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

 

[ranthog]

cerberusTI[/url]":2t2w4s21]

Faanchou[/url]":2t2w4s21]

TK[/url]":2t2w4s21]

Faanchou[/url]":2t2w4s21]

TK[/url]":2t2w4s21]

crustytheclown[/url]":2t2w4s21]Additionally, this is a great way to set someone up. Register a UAS under someone you don't like and smash the UAS into somewhere important. Leave the remote at their home for good measure.

Yet another thing that the "legislate everything" brigade didn't bother to consider. But hey we *must* regulate all those kids and their toys. Someone important might get bumped into!

Right. Because that's at least as likely a scenario as "register a car under someone you don't like and turn it in to a car bomb and drive it into something important." Which we know happens just about every day.

Because it requires exactly the same amount of sophistication to plug someone's name into an online form as it does to turn up at an office with forged ID docs and build a bomb.

Those two things are not equivalent and you bloody well know it. Stop it.

Ah. So the registration only takes a name, no authentication required. Silly me, I thought they were actually registering the owners.

I imagine that the reason for the $5 fee being refunded as opposed to waived is so that they have a credit card receipt. Maybe prepaid cards work, but they are easy to reject.

Also, it would discourage people from filling out falsified registrations which would be a problem with any registration form on the internet.

 

[Statistical]

Is this just for drones or RC helicopters as well?

All unmanned aerial systems (UAS) so yes pretty much anything you fly by remote control to include RC helicopters and RC model planes. If you made a rocket which could be controlled remotely it would also be covered by this.

 

[Rommel102]

ChickenHawk[/url]":10tsj97c]

TK[/url]":10tsj97c]We'll see about that. This is the camel's nose in the tent - government regulation only ever goes one direction.

Given recent trends to deregulate things like banking (leading to the recent crash) I presume you mean "down" as the one direction.

Deregulation of banking wasn't a major factor in the Financial Crisis.

If you want to examine government influences on it, the biggest one would be the multi-decade push for home ownership by means of sub prime loans.

 

[JasePow]

ranthog[/url]":10rczj3x]
...
The only reason why RC planes were never regulated is because it was a very small group of relatively well behaved and educated enthusiasts. Even if there were bad actors the small number of operators mean there were very few chances for incidents.

The reason why we're starting to see regulations is because the hobby has become very accessible and drone flyers greatly out number old RC groups. I think it is fair to say the average drone pilot knows less than his RC counter part and the rate of bad actors due to ignorance or other factors is probably much higher. Even if the rate of bad actors was equivalent to the RC pilots, there are so many more drone pilots that it can become a major issue.

...

Once again the "progressive" attitude of the masses being too stupid to be able to act reasonable...

 

[rick*d]

TK[/url]":36rs15l1]

apple4ever[/url]":36rs15l1]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.

Do you realize that under FAA Part 103 you can fly a powered aircraft weighing up to 254 pounds and you don't need a license to fly it, you don't need to pass a physical, and you don't need to register it. So if you can sit in it while it flys, you don't need to register it, but if it doesn't have a seat you must now pay $5 and register it.

Government logic at its finest.

 

[NemesisX00]

While I generally don't care one way or the other about the focus of the article...

"Registration gives us an opportunity to work with these users to operate their unmanned aircraft safely. I’m excited to welcome these new aviators into the culture of safety and responsibility that defines American innovation."

No wonder American innovation is so stagnant.

 

[mmiller7]

which must be marked on the aircraft

I don't see any font size or location requirements...so I guess that makes it possible. About the only place I know of on mine is a half-business-card size area on the bottom.

I suppose maybe somewhere in the battery compartment could work? But there isn't much space there either.

EDIT: sifting thru the PDF, sounds like it's ok in the battery compartment or wherever, in any size or format, as long as it's accessible without tools and maintained readable upon close inspection.

laser-printed 1-pt font it is then!

 

[cerberusTI]

rick*d[/url]":2xjffxfy]

TK[/url]":2xjffxfy]

apple4ever[/url]":2xjffxfy]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.

Do you realize that under FAA Part 103 you can fly a powered aircraft weighing up to 254 pounds and you don't need a license to fly it, you don't need to pass a physical, and you don't need to register it. So if you can sit in it while it flys, you don't need to register it, but if it doesn't have a seat you must now pay $5 and register it.

Government logic at its finest.

Looking at it another way, you are putting down the greatest of all deposits that the thing is not likely to crash.

