According to a new report, the 25-member drone task force will recommend mandatory drone registration be “simple and free” and be required for all drones that weigh more than nine ounces.

The task force will recommend users register by entering their name and address into a government-run website or mobile application.

Users will also have to attach a “legible” registration number to their drone.


E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • I love the registration idea. If only this granted me the ability to do commercial activities.  If I can't make money with my drone, what is the point of registering.  I want to do aerial Photo/video for a living, which is technically impossible for me to accomplish under current FAA regulations.

    Currently I need:

    1.$10,000 to $15,000k to acquire a private pilots license for a plane I don't own,  cant afford to rent regularly and will NEVER  fly for aerial video/photo.

    2. $1000 to $3000  on lawyers to draft a proper section 333 application.

    3. $2000  for liability insurance

    That's  $20,000 to use a $1000 robot to create imagery. I personally believe that all "drones" should be insured (A AMA membership does this). The financial factor of requiring  a PPL for flying "legally" is absurd . A  drivers license is  $50 that allows any person with minimal training to operate a 2000lb $20,000 death machine thats kills hundreds of people a year. This is simply a social and economical discriminatory  choice by the FAA or current commercial aerial pilots lobbying to keep the monopoly going. The U.S. economic system of free enterprise operates according to five main principles: the freedom to choose our businesses, the right to private property, the profit motive, competition, and consumer sovereignty. Current drone regulations seem to forget this. Registration should allow commercial flights. This will allow a plethora of new small business that will fuel innovation and cost reduction.  Or should I just break all the rules and risk getting fined????

  • Guten Appetit! ;-)

  • ahhh, danke schoen Herr von Schidt.

    mein Mutter ruft ich zim abendessen bekommen.

    auf Widersehen wol.

  • Kenward, I would engage in a battle of wits with you but I never fight an unarmed opponent. As for your inability to comprehend the NRA reference, it is of course as Gary M. infers, there will be a backlash similar to the sort ignited by the NRA that will have drones of the pencil-pushing variety wishing they had picked different careers. Now get out of mommy's basement and into the fresh air and leave the forum to the literate, please.  

  • @ Gary n Gary!

    I'm glad it's not happening in Oz. 250g is not an appropriate or realistic value. I think it's being low balled to get 1kg or so through. I'm still drawing a blank on what will be considered a "drone" that requires registration. Is there any specifics regarding the definition that I missed? Can they really reasonably require toys to be registered?

    I doubt they will be forthcoming with any measure of potential risk prior to enforcing registration. It's motivated by money to lock up the airspace. Same thing happened with the airwaves in the 40's, and we're only just now getting some of our RF "freedoms" back as technology forces more decentralized and distributed infrastructure. SDR will likely become the final nail in the RF regulatory coffin. How can we fast forward to do the same for drones?

  • Moderator

    Its really going to spur on innovation in the sub 250g space... Its about 1.75kg lighter than I would have hoped for. Even .750 making one kg seems huge now!

  • Aye Sancho,

    Windmill tilting is definitely not profitable, but the FAA actually listened and curtailed there overreach last time, so it might be worth while to speak up again.

    I filed a comment on their recent proposal during the 8 day comment period and a couple thousand other people did too, mostly constructive criticism.

    Mine too.

    And JB, I completely agree on registration having limited affect on safety, although some residual extra responsibility may be shown due to potential exposure.

    I think we are probably going to get stuck with this and my main goal is to try to get them to raise the cutoff weight limit a bit from the "task forces" 250 gram recommendation and to register pilots rather than planes (would have the same effect and be a lot easier and cheaper to implement and enforce).

    However they seem to have their hearts set on registering the copters / planes and we don't even know if they are going to actually consider a weight cutoff at all let alone what weight.

    They really don't have the smoking gun that you would think would be necessary to rush through this kind of emergency (pre Christmas) measure, but the media and political and even public sentiment have apparently given them the opening, at least they think so.

    It is going to be interesting to see what finally happens and who is actually driving it.

    I think what we will eventually discover is that all was not simply as they have portrayed it.

    Best Regards,


  • +1 Gary and Ernst

    I'm glad that there others that share the same view that governments can only be kept honest, if the people who represent us, actually represent us, and not themselves or corporations. 

    IMHO registration only enforces control, typically only for economic concerns, but does not improve safety.

    A distinction must be made between careless and malicious intent, either of which registration doesn't address. Malicious intent will easily circumvent any registration, and careless operation can only be managed with education. There's also a cost component in registration, especially when they deploy policing, that will likely not improve safety proportionally to cost of enforcement.

    Overall, however, I can accept a weight restriction will result in reduced risk. A higher limit, even in the region of 1-2kg I think shouldn't be to much of an issue. This will address direct impact risk to people and property, but not to commercial activities of those represented in the rule making process! Money will mandate substantial "risks" being defined economically and therefore not necessarily in the public interest. Classic case, as Ernst pointed out, is cars.

    It would be good to see some specific testing of what damage or injury can occur from a drone impact.

    Maybe we should lobby Myth Busters for a special?



    “No one got everything they wanted; you could say everyone is a little unhappy.”

    That is usually a good outcome.

    I'd have to disagree. The world is full of poorly executed ideas that regulators take upon themselves to compromise for. I'm a fan of "drones", if used for "good", but in a world of compromise not everyone values them the same as "I".

    One could say that the drone industry bought this upon themselves, as the idea was badly conceived in the first place. Compromising on how to implement a bad idea doesn't make it a good idea! (aka cars, fossil fuel, democracy, communism, capitalism, war etc.)

    Regards JB

  • Gary:  "huh?, . . . LOOK!!, windmill monsters!!!"

    me:  Vaya con Dios vato.

  • Somalia??? Warlord???

    And as for anti government, I generally look critically at government officials playing favorites for favors rather than taking care of the American Public.

    That isn't exactly anti-government, just anti bad government.

    And there does seem to be more than a bit of that in what is happening here with this right now.



This reply was deleted.