The Naked Truth Behind The FAA "Part 107" License

With the recent arrival of the FAA's new Part 107 Small Unmanned Aircraft regulations late last month, it has become quite common to see drone operators proudly announcing that they are one of the first to pass the knowledge exam and will soon be open for business. (The applicant must pass a TSA background check before actually being granted the license). But what does this really mean to the average individual or business person?

To be honest it's very similar to someone saying they passed the knowledge test for a chauffeur's license, but not an actual driving test. Yes that's correct. There is NO practical exam associated with Part 107. When I obtained my Private Pilots License, I had to pass a knowledge test, an oral exam and a check ride with an FAA examiner. On top of all that, my instructor had to sign off my log book to indicate I was actually qualified and ready to even go on that check ride.

So what passing the 107 knowledge test really means is some test questions were memorized and a passing score on the 107 exam was obtained - and nothing more. This is in no way intended to downplay the importance of compliance with the new FAA commercial drone regulations. This step is vitally important to educate potential commercial drone operators on the safety aspects of flying drones in the national airspace. Many of these new drone pilots have been violating FAA safety policies they never knew existed until studying for this exam.

Even more important for the FAA is by passing the exam, commercial drone operators will no longer be able to plead ignorance when they are caught being careless or reckless. This also greatly simplifies FAA enforcement efforts when it comes to levying fines and revoking operators licenses, as they can now actually cite specific regulations violated.

So going back to our example of the aspiring limo driver who just passed the chauffeur's exam, what you would NOT know about this person is -

- How much actual driving experience they had?
- How many accidents they have had?
- Do they possess good decision making skills?
- Do they have drug or alcohol dependence?
- What kind of maintenance history does their limo have?
- Is their limo the best one for the job?
- Do they have any references or insurance?
- Have they ever driven for anyone important?

Obviously all of these same questions and many more should be asked before hiring anyone to perform drone services for you or your company. Check out the operators previous work and website. How many flight hours do they have? What kind of insurance do they carry? Only the most experienced operators are able to obtain policy limits of $5M to $10M or more. Do they have a Worker's Comp policy?

The most experienced professionals in the drone service industry started down the path to excellence many, many years ago - long before the potential of using drones commercially was even on the FAA's radar screens. These professionals obtained full size pilot's licenses and developed very comprehensive operating manuals for things like closed-set motion picture/television filming and inspections of industrial facilities.

As I have mentioned previously, a large portion of the work that our company gets is the direct result of another less experienced company not performing as expected and/or having an accident. Because drones have become easier and easier to operate, many people think that little actual flying skill is required to use them for work. It then comes as a rude awakening when they discover that flying indoors, around electrical equipment, power lines, inside boilers and near buildings can require the pilot to quickly and unexpectedly assume full manual control to avoid an accident. But this is the kind of information you need, before you actually need it - otherwise commonly known as "experience".

Key Considerations When Selecting A Drone Filming Company

Currently in the U.S. there are over three thousand FAA Section 333 approved drone service providers and many, many more rogue (unauthorized) operators. As word spreads throughout various industries that a legal (although cumbersome) option exists for limited commercial drone use, more and more companies are insisting on only using Section 333 authorized companies for their drone aerial filming needs. Here are a few reasons why:

In general, well established businesses don't want to risk getting into scrapes with the Federal Government or having to deal with the negative publicity that often results when things go south. The media continues to sensationalize anything negative associated with drone use, no matter how trivial it might actually be. Larger companies also don't want to risk having an entire production shut down unexpectedly by the FAA. Using only an FAA authorized provider is also preferred for liability reasons.

A down side of using a Section 333 provider is more planning is required, which can result in significant delays in a production schedule in some cases. A perfect example of this is the requirement to obtain a written letter of agreement from airport management when flying within controlled airspace. As a matter of fact, at this point in time it is just about impossible to get such approval flying near any of the 12 largest Class B airports in the country. This might sound like an infrequent issue until you look at an aviation sectional chart or Airmap.io (a great resource). Every moderately populated part of the country is densely littered with airports and heliports.

In our part of the country, over 50% of our business inquiries want to shoot within 5 miles of an airport. The main reason for this is many desirable filming locations (and subjects) are situated within population centers, and consequently, near airports. At times we have had airports provide written approval in less than 24 hours. In other instances, like in Frankfort Kentucky for example, a drone shoot had to be canceled because the approval was going to take over a month to obtain, once the airport's board and legal departments got involved.

