FAA Registration Rules Announced NOW

[wizardpa]

Let's see, I think I can buy an assault rifle, and not register it, but now I have to register my drone. Oh well, I'm a magician, and I have to register my rabbits with the USDA. I guess drones and rabbits are more dangerous then assault rifles.

 

[Mario_SB]

No, but it will be complaint based. Then they have to investigate. Not quickly, but when they get around to it.

I live in a small town that's part of a larger more populous county and the county sends all their "rookie" cops to get their training and experience with the public in my small town. That said, I know for a fact that these young eager-beaver rookies are always looking for something to pull you over. It's how they get their training and experience.

 

[Mario_SB]

Let's see, I think I can buy an assault rifle, and not register it, but now I have to register my drone. Oh well, I'm a magician, and I have to register my rabbits with the USDA. I guess drones and rabbits are more dangerous then assault rifles.

You've heard of the faulty batteries in

Drone crashes into Seattle Great Wheel

Let's see, I think I can buy an assault rifle, and not register it, but now I have to register my drone. Oh well, I'm a magician, and I have to register my rabbits with the USDA. I guess drones and rabbits are more dangerous then assault rifles.

Missed your point. Doesn't make any sense but ok.

 

[ianwood]

Since you favor regulations, and compareally to the auto industry, then why don't we force your Cessna to have a regulated windshield like an auto. It might save you from a wondering drone.

That windshield has been subject to numerous regulations far beyond that of the automotive industry. On planes just like drones, weight is a very big consideration. Glass is not a good option. As result, a small drone could penetrate the cabin of a small plane. If it incapacitates the pilot, it's game over. There is no RTH in a Cessna.

And the technology to make a drone avoid an airplane with a transponder could have been installed years ago. It sees an airplane squawking and determines there is a potential collision, it descends immediately.

Building something that interacts with manned aviation takes years of development. The amount of testing needed to assure safety of manned flight is exceptional. As it should be. Yes, the FAA is way behind on this but 5 years years ago, very few people had drones on their radar. Now, they're everywhere. Technology waits for no one.

I missed this. Wow. Really? I would think a bigger concern would be that you're in Cessna. I bet Cessnas have had far more mechanical failure crashes than caused by drones. But there are so many other factors....

Yes. The Cessna I fly is rock solid and has a meticulous maintenance record. Meanwhile, SoCal is crawling with drones, probably more than anywhere else. I have to keep an eye out for other planes which is hard enough. Finding and avoiding drones? Forget it.

 

[joe21]

I came across this video on the net. It's very much on topic and doesn't get expressly political (as this outlet is prone do). It mentions similar FCC and other issues, but is 99% on topic to the FAA registration discussion. I think it explains one side of the situation very clearly. Worth a watch. Those who disagree... don't get caught up in the minutia (or the outlet's political stance on other issues or even the inflammatory headline) and you may get a better feel for where the other side is coming from.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Agreed. When driving a car a police officer can't pull you over unless there is probable cause, i.e., broken tail light, missing registrations tags or an observation of a moving violation. If you're that happy go lucky guy flying his drone at the local park then a cop has the right to come up to you and verify that UAV is in compliance. My point being save yourself from any stupid fines from non-compliance.

Agreed. My point, however, would be to stay out of the local park, and, instead, discreetly fly to the park from higher ground, several miles away, preferably on the other side of a freeway, so they can't easily follow your drone. You'll get the same video without all the confrontations and hassles, and you can still be in compliance, if need be. Not needed until after February 19, 2016.

 

[Reed L]

I came across this video on the net.

Excellent find Joe

 

[GadgetGuy]

You've heard of the faulty batteries in

Drone crashes into Seattle Great Wheel

From where did you get the idea that this crash had anything to do with a faulty battery? The pilot was trying to fly through the spokes of a moving carousel, and hit one of the spokes trying! That's like trying to putt through the moving windmill blades on the ground at the local mini golf course, except in the air! It was pilot error/stupidity, and not battery failure. Faulty pilot.

