Bought the toy drone for Xmas. Now you will need to register it with the FAA .

President Trump signed a sweeping defense policy bill into law on Tuesday that will allow the government to require recreational drone users to register their model aircraft.

A federal court ruled earlier this year that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) did not have the power to force toy drone users to register their aircraft with the agency because Congress had said in a previous a law that the FAA can’t regulate model aircraft.

But the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which landed on Trump’s desk Tuesday, would restore the FAA’s registration system for civilian drones.

In December 2015, the FAA issued an interim rule requiring drone hobbyists to register their recreational aircraft with the agency.

The rule — which had not been formally finalized — requires model aircraft owners to provide their name, email address and physical address; pay a $5 registration fee; and display a unique drone ID number at all times. Those who fail to comply could face civil and criminal penalties.

While Congress directed the FAA to safely integrate drones into the national airspace in a 2012 aviation law, lawmakers also included a special exemption to prevent model aircraft from being regulated.

A D.C.-based appeals court cited the 2012 law in its ruling striking down the FAA drone registry, arguing that recreational drones count as model aircraft and that the registry counts as a rule or regulation.

Lawmakers included a fix for the issue in a Senate aviation bill this summer, but that legislation has been stalled, which is why the language was attached to the defense measure.

http://thehill.com/policy/transportatio ... -with-govt

The way these Congress Critters sneaks in riders to other legislation never know what might sneak in. Next time Turnip declared president for life.

Good, they should be registered, we require motor vehicles to be registered and have number plates. Eventually I can see where they'll have to broadcast their number and have the number affixed to the drone. They'll probably also be required to have insurance in case innocent people on the ground are hurt, for property damage and pilot liability. They're getting smaller and more hi tech, in the future you'll probably get your medications delivered via drone.

Commercial operators were required to register already.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

highdesert wrote:Good, they should be registered, we require motor vehicles to be registered and have number plates. Eventually I can see where they'll have to broadcast their number and have the number affixed to the drone. They'll probably also be required to have insurance in case innocent people on the ground are hurt, for property damage and pilot liability. They're getting smaller and more hi tech, in the future you'll probably get your medications delivered via drone.

Be careful what you are saying is okay. They get by with it for the hobbyist drones, what’s next guns. Same arguments for guns.

Good, they should be registered, we require motor vehicles to be registered and have number plates. Guns have serial numbers and have the number affixed to the gun. They could also be required to have insurance in case innocent people are hurt, for property damage and shooter liability.

We did it for cars we doing it for drones and we can do it for guns. It is not taking the guns away so that okay with the second amendment. You can keep your guns but the insurance and other cost make it a very expensive hobby.

[/quote]Be careful what you are saying is okay. They get by with it for the hobbyist drones, what’s next guns. Same arguments for guns.[/quote]

This. Deeper thought needed here.

Subs

Drones are “aircraft” legally, therefore controlled by the FAA. Aviation is extremely conservative. They haven’t wrapped their heads around all the implications of *unmanned* aircraft. Registration is the least of your worries if you own a drone. There are many worse outcomes possible — that are being actively lobbied.

gator68 wrote:Drones are “aircraft” legally, therefore controlled by the FAA. Aviation is extremely conservative. They haven’t wrapped their heads around all the implications of *unmanned* aircraft. Registration is the least of your worries if you own a drone. There are many worse outcomes possible — that are being actively lobbied.

Sorry, no. Toy drones - AKA model aircraft - aren't controlled by the FAA. That was upheld by the court in the original case. It's same reason I don't have to clear model rocket flights with NASA or the FAA, and why I can't log pilot in command time for either sort of flying.

This BS decision is just a way for the current administration to get a two-fer: It reverses one of Obama's decisions, and let's them thumb their noses at the Federal courts. We've got a lot of trash to haul out when these Bozos leave town.

“Congress passed and President Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,” the ruling said. “Specifically, the ‘Special Rule for Model Aircraft’ [section] provides that the FAA ‘may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.’”

http://thehill.com/policy/transportatio ... toy-drones

No. “Model aircraft” was defined by congress. It’s basically defined by your intent at the time of flight, and whether you are following the rules of a modeling organization. The notion of “toy” doesn’t appear anywhere in the law or regs.

Registration of recreational drones was implemented by the FAA under Obama. It was deemed illegal by a court (correctly.) So congress stuck a few sentences in saying “that registration thing — whatever you were doing, that’s now defined as legal.” This isn’t really anything to do with the trumpkins directly. You got it exactly backwards. Somehow trump is signing a law that reinstates something that Obama did. He probably doesn’t realize.

gator68 wrote:No. “Model aircraft” was defined by congress. It’s basically defined by your intent at the time of flight, and whether you are following the rules of a modeling organization. The notion of “toy” doesn’t appear anywhere in the law or regs.