 

[EaseOfUseFan]

dermott[/url]":32fevjwh]

DarthSlack[/url]":32fevjwh]

slogger[/url]":32fevjwh]Going to call my congresspeople. This is pretty outrageous. Especially since it doesn't actually do anything to prevent idiocy -- it's one more thing that destroys privacy and inconveniences regular people without actually doing a thing to solve the "problem."

When you do write your congresspeople, be sure to include a better idea for bringing some level of responsibility and accountability to this field. Yeah, this isn't a great solution, but the status quo isn't acceptable either.

It is *not* on us to provide a better solution. It is on the party suggesting regulation to get it right to begin with.

Since when have politicians EVER gotten "it right to begin with."?? I can't recall a single instance.

 

[azazel1024]

Statistical[/url]":1c9rr1x5]

Statistical[/url]":1c9rr1x5]

Not gonna happen. The FAA doesn't have the time, money, or people for those kind of spot checks.

Just like the DMV doesn't do spot checks of driver's licenses. Oh but cops do right? A lot is going to depend on where you live but if you live in an area with a large number of reckless drone idiots and politicians demanding cops do something I wouldn't be surprised if a cop asks you to show your registration.

They can ask all they want, but they have no jurisdiction to ask, and unless they're FAA I have no obligation to produce it.

Yeah just like how a cop can't ask for your car registration because it is registered with the DMV not the Police Dept. Local city can certainly pass an ordinance requiring you to provide FAA registration to Police Officer if asked when flying a drone within jurisdiction of the city.

Exactly. Or park police. Or natural resources officer. Or park ranger. Doesn't mean they are going to do spot checks, but that doesn't mean they aren't going to be noticing morons doing things that are banned and gig them on not being registered.

Whether that means it gets reported to the FAA for possible enforcement or other localities and entities don't empower through regulation or law the ability to fine you or take away your drone if you are operating it without a registration.

DNR says I have to have a hunting license and can't poach, doesn't mean that state troopers can't arrest me for poaching or not having my license on me when engaged in a hunting activity.

 

[Faanchou]

TK[/url]":3nfib55p]

Faanchou[/url]":3nfib55p]

TK[/url]":3nfib55p]

Faanchou[/url]":3nfib55p]

TK[/url]":3nfib55p]

crustytheclown[/url]":3nfib55p]Additionally, this is a great way to set someone up. Register a UAS under someone you don't like and smash the UAS into somewhere important. Leave the remote at their home for good measure.

Yet another thing that the "legislate everything" brigade didn't bother to consider. But hey we *must* regulate all those kids and their toys. Someone important might get bumped into!

Right. Because that's at least as likely a scenario as "register a car under someone you don't like and turn it in to a car bomb and drive it into something important." Which we know happens just about every day.

Because it requires exactly the same amount of sophistication to plug someone's name into an online form as it does to turn up at an office with forged ID docs and build a bomb.

Those two things are not equivalent and you bloody well know it. Stop it.

Ah. So the registration only takes a name, no authentication required. Silly me, I thought they were actually registering the owners.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but from the site:

Q. What information will I be required to provide on the FAA UAS Registration website?

A. You must provide your complete name, physical address, mailing address, and an email address. The email address will be used as your login ID when you set up your account.

There is no ID confirmation in this process.

Ah wait, a bit further down:

Q. The website said registration is free. Why am I being charged $5?

A. The credit card transaction helps authenticate the user. You will see a credit for the $5 shortly after the charge appears.

Okay, so the bar has been raised well above "any kiddie with an axe to grind". That's addressed at least.

So you're saying that having your complete name, physical address, mailing address, email address and access to a credit card account in your name is not enough to let me register a car or a motor bike in your name? That's interesting, because I've kind of assumed that in the US of A that's more than enough for me to buy a car or a motor bike in your name, with your money to boot.

 

[EaseOfUseFan]

I think that all of us, even those who have no flyable toys and don't ever plan to get one, should register while the fee is waived. Flood them with BS.

 

[Statistical]

rick*d[/url]":1xos56c7]

TK[/url]":1xos56c7]

apple4ever[/url]":1xos56c7]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.

Do you realize that under FAA Part 103 you can fly a powered aircraft weighing up to 254 pounds and you don't need a license to fly it, you don't need to pass a physical, and you don't need to register it. So if you can sit in it while it flys, you don't need to register it, but if it doesn't have a seat you must now pay $5 and register it.

Government logic at its finest.

Looking at it another way, you are putting down the greatest of all deposits that the thing is not likely to crash.

Also the FAA has always stated the ultralights (and previously rc model aircraft) are subject to regulations however given the niche scope and the high level of self regulation has made a choice to not actively regulate those activities.

