Drone Police - they're getting deployed

[jlummel]

I agree the owner is being registered rather than the aircraft. We are not "pilots" (except for those who are) so what do we call ourselves? But I can allow my unregistered son to fly my quad. This is different from a car in traffic, where my son who does not have a license cannot drive on public roads, period, even if I own the car and am in it with him. So it's not exactly like any other licensing situation I can think of.

And if you don't have your registration handy when a cop pulls over your car, the cop can just call his dispatcher and check that information and more. Hopefully they could do the same in case we're operating without a copy of our certificate.

Actually, the car being registered and your son not having a license is completely unrelated. He could take that car out for a spin and face the consequences if he's caught. The consequence YOU would face would be as a parent, not a car owner. It's actually exactly the same in this manner.

If he crashed, you would then have to face the consequences as the car owner and it's the same with him flying the quad. As I mentioned previously, the wisdom of allowing someone else to take a spin without a license is questionable, but the state of registration of the vehicle and of it's operator are entirely different. It's not about whether you WOULD let your son drive your car without a license, it's that he COULD, if he were so inclined.

Each aircraft we put our registration number on becomes a registered aircraft that's now tied to us. As it is for your car to be legally on the road (not the driver, mind you), for that quad to fly around registration needs to be in order.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

So when you are letting that cop fly your drone, hand him the cert first before you hand him the radio! Just one of those technicalities that can cause headaches for both you and your buddy if you weren't aware of it and someone decided to make an issue of it...

[...]

I live in a retirement community where I have access to a large field which adjoins a row of condos. About two years ago, when the Syma x5c (the ultimate toy-grade quad) first appeared, I was flying one at night when it's large LEDs made an impressive display.

Having just changed the battery I was getting ready to take off again when Security pulls up. The lady security officer approached me rather cautiously and after I showed her my ID to prove I live here she told me they got a call saying a "terrorist" might be getting ready to bomb us! The security officer wouldn't tell me who made the call but I think I know.

I've been looking at those multi-color LED sets that fit on the landing skids of a Phantom. They look like fun, but if I had them I wouldn't think of using something like that at night in this place -- because it's a sure thing one of my geriatric neighbors would think the martians are landing and have a stroke.

I am sure those LEDs will inspire a lot of late-night 911 calls.

 

[jlummel]

I think your facts are off in at least one instance.

I don't think a lawyer has to be a member of the bar association any more than a doctor has to be a member of the American Medical Association. However they do need to pass licensing exams (which cost money) and fulfill requirements such as continuing education.

If the flying must be within the programming of the AMA, I have a hard time believing that flying by yourself in your backyard would qualify, even if you're a member of AMA. You would have to be at an AMA event. In fact if AMA let non-members participate in its events (I don't know if they do) then a non-member participating in such an event, and following the rules, would be "within the programming". It would be constitutional to restrict flying for everyone just to events like AMA meets, because it treats everyone equally before the law. Fortunately for all of us, it seems they are not requiring that in practice.

If the law is that you have to join the organization to fly, they'd just say it. The reason they have to dance around it, with this complicated language everyone is spending time parsing, is because it would be unconstitutional to require membership. And indeed it leaves what some would consider "loopholes" and others would see as their constitutional rights.

More than half the states in the US require mandatory membership in the state bar association, which is usually a corporation that's been granted authority to certify lawyers. Look it up yourself, if you'd like, here are two links to start with State bar association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Bar association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but there are probably lots of others as well.

You could make that argument about being within the programming of the AMA while not being a member if it ever came down to it, I suppose. I wouldn't want to be bit in the butt by THAT technicality though.

For a few bucks a months I not only avoid getting bit by that technicality, but enjoy the added benefit of being insured where ever I fly, even in my backyard! As a member, I'm pretty much ALWAYS flying "...within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" and never need to worry about it.

And at some point the AMA and the FAA will kiss and make up and my AMA membership will be my FAA registration as well and I'll never need to worry about expired certs as long as I remain an AMA member.

 

[artichoke]

More than half the states in the US require mandatory membership in the state bar association, which is usually a corporation that's been granted authority to certify lawyers. Look it up yourself, if you'd like, here are two links to start with State bar association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Bar association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but there are probably lots of others as well. Somebody's facts are no really "facts", but don't look at me!

You could make that argument about being within the programming of the AMA while not being a member if it ever came down to it, I suppose. I wouldn't want to be bit in the butt by THAT technicality though.

