Sharp as the leading edge of a bowling ball...

[kattz]

I live in Class G airspace, and am working on getting my 107 cert. Very careful to only fly in my 1 acre yard and at 50' or below. Testing and familiarzation purposes only.

So my neighbor who has a drone (name of offender and type of drone withheld for their protection) tells me, "yeah, I flew over to above that cell tower about 3 miles away with my drone, and all of a sudden I see an airplane below me, so I hit the return home function and hightailed it home."

And then, "Flew my drone to the other side of the lake at about 500'. Coudn't see it, but it came right back when I hit "return to home"."

Yep. FAA registration doubtful. Can't understand that the drone has to be in direct line of sight. Can't understand Class G airspace. Drone flight beyond DLOS. Over 400' altitude over a 300' tower; within the airfield approach. On approach path to grass airfield. Aircraft directly in vicinity of drone flight.

He wondered why the DJI app kept flagging him with airspace cautions.

This is the kind of crap that's going to cost all of us in the long run. Needless to say, he got an earful and a few expletives tossed in.

Kev

 

[jakejhonson44]

He wondered why the DJI app kept flagging him with airspace cautions.

DJI keep flagging airspace cautions because of its restrictions committed just follow the cautions maybe it will take you away from danger.

 

[Donnie Frank]

I live in Class G airspace, and am working on getting my 107 cert. Very careful to only fly in my 1 acre yard and at 50' or below. Testing and familiarzation purposes only.

So my neighbor who has a drone (name of offender and type of drone withheld for their protection) tells me, "yeah, I flew over to above that cell tower about 3 miles away with my drone, and all of a sudden I see an airplane below me, so I hit the return home function and hightailed it home."

And then, "Flew my drone to the other side of the lake at about 500'. Coudn't see it, but it came right back when I hit "return to home"."

Yep. FAA registration doubtful. Can't understand that the drone has to be in direct line of sight. Can't understand Class G airspace. Drone flight beyond DLOS. Over 400' altitude over a 300' tower; within the airfield approach. On approach path to grass airfield. Aircraft directly in vicinity of drone flight.

He wondered why the DJI app kept flagging him with airspace cautions.

This is the kind of crap that's going to cost all of us in the long run. Needless to say, he got an earful and a few expletives tossed in.

Kev

Regarding LOS, I do large mapping projects for a living. Maintaining LOS is impossible. The industry doesn't care about the FAA rule. The clients just want their orthophotos ASAP. I'm mapping a 12 mile corridor this week. I've split the corridor up into essentially 4, 3-mile sections. Launching from essentially the middle, I feel lucky if the drone doesn't exceed 8,000 feet distance. Yesterday's record was just under 8600'. This is a 3-day job. How long would it take if I had to maintain LOS (no more than 1500' even on my best days)??? 3 weeks? 2 months? And what if it's not a corridor job, like a recent 1850 acre job I did a couple months ago? If I had to maintain LOS, a job like that would take more than a month or TWO. There's no way I could make a living on what I charge now if I multiply fly time by 10x.

I understand the whole LOS thing, but exceptions have to be made. The military flies drones outside of VLOS all the time. Imagine if they couldn't? Most large mapping jobs are out in the middle of nowhere. Depending on client resolution spec, missions are flown 200' - 300' AGL...mostly 200.

D

 

[kattz]

Regarding LOS, I do large mapping projects for a living. Maintaining LOS is impossible. The industry doesn't care about the FAA rule. The clients just want their orthophotos ASAP. I'm mapping a 12 mile corridor this week. I've split the corridor up into essentially 4, 3-mile sections. Launching from essentially the middle, I feel lucky if the drone doesn't exceed 8,000 feet distance. Yesterday's record was just under 8600'. This is a 3-day job. How long would it take if I had to maintain LOS (no more than 1500' even on my best days)??? 3 weeks? 2 months? And what if it's not a corridor job, like a recent 1850 acre job I did a couple months ago? If I had to maintain LOS, a job like that would take more than a month or TWO. There's no way I could make a living on what I charge now if I multiply fly time by 10x.

I understand the whole LOS thing, but exceptions have to be made. The military flies drones outside of VLOS all the time. Imagine if they couldn't? Most large mapping jobs are out in the middle of nowhere. Depending on client resolution spec, missions are flown 200' - 300' AGL...mostly 200.

D

Umm... No. Nope. No way. You're not even on the glideslope regarding the context of my comments...