...it should be emphasized that the individual ultralight operator's support and compliance with national self-regulation programs is essential to the FAA's continued policy of allowing industry self-regulation in these areas.

The drone industry has proven itself incapable of any effective self regulation so the FAA is stepping in to regulate it. If we start seeing an equal rate of idiot ultralight pilots the FAA will probably more heavily regulate that. Now part of that is cost. If you could buy/build an ultralight for $3000 we probably would see the same level of general dumbassery and likely a similar response from the FAA.

Simply put the FAA believe (and so far has won in court) that:
a) it can regulate all flying objects
b) it can regulate all pilots/operators

So yes the FAA "could" require ultralight pilots and drone operators to not only register their drones but also get airman certification, carry the appropriate level of insurance, and pass written and practical exams. It probably would be overkill but we will see.

 

[JasePow]

EaseOfUseFan[/url]":5ni5uymp]I think that all of us, even those who have no flyable toys and don't ever plan to get one, should register while the fee is waived. Flood them with BS.

I was going to say the same thing,... Only how long until the registration database is used for an unlawful 4th Amendment violation... I'm a licensed attorney, but not an aviation specialist,... I'm left wondering to what extent registration waives 4th & 5th Amendment protections (or at least that being the Fed's arguments for cuffing and hauling someone off for refusal to allow a search or answer questions).

 

[DarthSlack]

dermott[/url]":tbbgjdn9]

DarthSlack[/url]":tbbgjdn9]

slogger[/url]":tbbgjdn9]Going to call my congresspeople. This is pretty outrageous. Especially since it doesn't actually do anything to prevent idiocy -- it's one more thing that destroys privacy and inconveniences regular people without actually doing a thing to solve the "problem."

When you do write your congresspeople, be sure to include a better idea for bringing some level of responsibility and accountability to this field. Yeah, this isn't a great solution, but the status quo isn't acceptable either.

Politicians fallacy: "We must do something. THIS is something. We must do THIS."

It is *not* on us to provide a better solution. It is on the party suggesting regulation to get it right to begin with. This will be costly, dangerous to the average consumer (in the form of fines for currently-acceptable behavior) and accomplish... nothing.

I'm seeing zero net benefit.

This is a field that has a demonstrated need for better user training, awareness and responsibility. We already have a plethora of idiots flying these things where they have no business flying them. It is only going to get worse. So yeah, when a baby gets their eye sliced in half by one of these things, politicians are going to react. That is the way society works. Don't like it? Put forth a better idea or go move to a desert island.

Should we get rid of all our driving laws because they don't work 100% of the time? Eliminate speed limits because speeders gonna speed? Who the hell really needs stop signs anyways, right? And if a few people get bent, folded, spindled and mutilated, well that's just fine because clearly traffic laws have zero net benefit.

 

[Statistical]

EaseOfUseFan[/url]":2wh7ki48]I think that all of us, even those who have no flyable toys and don't ever plan to get one, should register while the fee is waived. Flood them with BS.

I was going to say the same thing,... Only how long until the registration database is used for an unlawful 4th Amendment violation... I'm a licensed attorney, but not an aviation specialist,... I'm left wondering to what extent registration waives 4th & 5th Amendment protections (or at least that being the Fed's arguments for cuffing and hauling someone off for refusal to allow a search or answer questions).

Your a licensed attorney and can't figure that out. How does having a driver's license and/or car registration avoid violating someone's 4th and 5th amendment protections?

 

[rick*d]

siliconaddict[/url]":1vqrhas1]

JumpNDesign[/url]":1vqrhas1]

q5ajzvtd[/url]":1vqrhas1]

Rommel102[/url]":1vqrhas1]

williane[/url]":1vqrhas1]

JumpNDesign[/url]":1vqrhas1]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

Depends entirely on where you live. In Washington the morons decided they'd rather have $35 license fees no matter what, so guess where the lost revenue comes from? Pedestrians and everyone else. The only winners were owners of luxury cars whose license fees dropped from several hundreds of dollars to $35, everyone else now pays more in other taxes to make up for it.

There's also the notion that we make everyone pay taxes to support the fire department, not just those who have fire insurance (originally fire departments were private companies funded by fire insurance premiums - if you didn't have fire insurance and you had a fire, your house burned down, too bad so sad). There's lots of examples of general fund taxes supporting things not everyone uses.

I'm not complaining about the $5 just to complain, I'm complaining because it's a new tax I never had to pay for my existing hobby - not to mention another federal registration for a harmless toy while my neighbor gets to have his guns with no fee and no registration. As I posted above, it's ridiculous that I have to register a quadcopter but don't have to register the gun I mount on it.

