FAA launches drone registration website, gives owners February deadline

$5 fee will be waived for those who register by mid-January.

Read the whole story

 

[secretmanofagent]

Can the retailers fill out the form and submit for you? Would streamline things and make compliance easier. It could also account for gifts by noting the serial number into the database to indicate it was sold.

 

[U802015]

Grymdyn[/url]":9zxi51uq]

piratebay329[/url]":9zxi51uq]Have to pay the government $5 to own a remote control toy airplane or helicopter ? Are those even considered drones? I'm guessing yes.

Q. Do children's toys need to be registered?
A. Not if they weigh below 250 gm/0.55 lb. or less. Most "toys" the FAA has identified at a purchase price of $100 or less have been determined to weigh less than 250g. You can find more information in this Recreational UAS Weights document (PDF).

Do the children have to be registered?

 

[Statistical]

q5ajzvtd[/url]":1t9boeev]

Rommel102[/url]":1t9boeev]

williane[/url]":1t9boeev]

JumpNDesign[/url]":1t9boeev]This should of been free, instead they are turning it into a money grab that's justified by, but we gave you fair warning you'd have to pay. Smh.

Because those webservers and people who have to handle claims pay for themselves right?

This is what taxes are for.

Why should the general taxpayer be on the hook for something that's a niche interest? A $5 fee is pretty damn modest and reasonable for this.

They are the ones that decided they needed this database and registration. They need to come up with the funding to run said database.

They did come up with the funding. You just don't like the source. Driver's licenses and registration are paid for by car owners/users not general tax revenue.

 

[Statistical]

Grymdyn[/url]":1g7ks8nc]

piratebay329[/url]":1g7ks8nc]Have to pay the government $5 to own a remote control toy airplane or helicopter ? Are those even considered drones? I'm guessing yes.

Q. Do children's toys need to be registered?
A. Not if they weigh below 250 gm/0.55 lb. or less. Most "toys" the FAA has identified at a purchase price of $100 or less have been determined to weigh less than 250g. You can find more information in this Recreational UAS Weights document (PDF).

This is entirely false. Most toys you'll find in Toys R' Us weigh more than .55 lbs. Nearly every quadcopter that isn't in the "nano" space will weigh more than this just based on the motor and rotor weight.

What will probably be the most popular one this holiday season, the Air Hogs Millennium Falcon quadcopter, weighs in at ~1.5 lbs.

According to Amazon it is 1.4 lbs shipped including charger, UAS, controller, cables, and packaging. Anyone have a review on the actual weight of the quadcopter?

 

[Faanchou]

alastairmayer[/url]":8w0q2fkv]Interestingly, the NAR (National Association of Rocketry) guidelines allow up to a 1.5kg rocket (max 125 gm propellant), so clearly by FAA reasoning, drones must be six times more dangerous than rockets by weight. I guess the question is, are model rockets UAVs?

Even if they aren't, I'd guess there are more than a few laws and statutes that already apply to someone flying rocket-powered vessels horizontally.

 

[fryhole]

"Make no mistake: unmanned aircraft enthusiast are aviators, and with that title comes a great deal of responsibility," said US Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx in a press release explaining the process.

They haven't been for the past 40+ years. But migrate the controls to a phone App and slap a couple of extra propeller on on them ....

 

[nurlip]

SO i missed it, what markings are going to be required? I read (skimmed) the linked federal document but couldn't determine what was actually required vs what some dude recommended.

 

[SirBedwyr]

alastairmayer[/url]":3j8l23cn]

siliconaddict[/url]":3j8l23cn]

Q: What category of UAS is covered by
the registration requirement?

A: UAS that weigh under 55 pounds and above 250 grams
maximum takeoff weight, and are operated outdoors in the
NAS.

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf


That is kinda stupid. 250 grams is WELL under a pound. You are going to have most toys needing to be registered for anything under 1lbs.

Interestingly, the NAR (National Association of Rocketry) guidelines allow up to a 1.5kg rocket (max 125 gm propellant), so clearly by FAA reasoning, drones must be six times more dangerous than rockets by weight. I guess the question is, are model rockets UAVs?

Not sure but maybe the thinking is that unguided and less time aloft is less dangerous has less risk? Whereas guided puts you smack into a lot of other law, doesn't it? (I don't know but just thinking about rocket guidance triggers my "this is now a weapon" flags.)

 

[Statistical]

"Registration gives us an opportunity to work with these users to operate their unmanned aircraft safely."

Translation: We found another revenue stream by charging $5 for no fucking reason at all.

You got it. It is all a scam for the FAA (budget last year $15.8B) to pull in some massive revenue. Say 1 million registrations per year @ $5 each. Wow that is almost 0.3% of their overall budget (minus cost to implement and enforce said program).