You can't possibly argue that mapping orthos by a Part 107 pilot "in the middle of nowhere" as you put it, in the same context as VLOS for a hobbyist. There's a big difference between "middle of nowhere" and the approach end of a grass runway bearing 22 and a GA aircraft flying UNDER your drone. And the particular operator in question can't see his drone on a good day farther out than 50 yds. He flies by the camera and relies on the drone's systems to keep him out of trouble. Can't see it? Swipe "Return Home"...

To go further, the industry or customer you serve doesn't care about the FAA rules because they don't have to. YOU are the RPIC, not the customer. As such, you carry total responsiblity for your aircraft and your activities. If you have a mishap, you can't say "Well, Mr. FAA, that's what the customer wanted." The FAA doesn't care about your customer, they care about YOU, and your activities as a (I believe) Part 107 pilot. Which means that if you are not waivered, and you get busted, you're going to get schwacked by the governing authorities in my opinion. Now, I'm assuming you're operating in the US. If I'm not correct, then you're right, the FAA does not care about what you do. However, odds are that someone else does.

Now, having said that, I agree with your comments regarding impossible jobs if remaining in LOS. I will toss a nod in the direction of what you stated regarding what you do, because you're doing this for a living. I get that. But you're also probably not a 79-year-old hobbyist who really doesn't care about the requirements or implications of what said hobbyist just did. Again, 1.5 mi distant, Mavic, 300' above a 353' cell tower within sight of the 22 approach EOR for a local grass strip runway that is very active - 653' above the ground, can't see it, no awareness of the airspace, no awareness of airfield traffic.

Think of what I'm saying in this context - Mavic goes through the windscreen of a Cessna 152 at 450' AGL at the descent airspeed of 62 KIAS. At that altitude, even if no injuries, that's likely a Class A mishap. Read that as "smoking hole in the ground".

I respect what you do, but your situation is completely different from the dumb@$$ in question.

Kev

 

[Steve@AerialImagesPro]

I understand the whole LOS thing, but exceptions have to be made. The military flies drones outside of VLOS all the time. Imagine if they couldn't? Most large mapping jobs are out in the middle of nowhere. Depending on client resolution spec, missions are flown 200' - 300' AGL...mostly 200.

There IS an exception process already! You can file for a waiver to fly BVLOS. If you don't know that, I'd have to question that you really have a 107 cert.

 

[Donnie Frank]

Umm... No. Nope. No way. You're not even on the glideslope regarding the context of my comments...

You can't possibly argue that mapping orthos by a Part 107 pilot "in the middle of nowhere" as you put it, in the same context as VLOS for a hobbyist. There's a big difference between "middle of nowhere" and the approach end of a grass runway bearing 22 and a GA aircraft flying UNDER your drone.

Yep. I agree 100%. I thought you were advocating that VLOS is a necessary part of all flights. I missed the part where you allowed for exceptions. My bad.

And the particular operator in question can't see his drone on a good day farther out than 50 yds.

Why is he losing LOS so soon? Obstructions?

He flies by the camera and relies on the drone's systems to keep him out of trouble. Can't see it? Swipe "Return Home"...

Ahhh...a "technology" pilot. I flew without FPV or telemetry for years. Though I DO count on telemetry for missions out past a mile, my piloting skills are very sharp. I always fly VLOS if I can, which is generally within 1500'. As soon as the bird is visible, I bring her home manually. It makes mapping funner and keeps my piloting skills well honed.

To go further, the industry or customer you serve doesn't care about the FAA rules because they don't have to. YOU are the RPIC, not the customer. As such, you carry total responsiblity for your aircraft and your activities.

Yep. Exactly.

If you have a mishap, you can't say "Well, Mr. FAA, that's what the customer wanted."

Nor would I. I always take full responsibility for my drone. 100%.

The FAA doesn't care about your customer, they care about YOU, and your activities as a (I believe) Part 107 pilot. Which means that if you are not waivered, and you get busted, you're going to get schwacked by the governing authorities in my opinion.

Perhaps. To me, the FAA is like those red left turning arrows. I've been making left turns and flying RC for decades without the helping hand of the government. Those left arrows make me no more safer than the FAA makes my drone flying safer. I still follow the same safety protocols I've been following for decades. I no more count on FAA for my drone safety than I would count on (or wait for) a red arrow @ 3:AM. The result is I have no dents on any of my cars or motorcycles, and I've done zero property damage and had zero RC injuries over the decades. That's a perfect safety record decades before the FAA decided to get involved. Don't get me wrong...I get that these restrictions, rules and regulations hold value for many new drone pilots and red arrows for drivers over the age of 80. I'm just saying that NEW laws have had zero effect on safety protocols I've been employing LONG before they were "mandatory."