 

[ranthog]

rick*d[/url]":1svxfr82]

TK[/url]":1svxfr82]

apple4ever[/url]":1svxfr82]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.

Do you realize that under FAA Part 103 you can fly a powered aircraft weighing up to 254 pounds and you don't need a license to fly it, you don't need to pass a physical, and you don't need to register it. So if you can sit in it while it flys, you don't need to register it, but if it doesn't have a seat you must now pay $5 and register it.

Government logic at its finest.

The logic is reasonable and obvious. The owners of this class of aircraft are few in number and are doing a relatively good job of self regulating. I strongly suspect that the pilots of these craft are somewhat knowledgeable about how to fly the craft safely.

If several million people over the next few years buy these aircraft and start flying them, I strongly suspect that the FAA would start regulating them too.

 

[rick*d]

cerberusTI[/url]":4dco2jak]

rick*d[/url]":4dco2jak]

TK[/url]":4dco2jak]

apple4ever[/url]":4dco2jak]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.

Do you realize that under FAA Part 103 you can fly a powered aircraft weighing up to 254 pounds and you don't need a license to fly it, you don't need to pass a physical, and you don't need to register it. So if you can sit in it while it flys, you don't need to register it, but if it doesn't have a seat you must now pay $5 and register it.

Government logic at its finest.

Looking at it another way, you are putting down the greatest of all deposits that the thing is not likely to crash.

Not really. I could buy an ultralight, fit it with radio controls, and fly it unmanned - as long as it has a seat it's exempt from this new $5 registration. There's no requirement that anyone actually sit in it.

 

[rick*d]

ranthog[/url]":3qy32jd4]

rick*d[/url]":3qy32jd4]

TK[/url]":3qy32jd4]

apple4ever[/url]":3qy32jd4]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.

Do you realize that under FAA Part 103 you can fly a powered aircraft weighing up to 254 pounds and you don't need a license to fly it, you don't need to pass a physical, and you don't need to register it. So if you can sit in it while it flys, you don't need to register it, but if it doesn't have a seat you must now pay $5 and register it.

Government logic at its finest.

The logic is reasonable and obvious. The owners of this class of aircraft are few in number and are doing a relatively good job of self regulating. I strongly suspect that the pilots of these craft are somewhat knowledgeable about how to fly the craft safely.

If several million people over the next few years buy these aircraft and start flying them, I strongly suspect that the FAA would start regulating them too.

That would take an act of Congress, since it was an act of Congress that got them un-regulated in the first place. The FAA cannot just make up new rules regarding ultralights.

 

[rick*d]

Statistical[/url]":3vz9oe7i]

EaseOfUseFan[/url]":3vz9oe7i]I think that all of us, even those who have no flyable toys and don't ever plan to get one, should register while the fee is waived. Flood them with BS.

I was going to say the same thing,... Only how long until the registration database is used for an unlawful 4th Amendment violation... I'm a licensed attorney, but not an aviation specialist,... I'm left wondering to what extent registration waives 4th & 5th Amendment protections (or at least that being the Fed's arguments for cuffing and hauling someone off for refusal to allow a search or answer questions).

Your a licensed attorney and can't figure that out. How does having a driver's license and/or car registration avoid violating someone's 4th and 5th amendment protections?

The Supreme Court has ruled on several cases where simply being a passenger in a car is enough to give the cops cause to search you without a warrant. I don't recall any cases where passengers on public transportation waive their 4th Amendment rights the way driving or riding in a private car does. So how can you say being on a federal registry will never be used as an excuse for violating your 4th Amendment rights? Hell, owning a telephone has been found to be sufficient excuse.

 

[Statistical]

ranthog[/url]":1xyufxcb]

rick*d[/url]":1xyufxcb]

TK[/url]":1xyufxcb]

apple4ever[/url]":1xyufxcb]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.

Do you realize that under FAA Part 103 you can fly a powered aircraft weighing up to 254 pounds and you don't need a license to fly it, you don't need to pass a physical, and you don't need to register it. So if you can sit in it while it flys, you don't need to register it, but if it doesn't have a seat you must now pay $5 and register it.

Government logic at its finest.

The logic is reasonable and obvious. The owners of this class of aircraft are few in number and are doing a relatively good job of self regulating. I strongly suspect that the pilots of these craft are somewhat knowledgeable about how to fly the craft safely.

If several million people over the next few years buy these aircraft and start flying them, I strongly suspect that the FAA would start regulating them too.

That would take an act of Congress, since it was an act of Congress that got them un-regulated in the first place. The FAA cannot just make up new rules regarding ultralights.