 

[lewax00]

williane[/url]":2wz8bwyt]

JumpNDesign[/url]":2wz8bwyt]This should of been free, instead they are turning it into a money grab that's justified by, but we gave you fair warning you'd have to pay. Smh.

Because those webservers and people who have to handle claims pay for themselves right?

This is what taxes are for.

And what exactly is the difference between a tax and this registration fee? Either way it's money paid to the government to enable them to govern. At least in this case, the people incurring the cost are the people paying for it, which seems about as fair as it can be.

 

[JasePow]

jtyranski[/url]":1a152nlt]

daarong[/url]":1a152nlt]

demonbug[/url]":1a152nlt]

piratebay329[/url]":1a152nlt]Have to pay the government $5 to own a remote control toy airplane or helicopter ? Are those even considered drones? I'm guessing yes.

From the website:

Q. Which unmanned aircraft may register under the new registration requirements?
A. Unmanned aircraft weighing less than 55 pounds and more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) on takeoff, including everything that is on board or otherwise attached to the aircraft and operated outdoors in the national airspace system must register. These aircraft may register under the new web-based registration system.

Thanks for the info! I was curious - because I had a small indoor toy helicopter a few years ago, and I think Santa is about to bring another one.

Should note, the requirement is also only for outdoor use. Indoor use you can continue as usual.

Incorrect. The rule says registration is required by owners. Registration has to happen before first flight for owners after Dec. 21st. This applies to everyone who owns one, including those, who like me, let the thing sit in a dust covered box in the closet.

Since it violates the 2012 act, in regards to model aircraft, count on a lawsuit in; 3,... 2,... 1...

 

[lewax00]

This is utterly inane bullshit. Anyone using a RC toy (not going to use this cooked-up "drone" terminology for things it doesn't apply to) for nefarious purposes isn't going to register anyways, and by the way, good luck finding the pilot.

I think it's more meant as a way to track down idiots (accidentally malicious) rather than intentionally malicious people.

 

[Jousle]

Just curious, what's the risk that these drones represent compared to lasers ?

 

[TK]

lewax00[/url]":11275b7a]

This is utterly inane bullshit. Anyone using a RC toy (not going to use this cooked-up "drone" terminology for things it doesn't apply to) for nefarious purposes isn't going to register anyways, and by the way, good luck finding the pilot.

I think it's more meant as a way to track down idiots (accidentally malicious) rather than intentionally malicious people.

Those people probably aren't going to register either. John Q. Public is going to react to the knowledge that their $25 toy from the convenience store requires government registration with a mixture of: :facepalm:

And if you think that idiocy is worth a $25K fine and prison time you're nuts.

 

[Statistical]

Just curious, what's the risk that these drones represent compared to lasers ?

I don't know but I am going to double down by building a laser powered drone.

 

[brbubba]

It should probably also be pointed out that the FAA hasn't actually established in court whether they even have the right to regulate these devices. I think they'll have a very very hard time convincing any court that they directly regulate ALL airspace, even that on private property under say 100-200 ft.

 

[Statistical]

lewax00[/url]":z95a8dpc]

This is utterly inane bullshit. Anyone using a RC toy (not going to use this cooked-up "drone" terminology for things it doesn't apply to) for nefarious purposes isn't going to register anyways, and by the way, good luck finding the pilot.

I think it's more meant as a way to track down idiots (accidentally malicious) rather than intentionally malicious people.

Those people probably aren't going to register either. John Q. Public is going to react to the knowledge that their $25 toy from the convenience store requires government registration with a mixture of: :facepalm:

And if you think that idiocy is worth a $25K fine and prison time you're nuts.

Show me a $25 toy which weighs more than 250 grams.

Also MAX fine doesn't mean the only enforced fine. Fly an unregistered drone into a football game, crash, hit someone and start a fire you are looking at a max fine. Anything short of that you aren't.

 

[TK]

apple4ever[/url]":1o6j31rp]This is so stupid, and won't solve anything. People who are doing dumb stuff won't register, so its a major fail.

As for me, I don't own any covered devices. But I won't be registering it if I ever do. Besides the fact that its a terrible idea, the FAA has no authority over interstate actions under the US Constitution, nor does it have law making power (the delegation doctrine is also not allowed under the US Constitution). As such, its an illegal and unjust law, and its my duty as an American to ignore such laws.

I don't think that argument stands - they already have legal authority to regulate regular old aircraft pilots, all this really does is create a new weight class with relaxed restrictions.

 

[siliconaddict]

JumpNDesign[/url]":15srbva3]

q5ajzvtd[/url]":15srbva3]

Rommel102[/url]":15srbva3]

williane[/url]":15srbva3]

JumpNDesign[/url]":15srbva3]This should of been free, instead they are turning it into a money grab that's justified by, but we gave you fair warning you'd have to pay. Smh.

