFLY]

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.

I agree that having a practical drone test(instead of just a written one) would go a long way to giving this cert more respect.

Hi all, listening in from across the pond in N Ireland, I have Ground School and theory test this week.

The PfCO here is a theory test like the 107, however it also requires a 30 minute flight assessment that includes site survey/briefings, ATTI flying and simulated emergencies. In addition each applicant needs to write an Operations Manual (not just fill in a template) that usually extends to 50 pages of operating protocol and procedures that form part of your Flight assessment exercise as well. it has to be signed off by the CAA. It's an onerous undertaking my certification will cost $1500 when all is said and done but I'll know my shizz.

I have been amazed at how straightforward the 107 process appears - I sat a sample test and passed, despite the US sectionals being very different.

I use 'Pilots' and 'Operators' interchangeably, sometimes just 'fliers'. Call me radical

 

[AH-1G]

Adding a bit of humor to this debate

 

[ianwood]

Must have a smarT dog. Kind of a cheap shot. Are you an aviator or a pilot?

My dog isn't that bright. Just an opinion. I think the same of drivers' licenses (US). In both cases, it should be considered a privilege. Not a right. In other words, passing the test should be hard and it should reflect that you have adequate knowledge and skills.

I don't think the 107 is hard enough. There are far too many people with 107 certificates who have no idea what they're doing.

 

[R.Perry]

My dog isn't that bright. Just an opinion. I think the same of drivers' licenses (US). In both cases, it should be considered a privilege. Not a right. In other words, passing the test should be hard and it should reflect that you have adequate knowledge and skills.

I don't think the 107 is hard enough. There are far too many people with 107 certificates who have no idea what they're doing.

Well we do agree, the test should be a bit more challenging, including an performance evaluation, and it may come to that as the FAA refines the rules.

The same holds true for private pilots, sure they have had more training and education but so many lack experience and may only fly a few hours every so often, or should I say barely enough to remain current. I know of private pilots with no IFR rating flying into IFR weather and most of the time they luck out, other times they make the headlines.

I live in a remote area and one of the problems here is people claiming to be 107 certified and are not, mainly people doing real estate photography, and truth is most likely they will never be challenged.

My question is, if someone hires and non licensed person to do commercial drone flying is there any liability with the one doing the hiring?

I'm almost 70 and so my commercial flying has been over with for some time now, and the truth is since I wasn't current I had to take the 107 exam, and it was easy. I will say this, for someone that has no exposure to aviation, it may take a little studding to pass the exam.

 

[ianwood]

The same holds true for private pilots, sure they have had more training and education but so many lack experience and may only fly a few hours every so often, or should I say barely enough to remain current. I know of private pilots with no IFR rating flying into IFR weather and most of the time they luck out, other times they make the headlines.

This is why I let my PPL expire. Maintaining minimums didn't make sense.

 

[Black Ops]

tl;dr

All drone operators are "pilots" in the loosest definition of the term. But if you're a 107 "pilot" and think you're somehow distinguished and/or important because of a rudimentary test you passed, you should take a closer look at how little effort it takes to get a 107. I am pretty sure I could train my dog to pass the 107.

...and this type of attitude is what I referenced earlier. I've had a commercial pilot tell me I was "wasting my time" last summer when I was taking flying lessons, working towards a sport pilot cert. Some people, like this poster, love to **** on those with lesser certs or those PURSUING lesser certs for whatever reason(in my case, $$$.)

Did it ever occur to some of you that, once exposed to the aviation world, some drone pilots might be INSPIRED to seek actual flight training? This should be encouraged. ****, it should be subsidized to an extent.

Oh, and, buddy, if your dog can use a computer, get him an agent

 

[Ravenflight]

Did it ever occur to some of you that, once exposed to the aviation world, some drone pilots might be INSPIRED to seek actual flight training? This should be encouraged. Hell, it should be subsidized to an extent.

This is me. Before taking the 107 I had no exposure to or knowledge of aviation beyond being a commercial passenger. After passing the test (which was very easy, as people have pointed out), studying to get a PPL doesn't seem daunting or unattainable anymore and I plan to pursue it. Although by the time I can afford an aircraft of my own I expect it will be a multi-rotor that can take off and land from my driveway and is flown entirely by a computer, possibly eliminating the need for the license.