 

[Mario_SB]

From where did you get the idea that this crash had anything to do with a faulty battery? The pilot was trying to fly through the spokes of a moving carousel, and hit one of the spokes trying! That's like trying to putt through the moving windmill blades on the ground at the local mini golf course, except in the air! It was pilot error/stupidity, and not battery failure. Faulty pilot.

Hey, sorry, got distracted with something and didn't know that went through. I was trying to make a point on accountability point and it was incomplete. The point I was trying to make was "say you had a faulty battery or something happened and your drone suddenly crashed somewhere".

 

[Deleted member 39682]

FYI
Press Release – FAA Announces Small UAS Registration Rule

Online Registration begins Dec 21.
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Registration.

Dear Members,
This is a message from the AMA.

Dear AMA Members,

Yesterday, the AMA Executive Council unanimously approved an action plan to relieve and further protect our members from unnecessary and burdensome regulations. This plan addresses the recently announced interim rule requiring federal registration of all model aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) weighing between 0.55 and 55 pounds.

AMA has long used a similar registration system with our members, which we pointed out during the task force deliberations and in private conversations with the FAA. As you are aware, AMA's safety program instructs all members to place his or her AMA number or name and address on or within their model aircraft, effectively accomplishing the safety and accountability objectives of the interim rule. AMA has also argued that the new registration rule runs counter to Congress' intent in Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, otherwise known as the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft."

The Council is considering all legal and political remedies to address this issue. We believe that resolution to the unnecessary federal registration rule for our members rests with AMA's petition before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This petition, filed in August 2014, asks the court to review the FAA's interpretation of the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft." The central issue is whether the FAA has the authority to expand the definition of aircraft to include model aircraft; thus, allowing the agency to establish new standards and operating criteria to which model aircraft operators have never been subject to in the past.

In promulgating its interim rule for registration earlier this week, the FAA repeatedly stated that model aircraft are aircraft, despite the fact that litigation is pending on this very question. The Council believes the FAA's reliance on its interpretation of Section 336 for legal authority to compel our members to register warrants the Court's immediate attention to AMA's petition.

While we continue to believe that registration makes sense at some threshold and for flyers operating outside of a community-based organization or flying for commercial purposes, we also strongly believe our members are not the problem and should not have to bear the burden of additional regulations. Safety has been the cornerstone of our organization for 80 years and AMA's members strive to be a part of the solution.

As we proceed with this process, we suggest AMA members hold off on registering their model aircraft with the FAA until advised by the AMA or until February 19, the FAA's legal deadline for registering existing model aircraft.

Holding off on registration will allow AMA time to fully consider all possible options. On a parallel track, it also allows AMA to complete ongoing conversations with the FAA about how best to streamline the registration process for our members.

In the near future, we will also be asking our members to make their voices heard by submitting comments to the FAA's interim rule on registration. We will follow-up soon with more detailed information on how to do this.

Thank you for your continued support of AMA. We will provide you with more updates as they become available.

Kind regards,
William E. Burrows Jr.

 

[Mario_SB]

Dear Member,
This is a message from the AMA.

Dear AMA Members,

Yesterday, the AMA Executive Council unanimously approved an action plan to relieve and further protect our members from unnecessary and burdensome regulations. This plan addresses the recently announced interim rule requiring federal registration of all model aircraft and unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) weighing between 0.55 and 55 pounds.

AMA has long used a similar registration system with our members, which we pointed out during the task force deliberations and in private conversations with the FAA. As you are aware, AMA's safety program instructs all members to place his or her AMA number or name and address on or within their model aircraft, effectively accomplishing the safety and accountability objectives of the interim rule. AMA has also argued that the new registration rule runs counter to Congress' intent in Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, otherwise known as the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft."

The Council is considering all legal and political remedies to address this issue. We believe that resolution to the unnecessary federal registration rule for our members rests with AMA's petition before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This petition, filed in August 2014, asks the court to review the FAA's interpretation of the "Special Rule for Model Aircraft." The central issue is whether the FAA has the authority to expand the definition of aircraft to include model aircraft; thus, allowing the agency to establish new standards and operating criteria to which model aircraft operators have never been subject to in the past.

