US drone registration to return
- Thread starter rdonson
- Start date
I still feel that it is just about the money!!!! But I really can not see how making people supposedly register is really going to change things you will still have people that does not registrar and you will still have the not so bright people still do dumb things that they should not be doing with there UAV. I just personally fell there should be more education or information that has to be done before you can buy a UAV that will help but the I guess that would be infringing on a persons right also I guess!!! Just my 2 cents worth.
PatR
Premium Pilot
We can complain, but as this defense bill was signed into federal law by the President we have but two choices, comply, or not. I made my choice when I elected to operate commercially.
It took me awhile to find it, but from:
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr2810/BILLS-115hr2810enr.pdf
Sec 1092, paragraph d.
"(d) RESTORATION OF RULES FOR REGISTRATION AND MARKING OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.—The rules adopted by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration in the matter of registration and marking requirements for small unmanned aircraft (FAA-2015- 7396; published on December 16, 2015) that were vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Taylor v. Huerta (No. 15-1495; decided on May 19, 2017) shall be restored to effect on the date of enactment of this Act."
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see how this is legal. The rule was vacated because it violated the law that was passed. Putting this paragraph in doesn't change the underlying reason why the rule was overturned. My guess is that the FAA slipped this in there so they could re-implement the rule and make somebody take them to court again if they want it changed. It is a war of who can afford the most legal fees the government or RC hobbyists.
But like I said, I'm not a lawyer so what do I know. If I was a lawyer maybe I would understand how, when the law says "you can't make rules with regards to model aircraft" and you make rules about model aircraft anyway it isn't a crime/illegal.
https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr2810/BILLS-115hr2810enr.pdf
Sec 1092, paragraph d.
"(d) RESTORATION OF RULES FOR REGISTRATION AND MARKING OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.—The rules adopted by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration in the matter of registration and marking requirements for small unmanned aircraft (FAA-2015- 7396; published on December 16, 2015) that were vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Taylor v. Huerta (No. 15-1495; decided on May 19, 2017) shall be restored to effect on the date of enactment of this Act."
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see how this is legal. The rule was vacated because it violated the law that was passed. Putting this paragraph in doesn't change the underlying reason why the rule was overturned. My guess is that the FAA slipped this in there so they could re-implement the rule and make somebody take them to court again if they want it changed. It is a war of who can afford the most legal fees the government or RC hobbyists.
But like I said, I'm not a lawyer so what do I know. If I was a lawyer maybe I would understand how, when the law says "you can't make rules with regards to model aircraft" and you make rules about model aircraft anyway it isn't a crime/illegal.
There’s a difference between a federal agency enacting rules and congress writing a law. The FAA didn’t slip this in, congress wrote this and the president signed it.
The video in the article I shared sheds some light on this.
A $5 registration is hardly a barrier to an RC hobbyist. Neither is it a significant amount of $ to the government.
As I read things this is a path to developing laws and rules that will guide our hobby/businesses. Nobody seems certain how to proceed other than acknowledging the need to do something that makes sense.
The video in the article I shared sheds some light on this.
A $5 registration is hardly a barrier to an RC hobbyist. Neither is it a significant amount of $ to the government.
As I read things this is a path to developing laws and rules that will guide our hobby/businesses. Nobody seems certain how to proceed other than acknowledging the need to do something that makes sense.
It is in a section on "COLLABORATION BETWEEN FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ON UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.". I would bet money congress solicited input from the FAA and put in what FAA gave. I understand that it is signed and now it is a law, but it just says to throw out the judges decision without changing the law that the decision was based on. This doesn't match what, from my admittedly limited knowledge, congress is allowed to do.
For example, congress could write a law that made it so beating your neighbor with a newspaper for letting their dog poop on your yard doesn't count as assault, but they can't go back and overturn the conviction of Jim Bob (my cousin's sister-inlaw's, neighbor) who was convicted of that.
$5 isn't much of a barrier. I paid 30 times that to get my part 107 cert. But it is a reminder of the stupidity of the FAA trying to control these things when used by hobbyists. It is sort of like the DOT calling all of your kids Powerwheel electric kiddy cars, "Automobiles" and forcing you to put cheap license plates on them. Yes, those things could be dangerous if they are interacting with real vehicles so the response should be make laws, rules, etc to keep them doing that. Not to regulate them like they are real vehicles also.
I still maintain that they (FAA) needs to distinguish between a Autonomous UAV and RC aircraft.
Most people, when you say "DRONE" think of a multi rotor aircraft. They do not realize there are RC helicopters with the same capabilities as most Multi rotors and then some. I have 3 RC fixed wing aircraft that are Camera capable, One of them can deliver flight times pushing an hour. But yet they are not considered drones by the general public.