For a few bucks a months I not only avoid getting bit by that technicality, but enjoy the added benefit of being insured where ever I fly, even in my backyard! As a member, I'm pretty much ALWAYS flying "...within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization" and never need to worry about it.

And at some point the AMA and the FAA will kiss and make up and my AMA membership will be my FAA registration as well and I'll never need to worry about expired certs as long as I remain an AMA member.

The state bar association is probably a part of the state government. However I'm pretty sure the American Bar Association is a private company. Furthermore if there were state-level registration for us (e.g. I would have to register with NYAA, the fortunately fictional New York Aviation Administration, an arm of the NY state government) then I would fall under state laws. And I think that states are allowed a fair amount of latitude to force registration and impose requirements to protect the public, even to the extent of certain infringement of the constitutional rights of those who register as professionals.

For the sake of the AMA members I hope they don't "kiss and make up" and become somehow a private FAA. FAA registration is $5 for 3 years, about 15 cents a month. A token amount, probably just enough to make registration a contract (which requires an exchange of value.) Vastly cheaper than AMA membership.

And do you believe that since you're an AMA member, flying alone in your backyard is within the programming of AMA? We saw a video a few weeks ago where some AMA guys assured members that they were protected even when flying in an Iowa cornfield, but I haven't heard the FAA give any such assurance. I also didn't hear the AMA guys say that the "cornfield" protection they were talking about, if it exists, applied only to members. Because, I think, they do not want to tell an untruth.

We can all get "bit in the ***" by not knowing the law, and it's harder to know the law when things are weird like this. Still ignorance of the law is no excuse; on the other hand judges tend to take into account when one is trying their best to comply. Apparently we have a sincere difference of opinion about what the law currently is, and we'll both do our best, and hopefully neither of us will get stung.

 

[Fatcat1]

The Texas law to me, is in place to stop people from being in places like utility plants basically infra structure building and oil fields and pipelines
Just use common sense don't pictures of people without their permission


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[jlummel]

[...]
And do you believe that since you're an AMA member, flying alone in your backyard is within the programming of AMA? We saw a video a few weeks ago where some AMA guys assured members that they were protected even when flying in an Iowa cornfield, but I haven't heard the FAA give any such assurance. I also didn't hear the AMA guys say that the "cornfield" protection they were talking about, if it exists, applied only to members. Because, I think, they do not want to tell an untruth.
[...]

You know, that makes no sense what so ever! Could you restate the point you are trying to make? It could be interesting or relevant, both both (the option I'm hoping for).

What is clear, though, is you have some beef with the AMA!

BTW- the American Bar Association is a private organization, but was not what we were talking about. The state level bars are often private organizations with special authority, and can be corporations and not government entities. And even at state level, the 14th Amendment would still apply. Unions are another good example of private organizations you can be forced to join in many states. You SHOULD actually check your facts on occasion before making broad assumptions that turn out to be incorrect, especially after it's brought to your attention.

 

[artichoke]

You know, that makes no sense what so ever! Could you restate the point you are trying to make? It could be interesting or relevant, both both (the option I'm hoping for).

I honestly don't know what else to say. I expressed it in plain English the best I could. Peace.

Edit: to restate: I believe membership in AMA is and must be irrelevant. Anything an AMA member can do legally, a nonmember can do legally. If it's legal for an AMA member to fly alone in an Iowa cornfield, it's legal for a nonmember to fly alone in an Iowa cornfield in the same way.

However it can be relevant that one follow reasonable rules, like the AMA's. So they require that we follow such a set of rules. Anyone can follow those rules, member or not.

Edit2: I have no beef with the AMA. I just want to save the money by not joining.

 

[jlummel]

I live in a retirement community where I have access to a large field which adjoins a row of condos. About two years ago, when the Syma x5c (the ultimate toy-grade quad) first appeared, I was flying it at night when it's large LEDs made an impressive display.

Having just changed the battery I was getting ready to take off again when Security pulls up. The lady security officer approached me rather cautiously and after I showed her my ID to prove I live here she told me they got a call saying a "terrorist" might be getting ready to bomb us! The security officer wouldn't tell me who made the call but I think I know.

I've been looking at those multi-color LED sets that fit on the landing skids of a Phantom. They look like fun, but if I had them I wouldn't think of using something like that at night in this place -- because it's a sure thing one of my geriatric neighbors would think the martians are landing and have a stroke.

