Who will register their Phantom with the FAA?

[GadgetGuy]

People take such post serious regardless of the intent. And then they imitate.
People think that Bryce has really garnered respect by slapping some numbers on his quad and wearing a pilot hat. How many people will read that, slap some random numbers on their rig, and find an old pilot's hat to wear and think they are now a pilot?

Really? Sure it isn't just your own lack of a sense of humor? Ease up a bit and learn to appreciate the humor, without all the fear mongering.
You have just made my point again...

Please note that the AGL (above ground level) altitudes specified follow terrain, so flying your drone off the hypothetical cliff situation is a good example of the need to pay attention to the terrain in your area of flight.

While drone operators are not "pilots", they are being subjected to some of the same rules and the methods of application to flight as aircraft pilots.

This is interesting, because the FAA is almost defining a new class of airspace specific to sUAV craft.

Indeed. It is unfortunate that our DJI GO telemetry data does not also feature an AGL altitude at all times, in addition to the height relative to the launch point. There is a barometer in the iPad Air 2, so why not use it to at least display an above sea level altitude, too, after specifying the launch height above sea level? You don't need to be launching from a cliff to encounter this issue. Any launch from the side of a hill or the top of a hill to have clear LOS below you has the same issue.

I don't think it quite works that way with the FAA rules. If it did, anyone living and/or operating their UAV 400 feet or more above sea level would be in violation. Hello Las Vegas, Phoenix, Denver, Boise, etc. I believe that AGL is the intended reference.

We are on the same page, but just not communicating clearly enough. The FAA guideline is 400 feet above ground wherever you fly. However DJI only measures above your launch point, with no allowance for flying over a lower elevation than your launch point, which is the best way to maintain clear LOS at all times when flying. We don't all live in flat areas. Hills are the best places to fly from! So, the 400 foot guideline is easily exceeded, even unintentionally, because accurate AGL data is not provided in the telemetry during flight.

That's pretty much what he said (re: AGL being the reference, but WHICH ground). You may want to re-read his original message as he makes a VERY good point.

What if you are on a bluff overlooking the ocean that's 100ft up from the beach? You take off straight up to 400ft AGL then then move it over the beach below or the ocean? If you stayed over the bluff you would be 400ft AGL, but now that you are over the beach below you cross from 400ft AGL to 500ft AGL (the ground changed, not the quad BTW), and are now out of compliance with the FAA guideline on how high to fly (which is not a rule or a regulation, FWIW).

The DJI Naza will let you do this because it assumes the the take off point is 0 AGL for the entire flight, which in this case is 100ft higher than the beach you are flying over now.

Thank you! I've been hammering on this issue since day one, as I live on a hill and fly over the valley and flatlands below me. Great for maintaining excellent radio communication with the aircraft, but requiring mental calculations to be aware of the unintended consequences. If I have RTH altitude set to 400 feet, and fly at 150 feet above my launch point, and fly over the flatlands that are 250 feet below me, everything is copesetic, as I am still at 400 feet AGL, until I lose signal, and RTH now ascends to 400 feet above the launch point, and brings the aircraft back at 650 feet AGL over the flatlands!

Inadequate altitude measurement abilities on the equipment you choose is not the FAAs responsibility. If you're standing on a cliff and fly over the water 250' away, it's your responsibility to understand the implications.

Indeed. Just saying that the DJI telemetry alone won't keep you in compliance with the guidelines, even if you choose to abide by them.

Only in the most politically correct, bizarro world, would I be accused of attacking someone with my post. I don't subscribe to the new school thought police, but thanks anyway. And if someone was offended by my post, let me just say...................... wah , wah , wah!!!

You didn't think the pilot hat and N number joke was funny. I get it. I thought it was hilarious. That's all there is to it. But you think that now some who read that joke are going to go and actually do it. That's even more hilarious than the joke, and I'm laughing out load again lol!!

+1!

 

[NYPhantom]

Thank you! I've been hammering on this issue since day one, as I live on a hill and fly over the valley and flatlands below me. Great for maintaining excellent radio communication with the aircraft, but requiring mental calculations to be aware of the unintended consequences. If I have RTH altitude set to 400 feet, and fly at 150 feet above my launch point, and fly over the flatlands that are 250 feet below me, everything is copesetic, as I am still at 400 feet AGL, until I lose signal, and RTH now ascends to 400 feet above the launch point, and brings the aircraft back at 650 feet AGL over the flatlands!

That's exactly the issue, and your understanding is correct. The height limit is terrain following.

