Source: https://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?48920-FAA-Drone-Racers-FPV-Pilots-Now-Required-To-Have-A-Remote-Pilot-Airman-Certificate&s=f66f67e8210cf82b228d6148e44d6eca&p=810898&viewfull=1
Timestamp: 2020-02-27 20:24:23
Document Index: 468291633

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 107', 'art 107', 'art 107', 'art 107', 'art 107', 'art-107', 'art 107']

25th August 2016, 09:36 AM #1
So for example, if you�ve gotten into drone racing, whether you fly for hobby or not, the FAA confirmed to me today that if you fly FPV � first person view � you will be required to get a drone pilot�s license and comply with the new Part 107. Below is my question and the FAA�s response:
Q: Could you confirm whether hobby FPV flyers will have to get a Part 107 remote pilot certificate after August 29 when the new drone rules go into effect?
A: Under the FAA�s current interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, modelers who want to fly their drones using first-person-view systems must operate under Part 107, which requires a Remote Pilot Certificate. The operator also would need to comply with any other applicable Part 107 requirement.
The FAA�s response indicates that it may review this requirement in the future, but starting Monday Part 107 is the law applicable to FPV flyers. According to the FAA: �The FAA solicited comments to its interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft and received over 33,000 comments, including comments on the use of FPV. The FAA is considering the issues raised by those comments and plans to issue a final interpretation of the Special Rule for Model Aircraft that reflects its consideration of the comments.�
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngogl.../#74958c4e6743
25th August 2016, 02:48 PM #2
This is what happens when those who have no experience of, and little understanding about a subject are empowered to create regulations controlling that subject. It's the same the world over. We have shirts and suits regulating out of ignorance and based on consultation with powerful lobby groups who have their own agendas.
Where is the AMA in all this?
25th August 2016, 02:54 PM #3
This is what happens when those who have no experience of, and little understanding about a subject are empowered to create regulations controlling that subject.
Easy to say, but not quite true, there was a lot of input by those in the sUAV industry that tempered what the anti sUAV lobby wanted from the FAA, however the FPV industry had little input and the FPV community really did nothing and spent little if any money lobbying.
Their constant was, let someone else do it for me.
Doing what they could with their limited resources and tax exempt restrictions.
25th August 2016, 03:19 PM #4
Don't forget that the sUAV industry has its own agendas. Those focused on commercial operations are always keen on regulations that exclude amateurs from encroaching on their activities. In Australia there has been outrage from some "licensed" drone operators at the prospect of regulatory changes (that come into effect next month) which effectively deregulate drones under 2Kg and allow anyone with a Phantom Menace to compete with "the big boys" and their heavily regulated operations.
Everyone's looking to get the best deal for themselves so ultimately the regulations (when formulated by government shirts and suits) tend to be shaped by those with the biggest wallets and largest lobbing budgets. Kind of makes a mockery of the fact that regulations are supposed to be about safety.
Here in New Zealand for instance, a 10-year-old kid who flies his CX10 over a vacant field in the country without first getting the permission of the land-owner, risks a fine of up to $5,000 because (according to our regulator) this is a *very* risky thing to do. However, the same regulator has just approved the delivery of Pizzas by drone which involves operating much larger craft (weighing over 5Kg) flying over densely populated areas of selected towns. Why is the 20g toy flying over a vacant field so dangerous as to merit a $5,000 fine while the flying of a heavy-lift craft over urban and suburban areas is "safe"? Simple... the pizza company paid CAA (our airspace regulator) a fist-full of cash for the right to endanger lives and property.
It's all about money and little to do with safety.
25th August 2016, 03:27 PM #5
It always has been and that makes little or no difference at this time.
Then there is risk versus benefit, the benefits of commercial operations can be measured against the risk, whereas hobby use only benefits the individual while introducing the same risks or even more risk due to poor design, lack of training and or the lack financial responsibility (no insurance or deep pockets to sue).
26th August 2016, 06:29 AM #6
Subject consolidated to here. http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread....239#post809239.
1st September 2016, 03:43 PM #7
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...ue-flying-fpv/
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...cate-part-107/
1st September 2016, 04:49 PM #8
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/amagov/2016/08/31/ama-members-may-continue-flying-fpv
"Second, for those flying first-person view (FPV), we understand that a recent Forbes article has made the issue of regulatory compliance even more confusing. In that article, the FAA was quoted as saying that as of August 29th, anyone flying FPV needs to obtain a Remote Pilot certificate and follow the provisions of Part 107.
"Although this is true for anyone who is not fully complying with Section 336, based on pending litigation with the FAA, we are advising AMA members that flying FPV with a spotter under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft remains acceptable as long as you continue to fly according to the AMA Safety Code and AMA’s safety guidelines for FPV operations in Document 550."
In other words, make yourself into a test case and we will back you, how much, eh, that's not mentioned.
I think what the AMA needs to wake up to is, even if you have a MOU with the FAA, it's only worth about the next few inches off of a roll of toilet paper.
Thin cheap toilet paper.
8th September 2016, 10:43 AM #9
Yes but they accomplished the exact opposite since there is no difference between a hobbyist flying FPV and commercial drone flying under these regs. So hobbyists willing to take the exam and get the security clearance can encroach on their business since they could also fly commercially.
8th September 2016, 10:55 AM #10
Yes but they accomplished the exact opposite since there is no difference between a hobbyist flying FPV and commercial drone flying under these regs.
Actually there is a difference, hobbyist's can not fly FPV under 336, whereas commercial operators under 107 can apply for a waver to fly FPV.