While all the aircraft I own were registered when we first had to. I truly feel members of Congress and the FAA still do not have a clear handle on the issues. I honestly feel most of them think that the Phantom, and Yuneec type aircraft can be made to fly all by them selves. I have seen a demonstration of 100% autonomous flight. The pilot had a 6 rotor, BIG thing, plugged a computer into it. Sat it on the take off platform, pushed a button on the aircraft, and away it went. Circled the field, did some grid pattern, circled, and landed back on the pad. No pilot intervention.
This is what the FAA and congress all think we have.
And next year things will get worse. You can not walk through any department store here in the USA and not see some sort of multi rotor aircraft for sale. Some of them are huge, made by who knows what company, Saw an off brand in a hardware store with a claim on the box "2 MILE RANGE"
I can see some young novice taking that thing and trying to chase a plane with it. I am sure there is no documentation in the box telling little Johnny's Dad that they need to register it.
OK off my soap box.
All I ask is fly safe, we all can only try to abide by the rules, knowing some idiot will ruin it for all of us.
Most people, when you say "DRONE" think of a multi rotor aircraft. They do not realize there are RC helicopters with the same capabilities as most Multi rotors and then some. I have 3 RC fixed wing aircraft that are Camera capable, One of them can deliver flight times pushing an hour. But yet they are not considered drones by the general public.
While all the aircraft I own were registered when we first had to. I truly feel members of Congress and the FAA still do not have a clear handle on the issues. I honestly feel most of them think that the Phantom, and Yuneec type aircraft can be made to fly all by them selves. I have seen a demonstration of 100% autonomous flight. The pilot had a 6 rotor, BIG thing, plugged a computer into it. Sat it on the take off platform, pushed a button on the aircraft, and away it went. Circled the field, did some grid pattern, circled, and landed back on the pad. No pilot intervention.
This is what the FAA and congress all think we have.
And next year things will get worse. You can not walk through any department store here in the USA and not see some sort of multi rotor aircraft for sale. Some of them are huge, made by who knows what company, Saw an off brand in a hardware store with a claim on the box "2 MILE RANGE"
I can see some young novice taking that thing and trying to chase a plane with it. I am sure there is no documentation in the box telling little Johnny's Dad that they need to register it.
OK off my soap box.
All I ask is fly safe, we all can only try to abide by the rules, knowing some idiot will ruin it for all of us.
Like it or hate it, the bottom line is that big business got its way on this. The hobbyist is headed for extinction, or at least the bottom of the food chain.
"............... One of the industry’s biggest trade groups, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), had already embraced the new legislation. Brian Wynne, AUVSI’s president and CEO, said in a statement: “Congress has clearly embraced the need to propel the country forward on the march toward full UAS integration, including beyond-line-of-sight operations, flights over people, access to higher altitudes and even package delivery. We look forward to working with both the House and the Senate to realize the full potential of UAS............”
Read it and weep.
"............... One of the industry’s biggest trade groups, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), had already embraced the new legislation. Brian Wynne, AUVSI’s president and CEO, said in a statement: “Congress has clearly embraced the need to propel the country forward on the march toward full UAS integration, including beyond-line-of-sight operations, flights over people, access to higher altitudes and even package delivery. We look forward to working with both the House and the Senate to realize the full potential of UAS............”
Read it and weep.
PatR
Premium Pilot
A little more research will show that many private organizations assisted in getting recreational drone registration reinstated. Some of those groups and companies are DJI (who blatantly advertise their products as having multi kilometer ranges), AMA, Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), TSA, AUVSI, and various aerospace companies. There are a lot of reasons to have the ability to track down a drone owner and most all of them center on criminal or reckless operation of a drone. Personally, I don't like it but I also don't like the fact that semi autonomous auto pilot systems for model aircraft have enabled a great many unqualified and uneducated people to successfully launch a model aircraft from their front porch to go pretty much anywhere they want with no regard for others. That so many post about experiencing "range" issues when their new toy won't fly the way they want 1/2 mile or more away from them demonstrates that many don't give a hoot about laws, public safety, or personal responsibility and hundreds or more videos on You Tube proudly illustrate the dangerous activities they participate in. There has to be a way to curtail those activities and trace the drones they use back to them.
As for the section of Part 336 that precluded the FAA from making laws about model aircraft, there was no such limitation for prevent Congress from making a law, That's what Congress is there for, and "piggy backing" a new law in another Congressional bill is and has been the way things have been done for a long time. It was no secret that a new model registration law was being added to the defense spending bill, and everyone should have realized it was just a matter of time (very little time) before our government re-introduced a new registration law after seeing the FAA's attempt to register models defeated in court.
