Drone registration ruled unlawful by U.S. Court of Appeals

[FLYBOYJ]

The problem is that our equipment can easily get up into the patterns and the approach and departure lanes. If you know what you are doing then you can avoid those conflicts, but it's quite clear that many of the new breed of hobby pilots don't have a clue. At least this gives the airport operators some warning and the opportunity to advise on locations.

I think it's an appropriate requirement, especially since you can come to a standing agreement with many airports if your flights are clearly never going to cause traffic conflicts.

Disagree for many reasons especially with regards to uncontrolled airports and heliports;

1. it's unenforceable - this comes directly from several FAA PMIs and OPS inspectors I have contact with
2. There's no binding requirement for anyone to call you back
3. If you're in a populated area you shouldn't be flying a manned aircraft under 1000'. If you're 5 miles from your destination airport and you're under 500' in a populated area, you're probably violating FAR 91. The exception would be medical helicopters taking off and landing at an LZ or hospital landing pad.
4. The FAAs airport listing is out of date, has wrong contact information as well as wrong phone numbers
5. Many class G airport operators could care less about cooperating with this. Some may just say "no" for the hell of it (I know one guy who owns a private strip in my area who is very grumpy and will not cooperate with anything he is not forced to do). I know the chief pilot for a major medical helicopter operation, he prefers NOT to be contacted unless you're operating within 1/2 of his helipads.

I could go on.

 

[K9VXV]

Well if the FAA is anything like the FCC then they will just end up doing whatever they want, no matter how much public disapproval but the people at the FAA do not have as much money to gain as the people at the FCC so hopefully the laws will continue to be sensible, sort of like rules a Dad would make. I registered, paid my money and thought nothing of it. If I don't register my car, it can get towed at a traffic stop and I'd hate to risk that. At the time that I registered it was a requirement. So for the moment I will just pretend it still is. Either way it does not change my flying behavior.

 

[smiller]

So does the court ruling allow one to remove registration markings from the aircraft? I think I will leave mine in place since if there ever is an incident it might reflect favorably on me to have complied with the registration requirement, err, request, (and the unit is marked with a 'please return to' phone number anyway), but just out of curiosity can a purely recreational operator now remove the registration number info from the aircraft?

 

[Hjones62]

Pretty genius of them to spend over a $100,000 in court and lawyers fees for a $5.00 registration.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Pretty genius of them to spend over a $100,000 in court and lawyers fees for a $5.00 registration.

I think over 700,000 people have registered so far. Multiply that by $5

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I would say no until

So does the court ruling allow one to remove registration markings from the aircraft? I think I will leave mine in place since if there ever is an incident it might reflect favorably on me to have complied with the registration requirement, err, request, (and the unit is marked with a 'please return to' phone number anyway), but just out of curiosity can a purely recreational operator now remove the registration number info from the aircraft?

I would say that until FAR 48.5 is officially revised, you would still have to comply although I would bet any FAA inspector in their right mind would not even think of enforcing this.

 

[sar104]

Disagree for many reasons especially with regards to uncontrolled airports and heliports;

1. it's unenforceable - this comes directly from several FAA PMIs and OPS inspectors I have contact with
2. There's no binding requirement for anyone to call you back
3. If you're in a populated area you shouldn't be flying a manned aircraft under 1000'. If you're 5 miles from your destination airport and you're under 500' in a populated area, you're probably violating FAR 91. The exception would be medical helicopters taking off and landing at an LZ or hospital landing pad.
4. The FAAs airport listing is out of date, has wrong contact information as well as wrong phone numbers
5. Many class G airport operators could care less about cooperating with this. Some may just say "no" for the hell of it (I know one guy who owns a private strip in my area who is very grumpy and will not cooperate with anything he is not forced to do). I know the chief pilot for a major medical helicopter operation, he prefers NOT to be contacted unless you're operating within 1/2 of his helipads.

I could go on.

Those are all good points, but I would argue that just because it cannot be guaranteed to work in all cases doesn't mean that it is not worth doing.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Those are all good points, but I would argue that just because it cannot be guaranteed to work in all cases doesn't mean that it is not worth doing.

It's not worth doing because the whole process sucks! I've been in aviation 40 years this summer and this is the dumbest FAR ever written!!! You don't write a regulation that works one place and not another!!! There's better ways to do this.