There is also another compelling reason to only use an FAA authorized drone company. There is considerable time and expense associated in becoming authorized. Companies willing to put forth this effort are almost always committed professionals. Consider that less than 1% of the U.S. population are certificated pilots. To become a pilot requires intelligence, dedication, good decision making skills and hard work. These same exact qualities are what most people want in a company they are going to do business with.

With these thoughts in mind, here is a list of the top 10 things clients want from a professional drone aerial cinematography company, based on our 11 years in this business:

10. Drone pilots who can get technically difficult shots without putting the cast/crew at undue risk.

9. A company that brings at least 2 of everything and is also good at improvisation.

8. A company that's flexible and doesn't slip in extra charges for minor gear changes.

7. Drone Pilots who have the flying skills/gear to get epic, attention grabbing shots, above and beyond the same basic moves the everyone else is doing, even in less than perfect conditions.

6. A crew that are not only drone experts but camera/video production experts as well.

5. The ability to move from location to location and deploy in only a few minutes.

4. A company that is adept at dealing with the public and law enforcement concerns.

3. A company that is equipped with latest cutting edge drone/camera technology that is currently evolving very rapidly.

2. A company that can meet the current Section 333 exemption rules and still get viable results.

1. A company that doesn't oversell it's capabilities.

                  Freefly Systems Alta flying Red Dragon 6K UHD camera
                             

Why FAA's Commercial vs Recreational Drone Policies Don't Fly

At a recent press conference held January 7th, 2015 at the CES Show in Las Vegas, FAA UAS Integration Manager Jim Williams was asked why the FAA views commercial drone use differently compared to recreational use in regards to NAS safety.

2015 CES Drone Press Conference

The response from Mr. Williams was "It's fairly established in past history, that people who are being paid to do a job are more likely to take risks in order to accomplish that than they are if they are just doing it for pleasure and that's the reason the rules are different for those two activities". 

The looks on the faces in the crowd must have been filled with utter dismay as all of the comments immediately following this statement vehemently disagreed with the FAA's position (as we do also) and here is why:

First of all there is no valid basis or data to support such a comment and position specifically for drones. Only within the last few months has commercial drone use been permitted by the FAA through exemptions and subsequently under FAA/NTSB scrutiny in regards to safety reporting. Further, if all known careless and reckless flights performed by unauthorized commercial operators in recent years was tallied, and this figure was then compared to the number of careless/reckless recreational flights.......well, we all know how lop-sided that comparison would be. In 10 years of flying camera drones, not once has anyone ever asked us to take photos or video from 5000' AGL.

People only do things they need or want to through some form of motivation. 

The typical motivation for a careless recreational drone pilot is to simply see if they can do something. Natural curiosity if you will. At more extreme levels, this is sometimes also known as thrill-seeking. How high can this drone fly? What does my city look like from 5000' high? How far away can I fly this drone? How close to something can I fly my drone if FPV? What do fireworks look like from my drone? What do my city's Xmas lights look like from my drone at night? These are all good examples of motivations for a careless drone hobbyist. It is also human nature to want to share such daring exploits with others and the more YouTube views the better!

This is in very stark contrast to the motivations of a commercial drone pilot and company. Their prioritized motivations are more along the lines of -

Making a profit
Keeping costs down
Staying ahead of the competition
Building a client base
Maintaining a good reputation

While there can be business motivations to get attention-grabbing, high-risk shots for marketing purposes, in general putting very expensive equipment at high risk is usually a very poor business model. Frequently broken equipment is not good for a productive bottom line. A perfect example of a more preferred risk management approach is the frequent use of disclaimer's that reads "professional driver on closed course" in automobile advertising.

Looking at the list of motivations for a commercial drone operation, putting equipment, persons and company reputations at excessive risk is directly counter to every single item listed above in a very big way. Insurance is also a consideration. Aviation liability insurance is expensive and hard to keep for those prone to frequent claims. Careless hobbyists aren't covered by insurance when not following the safety code of a "community based organization" such as the AMA.

So in conclusion, since the FAA's commercial vs recreational regulatory policies are not based on data, logic, trends or observations, the question that begs to be asked is...what are they "really" based on, truth be known?