A lesson I learned fairly early in life that I HIGHLY recommend for everyone: Own your own safety.

Now, I'm assuming you're operating in the US. If I'm not correct, then you're right, the FAA does not care about what you do. However, odds are that someone else does.

Possibly. For the most part, people leave me alone when I work. 80% of my work is done outside of public view. I'm often given keys or combinations to gain access to the properties I map.

Now, having said that, I agree with your comments regarding impossible jobs if remaining in LOS. I will toss a nod in the direction of what you stated regarding what you do, because you're doing this for a living. I get that. But you're also probably not a 79-year-old hobbyist who really doesn't care about the requirements or implications of what said hobbyist just did.

Correct. Don't mistake my cavalier attitude toward the FAA's drone rules and regulations as a disregard for safety. I fly VERY safely. "Risk management" is always on my mind.

Again, 1.5 mi distant, Mavic, 300' above a 353' cell tower within sight of the 22 approach EOR for a local grass strip runway that is very active - 653' above the ground, can't see it, no awareness of the airspace, no awareness of airfield traffic.

Yep....that's the worst kind of pilot. I would probably make an effort to educate him, only because every published drone incident makes it tough on the rest of us.

Think of what I'm saying in this context - Mavic goes through the windscreen of a Cessna 152 at 450' AGL at the descent airspeed of 62 KIAS. At that altitude, even if no injuries, that's likely a Class A mishap. Read that as "smoking hole in the ground".

I agree with you 100%. Not in a thousand years would I fly around an airport without having all permits in order and all parties aware. I HAVE flown within Class C and D airspace and have been in contact with the tower and/or other pilots via NAV-COM radios via one of the three guys on my team. In the case of remote Class D locations, I simply stay in contact with the airport manager, keeping him apprised of operations. I call 2 weeks ahead and then again the day of and then again before launch, and then finally when finished. This has been done via cell phone and has worked very well.

I respect what you do, but your situation is completely different from the dumb@$$ in question.

Kev

Touché. I agree. I highly recommend you talk to the guy. I would approach it from a "you're making it hard on the rest of us" position. That sort of negates the "it's none of your business" response you might get. Yes, it IS your business.

Good luck.

D

 

[kattz]

First, he can't see the drone because of two reasons - he flies "face down" on his iPad once he swipes the "Takeoff" slider. Second, his vision is that of a 79 y/o diabetic. In other words, can't see the Mavic past 50 yds. Nothing against aged pilots. Just in this case, the guy's vision isn't very good.

I tried to reason with him; he thinks that Mavic would just "bounce off" any aircraft. "Too small to do any damage." Can't get through to him.

 

[Donnie Frank]

First, he can't see the drone because of two reasons - he flies "face down" on his iPad once he swipes the "Takeoff" slider. Second, his vision is that of a 79 y/o diabetic. In other words, can't see the Mavic past 50 yds. Nothing against aged pilots. Just in this case, the guy's vision isn't very good.

Yikes.

I tried to reason with him; he thinks that Mavic would just "bounce off" any aircraft. "Too small to do any damage." Can't get through to him.

Well then just kick his *** and take his drone. You're not only doing the community a favor, but you might just save a life! HA!...<;^)

D

 

[Kestrel]

I've been making left turns and flying RC for decades without the helping hand of the government.

I'm sorry, but I get the feeling that, as another here surmised, you don't have your 107 ticket?

"Been flying RCs for decades" is a very scary justification I keep hearing with annoying frequency from folks arguing against "Gummint" rules. Were you flying your RCs in the NAS that entire time? Along with a million other schmoes? And real aircraft carrying people? Was there such a thing as a TFR back then? Or was there Class B airspace (or even a TCA), over your RC field? Do you even know what those terms mean? How does GPS work? What are its strengths and weaknesses? What shape is the airspace around small airports? Why is it that shape? Why is it different one airport to another? Why is that critically important as regards drone-safety?

14 CFR Part 107 isn't about how well you fly your machine, it's about (hopefully) ensuring you understand the larger (and every changing) airspace environment in which you are flying that machine. I say "hopefully" because it has to be acknowledged that not all 107 certified operators really know that body-of-knowledge, but it's a pretty fair bet that they know it waaayyy better than operators who've decided they're too good or special to do the work. It's folks that have "flown RCs for decades" and therefore decide they have nothing to learn, that will inevitably (and correctly as far as I am concerned), result in ALL operators having to prove they know the rules by studying for and passing the 107 test. Don't pass it? Your RC days are over (except perhaps planes-on-strings). You're probably not hurting certified operators (but you may kill a planeload of kids); you're hurting The Boys at the RC field.