I am sure those LEDs will inspire a lot of late-night 911 calls.

I live in a neighborhood that while it's classified as rural is more like a suburban neighborhood and have had several neighbors ask me to fly more at night because they like the light show the Phantom gives them.

I was thinking about adding more lights and giving them a real show!

 

[jlummel]

I honestly don't know what else to say. I expressed it in plain English the best I could. Peace.

Edit: to restate: I believe membership in AMA is and must be irrelevant. Anything an AMA member can do legally, a nonmember can do legally. If it's legal for an AMA member to fly alone in an Iowa cornfield, it's legal for a nonmember to fly alone in an Iowa cornfield in the same way.

However it can be relevant that one follow reasonable rules, like the AMA's. So they require that we follow such a set of rules. Anyone can follow those rules, member or not.

Edit2: I have no beef with the AMA. I just want to save the money by not joining.

OK, that is both relevant AND interesting. And as I've stated in a previous message, I feel this is the reason the FAA set up this registration process to make it possible for those who choose not to join an organization like the AMA to fly without issue. Realizing that simple fact was one of my big turning points in how I viewed this regulatory endeavor, the FAA has both the authority, and the burden of allowing people who fall outside of the 336 carve out to still participate in the activity.

But by it's very nature there are differences, though most (if not all) of the difference of being in or out of the 336 carve-out are pretty much moot.

I think in essence though, you are trying to say that you still fall within the the 336 carve-out even if you aren't a member of a national organization. But if that were true then why does the FAA feel it needs a special registration process at all? They needed some way of keeping track of everyone flying even if they are not otherwise registered, and felt that 336 didn't apply because these people don't fall under it, similar to commercial operators.

I don't think it's of consequence for most matters of practicality whether you fall under 336 or not, if you registered and have your number and follow the simple guidelines the FAA gave you when it authorized you to register your aircraft, then you can fly without fear of reprisal, much like me as an AMA member that does fall under 336 can, given the same circumstances. The big difference being that if I crash for whatever reason (even from my back yard) at least I'm covered for the damage (which is not related to FAA registration in any way)...

But you DO have a beef, you think the AMA is too expensive...

BTW- the AMA doesn't tell you where you can fly, only where you can't "1. Model aircraft will not be flown: [...] (b) At a location where model aircraft activities are prohibited." If you can fly there then you are covered! One of the cool things is that the AMA coverage also covers you for model cars, boating and rockets as well as aircraft. The steering goes out and you ram your Losi into your neighbor's BMW, covered...
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/InsuranceSummaryMembers.pdf
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf

 

[MikeK]

I live in a neighborhood that while it's classified as rural is more like a suburban neighborhood and have had several neighbors ask me to fly more at night because they like the light show the Phantom gives them.

I was thinking about adding more lights and giving them a real show!

Have you seen the ad for those LED sets that affix to the Phantom's landing skids? They cost fifty bucks but I'll bet they look fantastic at night.

 

[Wolfiesden]

No one needs to identify themselves in any way unless they are being detained. They can only be detained if they are suspected of a crime. Just as LEO cannot suspect you are not, lets say, legal to be in the US and therefore require ID (there needs to be _reason_ for that assumption), I'd say that they don't have a right to ask for ID for the same reason and while you are flying.
According US Code, you'd need to show local law enforcement the registration certificate:

An operator of an aircraft shall make available for inspection a certificate of registration for the aircraft when requested by a United States Government, State, or local law enforcement officer.

But there is no mention of any requirement to show ID and I'm pretty sure rulings on the US Constitution would trump local and US Code.

So again, the LEO card states to do things if the person is suspected of flying unsafe or being unregistered. There would need to be something indicating either of these things before they could ask for registration and ID info.

They have the right to ask for ID. You also have a right to deny giving it to them. For example, if you are walking down a sidewalk and a LEO asks you for ID, you can politely refuse and there really isn't squat they can do about it. You do not have to provide ID unless you are being detained. Now, that all changes if you are operating a vehicle (car) as you ARE required to present your license when questioned by LEO. Not sure if that vehicle law applies to a UAV or not. I am pretty sure someone somewhere will challenge it in court and set precedent at some point.

With the current regulations, I am very skeptical if standard LEOs can even charge you with anything at this point (related to the UAV). I mean a local cop can't arrest a pilot for not filing a flight plan. Thats the FAA's jurisdiction. Of course the LEO could deal with trespass laws of course.