There's also the "big business" side of things, where large companies, DJI being one of them, are trying to sell their drone tracking software to governments around the world. Our government has a Drone Advisory Council/Committee consisting of many involved in aerospace, sUAS design, aero modeling, aircraft avionics development, our railroads, retail business and other groups assembled for the purpose of developing rules and regulations for drone operations in the USA. Most people have paid little or no attention to what they have been doing but the rules they are developing favor the large sUAS for BLOS commercial operations in our airspace. For those rules to work there has to be a means to track and limit those like us that fly small stuff. The organizational structure for the DAC was pretty much established way back in 2007 with the formation of the first ARC committee, of which the AMA was a silent member.
BobW55,
I started actively participating in fully autonomous flight in 2005. It was clear long before that integration of military drone technology for use in our home skies was only a matter of time. You and others can do it with the H-520, H-920, and all of DJI's systems, but multirotor FC's have been doing it since the release of APM and Mikrokopter hardware. DJI had it on a very limited basis with the Wookong FC. Model airplane autopilots had the ability to do it before that, with companies and individuals flying autonomous systems in 2004 and 2005. It's nothing new and has become more advanced and more available to the public since then. The FAA has been working in conjunction with private companies performing autonomous commercial drone operations in U.S. airspace since at least 2012 to establish C2C frequency and hardware requirements, along with airframe certification specifications. We have a great many "toy" manufacturers, which encompasses outfits like DI, Yuneec, Autel, Walkera, 3DR, and all the others, selling to the general population equipment that is both unreliable and unfinished, having zero certification standards for either hardware or software. The system/component failure complaints with all brands and models are ample proof that none of these systems are "safe" by any aviation standard. Companies have been permitted to sell millions of their toys, from very small micro quads to very large and heavy hex and octocopters to anyone with the money to buy one that could be, and are, operated over the heads of an unsuspecting general public without any industry standard to assure the systems and hardware would continually function as designed. Some even advertise their products as having a range from 2 to 7 kilometers or more, indirectly (or directly if you prefer) enticing the buyers to operate their systems in an unsafe manner in clear violation of the law. Sure, there are times such capability is needed but that capability should not be available to everyone, only those with the training and system certification to assure safe operations.
The sale of product for profit was allowed to take priority over safety and anything that impeded a sale, which includes pre-purchase training and education, has been blown off because any such requirement would reduce sales numbers. It's long past time to correct this and put education, knowledge, training and product quality first and product sales second. Since the government classified model aircraft as "aircraft" in Part 336 we should expect a lot more regulation and control, with registration being just the first step in that process. As things move forward there most certainly will be certification standards implemented, even at the "consumer" drone level. People need to get used to the fact that as those standards are incorporated the price of equipment will rise exponentially, to cover the cost of better components and repeatable manufacturing processes, as will operator training requirements. Corporate operations will not tolerate the existence of cheap equipment having the ability to compete with what they are flying.
As for the section of Part 336 that precluded the FAA from making laws about model aircraft, there was no such limitation for prevent Congress from making a law, That's what Congress is there for, and "piggy backing" a new law in another Congressional bill is and has been the way things have been done for a long time. It was no secret that a new model registration law was being added to the defense spending bill, and everyone should have realized it was just a matter of time (very little time) before our government re-introduced a new registration law after seeing the FAA's attempt to register models defeated in court.
There's also the "big business" side of things, where large companies, DJI being one of them, are trying to sell their drone tracking software to governments around the world. Our government has a Drone Advisory Council/Committee consisting of many involved in aerospace, sUAS design, aero modeling, aircraft avionics development, our railroads, retail business and other groups assembled for the purpose of developing rules and regulations for drone operations in the USA. Most people have paid little or no attention to what they have been doing but the rules they are developing favor the large sUAS for BLOS commercial operations in our airspace. For those rules to work there has to be a means to track and limit those like us that fly small stuff. The organizational structure for the DAC was pretty much established way back in 2007 with the formation of the first ARC committee, of which the AMA was a silent member.
BobW55,
I started actively participating in fully autonomous flight in 2005. It was clear long before that integration of military drone technology for use in our home skies was only a matter of time. You and others can do it with the H-520, H-920, and all of DJI's systems, but multirotor FC's have been doing it since the release of APM and Mikrokopter hardware. DJI had it on a very limited basis with the Wookong FC. Model airplane autopilots had the ability to do it before that, with companies and individuals flying autonomous systems in 2004 and 2005. It's nothing new and has become more advanced and more available to the public since then. The FAA has been working in conjunction with private companies performing autonomous commercial drone operations in U.S. airspace since at least 2012 to establish C2C frequency and hardware requirements, along with airframe certification specifications. We have a great many "toy" manufacturers, which encompasses outfits like DI, Yuneec, Autel, Walkera, 3DR, and all the others, selling to the general population equipment that is both unreliable and unfinished, having zero certification standards for either hardware or software. The system/component failure complaints with all brands and models are ample proof that none of these systems are "safe" by any aviation standard. Companies have been permitted to sell millions of their toys, from very small micro quads to very large and heavy hex and octocopters to anyone with the money to buy one that could be, and are, operated over the heads of an unsuspecting general public without any industry standard to assure the systems and hardware would continually function as designed. Some even advertise their products as having a range from 2 to 7 kilometers or more, indirectly (or directly if you prefer) enticing the buyers to operate their systems in an unsafe manner in clear violation of the law. Sure, there are times such capability is needed but that capability should not be available to everyone, only those with the training and system certification to assure safe operations.