 

[Mike Flys]

You may be to some extent a "Drone" Pilot , but a Private Pilot takes a minimum 20 hours of classes and flying with an instructor. Then takes the flying exam. So a Drone Pilot has very very basic understanding of flying. I'm also pvt with multi-rating Cessna 310, and numerous single engine.
I'm all for having an Instructor sign off in order show your flying skills.

Now granted you had some training and flight instruction first but like me (Also Airplane Pilot) the day you soloed technically you were a pilot. "Sole operator controlling an aircraft" RC pilots that are the sole manipulators of the controls are RC pilots. You don't need the sUAS certificate to technically be a remote PIC. You need it to be legally compensated for your flying.

Now does flying a drone or having an sUAS mean you can operate a Cessna 172? Of course not. Just like having an SEL doesn't mean you can operate a twin engine airplane (cool you have a multi), or even a single engine seaplane (the most fun I have flying). But you don't need to know how to fly a twin to safely fly your 172. Doesn't mean you are not a pilot, or that you are a hazard to others.

Like me, as a pilot I'm sure you know certificated (licensed) pilots who are not the greatest pilots, maybe a guy or two you wont fly with. Same with the sUAS only pilots. Some of them take it very seriously and are wanting to learn more and do it right and safe, others not so much. Doesn't mean they are not pilots. They studied, past the required test and received the FAA certificate saying so. And like us airplane pilots if they screw up bad enough they will lose their certificate.

There are different levels of being a pilot. sUAS certificate gets you in the system with a beginning of an understanding of how to safely operate in it.
When I got my SEL pilots certificate years ago I was told it was a license to learn. I think the same can be said for any pilot certificate even the sUAS.

Mike

 

[Avocet]

Frankly, as a former PVT (lapsed) and a current sUAS ticket holder, I can see the day, perhaps not soon, where the Part 107 test (it will be renamed) actually TESTS something other than some basic weather and airspace parameters.

I believe there should be a rigorous flight test with a "CUAVFI" in addition to the a modified current test curriculum. This flight test would require VLOS maneuvers, takeoffs and landings in different conditions, BVLOS flying, emergency procedures, general maintenance, power parameters, autonomous flying, flight planning, etc., to name a few.

I think the current 107 is far too easily obtained. The test itself seemed to be a quick and dirty throw together with minuscule remnants from the Private - which explains for some serious lack of applicability to sUAS flying and the test questions.

As we all are in the stage I refer to as the "wild, wild west", 25 years from now, sUAVs mUAVs, lUAVs will be taking advantage of the "big sky theory", - these machines will have incredible capabilities and will be charged with doing "missions" that have as yet to be imagined let alone exist. They will be piloted by our successors and we will be thought of, perhaps, as the old primitive pioneers (and pirates perhaps) of the "back in the day".

 

[Ravenflight]

As we all are in the stage I refer to as the "wild, wild west", 25 years from now, sUAVs mUAVs, lUAVs will be taking advantage of the "big sky theory", - these machines will have incredible capabilities and will be charged with doing "missions" that have as yet to be imagined let alone exist. They will be piloted by our successors and we will be thought of, perhaps, as the old primitive pioneers (and pirates perhaps) of the "back in the day".

Very interesting perspective. It's an exciting thing to think about. I think the safety issues with drones will largely go away as they start using cell networks and systems are developed for computers to track their locations and even manage their flights in concert with manned air traffic. Before long the skies will be far too busy for humans to manage. I can see a new class of airspace being necessary.

 

[ianwood]

I've had a commercial pilot tell me I was "wasting my time" last summer when I was taking flying lessons, working towards a sport pilot cert. Some people, like this poster, love to **** on those with lesser certs or those PURSUING lesser certs for whatever reason(in my case, $$$.)

On the contrary, indicating how easy it is to get a 107 should be motivating for those that don't already have one. But that wasn't my point either.

My point was that I personally believe the 107 should be more comprehensive and go beyond a simple written test. There are a lot of yahoos with 107 certs. That doesn't mean I think all 107 holders are yahoos.

 

[Avocet]

This is me. Before taking the 107 I had no exposure to or knowledge of aviation beyond being a commercial passenger. After passing the test (which was very easy, as people have pointed out), studying to get a PPL doesn't seem daunting or unattainable anymore and I plan to pursue it. Although by the time I can afford an aircraft of my own I expect it will be a multi-rotor that can take off and land from my driveway and is flown entirely by a computer, possibly eliminating the need for the license.

