I already stipulated that they didn't need to be registered. Though they still meet the definition.
This is the FAA's attempt to be broad so as not to get pigeon holed by emerging technology.
Mandatory Drone Registration
- Thread starter 22*43*51
- Start date
I already stipulated that they didn't need to be registered. Though they still meet the definition.
This is the FAA's attempt to be broad so as not to get pigeon holed by emerging technology.
I believe the weight is what keeps them from requiring registration. The lack of external communication is what keeps them from being defined as a drone.
The first time some douche-bag with ties to ISIS or other known terrorist group uses a drone to deliver a bomb here in the U.S., buying a drone will be like buying a gun. Mandatory registration and waiting period before purchase. Applicants should be checked against every known no-fly list, criminal and intelligence network in the world.
I am also concerned about some of these cowardly a-holes with murderous intent to their co-workers, classmates, the government, etc. having the ability to buy a drone, fit it with a homemade explosive device and deliver the package without even having to be face-to-face to blow up somebody.
We have had model airplanes and rockets that meet the definition and weight limit for decades. We've never had to register these things. Suddenly they're a threat?
Furthermore, it appears the FAA ignored Congress, ignored their responsibility to allow time for public comment, and established draconian fines in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
This is a power grab by the bureaucrats and they need to be strongly walked back on this one.
Read this carefully:
Federal Grinches take aim at drones
Published: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 5:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, December 21, 2015 at 6:08 p.m.
If you’re one of the estimated 700,000 Americans to whom Santa Claus is delivering a drone this Christmas, be aware that Uncle Sam also is leaving something under the tree for you: a federal mandate.
The Federal Aviation Administration on Monday implemented new regulations that require all drones weighing between a half pound and 55 pounds to be registered with the government. Plus, owners must pay a $5 registration fee. Parents will have to register on behalf of aspiring pilots under the age of 13. Failure to register or improper use of a drone could carry a civil penalty of up to $27,500, and criminal charges could cost up to $250,000 and three years in prison.
There hasn’t been that big of an overreaction since Rudolph’s shiny nose got him excluded from reindeer games.
There are legitimate concerns about drones, primarily regarding privacy: the small, quiet, unmanned craft can be fitted with cameras and surreptitiously take pictures or video while hovering over private property. Safety also is an issue. Drones can interfere with larger, fixed-wing aircraft at low altitudes near airports, and some fear they could be rigged with firearms or explosives and deployed as weapons.
For the vast majority of owners, though, drones will be toys used for purely recreational purposes, much the way hobbyists have enjoyed radio-controlled airplanes and model rockets for decades — unlicensed, we might add, until Monday, when they too were included in the new regulations, apparently for the sake of consistency.
The FAA is so concerned about the rise of drones that it put the rules on rush delivery for Christmas, possibly taking illegal shortcuts in the process. According to thehill.com, the agency formed a task force of aviation industry representatives in October to weigh in on the drone registration requirements. It announced the new regulations on Dec. 14, just one week before implementation — a remarkably swift time for bureaucratic action, particularly in the absence of a public safety crisis.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based free-market think tank, has threatened to sue the government, alleging that the FAA violated federal requirements that it must accept public comments 30 to 60 days prior to implementing new rules. Of course, even if the agency is forced to postpone the registration for a month to accept public comments, an outpouring of opposition wouldn’t stop it from proceeding with the new rules.
More egregiously, the registration mandate could conflict with a 2012 act of Congress the directs the FAA not to “promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft.”
The regulations are an overly broad and heavy-handed approach to a matter that requires more precision. Enforcing them would be highly impractical, so compliance is bound to be low. Indeed, it’s likely that this attempt will go the way of similar efforts regarding citizens band radios. Back during the CB craze of the mid-1970s, operators were required to purchase a license and register their call signs. Because of lax enforcement, most people disregarded the rules.
Rather than registering devices, the focus should be on how drones are used. FAA officials even admit that registration is primarily a way to educate the public on how to safely and responsibly deploy their drones — they can now send such information directly to the registered addresses. A public awareness campaign using TV and Internet advertising directing drone owners to a website would be less intrusive, and likely just as effective.
The government is expected to release regulations regarding the commercial use of drones next year, which makes more sense given their size, payloads carried and distance traveled. Hopefully those rules will have a light touch so as not to stifle technological innovation. The current regulations merely put a damper on fun.
http://www.news-journalonline.com/a...N01?Title=Federal-Grinches-take-aim-at-drones
They just launched a mandate that will be short lived and not enforced in the meantime.