Indeed. It is unfortunate that our DJI GO telemetry data does not also feature an AGL altitude at all times, in addition to the height relative to the launch point. There is a barometer in the iPad Air 2, so why not use it to at least display an above sea level altitude, too, after specifying the launch height above sea level? You don't need to be launching from a cliff to encounter this issue. Any launch from the side of a hill or the top of a hill to have clear LOS below you has the same issue.

We'd need thing or two to solve the issue. One would be a topographical database stored on one of the devices. The phone/tablet would be the best choice, ease of download and generally plentiful storage being the obvious reasons. This would keep on mostly in compliance, topographical databases aren't high detail unless one pays for detailed maps.

The other item could be a radar altimeter, but that adds expense and weight to a drone. Likely not going to happen.

Using the baro in the iPad/iPhone isn't going to help because one sill has to know the MSL terrain heights in the area one is flying in. You can get the local altimeter setting from a nearby weather station or airport, but it's still useless unless the operator knows the terrain varies +/- 150' in the area of flight and follows said terrain.

 

[BigAl07]

How did you register

I registered because of my request for Section 333 Exemption status. This is a requirement of the Section 333 Exemption. I registered with the FAA and it's the same process as if I were registering a full size Cessna 172. Below is a link:
Aircraft Registry – Aircraft Registration: Unmanned Aircraft (UA)

Don't confuse the above with the "Broad" registration that everyone is in an uproar about. I speculate (and I have nothing to base this on) that registration will be much easier and probably done online through a portal or something. We hope so anyway.

 

[advhawk]

I predict that:
1. Government makes a rule for registration.
2. Registration won't be obeyed by a large percentage of the people.
3. The problems that the Government said registration would fix will not fix it.
4. Government decides that the regulations didn't go far enough and proposes rigorous enforcement.
5. Government to hire 100,000 new government union employees with pensions and healthcare to police the drones.
6. Registration fees will go way up to pay for the new staff. Draconian fines will accompany very innocent mistakes. Outlaws will continue without repercussions.
7. All the above still won't solve the worst problems.
8. A new government solution will be proposed where everybody wanting to fly a drone has to attend a 16 hour class, do a Homeland Security background check, get photographed, fingerprinted, and carry a government license when you fly. Also log and report all flights.
9. Hire 200,000 new employees for the newly created Federal Government agency DAA (Drone Administration Agency)
10. All government agencies will be completely exempt from the new rules and allowed to surveil all of us at their whims.

Ding...

 

[Chuck Young]

Indeed. It is unfortunate that our DJI GO telemetry data does not also feature an AGL altitude at all times, in addition to the height relative to the launch point. There is a barometer in the iPad Air 2, so why not use it to at least display an above sea level altitude, too, after specifying the launch height above sea level? You don't need to be launching from a cliff to encounter this issue. Any launch from the side of a hill or the top of a hill to have clear LOS below you has the same issue.

I think adding radar altimeter hardware would add considerably to the expense and weight of the Pxx.

 

[Smokey96]

I believe some people are getting confused with what the U.S. government is doing. The FAA requires anyone wanting to fly commercially to register their aircraft with them, after getting a 333 Exemption status. This new registration that is getting so much publicity, is one that will require enthusiast who purchase a drone to register with the Department of Transportation. Completely different.

I have registered several of our aircraft for our company, and the fee for the FAA was $5 per aircraft. If you want to have a specific N#, then it is $10. Be aware of the material required to have your aircraft registered. All of it can be found through the FAA website. It is cumbersome and more than likely it will get kicked back at least once, as there are some very specific pieces of information they ask for, and if it is not exactly how they ask for it, they will send it back and ask you to resubmit. So just be ready.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Really? Sure it isn't just your own lack of a sense of humor? Ease up a bit and learn to appreciate the humor, without all the fear mongering.
You have just made my point again...

People clear a wide path for me when I dress with authority. I'm not sure why you think I am against the appropriate attire when we pilot our airships.
It is making up phony registration numbers I worry about!

But yeah, I am just too serious, I'll work on that. And the humor thingy.

An FPV monocle with zoom capabilities I'm working on.

 

[GadgetGuy]

People clear a wide path for me when I dress with authority. I'm not sure why you think I am against the appropriate attire when we pilot our airships.
It is making up phony registration numbers I worry about!

But yeah, I am just too serious, I'll work on that. And the humor thingy.