Please point to the bill that got them unregulated. The FAA seems to disagree with your assessment.

...it should be emphasized that the individual ultralight operator's support and compliance with national self-regulation programs is essential to the FAA's continued policy of allowing industry self-regulation in these areas.

 

[rick*d]

Statistical[/url]":2e0b9iyn]

rick*d[/url]":2e0b9iyn]

TK[/url]":2e0b9iyn]

apple4ever[/url]":2e0b9iyn]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.

Do you realize that under FAA Part 103 you can fly a powered aircraft weighing up to 254 pounds and you don't need a license to fly it, you don't need to pass a physical, and you don't need to register it. So if you can sit in it while it flys, you don't need to register it, but if it doesn't have a seat you must now pay $5 and register it.

Government logic at its finest.

Looking at it another way, you are putting down the greatest of all deposits that the thing is not likely to crash.

Also the FAA has always stated the ultralights (and previously rc model aircraft) are subject to regulations however given the niche scope and the high level of self regulation has made a choice to not actively regulate those activities.

...it should be emphasized that the individual ultralight operator's support and compliance with national self-regulation programs is essential to the FAA's continued policy of allowing industry self-regulation in these areas.

The drone industry has proven itself incapable of any effective self regulation so the FAA is stepping in to regulate it. If we start seeing an equal rate of idiot ultralight pilots the FAA will probably more heavily regulate that. Now part of that is cost. If you could buy/build an ultralight for $3000 we probably would see the same level of general dumbassery and likely a similar response from the FAA.

Simply put the FAA believe (and so far has won in court) that:
a) it can regulate all flying objects
b) it can regulate all pilots/operators

So yes the FAA "could" require ultralight pilots and drone operators to not only register their drones but also get airman certification, carry the appropriate level of insurance, and pass written and practical exams. It probably would be overkill but we will see.

That's simply not true. The FAA has no authority to regulate ultralights. lt's a matter of law. Anything outside the clearly defined limits of an ultralight, yes they can and do regulate that. But if you meet the definition of an ultralight as specified in the law, the FAA must leave you alone. That's not to say you don't have to follow the rules and can't get in trouble for violating restricted airspace, etc. but the FAA cannot make you pass a test or register your aircraft. Not that they don't, they cannot.

 

[JasePow]

Statistical[/url]":1gxet2pk]

EaseOfUseFan[/url]":1gxet2pk]I think that all of us, even those who have no flyable toys and don't ever plan to get one, should register while the fee is waived. Flood them with BS.

I was going to say the same thing,... Only how long until the registration database is used for an unlawful 4th Amendment violation... I'm a licensed attorney, but not an aviation specialist,... I'm left wondering to what extent registration waives 4th & 5th Amendment protections (or at least that being the Fed's arguments for cuffing and hauling someone off for refusal to allow a search or answer questions).

Your a licensed attorney and can't figure that out. How does having a driver's license and/or car registration violate someone's 4th and 5th amendment protections?

A) I didn't say I couldn't figure it out...

B) In some jurisdictions, registering the vehicle all but automatically grants an LEO with authorization to conduct a warrant-less search of the vehicle... Probable cause equals what they say it does, until you end up spending hundreds of dollars per hour to an attorney to litigate it, after you've been dragged through the system. ... Plus, feel like exercising your Constitutional rights and not answering the ubiquitous, but not obligatory, "So, where are you headed from tonight?", and you bet you're going to get jacked up for at least an additional 20-25 min. for "contempt of cop"...

 

[rick*d]

Statistical[/url]":1poxbupl]

ranthog[/url]":1poxbupl]

rick*d[/url]":1poxbupl]

TK[/url]":1poxbupl]

apple4ever[/url]":1poxbupl]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.

Do you realize that under FAA Part 103 you can fly a powered aircraft weighing up to 254 pounds and you don't need a license to fly it, you don't need to pass a physical, and you don't need to register it. So if you can sit in it while it flys, you don't need to register it, but if it doesn't have a seat you must now pay $5 and register it.

Government logic at its finest.

The logic is reasonable and obvious. The owners of this class of aircraft are few in number and are doing a relatively good job of self regulating. I strongly suspect that the pilots of these craft are somewhat knowledgeable about how to fly the craft safely.

If several million people over the next few years buy these aircraft and start flying them, I strongly suspect that the FAA would start regulating them too.

That would take an act of Congress, since it was an act of Congress that got them un-regulated in the first place. The FAA cannot just make up new rules regarding ultralights.

Please point to the bill that got them unregulated. The FAA seems to disagree with your assessment.

