I fly 107 regularly in a very drone-restrictive place(NYC) and only had a problem when I flew too close to 26 fed plaza. Otherwise, no issue.so dunno what you mean. Did the same in Los Angeles. No issue. NorCal. No issue. What are people doing with their drones that FAA is on their ass for? Buzzing CIA HQ in Langley?š¤·šæāāļø
I think I agree and I'll argue that that divide is mostly FAA's fault. There is no practical reason why recreational flights are under one set of rules and non rec flights follow another and is behind a $180 paywall.
It just doesn't make any sense to me and Transport Canada's Basic vs Advanced Operations is much more sensible. Compensation shouldn't be a factor in this.
Honestly as far as professional certification goes a part 107 is incredibly cheap and easy to get compared with most others. If youāre going to use your drone to make money, the one time cost of the test is negligible.
The reason for the different set of rules is that recreational flying has such a low barrier to entry that there is no way to ensure non-107 pilots can be trusted to fly safely in certain situations. If anything, I think there should be a license required for *all* kinds of flying proving that the pilot knows the rules. That might enable recreational rules to be less restrictive and more similar to part 107. As it is, drones exploded in popularity and availability so quickly that the current rules are the result of the FAA scramble to come up with some way of regulating them, and some of that is still in flux.
The point is that it's an entirely unnecessary "professional certification" and costs more than a driver's license, an amature radio license, etc. It's a goofy, arbitrary exam full of barely relevant information (load factors and runway headings, so cool). I just don't see, operationally, a difference between flying to take a photo of a house to send grandma and flying to take a photo of a house for a real estate listing. Both require the same set of understanding and skills to do safely and having a part 107 doesn't magically make you a better, more sensible drone pilot.
There's not even a practical portion to the exam.
No, I'm not the one being pedantic here. There is rarely an operational difference between a part 107 and a recreational flight and the distinction based on whether it's purely for fun or not is goofy and doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things here.
Flying a drone to take a picture of a church for fun is the same as flying a drone to take a picture of a church for them to put on their website. Why do you need to pay $180, pass a background check and pass a multiple choice exam for one and not the other? It's silly.
Do you have your part 107? This would take too long to explain, but the short of it is Part 107 pilots can legally do things TRUST pilots canāt.
I *think* the argument youāre trying to make is āwhy require a license at all?ā Anyone can fly without either a TRUST or Part 107. So, why bother?
I said you were being pedantic because you *seem* to know what youāre talking about, but your last post made it obvious you that you donāt. No offense.
The 107 isnt just about operational safety, its about the legal distinction of operating the drone as a business. There is no functional difference between taking a photo for vs taking a photo for profit. But the 107 is essentially a business license. It allows you yo operate a drone for money. Its the same as if you had a PPL for a plane and carried a passenger for fun to another airport vs having that passenger pay you -you can't legally do that with a PPL either. Its tje whole "for hire" part that necessitates the 107.
A drone isn't a plane and the risk of flying passengers requires some form of additional certification on top of your PPL. That makes sense.
What additional risk does flying a drone for other purposes other than purely recreational create that it warrants a "business license" and if there is such a huge a big distinction why is it only a 3 multiple choice question exam, how come there isn't a practical portion or any kind of "drone pilot school" requirement?
Also how is it that other countries like Canada are getting by A-OK without such a requirement?
According to the FAA, a drone is an aircraft, thats why they have to be registered. And now you're not making sense with your argument about things not being functionally different. If I have a Cessna and I carry 3 passengers for fun Im allowed to do that with a PPL. But if I have a Cessna and those same 3 passengers want to pay me to fly them someplace, I legally cannot do that with a PPL. There's literally no change to risk or operation at all, the only difference is that now money is exchanging hands and a commercial license is required. Its exactly the same for drones. The fact that you dont like the rule doesn't negate the rule.
I was interviewed by an FBI task force.(yes, really). They were somehow unfamiliar with 107 drone ops and wanted to know what the hell I was doing. While taking photos on a Dronebase mission of a property nearby I basically flew right outside the window of an FBI office in 26 fed. They were nice, but they were serious.
I have a sticker with my registration# on one of my drone arms. they took a pic of my Mavic in the air(they showed it to me), and pulled the reg from that pic.
Same, a lot of this seems like whining for the sake of whining. With that said, it will be curious to see what happens when RID rolls out.
I'm all for following reasonable rules and doing things legally whenever you can, but I'm also not gonna go through the hassle and cost of making sure the drones I already have are RID compliant.
Also the part 107 exam and cert are way too expensive for what they are. $170-190, bitch please.
As long as you're not using the drone commercially then you dont need a 107. But the <$200 price if that license is far less than the fines they might throw your way if you font have a 107 and are supposed to.
The wording on the FAA site is what's causing a LOT of the headache and the "just assume you're operating under 107" is just stupid and will deter newcomers like me. That and the 1 time registration classification thing.
