One of the broadest and most consequential rules in the FAA's small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) regulations is deceptively simple: do not operate carelessly or recklessly. Found in 14 CFR Part 107.23, this single prohibition gives the FAA sweeping authority to act against remote pilots whose conduct endangers people, property, or the national airspace system — even when no other specific rule was technically broken. For student remote pilots preparing for the FAA Part 107 Aeronautical Knowledge Test, this regulation is both a standalone topic and the philosophical backbone of everything else in Part 107.
Understanding careless or reckless operation means understanding not just the words of the rule, but what behaviors the FAA considers dangerous, how investigators distinguish a mistake from a violation, and what real-world consequences follow. This article covers all of that in the depth the topic deserves.
The Exact Language of 14 CFR 107.23
The regulation states: "No person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another." Every word carries weight. Let's break it down into its key elements.
- "No person may operate" — the rule applies to everyone involved in the operation, most directly the Remote Pilot in Command (RPIC), but potentially extending to visual observers and crew members who have operational control.
- "careless or reckless" — these are two distinct legal standards, and the FAA treats them differently in enforcement. More on this below.
- "so as to endanger" — actual harm does not have to occur. The FAA needs to show only that the operation could have endangered life or property, not that it did. A close call counts.
- "life or property of another" — this covers bystanders, other aircraft, vehicles, structures, and anything else belonging to someone other than the operator.
Careless vs. Reckless: A Critical Distinction
The FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have interpreted the terms "careless" and "reckless" as different standards of culpability, and this distinction matters for enforcement severity.
Careless operation is generally described as a failure to exercise the degree of care, judgment, or attention that a reasonably prudent pilot would exercise under the same circumstances. It does not require any intent to do wrong. A remote pilot who gets distracted by a phone call and inadvertently flies near a crowd may have been careless — they weren't trying to do anything dangerous, but their inattention created a hazard. Carelessness is essentially negligence applied to aviation.
Reckless operation is a higher level of culpability. It implies a conscious disregard for a known risk — the pilot understood that what they were doing was dangerous and chose to do it anyway. Flying directly over a packed stadium, deliberately buzzing a highway, or intentionally flying at low altitude over a crowd for dramatic footage despite knowing the risk would likely be characterized as reckless. Recklessness is closer to willful misconduct and typically draws harsher penalties.
In practice, the FAA may not always label a specific act one way or the other, but the distinction matters when the agency decides whether to issue a warning, assess a civil penalty, or seek certificate revocation or suspension.
How the FAA Applies This Rule
Because 107.23 is a catch-all standard, it can be applied in two ways. First, it can stand alone as the basis for enforcement action when a pilot's overall conduct was dangerous but didn't fit neatly into another specific violation. Second, it can be charged in addition to specific rule violations — for example, a pilot who flew over people without a waiver (violating 107.39) and did so in a manner that created a genuine hazard might also face a 107.23 charge on top of the specific violation.
The FAA's enforcement process typically begins with a complaint or incident report, often from law enforcement, an air traffic control facility, another pilot, or a member of the public. The FAA then investigates and may issue a Letter of Investigation (LOI), to which the remote pilot has the right to respond. Depending on findings, the FAA may close the case, issue a Warning Notice, assess a civil penalty (a fine), or initiate certificate action — suspending or revoking the Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate.
For particularly egregious cases involving criminal behavior (such as operating a drone to interfere with emergency response or firefighting operations), the matter may be referred for criminal prosecution under statutes such as 49 U.S.C. § 46320 and 18 U.S.C. § 40A, in addition to any civil enforcement action under 14 CFR 107.23. Civil penalties for Part 107 violations by individuals are subject to a statutory maximum per violation, which the FAA periodically adjusts for inflation under 14 CFR Part 13 and 49 U.S.C. § 46301.
What Behaviors Have Been Found Careless or Reckless?
While the FAA has not published an exhaustive list, enforcement actions and legal precedent help illustrate the kinds of conduct that trigger 107.23:
- Flying over or near crowds of people without authorization, even briefly
- Operating near airports or in controlled airspace without required authorization (LAANC or FAA DroneZone waiver)
- Flying beyond visual line of sight without a waiver
- Performing aerobatic or high-speed maneuvers in areas where loss of control could harm people
- Operating while distracted — looking at a phone, talking to bystanders — and losing situational awareness
- Ignoring weather conditions such as high winds or low visibility that compromise safe control
- Continuing flight after battery warnings indicate dangerously low power reserves
- Flying near manned aircraft, helipads, or emergency operations without authorization
Notice that some of these are also independent violations of other Part 107 rules. As noted above, 107.23 can accompany those specific charges or serve as the primary basis when the specific rule is ambiguous but the danger was real.
Why This Rule Matters Beyond the Test
Part 107.23 reflects a foundational principle of aviation safety that has existed since the earliest days of aviation regulation: pilots bear personal responsibility for the safety of every operation they conduct. No regulation can anticipate every possible scenario. The careless or reckless prohibition is the FAA's way of filling gaps — if you do something that a reasonable, safety-conscious remote pilot would not do, you can be held accountable even if there's no other specific rule that covers it exactly.
This has a practical implication for your pre-flight decision-making. Before every flight, ask yourself: "Could a reasonable remote pilot look at what I'm about to do and call it careless or unsafe?" If the answer is yes — or even maybe — you have your answer. Reconsider the operation, change the conditions, obtain the necessary authorization, or don't fly.
The rule also reinforces why regulatory compliance alone is insufficient. You can technically comply with every specific Part 107 rule and still violate 107.23 if your overall manner of operation is inattentive or hazardous. Compliance is the floor, not the ceiling, of safe remote pilot conduct.
Key Numbers and Rules
- 14 CFR 107.23 — the careless or reckless prohibition
- Endangerment, not injury — the FAA only needs to prove potential danger existed, not that harm occurred
- Civil penalties — subject to a statutory maximum per violation for individuals, adjusted periodically for inflation; amounts scale with the severity and willfulness of the violation
- Certificate action — suspension or revocation of the Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate is possible for serious violations
- LOI response window — a remote pilot is typically asked to respond to a Letter of Investigation within about 10 business days, though this is not a fixed regulatory deadline and can vary by case; consulting an aviation attorney is strongly advisable
- Criminal referral — possible in cases involving interference with emergency operations, threats to manned aircraft, or other criminal elements under federal statute
Common Test Traps
- "It didn't crash, so it's fine." Wrong. The FAA standard is whether the operation could endanger life or property — not whether it actually did. A near-miss over a crowd is a violation even if the drone landed safely.
- Confusing careless and reckless. Careless is negligent inattention; reckless is conscious disregard of a known risk. The FAA treats them differently in enforcement severity. Know the distinction.
- Thinking 107.23 only applies when you break another rule. It can be the sole basis for enforcement action even if no other specific Part 107 rule was violated.
- Assuming authorization makes anything legal. Having LAANC authorization to fly in controlled airspace doesn't protect you from a 107.23 violation if you fly carelessly within that authorized area.
- Ignoring crew conduct. The RPIC is responsible for the overall safety of the operation, including ensuring that visual observers and crew members don't contribute to careless or reckless conduct. The RPIC can be held accountable for the team's collective behavior.