...it should be emphasized that the individual ultralight operator's support and compliance with national self-regulation programs is essential to the FAA's continued policy of allowing industry self-regulation in these areas.

The FAA has always claimed and continues to claim they can enforce regulations against ultralights however as long as the industry means a small niche with good self regulation they will opt to not implement those regulations.

Nothing in FAA charter prohibits them from requiring an airman certification or flight physical for an ultralight pilot or vehicle registration. They simply choose to not have those requirements. If the industry ends up being as large and reckless and the drone industry you can pretty much guarantee those regulations would be enacted.

FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION PART 103—ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103–40104, 40113, 44701.
Source: Docket No. 21631, 47 FR 38776, Sept. 2, 1982

That "49 U.S.C." - that's United States Code, aka federal law.

 

[Faanchou]

ranthog[/url]":2ce3ljd9]

rick*d[/url]":2ce3ljd9]

TK[/url]":2ce3ljd9]

apple4ever[/url]":2ce3ljd9]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.

Do you realize that under FAA Part 103 you can fly a powered aircraft weighing up to 254 pounds and you don't need a license to fly it, you don't need to pass a physical, and you don't need to register it. So if you can sit in it while it flys, you don't need to register it, but if it doesn't have a seat you must now pay $5 and register it.

Government logic at its finest.

The logic is reasonable and obvious. The owners of this class of aircraft are few in number and are doing a relatively good job of self regulating. I strongly suspect that the pilots of these craft are somewhat knowledgeable about how to fly the craft safely.

If several million people over the next few years buy these aircraft and start flying them, I strongly suspect that the FAA would start regulating them too.

Actually flying them? I doubt that the regulation would be necessary, because most of those several million would already be self-selected for the Darwin Awards by the second year.

 

[rick*d]

lewax00[/url]":20bn0lk9]

lewax00[/url]":20bn0lk9]And that's when the extra punishments are added on. Your argument seems to be self defeating.

How can you punish someone you don't know the identity of?

The point you seem to be missing is that in order to fine someone for skirting this law, you have to know who they are. In order to fine someone for misusing their drone, you also have to know who they are.

Well then, if it's possible to know who the pilot is, why not just punish the people who misuse their drones and throw out this whole registration thing?

If it's NOT possible to know who the pilot is, then this entire law is broken on its face.

Pilots can and are found when doing stupid things now, to some degree of success. Registration makes it cheaper and easier to do (no point launching a full investigation if you can just look up the pilot in a database), and increases the success rate. Failure to register leads to the current methods, in addition to more punishment for failure to register. I don't get why this idea is so elusive to you.

EDIT: Unless you think wasting police time and resources (and therefore everyone's taxpayer money, instead of just drone pilots) is somehow a better option? If so, please explain this logic.

The typical scenario I see is this: Pay the $5 and register; carry registration so if you're stopped you can produce it; don't put your registration on your R/C bird so if you crash it you can't be blamed. I'll bet this will happen more often than most people will care to admit.

 

[etronz]

"You are on a list" "We need your name on a list" "Your registration and gold star will arrive in 3-5 business years"

Alternatively:

"Toys?! I hate toys!" -Burgermeister Meisterburger

 

[rick*d]

DarthSlack[/url]":2aaqfc2p]

dermott[/url]":2aaqfc2p]

DarthSlack[/url]":2aaqfc2p]

slogger[/url]":2aaqfc2p]Going to call my congresspeople. This is pretty outrageous. Especially since it doesn't actually do anything to prevent idiocy -- it's one more thing that destroys privacy and inconveniences regular people without actually doing a thing to solve the "problem."

When you do write your congresspeople, be sure to include a better idea for bringing some level of responsibility and accountability to this field. Yeah, this isn't a great solution, but the status quo isn't acceptable either.

Politicians fallacy: "We must do something. THIS is something. We must do THIS."

It is *not* on us to provide a better solution. It is on the party suggesting regulation to get it right to begin with. This will be costly, dangerous to the average consumer (in the form of fines for currently-acceptable behavior) and accomplish... nothing.

I'm seeing zero net benefit.

This is a field that has a demonstrated need for better user training, awareness and responsibility. We already have a plethora of idiots flying these things where they have no business flying them. It is only going to get worse. So yeah, when a baby gets their eye sliced in half by one of these things, politicians are going to react. That is the way society works. Don't like it? Put forth a better idea or go move to a desert island.

Should we get rid of all our driving laws because they don't work 100% of the time? Eliminate speed limits because speeders gonna speed? Who the hell really needs stop signs anyways, right? And if a few people get bent, folded, spindled and mutilated, well that's just fine because clearly traffic laws have zero net benefit.