 

[artichoke]

OK, that is both relevant AND interesting. And as I've stated in a previous message, I feel this is the reason the FAA set up this registration process to make it possible for those who choose not to join an organization like the AMA to fly without issue. Realizing that simple fact was one of my big turning points in how I viewed this regulatory endeavor, the FAA has both the authority, and the burden of allowing people who fall outside of the 336 carve out to still participate in the activity.

But by it's very nature there are differences, though most (if not all) of the difference of being in or out of the 336 carve-out are pretty much moot.

I think in essence though, you are trying to say that you still fall within the the 336 carve-out even if you aren't a member of a national organization. But if that were true then why does the FAA feel it needs a special registration process at all? They needed some way of keeping track of everyone flying even if they are not otherwise registered, and felt that 336 didn't apply because these people don't fall under it, similar to commercial operators.

I don't think it's of consequence for most matters of practicality whether you fall under 336 or not, if you registered and have your number and follow the simple guidelines the FAA gave you when it authorized you to register your aircraft, then you can fly without fear of reprisal, much like me as an AMA member that does fall under 336 can, given the same circumstances. The big difference being that if I crash for whatever reason (even from my back yard) at least I'm covered for the damage (which is not related to FAA registration in any way)...

But you DO have a beef, you think the AMA is too expensive...

BTW- the AMA doesn't tell you where you can fly, only where you can't "1. Model aircraft will not be flown: [...] (b) At a location where model aircraft activities are prohibited." If you can fly there then you are covered! One of the cool things is that the AMA coverage also covers you for model cars, boating and rockets as well as aircraft. The steering goes out and you ram your Losi into your neighbor's BMW, covered...
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/InsuranceSummaryMembers.pdf
http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf

I see FAA and AMA differently. Maybe AMA used to be seen as a substitute for FAA registration (or maybe not but I get that sense from you.) But it's not registration because AMA is not the government. Suddenly we find that some drone accidents and privacy concerns are in the news, and Obama never saw an opportunity to regulate that he didn't like. Therefore, now FAA (the government) is requiring us to register to fly our quads, the same as pilots, car drivers, truck drivers etc. register. To protect the public. Our registration is very easy. We don't have to pass any test, just agree to follow some simple rules. Our agreement to know and follow some rules should make us safer operators and allay privacy concerns.

The rules (not the "guidelines" mentioned on the FAA website when registering) can be the rules of AMA or another similar organization. Since I haven't heard of any similar organization within the USA, let's just say it's the AMA rules at least for now.

The AMA rules apply to me as much as you. I don't have to meet any stricter standard. I don't have to limit myself to 400' far from an airport, or stay within line of sight with my FPV quad, because the AMA rules I am following don't say I have to. Both of those (400' and LOS) were "guidelines" for registering, but they are effectively suggestions for new registrants, more restrictive than the actual AMA rules.

I don't have a beef with AMA, truly. I respect their need to charge a little money to fund their operations and plans. They aren't tax-supported like the FAA is, and they provide member benefits. It's a good organization for those who are interested. I am just not interested in enough that they do. I don't have time for organized meets, I don't have any other model aircraft or RC model cars (wife mentioned something about divorce when I bought the P3A -- but I didn't cancel the order , and I just want to fly my quad and enjoy the view.

 

[stitch0852]

Actually the car analogy works now, with the registration number being the license plate and the cert being the registration papers that you would normally keep in the glove box. You can let anyone you want drive the car, even if they DON'T have a driver's license (though the wisdom of that is debatable, you could), but the car's registration needs to be available to that driver if ever needed (and remember, your name is on it like the FAA cert).

The car's registration is separate than the driver's, always has been. That's pretty much what seems to be happening here, you have but one license plate for all your vehicles and the paperwork has to accompany it when in operation.

It is almost the same, but not quite. Legally, I have to have a valid driver's license in my possession if I borrow a car. Also, the car doesn't go off, alone. I would be inside it. Proof I was the operator.
An Operator's license/permit is not required to fly a Phantom (I also am not advocating for that). So, if the person operating it when they do something stupid is not located at the scene (as they are with a car), then the operation which caught law enforcement's attention (assuming they have the bird to get the registration number) will be tracked to the person registered. No way to verify, on scene the registered person was not the person at the helm, so to speak, during the imagined incident.