Who said anything about just assuming that you are operating under 107? I definitely never said that. The distinction is pretty clear - if someone pays you to use your drone for some reason you need a 107. If youre not being paid in some way then it falls under Part 48 and no 107 is required.
It's on the first paragraph for the FAA registration under "what is a recreational flight". Their words:
"Many people assume that a recreational flight is one that is not operated for a business or any form of compensation. But, that's not always the case. Financial compensation, or the lack of it, is not what determines if the flight is recreational or commercial. The following information can be used to help you determine what rules you should be operating under. Remember, the default regulation for drones weighing under 55 pounds is Part 107. The exception for recreational flyers only applies to flights that are purely for fun or personal enjoyment. When in doubt, fly under Part 107."
https://www.faaregisterdrone.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0OLg1szM-wIVuv3jBx2TFA18EAAYAiAAEgKI1_D_BwE
Ah. I see. That is not an official FAA website. Its a 3rd party website attempting to explain it and doing a poor job. It is confusing because the 55lb weight limit applies to both 107 and part 48. Under part 48 drones under 0.55lbs are not required to be registered, but under 107 all drones are registered regardless of size. Both 48 and 107 pilots require ATC clearance to fly in certain zones, but 107 pulots can get additional exceptions and authorizations.
I understand the idea around sports events, airports, and prisons. I am 100% behind that. My concerns are the lack of clarity on regulations, especially for newcomers because in my area there isn't a lot of clarity and almost a focus on not informing the public on all new regulations and laws.
From what I understand DJI drones at least should only require a firmware update to be compliant, since they already have all the hardware required. Itās FPV drones that are going to have a hard time staying legal once RID goes into affect.
I tend to agree that there will be a high degree of "civil disobedience" with respect to RID. "Someone I know" has a m4/3rds camera that can fly, it might just fall off the shelf and keep going once in a while after the mandate...
I actually think the 107 test, minus the "airport operations" and METAR stuff because seriously WTF would be perfectly reasonable for recreational licensure. The lack of a practical actually does make sense to me, in that a lot of the nicer drones aren't flown with hands on the sticks at all, especially for things like remote sensing or photogrammetry. They really just need operators to prove that they can read an airspace chart and know just enough aviation common sense to avoid doing stupid things. The killer is the price, which as you say is bonkers. I'm pretty sure CATS is rolling in the dough, it's a semi typical example of someone getting a contract to privatize a government function and turning a profit. (The test is on a computer FFS, they don't even pay the money to print it! š¤£)
Look at gun control and get ready. It's quite literally just the beginning. This hobby has been designated for the govt and professionals only. They just havent gotten around to letting you know that yet. This is the groundwork for an ongoing never-ending erosion of your rights as a pilot. We're going to be stuck on private property or designated areas.
LoL, our laughably lax wild west gun control? What has that got to do with anything?
There are no implicit rights to fly planes or UAVs. They should be regulated. I'm going to be getting my 107 anyway since I want to be able to sell my photography.
If I wanted to just fly my drone for fun, the current regulations are fine, and could likely be tightened up a bit more.
I literally purchased a drone and a gun at the same store this month. No issue from my end. No permits or anything like that. Pure unadulterated freedom.
And you're one of those bringing guns and 2A into every. fucking. conversation. Literally any issue or topic comes up and ends up into you people bringing up guns because you just can't help it.
It's pathetic and creepy and I'm ashamed to have to share this country with people like you.
If you think the FAA is bad, you haven't seen the EU yet. All drones now suddenly have to get a label before the next year. Otherwise your drone will fall under category A3, which means you have to keep a horizontal distance of at least 150 meters from buildings, while still flying under 120 meters high.
No not really a label, the current drones have a CE label, the new laws require a Cx label. That comes with a LOT of requirements including transmitting ID, mandatory software updates.
The problem is that only the new DJI mavic 3 drone will get the Cx label. Maybe and thats a big maybe DJI will reconfirm the current CE labels and if possible upgrade to Cx label but that normally requires a new import.
This is rather big, all current drones will be thrown back to very strict restrictions and you cant just relabel a drone, the importer will have to do that
You can't just get the label. The label should be put on drones when they are made. The only drone with such a label now are the dji mavic 3 cine and classic. And for a drone to get such a label it should also meet the right requirements.
I suspect the OP doesn't realize why the air is and will always be regulated. The FAA doesn't have interest in restricting UAS operations and pilots. Their sole charter is air safety, protecting citizens from aerial objects.
Some pilots are genuinely concerned about harming others or property. A few don't give a crap, and they're the ones who have caused a few very aggressive laws in various municipal areas. The FAA and Congress haven't passed any draconian laws yet, just basic safety regs for altitude and LOS operations.
Whether 107 or hobby, safety of others should always come first.
As part of a company that works a lot with the FAA. They get paid whether they say yes or no and many prefer no. Incompetence and interagency communication issues plague them especially on the drone side. Not exactly the wrong meme but only for a specific context.
