We heard yesterday that this was coming and have been given an idea of what's in them. Its not the best if true.
WASHINGTON–Please join U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and Deputy Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Michael Whitaker for an announcement about the aircraft registration process for owners of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). A Registration Task Force delivered recommendations to FAA Administrator Michael Huerta and Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx on November 21, 2015.
When: Monday, December 14, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. EST
Comments
@Geoff_Parsonsns silly FAA thinking that there are 380,000 drones. It's really 380,000 RC helicopters/multirotors. Money grab is what this whole event has been about as well as a false sense of action. The U.S. has become the land of "can't do", RIP Wilbur and Orville. Cheers.
Earthpatrol, Heard today that about 380,000 drone owners have registered (or is that drones are registered?) Also that fines will be incurred on those found not to be registered after 19th..? The sums under RC Tech.se's point are about $54 million short.
One consolation is that registered lost drones found by honest citizens will get back to their owners..?
How can anyone support this ridiculous mandate with draconian threats of huge fines and prison. Prison? Really? I forget to pay for new tags on my car and get a relatively small fine. Forget to register my flying robot toy and I'm eligible for $27k plus prison? Anyone defending this "rule" has a screw loose.
Further, FAA clearly broke the law Congress passed in 2012. Like everything else the Obama administration does, laws only apply when convenient for them. Section 336 clearly defines what model aircraft is.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/263164-critics-threaten-la...
@ John Dennings
a notice appeared in the Oct 22 Federal Register requesting public comments regarding UAS registration. I attended 3 public meetings prior to that date held by the FAA regarding plans for regulation by the FAA. Comments collected at those meetings were incorporated into the current "Interim Final Rule", which also requests comments. These registration requirements have been discussed since mid summer. Granted things have progressed much faster than usually occurs with the FAA, but there has been opportunity for public involvement.
@Patrick
"@Clay said, "Utter nonsense". Really?"
I stand by my statement. I did not say that aviation isn't regulated, only that it is not "elitist". Flying General aviation need not be any more expensive than many other popular pastimes. I have been in general and professional aviation for almost 40 years, and the perception that it is cost prohibitive is misinformed. Chances are that your friend dropped out because the wages for entry level flight crew is less than a living wage. This is not because of any rules or regulations, but market forces. It can be expensive to get the ratings to be eligible for professional employment in commercial aviation. I can fly my plane for more than 10 hours for what a ticket to a NASCAR race costs.... and a good deal more than that for the cost of a ticket to the superbowl. Part of the reason that more people do not act on their dream to fly is because of the misinformation promulgated by the press and people that do not understand the industry. - a self fulfilling prophecy. By the way... a powered parachute IS General Aviation, as are operations under 14 CFR 103 (ultra light aircraft). Do not confuse the recent requirements that right seat pilots for commuter airlines be ATP rated with general aviation. There are plenty of expensive ways to get into it, but it doesn't have to be.
You will get no arguments from me regarding oppressive FAA tactics, or the arbitrary and capricious enforcement the FAA usually displays, but these actions usually do not include general aviation, but commercial operations.
@Diane Boling
cool!
@Robert Pigeon
I understand. The aircraft that qualify under part 103 are pretty restrictive. most powered light sport aircraft require registration, even the experimental ones.
Does anyone employed (or volunteering --HA!!) by the federal government not recognize a fad when it appears?
This government entity, and the rabid media that is part of their feedback loop, would have us think the skies will be black with 'millions of drones' if something isn't done NOW. Untold millions of lives will be lost, airliners will fall from the skies, neighbors will be spying on neighbors violating privacy laws remotely, and radicalized religious zealots will commit acts of violence (as if any of them want to be stealthy - not their style) from undetectable locations.
I still employ the U.S. CB analogy. The FCC license for operating a radio, in the 1970s was $20 (later dropped to $4), but my point here is the fad overwhelmed the system as one web sites states (it has got to be true, right?) that up to 1,000,000 applications for a license was near the peak of the fad. The regulation system was in place before the fad hit.Sure it was paper based, but a fad that is web based,as proposed, just burns out faster and does not involve the post office.
We have no clue or record on how many drivers were killed by distracted CB radio operators (early analog texting), CB operators using the communication tool for speeding, or other banned and illegal activity based around the technology. (sounds like a future M.S. thesis to me) I am certain that the number of model aircraft deaths is far, far below the national number for medical mistakes, construction site accidents, motor vehicle accidents, and cubicle workers that go 'postal'.
I am completely certain that if the skies turn black with flying machines one Christmas day, three days later the new will have worn off the toy, people will discover Chris Anderson's quote that 'Drones are hard', and we will be stuck with a regulatory system that is as pointless and futile as the the moment it was thought up.
Let us hope this goes the way of the CB craze and the FAA gives up as the FCC did and focuses on operators who cause havoc and problems rather than the few hundred thousand of us that operate safely and with practiced skill.
Geez.... registering control line planes too? C'mon! Get out of the Beltway into the reality... oh wait, that is their reality.
-=Doug
It would be ironic if so many people register that politicians start thinking the modeling community can make a difference at the voting booths...
@Clay Re: "The regulations in question regarding drones have in fact gone through the designated public process"
Hmm no. There has been no NPRM (Notice of Propose Rule Making) for this registration process. (The "task force convened" certainly did not qualify as a substitute)
But it gets worse when it comes to the FAA bypassing the public process. Congress in 2012 actually *ordered the FAA* to not regulate model aircraft (Section 336) .
So the FAA exceeded its authority in this matter, first by bypassing the public process, and second by violating a congressional order.
That's breaking the law. And pretty much telling congress and "we the people" that "we the FAA" are above it all.
Clay Cranor, my point that I poorly made was no registration or licensing for those aircraft but my 2 lb multicopter needs it.
I have a 1.2 lb kite with a gopro on it. Do I need to register it?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 8 Next