The debate about human-free cockpits is decades old. The technology required to do it is nearly as old as the concept. It is also no closer to becoming a reality from what I can tell. The nay-sayers DEMAND a human be on hand to make decisions that AI circuits remain incapable of doing to date.

 

[Ravenflight]

The debate about human-free cockpits is decades old. The technology required to do it is nearly as old as the concept. It is also no closer to becoming a reality from what I can tell. The nay-sayers DEMAND a human be on hand to make decisions that AI circuits remain incapable of doing to date.

The technology isn't quite there yet for fully autonomous cars, let alone aircraft. But it will be eventually and maybe sooner rather than later. The flying cars people keep in their garages that publications like Popular Mechanics predicted nearly a century ago won't be possible until computers do the flying and battery technology matures some more.

 

[Avocet]

The technology isn't quite there yet for fully autonomous cars, let alone aircraft. But it will be eventually ...

Fully autonomous flights of dozens of aircraft types has been technologically viable since the 1960s. The technology (which has improved drastically since then and continues to do so) is applicable to maritime shipping, rail traffic and of course extra-vehicular traffic in near or far orbiting (no one is actually flying ISS for instance or a myriad of other extra-terrestrial vehicles.

 

[Ravenflight]

Fully autonomous flights of dozens of aircraft types has been technologically viable since the 1960s. The technology (which has improved drastically since then and continues to do so) is applicable to maritime shipping, rail traffic and of course extra-vehicular traffic in near or far orbiting (no one is actually flying ISS for instance or a myriad of other extra-terrestrial vehicles.

We must be talking about two different things. When I say fully autonomous I mean that the extent of human involvement is telling the vehicle where to go. The vehicle then plans the best route and executes it from start to finish while avoiding hazards and handling unexpected situations as the passenger reads a book or has a drink. Autopilot and cruse control technology has certainly been around for decades but these are pilot/driver assists and not fully autonomous. Full autonomy will be a necessary component before your average person will have a flying car.

 

[Avocet]

Vehicles, planes, cars, rockets will all become autonomous eventually. None of them are capable of making decisions however. This type of autonomy is still the result of human instruction, merely implemented in a different way. If it appears they are making determinations or decisions, etc., it will still be the result of human instruction - non tactile, pre-determined, code driven implementations with remote attendants.

 

[Ravenflight]

Vehicles, planes, cars, rockets will all become autonomous eventually. None of them are capable of making decisions however. This type of autonomy is still the result of human instruction, merely implemented in a different way. If it appears they are making determinations or decisions, etc., it will still be the result of human instruction - non tactile, pre-determined, code driven implementations with remote attendants.

I think I'm not understanding what you're trying to say. Computers are definitely capable of making decisions. Decision statements are one of the most basic concepts in programming. Do you mean they are not sentient? Or conscious? If so, you're right but I fail to understand why that's relevant. It's true that any ability a computer has to make a decision is given to it by human engineers and programmers but so what? The fact that computers are built by humans doesn't have any bearing on whether or not they can perform tasks autonomously. In fact, the whole reason humans have built computers is to have them perform tasks for us with as much autonomy as possible.

 

[R.Perry]

Aviation is closer to autonomous reality than automotive. Pilot programs flight plan, sets heading, altitude, airspeed, turns on to the runway and gets departure clearance. Autopilot takes over, flies runway heading until ATC tells him to resume his own navigation, that means switching to GPS and going along for the ride. Weather is a factor and that can cause the pilot to request course changes, but beyond that if traffic isn't backed up at his destination he captures the ILS and lets Mr. Auto land. Now with severe weather or in-flight emergency the pilot may very well need to earn his paycheck.
Next question, what if you got on Yota Gota airlines and received and announcement, "This is Auto, I'm the flight computer that is taking you to your destination, we no longer need pilots." How much faith do you have in Auto. What would Auto have done with a bird strike at 2800 feet AGL and the loss of both engines, or the complete loss of hydraulics as in the Sue City crash. We may see a day where there is only one pilot in the cockpit, but I think it is a long ways off for pilot less aircraft in the airline business.
Now I know you airline guys may shoot holes in my simplistic example of airline/freight aviation today, but I think you get the point.