Except that this regulation does nothing to educate people on the safe use of their new toys, it just sends another $5 to D.C. To get a driver's license you have to demonstrate a fundamental understanding of the rules of the road; to get an "aviator's license" you just have to pay $5.

 

[dermott]

EaseOfUseFan[/url]":qjahgvxu]

dermott[/url]":qjahgvxu]

DarthSlack[/url]":qjahgvxu]

slogger[/url]":qjahgvxu]Going to call my congresspeople. This is pretty outrageous. Especially since it doesn't actually do anything to prevent idiocy -- it's one more thing that destroys privacy and inconveniences regular people without actually doing a thing to solve the "problem."

When you do write your congresspeople, be sure to include a better idea for bringing some level of responsibility and accountability to this field. Yeah, this isn't a great solution, but the status quo isn't acceptable either.

It is *not* on us to provide a better solution. It is on the party suggesting regulation to get it right to begin with.

Since when have politicians EVER gotten "it right to begin with."?? I can't recall a single instance.

Agreed. And rarely on the second or fifth time, in my opinion.
That's why I find this trend of "we must do something/anything, no matter whether it will fix anything" to be kind of silly.

 

[DarthSlack]

rick*d[/url]":3tzpb49d]

DarthSlack[/url]":3tzpb49d]

dermott[/url]":3tzpb49d]

DarthSlack[/url]":3tzpb49d]

slogger[/url]":3tzpb49d]Going to call my congresspeople. This is pretty outrageous. Especially since it doesn't actually do anything to prevent idiocy -- it's one more thing that destroys privacy and inconveniences regular people without actually doing a thing to solve the "problem."

When you do write your congresspeople, be sure to include a better idea for bringing some level of responsibility and accountability to this field. Yeah, this isn't a great solution, but the status quo isn't acceptable either.

Politicians fallacy: "We must do something. THIS is something. We must do THIS."

It is *not* on us to provide a better solution. It is on the party suggesting regulation to get it right to begin with. This will be costly, dangerous to the average consumer (in the form of fines for currently-acceptable behavior) and accomplish... nothing.

I'm seeing zero net benefit.

This is a field that has a demonstrated need for better user training, awareness and responsibility. We already have a plethora of idiots flying these things where they have no business flying them. It is only going to get worse. So yeah, when a baby gets their eye sliced in half by one of these things, politicians are going to react. That is the way society works. Don't like it? Put forth a better idea or go move to a desert island.

Should we get rid of all our driving laws because they don't work 100% of the time? Eliminate speed limits because speeders gonna speed? Who the hell really needs stop signs anyways, right? And if a few people get bent, folded, spindled and mutilated, well that's just fine because clearly traffic laws have zero net benefit.

Except that this regulation does nothing to educate people on the safe use of their new toys, it just sends another $5 to D.C. To get a driver's license you have to demonstrate a fundamental understanding of the rules of the road; to get an "aviator's license" you just have to pay $5.

Requiring an actual aviators license is fine by me. Wouldn't want to have an inconsistency like that.

<edit>clarity</edit>

 

[BajaPaul]

Politicians are afraid of drones. Mount a bomb on them and buzz n for the kill. Maybe a whole horde all at once!

But all this political posturing over registering drones is nonsense. If anybody is intent on using them for assassination, registration isn't going to stop it.

Besides, if people were going to go this route, they could have done so for the last thirty or so years with radio control planes or helicopters.

 

[brutaltruth]

Only in America. Just another database to be entered into and data harvested.

 

[williane]

rick*d[/url]":1do2fqyi]

Statistical[/url]":1do2fqyi]

Sounds like RC Aircraft will be included in this designation. And it has gotten to the point where there is little distinction between the two.

It would be nice to see multiple categories recognizing the different uses. Hobbyist. Enthusiast. Professional. Commercial.

Model Rockets have used something like that for ages.

There never was a distinction. The FAA considered a RC airplane and a quadcopter to both be an Unmaned Aerial System (UAS).

The question I want to know is what about an unmanned system > 25 kgs?

Apparently we won't need to register those

 

[ChickenHawk]

BajaPaul[/url]":5vejqzbs]Politicians are afraid of drones. Mount a bomb on them and buzz n for the kill. Maybe a whole horde all at once!

But all this political posturing over registering drones is nonsense. If anybody is intent on using them for assassination, registration isn't going to stop it.

Besides, if people were going to go this route, they could have done so for the last thirty or so years with radio control planes or helicopters.

Yes, we shouldn't regulate obvious hazards until a requisite number of people have lost their lives.