The sale of product for profit was allowed to take priority over safety and anything that impeded a sale, which includes pre-purchase training and education, has been blown off because any such requirement would reduce sales numbers. It's long past time to correct this and put education, knowledge, training and product quality first and product sales second. Since the government classified model aircraft as "aircraft" in Part 336 we should expect a lot more regulation and control, with registration being just the first step in that process. As things move forward there most certainly will be certification standards implemented, even at the "consumer" drone level. People need to get used to the fact that as those standards are incorporated the price of equipment will rise exponentially, to cover the cost of better components and repeatable manufacturing processes, as will operator training requirements. Corporate operations will not tolerate the existence of cheap equipment having the ability to compete with what they are flying.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 4,258
- Reaction score
- 2,025
I can see in the near future an additional surcharge tax to fly our drones, reason, to pay for the changes in aviation drone law and FAA needing more money to run its program. $5 dollars now $99 later. 
I think they will tax you at the register so they can get their money up front.
I think they will tax you at the register so they can get their money up front.
I can see in the near future an additional surcharge tax to fly our drones, reason, to pay for the changes in aviation drone law and FAA needing more money to run its program. $5 dollars now $99 later.
That doesn't seem likely to me. I do think it may be possible that your registration is good for a limited time, say 2-3 years, and then you pay a re-registration fee. At some point if the idiots outnumber the responsible pilots there may be a test required rather than a simple registration.
PatR
Premium Pilot
I can see in the near future an additional surcharge tax to fly our drones, reason, to pay for the changes in aviation drone law and FAA needing more money to run its program. $5 dollars now $99 later.
That’s exactly what proposed airspace privatization bills are trying to accomplish. Groups like the AOPA, small airport owners, and many others, including myself, are adamantly opposed to privatization. Companies like DJI and AirMap would profit tremendously from privatization and have positioned themselves to take full advantage of it. Airlines and large corporate aerospace would effectively “own” the sky and price the small operator out of it.
Check the AOPA website and see if you may be able to help defeat the various bills.
PatR
Premium Pilot
PatR
Premium Pilot
They eliminated the need for distinction when they declared drones, RC Aircraft, RC helicopters, RC gliders, aero models, autonomous aircraft, etc., as being "aircraft" and as such fall under the jurisdiction of FAA regulations.
I agree with you that accurate descriptions are very important but the media appears to have won by using the wrong terminology long enough and often enough for people to believe it correct.
Now all model RC planes have to be registered too, before the Quad-copter came out, they didn't have to be....now they are ALL DRONES.....
PatR
Premium Pilot
Here’s the kicker; We allowed it to happen.
Very, very few in our community has dedicated any time to political activities promoting our hobby or defending our positions. We’ve sat on our asses and silently watched as regulation after regulation has been enacted by cities, states, and the federal government that restrict us, and those regulations and restrictions are about to grow exponentially. The FAA initiated a 3 year program for cities, states, and tribal councils to develop a regulatory framework for drone operations. Those that have been paying attention were invited to participate by becoming “interested parties”. Of the 800,000 known registers drone operators in this country only 2500 signed up to participate. That’s only 3% of all the people that could have become involved. When we do nothing we get everything those doing something want us to have. What we have is our fault.
Very, very few in our community has dedicated any time to political activities promoting our hobby or defending our positions. We’ve sat on our asses and silently watched as regulation after regulation has been enacted by cities, states, and the federal government that restrict us, and those regulations and restrictions are about to grow exponentially. The FAA initiated a 3 year program for cities, states, and tribal councils to develop a regulatory framework for drone operations. Those that have been paying attention were invited to participate by becoming “interested parties”. Of the 800,000 known registers drone operators in this country only 2500 signed up to participate. That’s only 3% of all the people that could have become involved. When we do nothing we get everything those doing something want us to have. What we have is our fault.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 4,258
- Reaction score
- 2,025
It's not ALL our fault.
An example. Many of us fought the battle for net neutrality for years in all the ways we could engage our government and agencies. It mattered not.
Our U.S. congress is about lobbyists and campaign donors.
An example. Many of us fought the battle for net neutrality for years in all the ways we could engage our government and agencies. It mattered not.
Our U.S. congress is about lobbyists and campaign donors.
Similar threads
- Sticky