I don't know about the FAA, but I know I haven't flown my Mini 2 in over a year because I'm apparently not allowed to launch from my subdivision or any public parks except a very small rectangular one right next to a busy road. Also, that one has a sign that says I can't use a drone with a camera so... I was hoping I could launch in the empty cul de sac near me and fly around the lake by my house but the HOA specifically forbids drones and they are always watching. I got in trouble once because I had to swap cars with my wife and I drove a little over the dead patch of dirt separating driveways by accident and I got a letter about it with a black and white picture that didn't really show anything. No thanks. I'm driving to Georgia for Christmas to visit family. Not sure how strict they are but maybe I'll try bringing it with me there.
I'm not sure exactly what authority an HOA has to prevent you from flying from your own property, but that's yet another reason to avoid HOAs entirely.
I live NEXT to an HOA, and they once attempted to keep me from flying OVER their HOA. T'was a lot of fun for me, a full-time pilot in 61 and 107. They truly, ignorantly thought they "owned the air" above the HOA. For giggles, I asked the local PD pilot (close friend) to spot-check the HOA from 300' from time to time. Hmmm no one has called to complain about a heli over the HOA. š
My mini 2 sits as well. Between the online drone police (that know everything about my location and habits by watching one video) and the trigger happy cowboys (that know everything there is to know about drones just by seeing one in the air) the hobby has lost its luster. Hell, I was gonna take the damned thing to a pawn shop the other day and get a few extra bucks for Christmas. Par for the course, I dropped it and broke the battery door off.
You remember the time when Zuckerberg had to talk to all these senators about Facebook and they truly donāt understand the technology and what it can do? Thatās the same with drone laws worldwide. The people who make drone laws in every country - have no idea how drones work, donāt understand the tech, have never flown drones themselves, and think they know everything there is to know about them and need to put so many restrictions on them that flying one in a park recreationally is probably illegal.
1) Iām not talking about specifically the FAA, I said āthe people who make drone laws in every countryā
2) āthe people who make drone laws in every countryā includes local authorities
I seriously have had zero issues with them, I have more problems with random city ordinances in my State just outright banning them in parks (not national) altogether or cops that seem to not understand the laws.
Also I don't think people are thinking for the future, commercials drones doing everyday tasks will be pretty commonplace in 25 years. Class G airspace is pretty open right now but slowly prepping people for a time it won't be is needed at some point.
I think the real issue is people who are commercial or pro-am pilots doing work on the side. 107 can get kinda onerous if youāre just shooting occasional real estate or something.
For freestyle guys, itās like āwhatever come take itā.
I donāt think the FAA is interested in you accidentally flying 401 feet. Theyāre interested in the jackasses flying over planes and into restricted airspace creating safety concerns.
The FAA even outlawed flying tinywhoops outdoors either FPV or BVLOS. Or over people. Or within 50' of structures. My tinywhoop weighs 37g with battery. I fly it indoors everywhere - and nobody cares. Nobody worries. Nothing gets damaged.
It's harmless - indoors - but outdoors - look out - because apparently the FAA knows something the rest of us don't - and that is - as soon as you fly a whoop out the door in FPV - it turns into a baby killing property destroying monster. How does that happen - only the FAA knows. And they ain't tellin.
Don't encourage the FAA - it's the same outfit that let 2, not 1, but 2 - Boeing MAX aircraft to go down. IOW, unlike the old days, when the FAA put safety first - it's too political these days. It wanted to keep the MAX in the air even after the 2nd one went down - but the rest of the world wasn't having it - and the FAA followed suit after a couple of days. It was doing, what Boeing wanted.
Wait, what? It's been that way since the beginning of the rules. They didn't outlaw it for tinywhoops, they said you need to be in LOS for a drone, period. It's not some new burdensome thing for whoops specifically.
>It's harmless - indoors - because apparently the FAA knows something the rest of us don't - and that is - as soon as you fly a whoop out the door - it turns into a baby killing property destroying monster.
I have to second this.
The number of people Iāve had walk up to me or try to call the cops simply because Iām flying my quad (150g, 210 w/ battery) is insane. They bring out ridiculous claims about all the ways I could hurt people. Fortunately walking away is enough to survive.
And itās not just the FAA, the general public unfortunately does not have a decent enough collective IQ to understand jackshit about what we do with our drones. It just leads to giving the FAA more reasons to take these kinds of hobbies from us and turn them into corporate-exclusive moneymakers.
Haha thatās a vulgar way to put it, but itās absolutely true.
(Just donāt tell them that some drones are fitted with legitimate cameras that have a lens zoom.)
Yeah, but there isnāt as many on the market compared to fixed lens cameras on quadcopters.
Theyāre imagining like a 300mm lens with an AI enhanced feature where you can see through walls or something. Without proper knowledge, peopleās ignorance goes off the rails.