Because those webservers and people who have to handle claims pay for themselves right?

This is what taxes are for.

Why should the general taxpayer be on the hook for something that's a niche interest? A $5 fee is pretty damn modest and reasonable for this.

They are the ones that decided they needed this database and registration. They need to come up with the funding to run said database.

No the increasingly retarded actions of operators dictated this. Just as tabs for driving a car aren't being forced on pedestrians. I could rattle off a dozen other example. These are focused fees for those who want to partake in the activity. And if you can drop $100+ on a drone. You can damn well drop $5 on registration. If you are going to throw a hissy fit about $5......you are complaining for complaining sake. Nothing more.



EDIT: Grammar

 

[Statistical]

It should probably also be pointed out that the FAA hasn't actually established in court whether they even have the right to regulate these devices. I think they'll have a very very hard time convincing any court that they directly regulate ALL airspace, even that on private property under say 100-200 ft.

Sadly the FAA has convinced a court they can regulate any man made object capable of flight and they cover all airspace down the grass in your yard. No I am not joking. The FAA "could" require registration of paper airplanes and frisbees if they wanted to. The judiciary doesn't help when the judges are stupid. BTW I think the judge way overruled to the point of stupidity but until overturn it basically gives the FAA the ability to do anything they want for "stuff that flies".

http://gizmodo.com/dumbass-appeals-cour ... 1660086902

 

[lewax00]

Statistical[/url]":26l1bn6v]Show me a $25 toy which weighs more than 250 grams.

Show me a toy of any kind which the weight of is prominently displayed. I'd be willing to bet that most RC pilots don't even have a scale on hand capable of making that distinction.

Also MAX fine doesn't mean the only enforced fine. Fly an unregistered drone into a football game, crash, hit someone and start a fire you are looking at a max fine. Anything short of that you aren't.

Right, because getting dragged into federal court is much better.

This is a crap, feel-good law with not a lot of thought about the real world put into it. One or two idiots doing one or two idiotic things with drones does not fucking necessitate legislation by the fucking federal government. If I hit someone and start a fire, those things are already illegal in all 50 states

And how exactly are you going to hold someone accountable if you have no idea who they are? Hence the registration...

 

[TK]

lewax00[/url]":1gt5q70q]And how exactly are you going to hold someone accountable if you have no idea who they are? Hence the registration...

And how exactly are you going to hold someone accountable if they haven't registered?

The answer to both of these questions is identical, by the way.

 

[Statistical]

Statistical[/url]":2tnd4xfc]Show me a $25 toy which weighs more than 250 grams.

Show me a toy of any kind which the weight of is prominently displayed. I'd be willing to bet that most RC pilots don't even have a scale on hand capable of making that distinction.

I would expect box art is being updated in marketing departments as we speak. Expect to see "REQUIRES NO REGISTRATION" in bold letters for anything below the exempt limit. I would also expect to see lots of toys just above the limit "going on a diet" and suddenly a flood of toys exactly at 250 grams.

Note I think the law is stupid but no reason to go into a bunch of "even $25 toys will need to be registered". Drones are cheap but not that cheap.

 

[Jousle]

Statistical[/url]":2od9bjmt]

Just curious, what's the risk that these drones represent compared to lasers ?

I don't know but I am going to double down by building a laser powered drone.

So cool.

 

[lewax00]

lewax00[/url]":7sm67p3q]And how exactly are you going to hold someone accountable if you have no idea who they are? Hence the registration...

And how exactly are you going to hold someone accountable if they haven't registered?

The answer to both of these questions is identical, by the way.

And that's when the extra punishments are added on. Your argument seems to be self defeating.

 

[siliconaddict]

TK[/url]":3esh6fb0]

lewax00[/url]":3esh6fb0]And how exactly are you going to hold someone accountable if you have no idea who they are? Hence the registration...

And how exactly are you going to hold someone accountable if they haven't registered?

The answer to both of these questions is identical, by the way.

And at a certain point if it becomes obvious that people refuse to register the thing, registration and tracking will occur at checkout when someone purchases the device. This process gives people the opportunity to be open and honest about it. But just as initially there was no registration for drones. If its abused, the law will be refined further. The excuse that just because someone may not register it, isn't legit. Something is better then nothing. And if people start learning they will get hit up with heavy fees if they don't register. (do they?) Things may change.

 

[siliconaddict]

lewax00[/url]":hf95ilci]

lewax00[/url]":hf95ilci]And how exactly are you going to hold someone accountable if you have no idea who they are? Hence the registration...

And how exactly are you going to hold someone accountable if they haven't registered?