If you actually are certified, then you know exactly what I mean. Feel free to spread the message.

 

[Donnie Frank]

I'm sorry, but I get the feeling that, as another here surmised, you don't have your 107 ticket?

"Been flying RCs for decades" is a very scary justification I keep hearing with annoying frequency from folks arguing against "Gummint" rules.

Scary to those who just started flying, but have now achieved "expert" status because they took a test that involved zero practical flying. Yep...seen it many times. "Look at me everybody! I have my 107! I'm now a 'safe' pilot!"

Don't buy into the propaganda, my friend. Any housewife can get a 107 withOUT even OWNING a UAS.

Were you flying your RCs in the NAS that entire time?

LOL....is that a trick question???? Funny.

Along with a million other schmoes?

One other schmoe. My business partner.

And real aircraft carrying people? Was there such a thing as a TFR back then?

Of course. But back then, before one could earn a living flying a UAS, we flew in designated areas called "RC Parks." You may have heard of them. We generally didn't fly anywhere else, so were unaffected by TFR's.

Or was there Class B airspace (or even a TCA), over your RC field?"

Class B? No. Class D? Yes. I suggest you Google "George A. Maloof Memorial Air Park." That is where I mostly flew, and still fly there to this day....among full scale aviation...smack dab in their space.

WARNING: Be prepared to have everything you thought you knew about UAS aviation and the NAS blown out of the water.

Do you even know what those terms mean?

LOL...of course. I can also read a Sectional Chart quite proficiently, and can even tart out METARs if I have to (those I use more modern tools for weather predictions). My friend....do NOT make the fatal assumption that just because someone doesn't have a 107 that they do NOT fully understand the NAS. When I turned my hobby into a profession FIVE YEARS AGO, I made it a point to get re-acquainted with the NAS, Sectional Charts, METARS, FSDO and all that other stuff LONG BEFORE the 333 even came out. Gee whiz, Wally....I guess that makes me one of them thar "responsible UAS pilots."

How does GPS work?

Child's play. Do YOU know what SRTM stands for and what it is? Hint: It's NOT on the 107 test. LOL....

What are its strengths and weaknesses?

Strengths: Razor sharp piloting skills. A deep knowledge of UAS firmwares, softwares and their shortcomings can caveats.
Weakness: METARS.

What shape is the airspace around small airports? Why is it that shape? Why is it different one airport to another? Why is that critically important as regards drone-safety?

Two words: Sectional Charts. But to answer your questions: Shape = polygons. Why = because air space is based on a myriad of factors. Different = see previous answer. Critically important = Too many to list here. 5 miles and 400' will keep you generally safe. Understanding glide slopes help.

14 CFR Part 107 isn't about how well you fly your machine,

EXACTLY!! And the prize goes to.....

"...it's about (hopefully) ensuring you understand the larger (and every changing) airspace environment in which you are flying that machine."

Sure. But allow me to let you in on a little secret. While having a 107 means you've passed a test, NOT having a 107 does NOT mean that one does NOT have a firm understanding of the NAS and all things related to aviation and UAS safety. Don't underestimate me, would be my good advice to you, my friend.

I say "hopefully" because it has to be acknowledged that not all 107 certified operators really know that body-of-knowledge, but it's a pretty fair bet that they know it waaayyy better than operators who've decided they're too good or special to do the work."

My money goes on the guy who's been flying 10 years. Are you familiar with the AMA? THIS is the set of rules I've been following since the EIGHTIES.

http://highflightmedia.com/AMA_NationalSafetyCode.pdf

You MIGHT find that it looks familiar. And NOW you know where the FAA got most of their rules.

It's folks that have "flown RCs for decades" and therefore decide they have nothing to learn, that will inevitably (and correctly as far as I am concerned), result in ALL operators having to prove they know the rules by studying for and passing the 107 test. Don't pass it? Your RC days are over (except perhaps planes-on-strings). You're probably not hurting certified operators (but you may kill a planeload of kids); you're hurting The Boys at the RC field.

UAS propaganda at it's best. "...planeload of kids..." Yeah...I'll try to avoid those. LOL....

If you actually are certified, then you know exactly what I mean. Feel free to spread the message.