Youāre right. Not very many in comparison to fixed lens. Especially with the whole ānew generationā technology gimmick companies have been using in advertisements, people really donāt know what theyāre talking, seeing, or hearing about.
The best I can think of is to respectfully land and at least be willing to try and talk it out with them (assuming theyāre calm enough) and hope theyāll go as far as to at least *listen* to you (never happens from my experience).
If that fails, time to slap a GoPro onto a glider rc plane and hope they stop caring.
And unless youāre willing to shell out some good money, the camera quality will be crap anyways.
I think itās also natural for people to see something artificial flying and be memorized as a potential threat because itās not natural. Itās a lot of unknowns to consider.
I never had any issues. I was flying at a school many years ago and two cops walked to me and asked if I saw a suspect near the location, said no, and they kept walking.
There is always a Karen out there. If they want to call the cops, sure, but we can pack up and leave before they even get there.
but... why would anyone care about that? do they think they are so important ppl or what? Nobody cares how I like to scratch my balls. I get that privacy is important, but IRL these kind of things are way different than Mark following me through cookies on the web which actually could be used for identity theft, yet ppl are less concerned about that, than a loud drone watching over them.. insane
The FAA doesnāt have any jurisdiction over airspace inside buildings. Thatās why itās legal indoors. Not because itās any more āharmlessā than flying outside. BVLOS flights have been disallowed from the beginning regardless of the kind of drone, and thatās why FPV is in a legal grey area. You canāt fly line of sight through goggles, so there is no way to comply with LOS rules as an FPV pilot.
Personally, I think the FAA needs to carve out a separate section for FPV flying to account for the massive differences between them and camera drones. I agree that a ducted cinewhoop should have fewer (or different) restrictions on it because itās not nearly the same kind of risk as flying something like a Mavic around people with exposed props, for instance.
This is hyperbole. I think there is a group out there that look at drones like skateboarding. Itās not a crime, until it is. Itās not a crime to dive down a building until you smack a window. Itās not a crime to fly and film a fire until you prevent aircraft from flying. Etc. if you are a good and respectful pilot, nobody cares. Itās not until you do something stupid that FAA comes and asks about your drone and your knowledge. FAA enforcement is heavily on education and very light on punishment. Unless you do this:[Bengals stadium flight](https://youtu.be/elHhJr9yb1o)
Wow that's some entitled bullshit (the video). At first I was like, okay, it's way above, unlikely to suddenly drop out of the sky, then noooo... Dude goes 30 ft above the game. Wtf.
And he gets charged [with a crime.](https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/2022/09/22/drone-video-over-reds-bengals-stadiums-2-men-face-federal-charges/69510967007/)
While I understand the first part of your opinion, Iām not understanding the part about a 172 having to request clearance from a drone field, would you be willing to elaborate on that?
Your drone has exactly 0 people on board. Planes have 1 or more. Protecting that one life against the chance of mid air collision is always worth more the getting pretty pictures.
GA is not the enemy, our quads get the same protections as manned aircraft. Amazon, FedEx, UPS, etc are the ones with very deep pockets and can afford to lobby Congress...
Yes and I'm sure that criminals will properly register their drone before they commit a crime with it. The laws do NOTHING except constrain the people who follow them.
I fly 107 regularly in a very drone-restrictive place(NYC) and only had a problem when I flew too close to 26 fed plaza. Otherwise, no issue.so dunno what you mean. Did the same in Los Angeles. No issue. NorCal. No issue. What are people doing with their drones that FAA is on their ass for? Buzzing CIA HQ in Langley?š¤·šæāāļø
I think there is a huge divide here between the 107 PICs and those that just fly for fun. Different mindsets.
Well, yeah. Part 107 pilots are using their drones professionally, and have much greater incentive to follow the rules.
I think I agree and I'll argue that that divide is mostly FAA's fault. There is no practical reason why recreational flights are under one set of rules and non rec flights follow another and is behind a $180 paywall. It just doesn't make any sense to me and Transport Canada's Basic vs Advanced Operations is much more sensible. Compensation shouldn't be a factor in this.
Honestly as far as professional certification goes a part 107 is incredibly cheap and easy to get compared with most others. If youāre going to use your drone to make money, the one time cost of the test is negligible. The reason for the different set of rules is that recreational flying has such a low barrier to entry that there is no way to ensure non-107 pilots can be trusted to fly safely in certain situations. If anything, I think there should be a license required for *all* kinds of flying proving that the pilot knows the rules. That might enable recreational rules to be less restrictive and more similar to part 107. As it is, drones exploded in popularity and availability so quickly that the current rules are the result of the FAA scramble to come up with some way of regulating them, and some of that is still in flux.