Touché!
The inherent problem with any registration requirement is that it does nothing to address the three problem areas the DOT Spokeshole said it was designed to help with: flying over airports, stadiums, and fires, where they can see the drone but cannot see the pilot. Registration alone cannot help see or find a rogue pilot without a transponder in the aircraft, and he said "let's not go there" when asked about requiring transponders. The touted "education" associated with registration won't stop the rogue pilot, as they already know they are not supposed to be flying there. Everyone does by now! All this is also predicated on the rogue drone being registered and registered accurately. The rogue pilots simply won't register the drone! Who knew?? This is all just for show, and does nothing to solve the problem. Flying in a reckless manner is already illegal with severe consequences. Registration alone won't help in any way.

 

[GadgetGuy]

That's exactly the issue, and your understanding is correct. The height limit is terrain following.

Indeed. At the very least, DJI GO should have a warning that any change in terrain, such as flying below your launching point, will cause the AGL elevation to be higher than the "above launch point elevation" displayed in the app. Always add the change in ground terrain elevation to your displayed elevation in the app. Know your MSL altitude at your launch point. Know the MSL altitude over all the areas you intend to fly. Adjust your RTH altitude accordingly, if you wish to stay within compliance of guidelines of either 400 feet or 500 feet AGL. At the very least, be aware of the potentially misleading elevation numbers in the DJI GO app in these circumstances, and know the difference between MSL, AGL, and ALP (above launch point, which is the only thing measured by DJI GO)!

I think adding radar altimeter hardware would add considerably to the expense and weight of the Pxx.

Very true, as would adding transponders, which is why the DOT spokeshole said, "Let's not go there" when directly asked about requiring transponders, which would be the only way registration would ever help "see" the pilot of rogue aircraft.

I believe some people are getting confused with what the U.S. government is doing. The FAA requires anyone wanting to fly commercially to register their aircraft with them, after getting a 333 Exemption status. This new registration that is getting so much publicity, is one that will require enthusiast who purchase a drone to register with the Department of Transportation. Completely different.

I have registered several of our aircraft for our company, and the fee for the FAA was $5 per aircraft. If you want to have a specific N#, then it is $10. Be aware of the material required to have your aircraft registered. All of it can be found through the FAA website. It is cumbersome and more than likely it will get kicked back at least once, as there are some very specific pieces of information they ask for, and if it is not exactly how they ask for it, they will send it back and ask you to resubmit. So just be ready.

Adding to the confusion is that the purpose of a 333 Exemption is not to register your aircraft, but to obtain an exemption from the no commercial flying prohibition. Once the 333 exemption is granted, one of the many requirements to fly commercially using the exemption is to register the aircraft with the FAA. The most onerous requirement under the 333 Exemption is that a licensed pilot must be flying the drone at all times.

We'd need thing or two to solve the issue. One would be a topographical database stored on one of the devices. The phone/tablet would be the best choice, ease of download and generally plentiful storage being the obvious reasons. This would keep on mostly in compliance, topographical databases aren't high detail unless one pays for detailed maps.

The other item could be a radar altimeter, but that adds expense and weight to a drone. Likely not going to happen.

Using the baro in the iPad/iPhone isn't going to help because one sill has to know the MSL terrain heights in the area one is flying in. You can get the local altimeter setting from a nearby weather station or airport, but it's still useless unless the operator knows the terrain varies +/- 150' in the area of flight and follows said terrain.

True. That's why I suggested user input for the MSL at the launch location. It would then provide true MSL data relative to the launch point, which would still require topo maps to interpolate into AGL.

 

[Chuck Young]

Touché!
...Registration alone won't help in any way.

I do believe that can be dis-proven easily but is impossible to prove.

 

[jlummel]

I believe the FAA is relying on this line from Section 336:

(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who endanger the safety of the national airspace system.
​

The administrator is not authorized to make any new rules for model aircraft:

a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Federal Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this subtitle, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft,​

But, is it a new rule or regulation that is proposed? I am not sure because the rules for registration and aircraft marking have been in effect for decades, just not applied to model aircraft.

Thanks for explaining that, though the term "promulgate" would cover both creating new rules and regulations AND changing old rules and regulations as well, if they regard model aircraft. And there is no practical way to fit model aircraft under the current rules and regulations without changing them, even issuing a rule that model aircraft now need to be registered would violate the law as written...

The FAA and DOT are on a VERY slippery slope and I expect they will try to get away with finessing the law. But there are too many stake holders with deep enough pockets to let them get away with it though. Getting a court or a jury to believe that a clause in one part of the law negates entirely a clause in another part will be a stretch, and I bet the FAA thinks that it's not impossible though. A registration system for model aircraft is clearly not the intent of the law and violates due process and self incrimination protections laid out in the Bill of Rights, setting this case up for the Supreme Court as well.