I hope the mandate is enforced. There are too many people using those stupid things inappropriately. Frankly, I think someone would have to be pretty simple-minded to enjoy playing with those things for more than 5 or 10 minutes.
That's likely what will be used next. Imagine new years eve in times Square with 4 or 5 of them dropped into crowds from above with some dangerous chemicals or a bomb. The damage could be pretty big.
Show me in the constitution where your right to fly unmanned aircraft with external communication links is protected.
So . . . if you are flying it for terrorist purposes you don' thave to register it.(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT/DRONE DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘model aircraft’’ means an unmanned aircraft that is—
(1) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(2) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and
(3) flown for hobby or recreational purposes. (Emphasis added.)
Drone
http://dronelawjournal.com/
These balloons with vials of anthrax should make quite the impression during Super Bowl halftime fun.
I'm split on this one. But either way you can't compare a drone with the model planes and rockets that have long been available. You couldn't fly a model airplane without a good bit of skill and a line of sight. Almost all model airplane flying is done either in a designated area or at least a large open field away from everything else. Some of these drones have range and payload capacities that make them ideal weapons delivery systems as well as pubic dangers and nusances even if used without ill intent. I think they went overboard, but registration of the larger more capable ones does make a good bit of sense, particularly when you consider they can be controlled by someone who isn't anywhere around to be held responsible if something goes wrong. I think it should be mandatory to have them at least clearly labeled with the owners name and address with a fine for failure to do so.
So you are fine with me carrying my 9mm anywhere in the country, whenever I want, right?
That distance is pretty darn short considering I don't think he could institute a toll for any plane or helicopter flying above his property.
Cause being someone who does live near an airport, I could make a killing if I could do that.
As long as it's legally registered and the places you enter don't have specific bans forbidding you from taking it inside then I have no problem whatsoever.
So . . . if I want to use drones for nefarious purposes, I can't use 1 big one without registering it. I guess I'll just have to use a bunch of small ones working together in a swarm.
It depends on the jurisdiction and the entity to which you're referring. Most states permit private business owners to ban firearms on their premises, but I think it has to be explicitly indicated. There are regulations about firearms on public school property. There are other places as well (e.g., federal premises, hospitals, etc.) but a lot of it is state-dependent in regard to the regulations.
But, if the place you are carrying a legally registered firearm allows them then I have no problem. I don't understand the need, but that's not really my concern.
There is no "natural right" to own and operate unmanned aircraft with external communication links of sufficient size with which to potentially adversely impact commercial air travel or the privacy rights of other individuals.
9A doesn't say anything about "natural" rights. Just that there are other rights beyond those specifically mentioned in the BoR.
I generally agree with you on important issues, but I have to push back against the "where does it say that in the constitution?" argument. Rights are not limited to what the constitution spells out.
Drones are not "arms" so they have no specific constitutional protection to argue over. If you want to regulate them, all you need is to go through the "due process" of passing a bill. Apparently that's what we are doing now. That law still has to pass constitutional muster. And it would be nice if it took the people's interests into account and exerted a light touch.
And you know, it's always heartwarming to treat some dumb kid like a career criminal.
I'll stand with the position of ALPA on this issue. They are more expert than you regarding the safety implications of irresponsible usage of UAS.
Not necessarily, but you shouldn't treat him as just a dumb kid if he's endangering other people, and that happens.
Drones -- multi-rotor devices, primarily -- and cheap, highly effective video gear are creating a serious safety hazard. You have people flying aircraft well out of their line of vision, navigating by the cameras on board. These things can be dangerous.
Example: The club to which I belong flies primarily out of Seminole Valley Park in Cedar Rapids. We're an AMA-sanctioned club and most of the guys are responsible. None, that I know of, are intentionally irresponsible. But it wouldn't be all that difficult for somebody to lose a plane and have it come down on Edgewood Road, which could result in a pretty nasty accident.
And that would be an accident. All you need is somebody who thinks it's cool to fly by remote control but isn't as good as he thinks he is, or he has an equipment failure.
Anybody who intentionally creates that kind of situation should face significant penalties.
When that dumb kid puts lives at risk then they get what is coming to them. Birds can destroy jet engines, a drone can do the same. When landing or taking off, it isn't such a good thing to suddenly have an engine fail. We don't need pilots being distracted because some idiot wants some cool camera shots.