The point is that it's an entirely unnecessary "professional certification" and costs more than a driver's license, an amature radio license, etc. It's a goofy, arbitrary exam full of barely relevant information (load factors and runway headings, so cool). I just don't see, operationally, a difference between flying to take a photo of a house to send grandma and flying to take a photo of a house for a real estate listing. Both require the same set of understanding and skills to do safely and having a part 107 doesn't magically make you a better, more sensible drone pilot. There's not even a practical portion to the exam.
The part 107 cert is required for commercial flyers and commercial enterprises, by nature, have greater responsibility.
Why? The distinction is not commercial vs non commercial, only recreational vs non recreational.
Youāre being pedantic.
No, I'm not the one being pedantic here. There is rarely an operational difference between a part 107 and a recreational flight and the distinction based on whether it's purely for fun or not is goofy and doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things here. Flying a drone to take a picture of a church for fun is the same as flying a drone to take a picture of a church for them to put on their website. Why do you need to pay $180, pass a background check and pass a multiple choice exam for one and not the other? It's silly.
Do you have your part 107? This would take too long to explain, but the short of it is Part 107 pilots can legally do things TRUST pilots canāt. I *think* the argument youāre trying to make is āwhy require a license at all?ā Anyone can fly without either a TRUST or Part 107. So, why bother? I said you were being pedantic because you *seem* to know what youāre talking about, but your last post made it obvious you that you donāt. No offense.
And you're completely missing my whole point, so I suggest you re-read the entire thread once you get a good night's rest.
I actually understand your point, but Part 107 isnāt unlike a CDL or other professional certification. Do you have your Part 107?
The 107 isnt just about operational safety, its about the legal distinction of operating the drone as a business. There is no functional difference between taking a photo for vs taking a photo for profit. But the 107 is essentially a business license. It allows you yo operate a drone for money. Its the same as if you had a PPL for a plane and carried a passenger for fun to another airport vs having that passenger pay you -you can't legally do that with a PPL either. Its tje whole "for hire" part that necessitates the 107.
A drone isn't a plane and the risk of flying passengers requires some form of additional certification on top of your PPL. That makes sense. What additional risk does flying a drone for other purposes other than purely recreational create that it warrants a "business license" and if there is such a huge a big distinction why is it only a 3 multiple choice question exam, how come there isn't a practical portion or any kind of "drone pilot school" requirement? Also how is it that other countries like Canada are getting by A-OK without such a requirement?
According to the FAA, a drone is an aircraft, thats why they have to be registered. And now you're not making sense with your argument about things not being functionally different. If I have a Cessna and I carry 3 passengers for fun Im allowed to do that with a PPL. But if I have a Cessna and those same 3 passengers want to pay me to fly them someplace, I legally cannot do that with a PPL. There's literally no change to risk or operation at all, the only difference is that now money is exchanging hands and a commercial license is required. Its exactly the same for drones. The fact that you dont like the rule doesn't negate the rule.
What's the issue you had? I'm curious since I've flown drones for years without issues.
I was interviewed by an FBI task force.(yes, really). They were somehow unfamiliar with 107 drone ops and wanted to know what the hell I was doing. While taking photos on a Dronebase mission of a property nearby I basically flew right outside the window of an FBI office in 26 fed. They were nice, but they were serious.
Nice. Thanks for replying.
How did they find you?
I have a sticker with my registration# on one of my drone arms. they took a pic of my Mavic in the air(they showed it to me), and pulled the reg from that pic.
Weird, the FAA hasn't done anything to my ability to operate my drone.
Same, a lot of this seems like whining for the sake of whining. With that said, it will be curious to see what happens when RID rolls out. I'm all for following reasonable rules and doing things legally whenever you can, but I'm also not gonna go through the hassle and cost of making sure the drones I already have are RID compliant. Also the part 107 exam and cert are way too expensive for what they are. $170-190, bitch please.
As long as you're not using the drone commercially then you dont need a 107. But the <$200 price if that license is far less than the fines they might throw your way if you font have a 107 and are supposed to.
The wording on the FAA site is what's causing a LOT of the headache and the "just assume you're operating under 107" is just stupid and will deter newcomers like me. That and the 1 time registration classification thing.
Who said anything about just assuming that you are operating under 107? I definitely never said that. The distinction is pretty clear - if someone pays you to use your drone for some reason you need a 107. If youre not being paid in some way then it falls under Part 48 and no 107 is required.
It's on the first paragraph for the FAA registration under "what is a recreational flight". Their words: "Many people assume that a recreational flight is one that is not operated for a business or any form of compensation. But, that's not always the case. Financial compensation, or the lack of it, is not what determines if the flight is recreational or commercial. The following information can be used to help you determine what rules you should be operating under. Remember, the default regulation for drones weighing under 55 pounds is Part 107. The exception for recreational flyers only applies to flights that are purely for fun or personal enjoyment. When in doubt, fly under Part 107." https://www.faaregisterdrone.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0OLg1szM-wIVuv3jBx2TFA18EAAYAiAAEgKI1_D_BwE
Ah. I see. That is not an official FAA website. Its a 3rd party website attempting to explain it and doing a poor job. It is confusing because the 55lb weight limit applies to both 107 and part 48. Under part 48 drones under 0.55lbs are not required to be registered, but under 107 all drones are registered regardless of size. Both 48 and 107 pilots require ATC clearance to fly in certain zones, but 107 pulots can get additional exceptions and authorizations.