Registration of recreational drones was implemented by the FAA under Obama. It was deemed illegal by a court (correctly.) So congress stuck a few sentences in saying “that registration thing — whatever you were doing, that’s now defined as legal.” This isn’t really anything to do with the trumpkins directly. You got it exactly backwards. Somehow trump is signing a law that reinstates something that Obama did. He probably doesn’t realize.

Check the quote I posted above.

“Congress passed and President Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,” the ruling said. “Specifically, the ‘Special Rule for Model Aircraft’ [section] provides that the FAA ‘may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.’”

The FAA violated the special rule when they called for registration - that's why they got wrecked in court.

AndyH wrote: The FAA violated the special rule when they called for registration - that's why they got wrecked in court.

Yes, but the FAA is part of the executive. Everyone was scared of drones at the end of 2015. FAA rushed the registration rule through with the full support of everyone in Washington. Whatever else you think of the Repubs, this was not about reversing Obama.

I get the “FREEDOM!” thing about model aircraft. But like I said registration is the least of your worries. Wait till the states and cities are given control of drones in the low altitude airspace above them. And just wait till you see what they want to require for remote ID.

Just FYI. Here’s a link to the law about model aircraft. Look at section 336.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/media/Sec_331_336_UAS.pdf

The definition of “model aircraft” includes a definition of how you’re flying.

That’s why the recent incident where a drone flown by a hobbyist was hit by a helicopter was considered a Part 107 flight.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatod ... /952310001

gator68 wrote:

AndyH wrote: The FAA violated the special rule when they called for registration - that's why they got wrecked in court.

Yes, but the FAA is part of the executive.

Sure they are - and they still overstepped the guidance of the sitting executive when they called for registration. Of course the new executive can change the rules. If you want to tell me that Trump knows what a model aircraft is, or even would have changed this rule if someone in the FAA (yes, conservative and paranoid) didn't whisper in his ear that Obama wouldn't let them protect the nation from all of those out of control toy airplanes, bring proof.

Most of this - especially in DC - is a result of 'everyone' calling an unmanned flying thing a drone. When constituent contacts their senator about 'drone rules' I expect the senator's mind to jump to 'Predator', or possibly 'UPS delivery drone'. I get you about intent. When the Army flies a 4 ounce machine, they're not doing it in the park on Sunday while sipping an adult beverage (though I can't rule out Sundays or beverages... LOL). But no - a kid flying her quadcopter too high is a rules violation, but it doesn't automatically change to part 107 - which is specifically "non-hobbyist" flying - in other words, commercial. That's straight from the FAA.

The new rules for non-hobbyist small unmanned aircraft (UAS) operations...

(Yes, this is from 2012 and appears to have been changed by the ReichsCheeto. That doesn't change the fact that 107 was originally written to provide guidance to commercial drone operators - think Amazon, FedEx, photographers/news, etc.

There are plenty of problems and disconnects as well. The AMA confirms that model flyers can continue to fly at night, yet 107.29(a) says no night flying.
http://www.modelaircraft.org/aboutama/faa-uas-faq.aspx
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?S ... 4.2.107_11

This is a bad decision and needs to be fought, just as the recent change to net neutrality needs to be fought. Neither has anything to do with which party is in control of anything.

Whatever. For what it’s worth this is my job. I know the AMA President, I know the FAA head of the UAS integration office — and they know me. I’ve met the outgoing administrator but he wouldn’t recognize me. I’ve been on two ARCs, I just testified in front of the NAS about UAS and risk. But keep telling me how it all works.

gator68 wrote:Whatever. For what it’s worth this is my job. I know the AMA President, I know the FAA head of the UAS integration office — and they know me. I’ve met the outgoing administrator but he wouldn’t recognize me. I’ve been on two ARCs, I just testified in front of the NAS about UAS and risk. But keep telling me how it all works.

Respectfully, if you think it's ok for a model flyer to be prosecuted under part 107 (which is as insane as nailing a part 103 pilot under some aspect of 91), then you're part of the problem. I do appreciate the view from your flight level, but suggest someone turn the oxygen up a bit.

ETA...It's not personal, gator68. I'm a licensed pilot and fly RC airplanes. I'm also a ham and can operate higher powered RC transmitters (with my name and call on the transmitter). I also spent more than 20 years in uniform. During too many quiet nights in Europe when we talked about the way things were on the other side of the Iron Curtain, to a man or woman we agreed that we'd die before letting that sort of centralized authoritarianism take hold in the US. I will not comply with this new requirement, and I will work to make sure it is overturned when the ReichsCheeto and his poor little afraid of RC toys toadies are no longer in DC.