Please tell us the magic number of lives required.

 

[dermott]

DarthSlack[/url]":2gcxiwsc]

dermott[/url]":2gcxiwsc]

DarthSlack[/url]":2gcxiwsc]

slogger[/url]":2gcxiwsc]Going to call my congresspeople. This is pretty outrageous. Especially since it doesn't actually do anything to prevent idiocy -- it's one more thing that destroys privacy and inconveniences regular people without actually doing a thing to solve the "problem."

When you do write your congresspeople, be sure to include a better idea for bringing some level of responsibility and accountability to this field. Yeah, this isn't a great solution, but the status quo isn't acceptable either.

Politicians fallacy: "We must do something. THIS is something. We must do THIS."

It is *not* on us to provide a better solution. It is on the party suggesting regulation to get it right to begin with. This will be costly, dangerous to the average consumer (in the form of fines for currently-acceptable behavior) and accomplish... nothing.

I'm seeing zero net benefit.

This is a field that has a demonstrated need for better user training, awareness and responsibility. We already have a plethora of idiots flying these things where they have no business flying them. It is only going to get worse. So yeah, when a baby gets their eye sliced in half by one of these things, politicians are going to react. That is the way society works. Don't like it? Put forth a better idea or go move to a desert island.

Should we get rid of all our driving laws because they don't work 100% of the time? Eliminate speed limits because speeders gonna speed? Who the hell really needs stop signs anyways, right? And if a few people get bent, folded, spindled and mutilated, well that's just fine because clearly traffic laws have zero net benefit.

Keep in mind that the baby-eye incident was in a country that had, at least, well-defined limits on UAV flight.
We don't even have that here in the USA, but we're already implementing registration schemes.

I disagree that "we must do something immediately, without forethought" is "the way society works" by definition. It doesn't need to be.
There has, to date, been almost no attempt to actually educate UAV purchases, no ad blitz, no government published guidelines or best practices. We don't have any solid standard of behavior. A few private groups are just now starting to try to assemble them.

I'm not suggesting, on any level, that any of the above would be bad. They'd probably be more helpful than simply fining ignorant people. Reducing ignorance is a better short term goal than making a list of them.


I do agree that, in today's political climate, it was probably a given that regulation was coming.
That having been said, I still think it's silly. Kitchen knives are demonstrably more dangerous than UAVs of any flavor. So are swimming pools. And skateboards. There's no government push to register users of those devices, but we have got a good mix of institutional common sense and education around them.

The same mix would probably work for different flavors of UAVs.


We may just have a difference of opinion. Given the tone of these threads, it may be irreconcilable.
We should be able to agree that regulating amidst moral panic is rarely a good idea, and that taking the time to actually sort out a good solution is better than cramming something through to beat a holiday deadline. I hope.

 

[JasePow]

ChickenHawk[/url]":224nxcli]

BajaPaul[/url]":224nxcli]Politicians are afraid of drones. Mount a bomb on them and buzz n for the kill. Maybe a whole horde all at once!

But all this political posturing over registering drones is nonsense. If anybody is intent on using them for assassination, registration isn't going to stop it.

Besides, if people were going to go this route, they could have done so for the last thirty or so years with radio control planes or helicopters.

Yes, we shouldn't regulate obvious hazards until a requisite number of people have lost their lives.

Please tell us the magic number of lives required.

Well,... One would be a start (oh, and the helicopter kid from Central Park doesn't count,... that was a traditional RC Heli.)

 

[FelixA9]

Just another way for big government to extort more money out of us.

 

[DarthSlack]

JasePow[/url]":2kbm2iqw]

ChickenHawk[/url]":2kbm2iqw]

BajaPaul[/url]":2kbm2iqw]Politicians are afraid of drones. Mount a bomb on them and buzz n for the kill. Maybe a whole horde all at once!

But all this political posturing over registering drones is nonsense. If anybody is intent on using them for assassination, registration isn't going to stop it.

Besides, if people were going to go this route, they could have done so for the last thirty or so years with radio control planes or helicopters.

Yes, we shouldn't regulate obvious hazards until a requisite number of people have lost their lives.

Please tell us the magic number of lives required.

Well,... One would be a start (oh, and the helicopter kid from Central Park doesn't count,... that was a traditional RC Heli.)

You volunteering?

 

[yababom]

Rommel102[/url]":14hv3c9x]

Grymdyn[/url]":14hv3c9x]

piratebay329[/url]":14hv3c9x]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.

If you look at this guide, you will see some real examples of toys that do and do NOT require registration. The Air Hogs Millennium Falcon is specifically cited as NOT requiring registration.