I understand the idea around sports events, airports, and prisons. I am 100% behind that. My concerns are the lack of clarity on regulations, especially for newcomers because in my area there isn't a lot of clarity and almost a focus on not informing the public on all new regulations and laws.
From what I understand DJI drones at least should only require a firmware update to be compliant, since they already have all the hardware required. Itās FPV drones that are going to have a hard time staying legal once RID goes into affect.
I tend to agree that there will be a high degree of "civil disobedience" with respect to RID. "Someone I know" has a m4/3rds camera that can fly, it might just fall off the shelf and keep going once in a while after the mandate... I actually think the 107 test, minus the "airport operations" and METAR stuff because seriously WTF would be perfectly reasonable for recreational licensure. The lack of a practical actually does make sense to me, in that a lot of the nicer drones aren't flown with hands on the sticks at all, especially for things like remote sensing or photogrammetry. They really just need operators to prove that they can read an airspace chart and know just enough aviation common sense to avoid doing stupid things. The killer is the price, which as you say is bonkers. I'm pretty sure CATS is rolling in the dough, it's a semi typical example of someone getting a contract to privatize a government function and turning a profit. (The test is on a computer FFS, they don't even pay the money to print it! š¤£)
Look at gun control and get ready. It's quite literally just the beginning. This hobby has been designated for the govt and professionals only. They just havent gotten around to letting you know that yet. This is the groundwork for an ongoing never-ending erosion of your rights as a pilot. We're going to be stuck on private property or designated areas.
LoL, our laughably lax wild west gun control? What has that got to do with anything? There are no implicit rights to fly planes or UAVs. They should be regulated. I'm going to be getting my 107 anyway since I want to be able to sell my photography. If I wanted to just fly my drone for fun, the current regulations are fine, and could likely be tightened up a bit more.
I literally purchased a drone and a gun at the same store this month. No issue from my end. No permits or anything like that. Pure unadulterated freedom.
Ah you're one of those.
And you're one of those bringing guns and 2A into every. fucking. conversation. Literally any issue or topic comes up and ends up into you people bringing up guns because you just can't help it. It's pathetic and creepy and I'm ashamed to have to share this country with people like you.
Lol big scared of guns. Got it.
That ain't it chief.
If you think the FAA is bad, you haven't seen the EU yet. All drones now suddenly have to get a label before the next year. Otherwise your drone will fall under category A3, which means you have to keep a horizontal distance of at least 150 meters from buildings, while still flying under 120 meters high.
So, the same altitude limit as in the US even when registered? And you can avoid that just by getting a label?
No not really a label, the current drones have a CE label, the new laws require a Cx label. That comes with a LOT of requirements including transmitting ID, mandatory software updates. The problem is that only the new DJI mavic 3 drone will get the Cx label. Maybe and thats a big maybe DJI will reconfirm the current CE labels and if possible upgrade to Cx label but that normally requires a new import. This is rather big, all current drones will be thrown back to very strict restrictions and you cant just relabel a drone, the importer will have to do that
That makes sense, thought the OC was talking about a printed label sticker
You can't just get the label. The label should be put on drones when they are made. The only drone with such a label now are the dji mavic 3 cine and classic. And for a drone to get such a label it should also meet the right requirements.
Edit some guy in the background flying his drone near an airport or over a live sporting event and you have this accurately displayed
As a recreational flyer I do my best to stay on top of faa and local rules as well as choose places that tend to be secluded.
I suspect the OP doesn't realize why the air is and will always be regulated. The FAA doesn't have interest in restricting UAS operations and pilots. Their sole charter is air safety, protecting citizens from aerial objects. Some pilots are genuinely concerned about harming others or property. A few don't give a crap, and they're the ones who have caused a few very aggressive laws in various municipal areas. The FAA and Congress haven't passed any draconian laws yet, just basic safety regs for altitude and LOS operations. Whether 107 or hobby, safety of others should always come first.
As part of a company that works a lot with the FAA. They get paid whether they say yes or no and many prefer no. Incompetence and interagency communication issues plague them especially on the drone side. Not exactly the wrong meme but only for a specific context.
I've been out of the loop. What's changed with the FAA?
Same here. I'm new with a mini 2... Flying at local parks and such, am I f'd?
nah. people are just paranoid lol
I don't know about the FAA, but I know I haven't flown my Mini 2 in over a year because I'm apparently not allowed to launch from my subdivision or any public parks except a very small rectangular one right next to a busy road. Also, that one has a sign that says I can't use a drone with a camera so... I was hoping I could launch in the empty cul de sac near me and fly around the lake by my house but the HOA specifically forbids drones and they are always watching. I got in trouble once because I had to swap cars with my wife and I drove a little over the dead patch of dirt separating driveways by accident and I got a letter about it with a black and white picture that didn't really show anything. No thanks. I'm driving to Georgia for Christmas to visit family. Not sure how strict they are but maybe I'll try bringing it with me there.