 

[Ravenflight]

Aviation is closer to autonomous reality than automotive. Pilot programs flight plan, sets heading, altitude, airspeed, turns on to the runway and gets departure clearance. Autopilot takes over, flies runway heading until ATC tells him to resume his own navigation, that means switching to GPS and going along for the ride. Weather is a factor and that can cause the pilot to request course changes, but beyond that if traffic isn't backed up at his destination he captures the ILS and lets Mr. Auto land. Now with severe weather or in-flight emergency the pilot may very well need to earn his paycheck.
Next question, what if you got on Yota Gota airlines and received and announcement, "This is Auto, I'm the flight computer that is taking you to your destination, we no longer need pilots." How much faith do you have in Auto. What would Auto have done with a bird strike at 2800 feet AGL and the loss of both engines, or the complete loss of hydraulics as in the Sue City crash. We may see a day where there is only one pilot in the cockpit, but I think it is a long ways off for pilot less aircraft in the airline business.
Now I know you airline guys may shoot holes in my simplistic example of airline/freight aviation today, but I think you get the point.

My brother is a USAF flight instructor and I've heard him lament how computers are turning pilots into system admins. He points to the 2013 crash of Asiana 214 as a good example of it. Those guys had 1000s of hours logged but very little of it had anything to with actual pilot skills and when a situation arose they didn't know how to respond. They created the situation by mismanaging the flight systems but ultimately the crash was caused because the pilot wasn't able to properly make a VFR approach in perfect conditions.

I think you're right that we're a long way from pilot-less commercial aircraft though, just because of public perception. I think pilot-less personal aircraft will come first. Tesla is working hard to pioneer the battery technology that will make it possible and affordable. I think it will happen in my lifetime but who knows.

 

[AH-1G]

My brother is a USAF flight instructor and I've heard him lament how computers are turning pilots into system admins. He points to the 2013 crash of Asiana 214 as a good example of it. Those guys had 1000s of hours logged but very little of it had anything to with actual pilot skills and when a situation arose they didn't know how to respond. They created the situation by mismanaging the flight systems but ultimately the crash was caused because the pilot wasn't able to properly make a VFR approach in perfect conditions.

I think you're right that we're a long way from pilot-less commercial aircraft though, just because of public perception. I think pilot-less personal aircraft will come first. Tesla is working hard to pioneer the battery technology that will make it possible and affordable. I think it will happen in my lifetime but who knows.

The flight was vectored for a visual approach to runway 28L and intercepted the final approach course about 14 nautical miles (nm) from the threshold at an altitude slightly above the desired 3° glidepath. This set the flight crew up for a straight-in visual approach; however, after the flight crew accepted an air traffic control instruction to maintain 180 knots to 5 nm from the runway, the flight crew mismanaged the airplane’s descent, which resulted in the airplane being well above the desired 3° glidepath when it reached the 5 nm point. The flight crew’s difficulty in managing the airplane’s descent continued as the approach continued. In an attempt to increase the airplane’s descent rate and capture the desired glidepath, the pilot flying (PF) selected an autopilot (A/P) mode (flight level change speed [FLCH SPD]) that instead resulted in the autoflight system initiating a climb because the airplane was below the selected altitude. The PF disconnected the A/P and moved the thrust levers to idle, which caused the autothrottle (A/T) to change to the HOLD mode, a mode in which the A/T does not control airspeed. The PF then pitched the airplane down and increased the descent rate. Neither the PF, the pilot monitoring (PM), nor the observer noted the change in A/T mode to HOLD.

As the airplane reached 500 ft above airport elevation, the point at which Asiana’s procedures dictated that the approach must be stabilized, the precision approach path indicator (PAPI) would have shown the flight crew that the airplane was slightly above the desired glidepath. Also, the airspeed, which had been decreasing rapidly, had just reached the proper approach speed of 137 knots. However, the thrust levers were still at idle, and the descent rate was about 1,200 ft per minute, well above the descent rate of about 700 fpm needed to maintain the desired glidepath; these were two indications that the approach was not stabilized. Based on these two indications, the flight crew should have determined that the approach was unstabilized and initiated a go-around, but they did not do so. As the approach continued, it became increasingly unstabilized as the airplane descended below the desired glidepath; the PAPI displayed three and then four red lights, indicating the continuing descent below the glidepath. The decreasing trend in airspeed continued, and about 200 ft, the flight crew became aware of the low airspeed and low path conditions but did not initiate a go-around until the airplane was below 100 ft, at which point the airplane did not have the performance capability to accomplish a go-around. The flight crew’s insufficient monitoring of airspeed indications during the approach resulted from expectancy, increased workload, fatigue, and automation reliance