But as I stated before, I'm not against rules and regulations, just BAD rules and regulations. There are better solutions to this problem and, yes, these solutions would require changes to the law as it's written. We just need to do it, and it starts with us model aircraft operators, both as individuals and as organizations.

 

[Mark The Droner]

Here's something that's not entirely on topic but related.

Let's say the Feds or FAA or whoever issues a TFR for your area. Technically, UAV pilots may not fly in a TFR is my understanding. And let's say the UAV era has evolved to the point where the FAA automatically sends emails to those who happen to live in or near a TFR area.

But those who aren't registered don't get the email. So they happily go out and fly around at the park, are seen by some authority somewhere (maybe even a county cop [this is not now but later in an evolved era]) and he/they get arrested. And prosecuted. Not just for flying in a TFR, but for evading the law requiring registration.

What brings this idea up is that I happened to fly earlier today, and later checked a weather site, saw a warning, clicked on it, and saw this:

SkyVector: Flight Planning / Aeronautical Charts

It shows my area, north of DC, outside the nofly, but inside a TFR which has just recently been started (the TFR is huge, including the entire DC metro region, parts of downtown Baltimore and the entire city of Annapolis).

Apparently I broke the law today and didn't even know it.

 

[Chuck Young]

Can we please stay on topic.

If someone wants to post their misunderstandings regarding science, take it off topic.
This thread is about registering your drone, not politicized science theories gleaned from non scientific pundits.

Sorry, had to slip in some entertainment in the mix. So @GoodnNuff back on topic, I have chose to Join AMA and register my P3 with the FAA and slap a N369CY on it. Do you think if you and I were flying side by side in a questionable location we would both be treated exactly the same by authorities? Point being: Do you think it is worth $80?

 

[GoodnNuff]

Sorry, had to slip in some entertainment in the mix. So @GoodnNuff back on topic, I have chose to Join AMA and register my P3 with the FAA and slap a N369CY on it. Do you think if you and I were flying side by side in a questionable location we would both be treated exactly the same by authorities? Point being: Do you think it is worth $80?

I'm a member of the AMA, but none of my drones have been registered with the FAA. They will be when I'm told they are required to be. As a pure hobbyist who just loves to fly, I support registering our drones.
I think if we were both flying in a questionable location, we would be treated the same with the current laws. After the first of the year - not sure how that will play out. Fair enough?

 

[Chuck Young]

I'm a member of the AMA, but none of my drones have been registered with the FAA. They will be when I'm told they are required to be. As a pure hobbyist who just loves to fly, I support registering our drones.
I think if we were both flying in a questionable location, we would be treated the same with the current laws. After the first of the year - not sure how that will play out. Fair enough?

I look forward to seeing what the government comes up with. We may or may-not like it but if you love the sport enough you will comply, so to speak. I think there are definitely some people in these here United States that have no business flying a P3.

Going upstream to pan some gold, wind is to strong to fly right now.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I'm a member of the AMA, but none of my drones have been registered with the FAA. They will be when I'm told they are required to be. As a pure hobbyist who just loves to fly, I support registering our drones.
I think if we were both flying in a questionable location, we would be treated the same with the current laws. After the first of the year - not sure how that will play out. Fair enough?

Depends upon which one of you they can find! Remember, registering alone won't ever help them ever "see" the pilot! They can see the drone, but they cannot see the pilot, unless you are in plain sight directly below it, so fly from a discrete location far away! No hassles!

 

[GoodnNuff]

Depends upon which one of you they can find! Remember, registering alone won't ever help them ever "see" the pilot! They can see the drone, but they cannot see the pilot, unless you are in plain sight directly below it, so fly from a discrete location far away! No hassles!

That is if identification depends upon a visual identifier. I expect that it will be more involved than just looking for a number on a drone. In fact, I think the pilot is exactly what they will be able to "see" in another year or so. Technology moves fast. Bureaucracy, not so much. So we will have to wait and see.

 

[GadgetGuy]

That is if identification depends upon a visual identifier. I expect that it will be more involved than just looking for a number on a drone. In fact, I think the pilot is exactly what they will be able to "see" in another year or so. Technology moves fast. Bureaucracy, not so much. So we will have to wait and see.

We have a window of opportunity until then. I intend to make the most of it.

 

[GoodnNuff]

We have a window of opportunity until then. I intend to make the most of it.

Opportunity for?

 

[Chuck Young]

Opportunity for?

Here is 4 of the Ten colors in a test pan, oh yea.

Wished I could have flown my P3 but gold in the pan ain't a bad alternative.