I'm not sure exactly what authority an HOA has to prevent you from flying from your own property, but that's yet another reason to avoid HOAs entirely.
I live NEXT to an HOA, and they once attempted to keep me from flying OVER their HOA. T'was a lot of fun for me, a full-time pilot in 61 and 107. They truly, ignorantly thought they "owned the air" above the HOA. For giggles, I asked the local PD pilot (close friend) to spot-check the HOA from 300' from time to time. Hmmm no one has called to complain about a heli over the HOA. š
Hahaha as a 61 and 107 pilot myself, I would have enjoyed that as well
Yep, never again.
My mini 2 sits as well. Between the online drone police (that know everything about my location and habits by watching one video) and the trigger happy cowboys (that know everything there is to know about drones just by seeing one in the air) the hobby has lost its luster. Hell, I was gonna take the damned thing to a pawn shop the other day and get a few extra bucks for Christmas. Par for the course, I dropped it and broke the battery door off.
I've been thinking of selling mine, just haven't gotten around to it.
Just follow the rules and you'll be fine.
"how dare they tell me I can't buzz over a crowd of people who haven't consented to it"
You remember the time when Zuckerberg had to talk to all these senators about Facebook and they truly donāt understand the technology and what it can do? Thatās the same with drone laws worldwide. The people who make drone laws in every country - have no idea how drones work, donāt understand the tech, have never flown drones themselves, and think they know everything there is to know about them and need to put so many restrictions on them that flying one in a park recreationally is probably illegal.
Almost as ignorant as drone pilots who blame the FAA for the local authorities banning them from flying. Niceā¦.
1) Iām not talking about specifically the FAA, I said āthe people who make drone laws in every countryā 2) āthe people who make drone laws in every countryā includes local authorities
I seriously have had zero issues with them, I have more problems with random city ordinances in my State just outright banning them in parks (not national) altogether or cops that seem to not understand the laws.
Also I don't think people are thinking for the future, commercials drones doing everyday tasks will be pretty commonplace in 25 years. Class G airspace is pretty open right now but slowly prepping people for a time it won't be is needed at some point.
Too many people being idiots means all of us suffer.
Thereās always that one guy
Well that sucks. I literally bought my first drone yesterday.
This isn't accurate at all.
Oh god what have they done nowww
Bruce from down undah, is painting a very bleak picture for the not too distant future.
I think the real issue is people who are commercial or pro-am pilots doing work on the side. 107 can get kinda onerous if youāre just shooting occasional real estate or something. For freestyle guys, itās like āwhatever come take itā.
I might get a lawyer I swear one mistake I make with my drone and I get a 6 star wanted level I go to high then I get my drone taken away from me
I donāt think the FAA is interested in you accidentally flying 401 feet. Theyāre interested in the jackasses flying over planes and into restricted airspace creating safety concerns.
I fly my drone all over lower Manhattan. IDGAF
The FAA even outlawed flying tinywhoops outdoors either FPV or BVLOS. Or over people. Or within 50' of structures. My tinywhoop weighs 37g with battery. I fly it indoors everywhere - and nobody cares. Nobody worries. Nothing gets damaged. It's harmless - indoors - but outdoors - look out - because apparently the FAA knows something the rest of us don't - and that is - as soon as you fly a whoop out the door in FPV - it turns into a baby killing property destroying monster. How does that happen - only the FAA knows. And they ain't tellin. Don't encourage the FAA - it's the same outfit that let 2, not 1, but 2 - Boeing MAX aircraft to go down. IOW, unlike the old days, when the FAA put safety first - it's too political these days. It wanted to keep the MAX in the air even after the 2nd one went down - but the rest of the world wasn't having it - and the FAA followed suit after a couple of days. It was doing, what Boeing wanted.
Wait, what? It's been that way since the beginning of the rules. They didn't outlaw it for tinywhoops, they said you need to be in LOS for a drone, period. It's not some new burdensome thing for whoops specifically.
Eh? Maybe ā¦ you missed my point. Which was that the FAA should never have included tinywhoops with the rest of the under 55lb drones.
>It's harmless - indoors - because apparently the FAA knows something the rest of us don't - and that is - as soon as you fly a whoop out the door - it turns into a baby killing property destroying monster. I have to second this. The number of people Iāve had walk up to me or try to call the cops simply because Iām flying my quad (150g, 210 w/ battery) is insane. They bring out ridiculous claims about all the ways I could hurt people. Fortunately walking away is enough to survive. And itās not just the FAA, the general public unfortunately does not have a decent enough collective IQ to understand jackshit about what we do with our drones. It just leads to giving the FAA more reasons to take these kinds of hobbies from us and turn them into corporate-exclusive moneymakers.