Also, the car registration is a payment, of sorts, annually allowing you to drive upon roads legally, as long as you are also licensed legally, and follow laws in force on that road. The registration is tied to that vehicle via license plates visibly displayed in a set location on the back and front (in some states). You cannot use that same license number on multiple vehicles as it is only good for the particular vehicle it is tied to via a VIN.

 

[jlummel]

It is almost the same, but not quite. [...]

Yes, that's the nature of an analogy, that it's only similar in some ways and not others. But the car analogy does help one to understand the nature of the FAA registration requirements somewhat better as it separates the idea of licensing the vehicle vs the operator, though the differences you take the time to point out are important for a better understanding.

And since you can put that FAA 'license plate' on ANY model aircraft, EVEN ones you don't own, it makes you a registration authority by proxy (by hook or by crook, in essence, de facto, etc, so you now work for the FAA!). I wonder how THAT's going to come back and bite us on the butt!!

 

[RCFantom]

My guess is that one of the goals of the FAA is to impede the growth of this activity and a high level of police presence is a surefire way to stifle almost any kind of activity!

And with it becoming more obvious, as time moves on, that the "Fergason Effect" is in full play, it'll be safer for police to deal with drone owners than with real crime, and less of a chance for officers to become the next victim of the dubious politics associated with the BLM movement making them a national icon of hatred, just for just doing their jobs.

I don't think that being up held by the high courts figures into this in the long run...

But as it's a safer activity for the police and given that the FAA's propaganda campaign against drone owners has politicized this issue nationally, I would imagine that more and more police chiefs will seize on this as a way to look busy while ignoring the real problems in their communities.

But the police officers on the street will be as much victims of this as us drone owners, so don't take it out on them! As a community, we simply don't need the backlash.

When I say Higher Courts, I am referring to that instance when I am out flying legally, and registered, when that incident eventually occurs when That officer approaches, I comply with polite cooperation to everything he/she asks except for.... Opening my now secured phantom case so they may verify my registration... My refusal then leads to an illegal search, or a citation, or even an arrest.... IT WILL HAPPEN.....

 

[jlummel]

When I say Higher Courts, I am referring to that instance when I am out flying legally, and registered, when that incident eventually occurs when That officer approaches, I comply with polite cooperation to everything he/she asks except for.... Opening my now secured phantom case so they may verify my registration... My refusal then leads to an illegal search, or a citation, or even an arrest.... IT WILL HAPPEN.....

The registration is only valid IF you can produce the certificate as required by the FAA (in written or electronic form), it looks like mere ownership of the certificate isn't enough without actually producing it when asked. Fail to produce that certificate and you'd be out of compliance, and I suspect that the courts would see it that way too, IMHO.

From UAS Registration Q&A:
"Q41. How do I prove I am registered?

"A. A certificate of registration will be available to download and will be sent to your email address at the time of registration. When operating your UAS you must be able to present the certificate in either print or electronic format if asked for proof of registration."

Key word in the answer above is "must". Producing your cert when asked is not a guideline like, say, flying below 400' is.

You may be able to refuse to show ID, but if you are flying your UAS then producing that certificate ISN'T an option. For all intents and purposes you HAVE to be able to show it for the registration to be valid. Given that several states and localities are enacting laws that make it a local offense to be out of FAA compliance you may find yourself at the center of an investigation and may have just handed the police due cause needed to require things like you showing ID, etc, by failing to produce the cert when asked. That could get real nasty real fast if you are not aware that the situation has changed because of something you, yourself, did!

There is a website to track state UAS regulations so you can find out if the local regulations will be issues for you at 2016 State Legislation on Unmanned Systems.

I printed the PDF that the FAA sent me, used an Exacto-style hobby knife to cut it out and then placed it in a cold laminated pouch the size of a credit card so that I could carry it in my wallet and put a copy in my radio case as well. I also uploaded an image of the cert captured from the PDF to my phone so that I have it both physically and electronically, since producing it is not optional...

 

[alexdds]

No one needs to identify themselves in any way unless they are being detained. They can only be detained if they are suspected of a crime. Just as LEO cannot suspect you are not, lets say, legal to be in the US and therefore require ID (there needs to be _reason_ for that assumption), I'd say that they don't have a right to ask for ID for the same reason and while you are flying.
According US Code, you'd need to show local law enforcement the registration certificate:

An operator of an aircraft shall make available for inspection a certificate of registration for the aircraft when requested by a United States Government, State, or local law enforcement officer.