If you'd like to go toe-to-toe, I'll run circles around you or any of your "certified" friends. I was safe LOOOOOOONG before you or the FAA even knew who the hell the RC community was. Local airport managers are in my speed dial. 30+ years, no damage, no injuries. I guess that counts for nothing to an FAA troll.

Question: Why is it that the ACTUAL FAA are so much nicer than FAA Trolls??? Still trying to figure that one out. When I was mapping in the flight line of our local Class C air space, the FSDO folks were nice enough to come out and check out our operations. Nice of the airport to close runway 21 just for us and our UAS operations. We all had a very nice time visiting and exchanging information. Nice folks, those FAA people.

Do you know WHY it's called "Runway 21?" LOL....

When it comes to safety, *I* own it - NOT some government faction. You know who I count on for safety? ME. Always have, always will. Good job "calling me out" though.

You have a good day.

 

[Steve@AerialImagesPro]

You don't need a license to drive a car either.

 

[Donnie Frank]

You don't need a license to drive a car either.

"And you don't need a college education to be a genius or a gazillionaire." ~ Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Mark Zuckerberg

 

[Steve@AerialImagesPro]

"And you don't need a college education to be a genius or a gazillionaire." ~ Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Mark Zuckerberg

That has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. We’re as if drive a car without a license and get caught, you’ll be fined. There is no argument. If you’re flying ‘for a living’ and don’t have a 107, and get caught you’ll get heavily fined. And worse you put your employer/clients at risk of being fined.

But whatever, anti government sentiment, floats your boat. It won’t affect me at all.

 

[kattz]

Back to business, the dull end of the stick decided to register his drone after some harsh considerations. And I've taught him to read sectionals... Progress!

I was deciding whether or not to toss my opinion into the mix above...

@ Donnie Frank - So... you are running a business without a Part 107?... That's what it sounds like - I'm confused. Because if you are, how can you get a waiver for the things you are doing?

You can't compare R/C ops with what you say you're doing. I was an AMA member for about 10 years. Flew F3J and F3C at the 1985 ToC in Vegas. I flew .30-.60 size 700 class helis, 3m sailplanes, pattern ships, etc. R/C at a field is only semi-relevant to making $ doing work-by-drone. And I'm not convinced that at no time flying R/C that you NEVER put a bird in the dirt.

R/C airfields are like little safe pockets of airspace. No wires, people leave you alone when you're airborne, nice landing strips, etc.

I left the AMA after I got tired of the "nose in the air" attitude of my peers. People forgot what it was like to fly for enjoyment, and were too worried about what they had vs. the next person. I certainly don't need them now for insurance.

Be careful about that "run rings around others" thing. I've found that no matter how good a person thinks they are, there's always someone who is better.

 

[Steve@AerialImagesPro]

Good work!

 

[Steve@AerialImagesPro]

"And you don't need a college education to be a genius or a gazillionaire." ~ Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Mark Zuckerberg

Except Einstein had a PhD, Zuckerberg graduated Harvard and Tesla was your best shot and even he attended 2 years of college before he dropped out.

 

[Kestrel]

Scary to those who just started flying, but have now achieved "expert" status because they took a test that involved zero practical flying. Yep...seen it many times. "Look at me everybody! I have my 107! I'm now a 'safe' pilot!"

Don't buy into the propaganda, my friend. Any housewife can get a 107 withOUT even OWNING a UAS.






LOL....is that a trick question???? Funny.







One other schmoe. My business partner.






Of course. But back then, before one could earn a living flying a UAS, we flew in designated areas called "RC Parks." You may have heard of them. We generally didn't fly anywhere else, so were unaffected by TFR's.






Class B? No. Class D? Yes. I suggest you Google "George A. Maloof Memorial Air Park." That is where I mostly flew, and still fly there to this day....among full scale aviation...smack dab in their space.

WARNING: Be prepared to have everything you thought you knew about UAS aviation and the NAS blown out of the water.






LOL...of course. I can also read a Sectional Chart quite proficiently, and can even tart out METARs if I have to (those I use more modern tools for weather predictions). My friend....do NOT make the fatal assumption that just because someone doesn't have a 107 that they do NOT fully understand the NAS. When I turned my hobby into a profession FIVE YEARS AGO, I made it a point to get re-acquainted with the NAS, Sectional Charts, METARS, FSDO and all that other stuff LONG BEFORE the 333 even came out. Gee whiz, Wally....I guess that makes me one of them thar "responsible UAS pilots."





