Maintenance Recordkeeping
This lesson makes a distinction that is easy to get wrong on the Part 107 test: Part 107 does not require a remote pilot to keep a formal maintenance logbook for a small unmanned aircraft, unlike the maintenance recordkeeping requirements that apply to manned aircraft. That does not mean records are pointless. This lesson explains exactly what is and is not required, and why keeping voluntary maintenance records is still good practice tied to a real, separate regulation: 14 CFR 107.7.
Stating this plainly, because it is commonly misunderstood
Part 107 does not require a remote pilot, owner, or operator to maintain a formal, written maintenance logbook for a small unmanned aircraft. This is a genuine and meaningful difference from manned aviation, where aircraft maintenance records documenting inspections, repairs, and alterations are a mandated part of operating under Part 91 and Part 135. No equivalent, named recordkeeping mandate exists inside Part 107 itself. A remote pilot who keeps no maintenance records at all is not, for that reason alone, in violation of any Part 107 regulation.
Why the test can make this feel confusing
Because so much aviation training material assumes a manned-aircraft maintenance-logbook framework as a baseline, it is easy to assume a similar logbook requirement must exist for sUAS somewhere in Part 107 and simply hasn't been covered yet. It has not been covered because it does not exist. The correct, test-ready answer to "does Part 107 require a maintenance logbook" is no — not "yes, but a lighter version," and not "yes, but only for commercial operators." The absence is complete for all sUAS operating under Part 107.
14 CFR 107.7: why records still matter even without a logbook mandate
The reason to keep records anyway comes from a separate regulation: 14 CFR 107.7, Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance. In substance, this regulation requires a remote pilot in command, owner, or person manipulating the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system to make the aircraft, and any records that are required to be kept under applicable regulations, available to the FAA (and, where relevant, other authorities such as the TSA) upon request, for the purpose of determining compliance with Part 107. If the FAA is investigating an incident, an accident, or a complaint involving your operation, being able to produce organized maintenance history is one of the clearest ways to demonstrate an ongoing pattern of meeting the 107.15 condition-for-safe-operation duty — even though the records themselves were never legally mandated in the first place.
- 107.7 is about demonstrating compliance, not creating a new records mandate: it requires making available whatever records you do have that relate to required regulations; it does not itself require you to generate a specific new type of record.
- Voluntary records can still be highly relevant: if you do keep maintenance history, it becomes part of what you would reasonably make available under 107.7 if asked, and it can materially help demonstrate a pattern of responsible 107.15 compliance over time.
Worked scenario: an FAA inquiry after an incident
A remote pilot's aircraft experiences an in-flight failure that results in property damage during a commercial roof inspection. The FAA opens an inquiry and, under 14 CFR 107.7, requests any available records related to the aircraft's maintenance history. The remote pilot, who voluntarily tracked battery cycle counts, firmware update dates, and prior inspection notes in a simple spreadsheet, is able to produce a clear history showing consistent attention to the manufacturer's guidance and the 107.15 preflight duty. No regulation required that spreadsheet to exist — but its existence now meaningfully supports the remote pilot's position that the aircraft was maintained responsibly up to the point of the failure.
A voluntary maintenance log is not required by Part 107, but tracking fields like these supports both 107.15 compliance and 107.7 recordkeeping availability.
View Larger| Field | Why it's worth tracking | Relevant regulation |
|---|---|---|
| Date and aircraft identifier | Establishes a clear, dated history for each specific airframe | 14 CFR 107.7 |
| Battery cycle count per battery | Tracks aging against the manufacturer's stated service life | 14 CFR 107.15 |
| Firmware/software version and update date | Confirms known safety-relevant fixes have been applied | 14 CFR 107.15 |
| Inspection notes and anomalies | Documents recurring issues and preflight findings over time | 14 CFR 107.15, 107.49 |
| Parts replaced (propellers, motors, etc.) | Shows components were retired at or before manufacturer limits | 14 CFR 107.15 |
Setting Up a Simple Voluntary Recordkeeping System
A lightweight approach that supports both 107.15 and 107.7, without needing any specialized software.
Create one record per aircraft, plus one per battery
Track the airframe's history separately from each individual battery's cycle count, since batteries move between aircraft in a fleet.
Log every firmware or software update as it happens
Note the version number and date so you can confirm, later, exactly what safety-relevant fixes were in effect at any point in time.
Record anything unusual found during a preflight inspection
Even findings that didn't stop a flight are worth a short note — a pattern of repeated minor issues on one airframe is valuable information.
Keep records available and organized, not just recorded
Store records somewhere they can actually be retrieved and produced promptly if requested under 14 CFR 107.7.
Retain records beyond the life of the aircraft where practical
If an aircraft is sold, retired, or involved in an incident, retaining its history rather than discarding it preserves a useful compliance record.
| Mistake | Why it happens | Correct understanding | Regulation / source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Believing Part 107 requires a formal maintenance logbook like manned aviation | Manned-aircraft training assumes a logbook mandate as a baseline | No Part 107 regulation requires a maintenance logbook for sUAS; the manned-aviation model does not carry over. | 14 CFR Part 107 (no logbook requirement) |
| Assuming that because records aren't required, keeping them provides no value | Conflating "not mandated" with "not useful" | 14 CFR 107.7 requires making available whatever records exist; voluntary records can meaningfully support a compliance demonstration if ever requested. | 14 CFR 107.7 |
| Confusing maintenance records with flight logs kept for currency purposes | Both are types of "records" a remote pilot might keep | Maintenance records document the aircraft's condition and servicing history; they are a distinct concept from any personal flight-currency tracking. | 14 CFR 107.15, 107.7 |
| Discarding all records once an aircraft is sold or retired | The aircraft is no longer being flown, so records feel obsolete | Retained history can still be relevant if a past incident or compliance question arises later. | 14 CFR 107.7 |
Does Part 107 require a maintenance logbook for my drone?
No. Part 107 does not mandate a formal maintenance logbook the way Part 91 and Part 135 do for manned aircraft. Keeping one anyway is good practice but not a regulatory requirement.
What must I show the FAA if asked, under 14 CFR 107.7?
14 CFR 107.7 requires making the aircraft and any records required to be kept under applicable regulations available to the FAA upon request, for determining compliance with Part 107. It does not itself create a new mandatory record type.
Are maintenance records the same thing as the flight review or recency requirements for my remote pilot certificate?
No. Maintenance records concern the aircraft's servicing and condition history. Certificate recency (the 24-month recurrent training requirement) is a separate, personal requirement covered in Module 1 of this course and has nothing to do with aircraft maintenance recordkeeping.
Test Your Knowledge
Answer the questions below to check your understanding. Every answer can be found in the lesson above.