How about a no fly area within 1/4 of any class G airport or helipad?
200' max altitude for drones within 3 miles of a class G airport or helipad?
How about a local or region MOA for drone ops in certain areas?
How about the Feds compelling the airport operators to maintain a system that will get back to the drone operator in a reasonable amount of time?

I could name more.

 

[sar104]

It's not worth doing because the whole process sucks! I've been in aviation 40 years this summer and this is the dumbest FAR ever written!!! You don't write a regulation that works one place and not another!!! There's better ways to do this.

How about a no fly area within 1/4 of any class G airport or helipad?
200' max altitude for drones within 3 miles of a class G airport or helipad?
How about a local or region MOA for drone ops in certain areas?
How about the Feds compelling the airport operators to maintain a system that will get back to the drone operator in a reasonable amount of time?

I could name more.

OK - I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. NFZs at 1/4 mile might be a good idea, but no doubt would be criticized as overly restrictive. Altitude limits are fine in principle, but just as hard to enforce as the current system. If by MOA you mean Memorandum of Agreement (as opposed to the aviation meaning of Military Operations Area) then that is already an option with an airport operator. And there is no need for the airport operators to be compelled to respond, since you have fulfilled your obligations by notifying them.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

OK - I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. NFZs at 1/4 mile might be a good idea, but no doubt would be criticized as overly restrictive. Altitude limits are fine in principle, but just as hard to enforce as the current system. If by MOA you mean Memorandum of Agreement (as opposed to the aviation meaning of Military Operations Area) then that is already an option with an airport operator. And there is no need for the airport operators to be compelled to respond, since you have fulfilled your obligations by notifying them.

You're entitled to your opinions, flying both sUAS and GA aircraft at class G airports, this FAR is totally ridiculous.

MOA - I do mean Memorandum of Agreement. 1/4 mile puts you right against any class G airport or heliport operating area. The altitude restrictions would be hard to enforce but at least there is a tangible requirement that could be verified when dealing with a habitual violator, no worse than trying to prove that you made contact to a class G airport operator with an invalid phone number or who wishes not to return calls. Chapter 4 and 10 of the Airman's Information Manual gives all types of recommended procedures that aircraft and helicopters use during take off and landings - it boggles my mind that the FAA cannot come up a better plan based on the AIM that both the GA and sUAS community could live with at class G airports. Again, I've been told by FAA personnel that FAR 101.41 is horrible and one inspector even used the word "embarrassment."

 

[sar104]

You're entitled to your opinions, flying both sUAS and GA aircraft at class G airports, this FAR is totally ridiculous.

MOA - I do mean Memorandum of Agreement. 1/4 mile puts you right against any class G airport or heliport operating area. The altitude restrictions would be hard to enforce but at least there is a tangible requirement that could be verified when dealing with a habitual violator, no worse than trying to prove that you made contact to a class G airport operator with an invalid phone number or who wishes not to return calls. Chapter 4 and 10 of the Airman's Information Manual gives all types of recommended procedures that aircraft and helicopters use during take off and landings - it boggles my mind that the FAA cannot come up a better plan based on the AIM that both the GA and sUAS community could live with at class G airports. Again, I've been told by FAA personnel that FAR 101.41 is horrible and one inspector even used the word "embarrassment."

I agree that there are almost certainly better ways to regulate traffic conflicts, but in invoking comparisons with AIM approach and departure recommendations you also effectively highlight the problem with that concept; it's intended for trained and certified pilots. And in sUAS operations, certified remote pilots do have that kind of freedom around Class G airports. So I support your ideas, but with the caveat that it would only work for recreational use if recreational pilots were also required to be certified.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I agree that there are almost certainly better ways to regulate traffic conflicts, but in invoking comparisons with AIM approach and departure recommendations you also effectively highlight the problem with that concept; it's intended for trained and certified pilots. And in sUAS operations, certified remote pilots do have that kind of freedom around Class G airports. So I support your ideas, but with the caveat that it would only work for recreational use if recreational pilots were also required to be certified.

And that's a good point as well. The only other alternative I see is either a NFZ at a specified distance from a class G airport or helipad and throw in an option of attaining an MOA with the airport operator and recreational sUAV operators. In any event the "call before you fly' concept has to go.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

No, they got sucked in...... some of us knew the "regulation" was invalid and wrong and we stood our ground. It's what thinking people with strong convictions do.