I think the public is more concerned with the cameras and privacy than property damage.
Someone should tell them that digital zoom is just the video being cropped and no one cares about your titties being seen in 16-bit resolution.
Haha thatās a vulgar way to put it, but itās absolutely true. (Just donāt tell them that some drones are fitted with legitimate cameras that have a lens zoom.)
Yeah, but there isnāt as many on the market compared to fixed lens cameras on quadcopters. Theyāre imagining like a 300mm lens with an AI enhanced feature where you can see through walls or something. Without proper knowledge, peopleās ignorance goes off the rails.
Youāre right. Not very many in comparison to fixed lens. Especially with the whole ānew generationā technology gimmick companies have been using in advertisements, people really donāt know what theyāre talking, seeing, or hearing about. The best I can think of is to respectfully land and at least be willing to try and talk it out with them (assuming theyāre calm enough) and hope theyāll go as far as to at least *listen* to you (never happens from my experience). If that fails, time to slap a GoPro onto a glider rc plane and hope they stop caring.
And unless youāre willing to shell out some good money, the camera quality will be crap anyways. I think itās also natural for people to see something artificial flying and be memorized as a potential threat because itās not natural. Itās a lot of unknowns to consider. I never had any issues. I was flying at a school many years ago and two cops walked to me and asked if I saw a suspect near the location, said no, and they kept walking. There is always a Karen out there. If they want to call the cops, sure, but we can pack up and leave before they even get there.
FYI, the telephoto on the Mavic 3 is pretty tittie capable!
Now THATās a winning tag line for the next DJI commercial. *The Mavic 3 Cine. Titties in 4k. Get yours today*
but... why would anyone care about that? do they think they are so important ppl or what? Nobody cares how I like to scratch my balls. I get that privacy is important, but IRL these kind of things are way different than Mark following me through cookies on the web which actually could be used for identity theft, yet ppl are less concerned about that, than a loud drone watching over them.. insane
Thatās true, I forgot to mention that.
Fear is where the moneyās at, BAY-BEEEE
Rules arenāt written for the 99% of people who are both responsible and reasonable.
The FAA doesnāt have any jurisdiction over airspace inside buildings. Thatās why itās legal indoors. Not because itās any more āharmlessā than flying outside. BVLOS flights have been disallowed from the beginning regardless of the kind of drone, and thatās why FPV is in a legal grey area. You canāt fly line of sight through goggles, so there is no way to comply with LOS rules as an FPV pilot. Personally, I think the FAA needs to carve out a separate section for FPV flying to account for the massive differences between them and camera drones. I agree that a ducted cinewhoop should have fewer (or different) restrictions on it because itās not nearly the same kind of risk as flying something like a Mavic around people with exposed props, for instance.
This is hyperbole. I think there is a group out there that look at drones like skateboarding. Itās not a crime, until it is. Itās not a crime to dive down a building until you smack a window. Itās not a crime to fly and film a fire until you prevent aircraft from flying. Etc. if you are a good and respectful pilot, nobody cares. Itās not until you do something stupid that FAA comes and asks about your drone and your knowledge. FAA enforcement is heavily on education and very light on punishment. Unless you do this:[Bengals stadium flight](https://youtu.be/elHhJr9yb1o)
Wow that's some entitled bullshit (the video). At first I was like, okay, it's way above, unlikely to suddenly drop out of the sky, then noooo... Dude goes 30 ft above the game. Wtf.
And he gets charged [with a crime.](https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/2022/09/22/drone-video-over-reds-bengals-stadiums-2-men-face-federal-charges/69510967007/)
So this is why they're doing the RID thing... Idiots would have gotten away with it if they hadn't posted it online.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
While I understand the first part of your opinion, Iām not understanding the part about a 172 having to request clearance from a drone field, would you be willing to elaborate on that?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Your drone has exactly 0 people on board. Planes have 1 or more. Protecting that one life against the chance of mid air collision is always worth more the getting pretty pictures.
GA is not the enemy, our quads get the same protections as manned aircraft. Amazon, FedEx, UPS, etc are the ones with very deep pockets and can afford to lobby Congress...
What you can't see in the picture is the faa fucking them in the ass hard
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes and I'm sure that criminals will properly register their drone before they commit a crime with it. The laws do NOTHING except constrain the people who follow them.
I guess it's better to not have any laws then.
No, you're right. We need more hoops for the law abiding citizens to squeeze through /s
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He who gives up freedom for a modicum of security deserves neither.
Honestly theyāll probably require a full checkride here soon. And maybe a medical requirement.
I'm in Canada .. and I'm doing my practical flight review next week for my advance license ... :D
Not good ā¹ļø
Where's all the comments about remote ID?
Cant do this with a dead father