Top 5 Reasons Small Drones Crash More Often Than Manned Aircraft

General aviation remains one of the safest forms of transportation with a fatal accident rate per 100,000 flight hours of only 1.05 in the United States in 2013. The non-fatal accident rate per 100,000 flight hours was 5.85 during the same period. It isn't easy to make an apples to apples comparison with drone accident rates because, for the most part, small drone accidents happen often and most go undocumented.

2013 U.S. Aviation Statistics

Our estimated accident rate (non-fatal) for even the most experienced commercial drone operation would likely be on the order of approximately 1 accident every 250 flight hours for a rate per 100,000 flight hours of 400. There are many reasons for the wide gap compared to manned aircraft accidents but this article will focus only on what we see as the top 5.

#5 - Multirotor drones have very limited flight test data to learn from.
     
Today's small drones, for all intents and purposes, are very similar to RC aircraft. The first RC gliders, for example, have been around since the mid 30's. The first successful RC helicopter flight took place in 1969 by German engineer Dieter Schluter. Multirotor's however are a very recent development with the earliest versions only taking off within the last 8 years or so. An early pioneer in RC helicopters named Don Chapman actually described the basic multirotor concept to me in his Dayton Ohio basement way back in the mid-90's however Li-po batteries, brushless motors, electronic speed controllers and low cost flight control technology were not available at that time.

As aircraft accumulate substantial flight hours, lessons learned such as "mean time between failures" (MTBF) contribute significantly to improving overall reliability. At present single rotor helicopters tend to be a more reliable aerial platform than multirotors, all else being equal, solely because the knowledge and evolution of SR designs has had a several decade head start.

#4 - Small drones fly close to the ground so errors in judging depth perception are common.

When the pilot is inside an aircraft, it is much easier to judge its distance from other objects. For unmanned aircraft flown by line-of-sight (LOS), the drone pilot's eyes are focused primarily on the aircraft in flight and so it is quite easy to lose track of spacing from various objects projecting up from the ground. Also, the accuracy of a person's depth perception drops off dramatically with distance. 

#3 - Small drones aren't built to any formal or recognized quality standards.

As mentioned above, small unmanned aircraft tend to use RC hobby grade components, few of which are built to ANSI, ASTM, ISO or MIL-SPEC quality standards. Sudden unexpected failures can be a frequent event as a result. It is also common to overload systems through trial and error verses having the benefit of accurate operating limits for key components.

#2 - Flying a drone manually is more difficult than flying a manned aircraft manually.

This is primarily due to the fact that the unmanned aircraft pilot is unable to benefit from several key senses, such as sensing motion first hand or detecting changes in vibration for example. When seated inside an aircraft, the relative direction of control remains constant; this is not so for unmanned aircraft. A very common cause for drone crashes is from disorientation following loss of GPS control. When a drone's heading changes, the relative control direction from the pilots perspective can become reversed. The symmetrical design of many multirotors tends to exacerbate this problem.

#1 - Small drone pilots typically aren't formally trained and have widely varying skill levels.

Many aspiring drone pilots think that because the flight controller is doing most of the work that additional flying skills aren't terribly important. This theory only works up to the point that something doesn't go as expected. Being able to react quickly and correctly to an emergency only comes from many hours of flight training, simulation and experience. At the highest level are RC competition pilots who typically have thousands of hours experience building, tuning and flying unmanned aircraft.

There are also less tangible factors that affect the overall reliability of an unmanned aircraft. It is a common mindset that each drone has a number and it isn't "IF" a crash will occur but rather "WHEN". This is a dramatically different mindset from a full size aviator. 

Perfect Perspectives has been able to dramatically improve the reliability of its unmanned systems over the last 10 years by applying concepts such as "all accidents are preventable" along with management of change (MOC) principles and near-miss tracking. Each time a maintenance function, repair or modification is performed, key questions are asked such as - "how might this change unintentionally result in a malfunction?". Going through this thought process has proven very effective in avoiding otherwise unexpected failures. Also any event that is abnormal to the standard flight process is recorded on the Flight Safety Analysis form as a "near-miss". These events are not near mid-air collisions with full size aircraft but rather are any operational close calls that could have caused an accident if not detected beforehand. Studies have shown that for every accident that occurs, there can be 100 or more near-misses that went unacknowledged as a precursor. Taking note of, and incorporating preventive measures for all near misses has proven very effictive in reducing accidents. The combination of all of these techniques has allowed Perfect Perspectives to safely make thousands of flights over several years without incident.