N017RW
Premium Pilot
Some folks need to put down the keyboard and go flying!
(Just sayin')
(Just sayin')
FAA Registration Rules Announced NOW
- Thread starter Jeff48920
- Start date
- Status
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
I don't ever want to deal with the hassle of it, frankly. But I think it would be easy to defend if it ever did. I don't ever see it happening though. How is someone going to get my reg numbers? And why would they need them? Those are both so unlikely that I think the concern is unwarranted. It's like worrying about lightning strikes on a sunny day.
Red light cams without evidence of the driver being in the car are easily dismissed. Very easily. Most cams are set up to photograph the driver as they go through the light for this reason.
Red light cams without evidence of the driver being in the car are easily dismissed. Very easily. Most cams are set up to photograph the driver as they go through the light for this reason.
At the risk of taking this too far OT, I would just like to add: Don't try that in FL. They've codified the statutes to explicitly allow the registered owner of a vehicle to be cited for red-light infractions. The ticket offers several options, one of which includes 'snitching' on the person who was actually driving - if you claim it wasn't you. I think this flies in the face of our Constitutionally protected rights, but what doesn't anymore.
Due to privacy concerns (read: politicians that don't want to get photos snapped of them with someone other than their wives), cameras only snap photos of the tags.
But they happen, more often than drones crash into airplanes.
Man Killed by Bolt From Clear Blue Sky
Man Killed by Bolt From Clear Blue Sky
Yes, as far as the government department is concerned, that would bring in $250k, but only if all 5M register in the first month and only if the process no applicants for 2 months. If your public services are as cash strapped as ours in the UK they will be planning for some interest in order to make up the shortfall in their annual budget.
Also, to an individual, what's 1p (or 1 cent) in the scheme of things?
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
That is about the size of a rounding error in the FAA's budget. In the time it took me to write this, they've spent more than that.
I believe model rockets have their own set of regulations. CFR Part 401.5
Rockets have no real "control system" other than a launching operation.
Q. What about tethered drones?
A. Both tethered and untethered UAS must be registered.
Q. Do I have to register a paper airplane, or a toy balloon or Frisbee?
A. No. Even if these things could be considered "drones" or "unmanned aircraft" and met the minimum weight threshold of 250 gm/0.55 lb., the registration rules also require that they be a part of an "unmanned aircraft system." An "unmanned aircraft system" includes the communication links and components that control the small unmanned aircraft along with all of the other elements needed to safely operate the drone. Paper airplanes, toy balloons, Frisbees, and similar items are not connected to such control system.
All this and more in the FAA document.
Privacy
Q. Who can see the data that I can enter?
A. The FAA will be able to see the data that you enter. The FAA is using a contractor to maintain the website and database, and that contractor also will be able to see the data that you enter. Like the FAA, the contractor is required to comply with strict legal requirements to protect the confidentiality of the personal data you provide. Under certain circumstances, law enforcement officers might also be able to see the data.
Q. Will my email address be used for other purposes? Will you make it available to other agencies or companies?
A. No.
Q. Why is the current Aircraft Registry fully searchable but this one is not?
A. The current Aircraft Registry is most frequently used to record the documents used to secure the financing of the aircraft and to aid in proof of ownership. Full searchability of that portion of the Aircraft Registry is needed to enable those purposes. It is much less likely that UAS in the .55 pound to 55 pounds category will require secured financing or need to affirmatively prove ownership. The Government, in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act, protects and generally does not release personal information. Given the nature of UAS, in particular, the risk that the communications link between the operator of the UAS is disrupted or lost, and the risk of losing the UAS is larger than it is for other types of aircraft. Allowing searches of the unique identifying number of UAS will enable the return of these aircraft to their owners.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
- Messages
- 360
- Reaction score
- 51
Yeah, I'm ~25 miles outside of Yosemite, and up until a little over a year ago we were flying a PV+ in the park.
They had already had a rule against flying RC aircraft, but it was probably written for noise considerations etc.
Well ... some folks were doing stupid stuff. like buzzing climbers on El Capitan, and chasing the deer etc. and I suppose some ranger decided to get the rule book out to see what could be done and found the old RC ruling.
No more flying the park.
It was cool while it lasted, and there are other areas up here that are almost as picturesque, just not as famous.
Consequently I prefer to look at how it now forced me to go find that other stuff, that ... as it turns out, is not so postcard and mainstream, then to let the ban get me down.
There are silver linings in the clouds ... we just have to look for 'em.
But I certainly do understand people being PO'd about this registration thing.
I don't like it either .....
So a Canadian can get a certificate that proves ownership but they can't fly when in the USA?
The day man harnesses lightning strikes this will matter, until then, nope. Do you have nothing better to do than spread your hyperbole?
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
Yeah, I'm ~25 miles outside of Yosemite, and up until a little over a year ago we were flying a PV+ in the park.
They had already had a rule against flying RC aircraft, but it was probably written for noise considerations etc.
Well ... some folks were doing stupid stuff. like buzzing climbers on El Capitan, and chasing the deer etc. and I suppose some ranger decided to get the rule book out to see what could be done and found the old RC ruling.
No more flying the park.
It was cool while it lasted, and there are other areas up here that are almost as picturesque, just not as famous.
Consequently I prefer to look at how it now forced me to go find that other stuff, that ... as it turns out, is not so postcard and mainstream, then to let the ban get me down.
There are silver linings in the clouds ... we just have to look for 'em.
But I certainly do understand people being PO'd about this registration thing.
I don't like it either .....
It's entirely possible that registration could make it possible again. You show them your registration when you enter the park and they tell you what you should/shouldn't do with it and away you go. Without registration, there's little way for them to enforce rules. With it, they at least have some element of control. Maybe that's wishful thinking on my part but I can see once drones are under better control, some of the knee jerk enforcement may relax a bit.
In an earlier post, I asked "what good can come of this", with regard to RC owners and the public safety in general. You bring up a very good point.
The National Park Service issued a ban of model aircraft and aerial photography (without permit) on the basis that reckless fliers could damage the wildlife and catching them would be impossible. If fliers simply had to show the park ranger that they have their devices registered, that would knock the wind out of that argument. I won't hold my breath either, that government would relax the ban. After all, there is nothing more permanent than a "temporary government program".
Even if this happens, though, I still have a hard time with the logic. Government prevents responsible citizens from enjoying the national parks via aerial video. This is like government breaking your leg. Then, by putting even more controls and regulations on us, they 'allow' us to fly again. Thus, after breaking our leg, they give us crutches. Probably a bad analogy - but liberty lovers will get it.
These are just codes on a sentence of a fine if found guilty of an offence. But again, what law would you be breaking?
Yes, I have read that - it is the same FAQ I quoted and referenced.
My point is the the last sentence contradicts the previous information given. It actually contradicts the premise in the question. It only make sense if you add on "... but we decided not to enable the return of aircraft to their owners." Or simply leave off the last two sentences and it would be clear that NO data is searchable. As written, the second Q/A you posted does not make sense. It looks like there were two conflicting policies considered and they forgot to take out the wrong part of the answer. Or, just possibly, the government has their bureaucratic heads planted firmly up their backends - which is usually the case in situations like this.
Last edited:
You covered it in your post. 49 U.S.C. 46306 is the law.
49 U.S.C. 46306 - Registration violations involving aircraft not providing air transportation
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2015
- Messages
- 470
- Reaction score
- 180
- Age
- 50
Wrong... the registered owner is responsible for the ricket. Go to court and the judge will still give you the fine. You are responsible for getting reimbursement. That is the only reason why they do not assess points.
- Status
Similar threads