But there is no mention of any requirement to show ID and I'm pretty sure rulings on the US Constitution would trump local and US Code.

So again, the LEO card states to do things if the person is suspected of flying unsafe or being unregistered. There would need to be something indicating either of these things before they could ask for registration and ID info.

That might be in some FAA US Code but it is unconstitutional to be harassed for anything unless it is evident you are breaking the law. Requiring a drivers licence for non commercial travel is unconstitutional. There are a lot of laws on the books that go against the highest law of the land and only reason people are convicted of them is because they can not afford or do not want to bother challenging their validity.

 

[Wolfiesden]

SEC. 336. SPECIAL RULE FOR MODEL AIRCRAFT.
(a) IN GENERAL
.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to the incorporation of unmanned aircraft systems into Fed-
eral Aviation Administration plans and policies, including this sub-
title, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may
not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,
or an aircraft being developed as a model aircraft, if—
(1) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational
use;
(2) the aircraft is operated in accordance with a commu-
nity-based set of safety guidelines and within the programming
of a nationwide community-based organization;
(3) the aircraft is limited to not more than 55 pounds un-
less otherwise certified through a design, construction, inspec-
tion, flight test, and operational safety program administered
by a community-based organization;
(4) the aircraft is operated in a manner that does not inter-
fere with and gives way to any manned aircraft; and
(5) when flown within 5 miles of an airport, the operator
of the aircraft provides the airport operator and the airport air
traffic control tower (when an air traffic facility is located at
the airport) with prior notice of the operation (model aircraft
operators flying from a permanent location within 5 miles of an
airport should establish a mutually-agreed upon operating pro-
cedure with the airport operator and the airport air traffic con-
trol tower (when an air traffic facility is located at the airport)).
(b) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
.—Nothing in this section shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Administrator to pursue
enforcement action against persons operating model aircraft who en-
danger the safety of the national airspace system.
(c) MODEL AIRCRAFT 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.

promulgate:

Full Definition of promulgate
pro·mul·gat·edpro·mul·gat·ing

1. transitive verb
2. 1 : to make (as a doctrine) known by open declaration : proclaim
   
   
3. 2 a : to make known or public the terms of (a proposed law) b : to put (a law) into action or force

Seems pretty **** simple to me. The FAA has no right (currently) to enact OR to enforce a law where it applies to a "model" aircraft as long as it fits within the stated parameters listed above.

The FAA is trying to say, in its defense, that the law was already there. Doesn't matter if it was there or if its new. The word promulgate covers both possibilities and the reform act says they "may not" make new regulation or put into action old regulation. But they did.

So, drone police....

 

[jlummel]

[...]
Seems pretty **** simple to me. The FAA has no right (currently) to enact OR to enforce a law where it applies to a "model" aircraft as long as it fits within the stated parameters listed above. [...]

You would think!

But by international treaty and acts of Congress, the FAA has authority to regulate airspace in the US, and treaties have the same force of law as the US Constitution (which is why many of the treaties BHO has been party to are so dangerous and have the potential to give away US sovereignty, particularly to the UN). And since the vast majority of UAS operators DON'T fall under 336, specifically 336(a)2, you will find that the FAA is well within their authorization to do UAS registration AND that the same as a pilot of a full sized aircraft has to be able to show registration papers on demand, UAS operators have too as well.

The ONLY place the FAA has overstepped is by requiring members of organizations such as the AMA to register as these people meet the criteria for UAV operation under 336 and as you point out, the FAA had no authority to promulgate a registration system that included them. And everyone else got off REAL easy, as the registration system COULD have been draconian!

I think the FAA feels they can get away with it because AMA and other organizations represent less an 1% (yes, less than one percent) of the projected total UAS operators in the US (188,000 vs 7million, or 0.0269% to be more precise). But if you don't even meet the basic requirements of 336, then you don't have a leg to stand on trying to use it to shield yourself.

So your statement that I quoted above is entirely correct and nails it, you're correct that the FAA can not put registration into effect for people who comply with 336! But are you even 336 compliant? Most people flying a UAS aren't.

 

[Wolfiesden]

It was congress that gave the FAA their power. It was congress that told them not to do what it is they are doing (to model aircraft). They are in violation of the congress' orders.

I agree that congress gave them jurisdiction over aircraft, but its also congress who mandated they NOT govern model aircraft.