Child's play. Do YOU know what SRTM stands for and what it is? Hint: It's NOT on the 107 test. LOL....






Strengths: Razor sharp piloting skills. A deep knowledge of UAS firmwares, softwares and their shortcomings can caveats.
Weakness: METARS.






Two words: Sectional Charts. But to answer your questions: Shape = polygons. Why = because air space is based on a myriad of factors. Different = see previous answer. Critically important = Too many to list here. 5 miles and 400' will keep you generally safe. Understanding glide slopes help.





EXACTLY!! And the prize goes to.....





Sure. But allow me to let you in on a little secret. While having a 107 means you've passed a test, NOT having a 107 does NOT mean that one does NOT have a firm understanding of the NAS and all things related to aviation and UAS safety. Don't underestimate me, would be my good advice to you, my friend.






My money goes on the guy who's been flying 10 years. Are you familiar with the AMA? THIS is the set of rules I've been following since the EIGHTIES.

http://highflightmedia.com/AMA_NationalSafetyCode.pdf

You MIGHT find that it looks familiar. And NOW you know where the FAA got most of their rules.






UAS propaganda at it's best. "...planeload of kids..." Yeah...I'll try to avoid those. LOL....





If
or any of your "certified" friends. I was safe LOOOOOOONG before you or the FAA even knew who the hell the RC community was. Local airport managers are in my speed dial. 30+ years, no damage, no injuries. I guess that counts for nothing to an FAA troll.

Question: Why is it that the ACTUAL FAA are so much nicer than FAA Trolls??? Still trying to figure that one out. When I was mapping in the flight line of our local Class C air space, the FSDO folks were nice enough to come out and check out our operations. Nice of the airport to close runway 21 just for us and our UAS operations. We all had a very nice time visiting and exchanging information. Nice folks, those FAA people.

Do you know WHY it's called "Runway 21?" LOL....

When it comes to safety, *I* own it - NOT some government faction. You know who I count on for safety? ME. Always have, always will. Good job "calling me out" though.

You have a good day.

“Toe to toe”? That’s absurd. Read my signature. You very simply dont know what you dont know. I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with a dangerous ignorant hack.

 

[Kestrel]

“Toe to toe”? That’s absurd. Read my signature. You very simply dont know what you dont know. I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with a dangerous ignorant hack.

Oh what the hell.....SRTM? I served as one of the principle Systems Engineers on the mid-90s synthetic-vision validation mapping of the Matterhorn in Switzerland (<1 arcsecond), funded by NASA and program-managed by TUD Darmstadt. Be careful who you challenge my friend.

 

[Kestrel]

Oh what the hell.....SRTM? I served as one of the principle Systems Engineers on the mid-90s synthetic-vision validation mapping of the Matterhorn in Switzerland (<1 arcsecond), funded by NASA and program-managed by TUD Darmstadt. Be careful who you challenge my friend.

I was also one of eight airline pilots chosen by the FAA in the early 90s to prove the first GPS approaches in the nation. These were into Aspen Colorado (6deg glideslope, in winter, to an upwardly-sloping runway (c.9 degree flare-transition)). I’m also a published Technical Fellow recognized internationally as an expert in aviation regulatory issues. Still wanna have a go? Maybe I’m lying, but maybe im not. Wanna be humiliated?

Seriously dude. You’re freakin’ dangerous and you need to be called out. Done.

 

[Donnie Frank]

That has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

If you can't connect the dots, then I can't help you. You eluded that "no license" made you a crappy driver or a "dangerous one." I disagree. You only become a danger when you crash. I hope we can agree on that point. NO crash = NO danger.

Except Einstein had a PhD, Zuckerberg graduated Harvard and Tesla was your best shot and even he attended 2 years of college before he dropped out.

Check your sources. Zuckerberg ATTENDED Harvard, but never graduated. I concede Einstein DID graduate from Zurich Polytechnic.

We’re as if drive a car without a license and get caught, you’ll be fined. There is no argument. If you’re flying ‘for a living’ and don’t have a 107, and get caught you’ll get heavily fined. And worse you put your employer/clients at risk of being fined.

But whatever, anti government sentiment, floats your boat. It won’t affect me at all.

Exactly. It won't effect anyone, since I don't crash, don't hurt people, and don't take risks. I don't need some crappy piece of paper that any housewife who's never flown a drone in her life can get. You surprise me that you put so much stock in the 107. Do you not know that anybody can get one of those withOUT EVER HAVING FLOWN A DRONE, YES????