From the redundancy department:

Again, whatever.
I hope you’re an AMA member, and DUGN, and whatever other organizations you think can effect the change you think needs to be made.

Trying to pin this on Trump is a mistake. Registration started under Obama and is supported by basically everyone in the US power structure except for a small number of loud people like yourselves. Who, because they are unorganized, serve only as a source of noise to prove that it is right to regulate you folks. Flying BVLOS, at high altitude, and bragging about it just shows the man (and the pilot organizations) that you are a clear and present danger. Congrats. This also feeds directly into Amazon’s plans to take control of the airspace and relegate recreational flying solely to AMA fields. From my perspective, your graphic should be aimed right at you and your ilk. Same to you — not personal — but your hobby will be increasingly regulated because of people like yourself. There’s no right to fly.

I spent the summer trying to defend recreational flying from increased regulatory burdens. Wait till the remote ID requirements come out. You’re caught in the crosshairs of fear of terrorists, fear of pilots getting hit by people not following the rules, states and local governments who want their piece of the pie, business interests that want to drive you from the sky, and business interests that see regulation as an opportunity. You’re missing the big picture. Organize or get steamrolled. It’s bipartisan (Schumer and Feinstein have proposed horrible laws last year for example.)

As with all of these things, the devil is in the details. I think drone registration should be for commercial drones. I think that the requirements for drone registration for the smaller hobbies ones are excessive.

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsI ... id=101_N_U

Check this out. Read the report and see what’s in the pipeline. If you’re upset about registration get ready for remote ID.

Again, it is a strategic mistake to think of this as a Trump thing. This is everyone in the manned aviation industry, every 3-letter agency, Dems and Repubs, and the big commercial UAS companies pushing this. Oh, and the telecoms and companies like AirMap who want a complicated airspace that requires subscriptions to access.

I have a part 107 license. I was not exempt. Too many hobbyists were doing dumb things in addition to getting paid for pictures.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Inquisitor wrote:I have a part 107 license. I was not exempt. Too many hobbyists were doing dumb things in addition to getting paid for pictures.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

I’ve got my remote pilot cert too!
Part 107 pilots were represented by DUGN on the ARC.
If you haven’t heard of them you should go join, or send them a few bucks. That guy spent the summer in DC couch surfing to make sure he was at the meetings.

Edited to add: serious question. How much money would you be willing to pay for a remote ID function if it was required to fly? Would you pay a subscription fee? At what point do you just say screw it?

gator68 wrote:Edited to add: serious question. How much money would you be willing to pay for a remote ID function if it was required to fly? Would you pay a subscription fee? At what point do you just say screw it?

I think the DC mindset is a huge reason why most pilots are priced out of general aviation. (We'll ignore things like the AF officer that 'renegotiated' the insurance contract for the AF aero club system...which resulted in the closure of more than half the clubs 'cause they couldn't pay for insurance....we'll also ignore that the guy went to work for an av insurance company when he retired...) Mode S, TCAS, and other tech gadgets are touted as safety measures, but all they do is take the pilot's face out of the window where they belong and make tons of money for lobbyists and hardware manufacturers. This 'tech disease' is sold as a cure for fear, and more regulation is the result. Yes - license commercial operators. FedEx should have a license and an N number on their package delivery UAVs. But there should be a healthy carve-out/exemption for models and hobbyists. Anyone - and I really mean anyone - that thinks registering a 13 year old's DJI copter will make anyone safer or stop a criminal isn't thinking straight. What would I pay for remote ID? Not a thing. Subscription? Even less.

I agree with you completely sir! Just letting you know what you’re up against.

I’d probably pay some amount for IFF type signaling.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Inquisitor wrote:I’d probably pay some amount for IFF type signaling.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Take a look at UAvionix. They’re proposing a low-power (like <1W) ADS-B module for UAS. They already have pretty affordable systems on the market. I don’t know what you fly, or if you really need transmit. Their receiver can give you awareness of any ADS-B equipped aircraft in the area.
UAvionix.com

To me this is a better and more practical solution than being required to strap an LTE dog tracker to your drone and pay ongoing subscription fees to both the telecom and an ANSP.

gator68 wrote:I agree with you completely sir! Just letting you know what you’re up against.

What's driving the insanity? Is it the usual stuff - big iron owning congress, companies see ways to make money by selling fear?