The answer to both of these questions is identical, by the way.

And that's when the extra punishments are added on. Your argument seems to be self defeating.

That is the norm. I'd bet he also is against gun laws because criminals will find a way around them.

 

[Dputiger]

fryhole[/url]":363ms8tt]

"Registration gives us an opportunity to work with these users to operate their unmanned aircraft safely."

Translation: We found another revenue stream by charging $5 for no fucking reason at all.

I trust you're enraged every time Comcast or Time-Warner raises your "service fee" or adds an $11 / month "modem rental fee."

Servers and personnel cost money. And if you understood how government organizations worked, you'd know that they aren't allowed to earn profit. From the document:

Currently, the FAA assesses a fee of $5 for a Certificate of Registration for each aircraft. See 14 CFR 47.17(a). The FAA has not updated this fee since it was initially established in 1966. See 31 FR 4495 (Mar. 17, 1966).

$5 in 1966 is $36.70 today. According to the FAA, it's less than the cost of actually processing the various registrations and renewal: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... page=41981

Page 7/16, right-hand column.

But by all means, let's call this a shameless revenue grab.

 

[brbubba]

Statistical[/url]":1kgeync5]

It should probably also be pointed out that the FAA hasn't actually established in court whether they even have the right to regulate these devices. I think they'll have a very very hard time convincing any court that they directly regulate ALL airspace, even that on private property under say 100-200 ft.

Sadly the FAA has convinced a court they can regulate any man made object capable of flight and they cover all airspace down the grass in your yard. No I am not joking. The FAA "could" require registration of paper airplanes and frisbees if they wanted to. The judiciary doesn't help when the judges are stupid.

http://gizmodo.com/dumbass-appeals-cour ... 1660086902

Sounds like an ongoing case, i.e., still in appeals, which means we might get a positive ruling. That being said the case was on a university campus vs. under a couple hundred feet on private property.

 

[citizencoyote]

So much FUD in these comments. The FAA is tasked with regulating US airspace and aircraft. Drones, if the many articles that have appeared on Ars this past year are any indication, are becoming a problem (because of a few idiots, yes, but that still equates to a problem). Drones crashing into stadiums. Drones interfering with firefighting aircraft. Other aircraft narrowly missing drones. Drones causing trespassing issues (some solved with firearms). Drones generally going where they're not supposed to.

What's the FAA supposed to do, shrug and say "Eh, people will figure it out?" They had to start somewhere. Would you rather Congress take up the issue of drone regulation? Be thankful it's an agency that can change its rules at a speed faster than molasses in winter, and adjust them as time goes on. And for all the people whining about the fine, you're missing two words before the dollar amounts: "up to." Last I checked, "up to" means maximum, not minimum.

If you're really unhappy with these new regs, go contact the FAA. Tell them why you're unhappy, and offer alternatives. Ignoring them won't change anything (except potentially make you poorer should your unregistered drone be involved in a major incident).

 

[TK]

siliconaddict[/url]":32kd07vq]Something is better then nothing.

Right here, those five words, the cause of every single piece of backwards, broken legislation in all countries.

 

[TK]

siliconaddict[/url]":la71172r]

lewax00[/url]":la71172r]

lewax00[/url]":la71172r]And how exactly are you going to hold someone accountable if you have no idea who they are? Hence the registration...

And how exactly are you going to hold someone accountable if they haven't registered?

The answer to both of these questions is identical, by the way.

And that's when the extra punishments are added on. Your argument seems to be self defeating.

That is the norm. I'd bet he also is against gun laws because criminals will find a way around them.

I, for one, look forward to the same BS gun control arguments being turned into BS drone control arguments.

Oh, wait...

 

[Statistical]

Statistical[/url]":xgzvogby]

It should probably also be pointed out that the FAA hasn't actually established in court whether they even have the right to regulate these devices. I think they'll have a very very hard time convincing any court that they directly regulate ALL airspace, even that on private property under say 100-200 ft.

Sadly the FAA has convinced a court they can regulate any man made object capable of flight and they cover all airspace down the grass in your yard. No I am not joking. The FAA "could" require registration of paper airplanes and frisbees if they wanted to. The judiciary doesn't help when the judges are stupid.

http://gizmodo.com/dumbass-appeals-cour ... 1660086902

Sounds like an ongoing case, i.e., still in appeals, which means we might get a positive ruling. That being said the case was on a university campus vs. under a couple hundred feet on private property.

It isn't an ongoing case. The "pilot" admitted fault and settled with the FAA. The issue isn't the case itself but rather the ruling of the judge. Anything that flies is an aircraft and thus subject to FAA regulation. Maybe it will be later overturned, maybe not just clarifying the misconception that the "FAA wouldn't be able to convince a judge". They already did.