Wow- 5 bucks

 

[Peter Hartmann]

[QUOTE="FLYBOYJ I've been in aviation 40 years this summer and this is the dumbest FAR ever written!!! .........QUOTE]
. . . . . . . .
I disagree ( as a side-note, I've been in aviation nearly SIXTY years (ASEL, SES, IFR and, as an attorney appearing on FAA/NTSB enforcement matters, do admit I've seen some pretty dumb things by that and other govt. entities ).

I am new to drones - have had my Phantom 3 "standard" for about a week now - absolutely fantastic. Does what I want done - takes incredibly good, hi resolution good color saturation video and "stills" involving my hobbies ( old cars, trains, boats, etc.)

The problem is - the **** thing is dangerous - scary to think these things are in the hands of untrained self-centered folks with no cares about the world around them.

Nobody likes regulations, rules, etc...when it interfers with them..ME INCLUDED !.

But, for example, how in heck are people able to manufacture and sell these things without blade-guards? I just installed blade-guards - dosnt seem to effect the performance, and sure as heck protects folks from getting sliced up.

How is it possible these things don't have an imbedded code with a national registry, so when someone "wises off" with one, they cant be hunted down and prosecuted.

Perhaps the dumbest thing the FAA has done is NOT passed some basic safety regs. about these things, as to, for example, blade guards, and more invasive education .

 

[sar104]

[QUOTE="FLYBOYJ I've been in aviation 40 years this summer and this is the dumbest FAR ever written!!! .........QUOTE]
. . . . . . . .
I disagree ( as a side-note, I've been in aviation nearly SIXTY years (ASEL, SES, IFR and, as an attorney appearing on FAA/NTSB enforcement matters, do admit I've seen some pretty dumb things by that and other govt. entities ).

I am new to drones - have had my Phantom 3 "standard" for about a week now - absolutely fantastic. Does what I want done - takes incredibly good, hi resolution good color saturation video and "stills" involving my hobbies ( old cars, trains, boats, etc.)

The problem is - the **** thing is dangerous - scary to think these things are in the hands of untrained self-centered folks with no cares about the world around them.

Nobody likes regulations, rules, etc...when it interfers with them..ME INCLUDED !.

But, for example, how in heck are people able to manufacture and sell these things without blade-guards? I just installed blade-guards - dosnt seem to effect the performance, and sure as heck protects folks from getting sliced up.

How is it possible these things don't have an imbedded code with a national registry, so when someone "wises off" with one, they cant be hunted down and prosecuted.

Perhaps the dumbest thing the FAA has done is NOT passed some basic safety regs. about these things, as to, for example, blade guards, and more invasive education .

The reason that the FAA has not done any of that is that these are model aircraft, and the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 prevents them from making any new rules regulating model aircraft.

 

[sar104]

And that's a good point as well. The only other alternative I see is either a NFZ at a specified distance from a class G airport or helipad and throw in an option of attaining an MOA with the airport operator and recreational sUAV operators. In any event the "call before you fly' concept has to go.

Don't forget that there is nothing to prevent an informal MOA with an airport under the present rules, at least as they are being interpreted. Numerous recreational pilots have reported doing just that.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I disagree ( as a side-note, I've been in aviation nearly SIXTY years (ASEL, SES, IFR and, as an attorney appearing on FAA/NTSB enforcement matters, do admit I've seen some pretty dumb things by that and other govt. entities ).

Show me one other FAR under title 14 where there is no tangible or quantitative way to apply a rule or process for enforcement! Some of the airports listed in B4UFLY have been nonoperational for years and as stated earlier, some of the FAA's own data bases have dated or incorrect information about the airport operators/ owners. I'm all about regulating these aircraft, keeping them safe and keeping them out of the hands of knuckleheads but this part of the regulation makes no sense.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Don't forget that there is nothing to prevent an informal MOA with an airport under the present rules, at least as they are being interpreted. Numerous recreational pilots have reported doing just that.

And that should be the direction to go...

 

[Orion36]

I for one didn't mind the ridiculously simple registration process. It at least lets the rapidly expanding population of UAS pilots "aware" of some common sense guidelines (rules). With the expanding capabilities of these aircraft, it's only a matter of time before something bad happens. Then the litigious public will have the attorneys rubbing their hands with glee.