In promulgating its interim rule for registration earlier this week, the FAA repeatedly stated that model aircraft are aircraft, despite the fact that litigation is pending on this very question. The Council believes the FAA's reliance on its interpretation of Section 336 for legal authority to compel our members to register warrants the Court's immediate attention to AMA's petition.

While we continue to believe that registration makes sense at some threshold and for flyers operating outside of a community-based organization or flying for commercial purposes, we also strongly believe our members are not the problem and should not have to bear the burden of additional regulations. Safety has been the cornerstone of our organization for 80 years and AMA's members strive to be a part of the solution.

As we proceed with this process, we suggest AMA members hold off on registering their model aircraft with the FAA until advised by the AMA or until February 19, the FAA's legal deadline for registering existing model aircraft.

Holding off on registration will allow AMA time to fully consider all possible options. On a parallel track, it also allows AMA to complete ongoing conversations with the FAA about how best to streamline the registration process for our members.

In the near future, we will also be asking our members to make their voices heard by submitting comments to the FAA's interim rule on registration. We will follow-up soon with more detailed information on how to do this.

Thank you for your continued support of AMA. We will provide you with more updates as they become available.

Kind regards,
William E. Burrows Jr.

AMA is starting to sound like the NRA! :/

 

[GadgetGuy]

Hey, sorry, got distracted with something and didn't know that went through. I was trying to make a point on accountability point and it was incomplete. The point I was trying to make was "say you had a faulty battery or something happened and your drone suddenly crashed somewhere".

No problem. Stuff does happen, but it happens to everyone everywhere at any time. Suppose someone has a heart attack behind the wheel of their car while driving on the freeway in traffic. Isn't that far more serious than a 2 pound drone crashing, and isn't that far more likely? Even more likely is a driver texting and driving getting into an accident, and killing real people with a 2,000 pound car. A 2 pound drone, even if it fell from the sky, should it happen, is highly unlikely to even strike anyone, let alone seriously injure them. If it does, that's what insurance is for, especially if it was an accident caused by a faulty component.

 

[aka1ceman]

That windshield has been subject to numerous regulations far beyond that of the automotive industry. On planes just like drones, weight is a very big consideration. Glass is not a good option. As result, a small drone could penetrate the cabin of a small plane. If it incapacitates the pilot, it's game over. There is no RTH in a Cessna.

So you mean to tell me that you would sacrifice your safety for weight? Tisk, tisk. Someone so worried about safety, you would be much wiser to have a safety glass and not be allowed to take as much luggage.

 

[damitjim01]

There is no RTH in a Cessna.

Maybe there should be?

 

[aka1ceman]

I agree jim

Maybe there should be?

If there was a collision between a Cessna and a drone, do you really think RTH would still work on a drone? Come on Ian get real.

 

[damitjim01]

Come on guys get real.

I was referring to having RTH on the Cessna. You know, a new regulation requiring all Cessna's to be retrofitted with a costly upgrade to comply and stay legal... if some regulations are good, more is better right?

 

[aka1ceman]

I was referring to Ian post here....

That windshield has been subject to numerous regulations far beyond that of the automotive industry. On planes just like drones, weight is a very big consideration. Glass is not a good option. As result, a small drone could penetrate the cabin of a small plane. If it incapacitates the pilot, it's game over. There is no RTH in a Cessna.
.

He's grabbing from far left field on this one. Where is that even matter. He's making it sound as If there was a collision into a Cessna windshield with a drone, it would RTH.

........Psssst Ian, you do know not all drones have RTH capabilities right?

 

[aka1ceman]

I was referring to having RTH on the Cessna. You know, a new regulation requiring all Cessna's to be retrofitted with a costly upgrade to comply and stay legal... if some regulations are good, more is better right?

I agree with you. Why now, wouldn't it make "him safer"?

But due to the fact that new regulations on Cessna planes for a better windshield (and a RTH system) may cost him more money, time, and aggrivation.....he may not like that idea. (Sounds familiar doesn't it)

 

[damitjim01]

(Sounds familiar doesn't it)

nah, just paranoia and irrational fear mongering.

 

[davis]

AMA is starting to sound like the NRA! :/

also sounds like the SEMA Action Network in DC. they are protecting the rights for collector car owners. fyi.