Over 9 oz? Will need to register

  • Like
Reactions: robsquad
I don't want to subscribe to the WSJ, so I can't read the text.
 
It's the same link. All I get is a nag screen to subscribe.
 
Here is the entire article...

A federally convened task force plans to urge U.S. officials to cast a wide net in registering recreational drones but make registration simple and free, according to three people familiar with the matter.

After three days of meetings, the task force Thursday agreed to recommend registration for recreational drones weighing more than 250 grams, or roughly nine ounces, according to two task-force members and a third person close to the group. That would include almost all consumer devices other than toys.

The group also plans to recommend that users register by entering their name and address into a government-sanctioned website or mobile app, the people said. Registration would be free. Users would have to attach a registration number to drones so that it is legible, and they can use the same number for multiple drones.

“You can put it in indelible ink, you can bedazzle it,” one of the people said. “It just needs to be legible so (authorities) are able to read it.”

The Federal Aviation Administration convened nearly 30 government, industry and consumer representatives to recommend rules for registering recreational drones before Christmas. U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx proposed the regulations last month, saying they needed to be adopted quickly because drones are endangering manned aircraft. He gave the task force until Nov. 20 to deliver recommendations.

Drones have soared in popularity in recent years as technology advances have made them cheaper, smaller and easier to fly. Regulators have struggled to keep up as hundreds of thousands of the devices took to U.S. skies.

The FAA is expected to closely follow the group’s recommendations, in part because of the expedited timeline for the rules and because the task force reached a nearly unanimous consensus, the people familiar with the matter said.

They described the recommendations as a compromise. Drone-industry representatives wanted a higher weight threshold for requiring registration, but other members pointed to a study that found drones heavier than approximately 250 grams could injure people if they crash. With the lower threshold, the group agreed to make registration as easy as possible, including allowing users to register one time for multiple drones.

By comparison, registering a manned aircraft requires visiting an FAA office and can take as long as three months.

“What we achieved can be characterized as a package deal,” one task-force member said. “No one got everything they wanted; you could say everyone is a little unhappy.”

The task force didn’t recommend new penalties for violating the registration rules, the people familiar with the matter said. Users who operate unregistered drones would be subject to existing federal penalties, which include civil or criminal fines and up to three years in prison.

One person said the group could propose lesser penalties before the recommendations are due, but that was unlikely.

The task force is co-chaired by Earl Lawrence, a top FAA drone official, and Dave Vos, head of the drone-delivery project at Google parent Alphabet Inc. Other members include representatives from the largest airline-pilots union, an association of airport executives, consumer-drone makers like SZ DJI Technology Co., and companies that want to use drones in their businesses, like Amazon.com Inc.and Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Write to Jack Nicas at [email protected]
 
They described the recommendations as a compromise. Drone-industry representatives wanted a higher weight threshold for requiring registration, but other members pointed to a study that found drones heavier than approximately 250 grams could injure people if they crash. With the lower threshold, the group agreed to make registration as easy as possible, including allowing users to register one time for multiple drones.

So registering them will prevent crashes? I want to see how that works out. More tax dollars going up in smoke.
 
......... More tax dollars going up in smoke.
That's the thing................... when it's not YOUR money, you don't tend to care where and how you spend it! That's the inherent flaw in our system................. the .gov has a nearly endless stream of "other" people's money, so there is no real incentive to spend wisely and/or save.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brad Pierce
That's the thing................... when it's not YOUR money, you don't tend to care where and how you spend it! That's the inherent flaw in our system................. the .gov has a nearly endless stream of "other" people's money, so there is no real incentive to spend wisely and/or save.
Wow, everything about you is money. First you ***** that registration is a money grab (it isn't) and now you ***** that it's free and other people's money has to pay for it.

Registration has absolutely nothing to do with money. Get over it. It's not about the money no matter what Fox News tells you. All the fees and fines the FAA collects is just couch lint in their overall budget.

This is less about safety than it is about doing something. Anything that’ll make the public feel like the government is doing something. This is a rumor-based approach to regulation, not a risk-based scientific approach. While I appreciate the pressure from Congress and the news media to "do something" I don't believe the FAA has been given a mandate to do something stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff and jason
Wow, everything about you is money. First you ***** that registration is a money grab (it isn't) and now you ***** that it's free and other people's money has to pay for it.

Registration has absolutely nothing to do with money. Get over it. It's not about the money no matter what Fox News tells you. All the fees and fines the FAA collects is just couch lint in their overall budget.

This is less about safety than it is about doing something. Anything that’ll make the public feel like the government is doing something. This is a rumor-based approach to regulation, not a risk-based scientific approach. While I appreciate the pressure from Congress and the news media to "do something" I don't believe the FAA has been given a mandate to do something stupid.
Wow, everything about you is Fox News. You reply to everything I post and cite Fox News. Get over it. If you don't understand how the government freely and crazily spends yours and my money, there is no getting through to you. There was a much bigger point I was making, but I wouldn't expect those on the .gov dole to like what I'm saying.
 
Wow, everything about you is Fox News. You reply to everything I post and cite Fox News. Get over it. If you don't understand how the government freely and crazily spends yours and my money, there is no getting through to you. There was a much bigger point I was making, but I wouldn't expect those on the .gov dole to like what I'm saying.
Spending money is how the government stimulates the economy. That's economics 101. We enjoy the most progressive years when the government funds massive projects and spreads the money all over the country. When the government stops spending money, I.E. Austerity, we go into recession. It's been this way for centuries. And it flips every 30 or 40 years, so we're due for more progressive growth.

But to stay on topic, I can't imagine the FAA not charging a registration fee. In my comment to the docket:
31 U.S. Code § 9701 – “Fees and charges for Government services and things of value” says the fees should consider “the value of the service or thing to the recipient”. Model aircraft registration is of no value to the recipient and is only an illogical response to the public hysteria over something that's never happened. There should be no fee to the model aircraft owner for a mandated service that contains no benefit or value to the recipient.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff and jason
Spending money is how the government stimulates the economy. That's economics 101. We enjoy the most progressive years when the government funds massive projects and spreads the money all over the country. When the government stops spending money, I.E. Austerity, we go into recession. It's been this way for centuries. And it flips every 30 or 40 years, so we're due for more progressive growth......
Just. Wow. Another academic theorist. We put them in charge for the last 7 years, and none of their ignorant "theories" work. They make good points for classroom banter, but in the real world are shot down quickly. It's not the government's job to stimulate anything.

It's a good thing your CNN and NBC are in the tank for them, and never report on any of it.

TJ............... when attacked, I will respond.
 
Stop the political garbage. Take that to Off-Topic. Sheesh.

Although 9 ounces seems quite low and I thought that they were going to consider range as well, thus far these don't seem like an unreasonable burden.

Note that typically it takes a bigger person to not "respond" when "attacked" .... Just sayin' ....
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
Although 9 ounces seems quite low and I thought that they were going to consider range as well, thus far these don't seem like an unreasonable burden.
I would have expected 1-pound as the determining threshold. Nine ounces includes most of the toys sold in the mall kiosk shops and every model Phantom. Can you see the teenager at the kiosk requiring you to register your new toy at the point of sale? Most of the kids working the holidays for game money would likely say, "Whut's an FAA"?

The FAA couldn't use range because new battery technology would quickly make that irrelevant. The next battery technology may be the Lithium-Air batteries in the labs today which promises 2 to 3X the charge capacity of today's LiPos.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,094
Messages
1,467,599
Members
104,980
Latest member
ozmtl