FAA Registration Rules Announced NOW

[Reed L]

Bigger picture...
It's the beginning of the old follow the money rule, everybody's complaining about the $5.00 but who runs the country again? The $5 is going to be the beginning of the new drone insurance laws that will come out next. 3 year registration, like a boat or trailer in some states to start is just the beginning. The insurance companies will be raising the bar as high as they can after it becomes the law.

 

[damitjim01]

The fines are for after the jackass flies his drone into a sporting event

If jackass is dumb enough to fly into a stadium, you assume jackass is smart enough to register. How do you catch him... if it's not registered? You don't. The rule does nothing but raise money for the FAA to create a web site and gather your financial and perosnal info(to be later stolen or "hacked").

 

[JKDSensei]

You know, planes use transponders.

All they had to do was create a circuit that triangulated that signal and if it was calculated to approach within X number of feet from an aircraft, the drone could be ordered (via it's own navigation system) to immediately move away from that flight path (up, down, left or right)

Brilliance. Problem solved. TY

 

[Man.Of.Kent]

I don't think I've ever seen an "illegal flight video" on You Tube. Can you point me to one?

You do mean illegal in the USofA sense I hope.

 

[Buckaye]

The penalties are steep. 27,500 if youre caught, and up to 250,000 and jail time in some cases. They weren't specific as to what cases. This seems wrong to me. Has there been anyone killed by a drone or something? Seems like their should have been, at least as many as were killed by Islamic extremists anyway.

UP to those amounts.... it's meant to set the upper limit. It doesn't mean they will fine that much....

 

[Flyer91]

I'm typically not for new laws of any kind, but .... It's law now.

So instead of crying over spilled milk, I'm hoping that it might help to get some people that shouldn't be flying anything, out of the air, and makes things safer.
And I do welcome that
It'll remain to be seen if it works as planned ..... but I would not 'even' want to be riding the crest of the wave of folks that they decide need to be made examples of ......

 

[JKDSensei]

UP to those amounts.... it's meant to set the upper limit. It doesn't mean they will fine that much....

BUT...they could
And we all know how hard our dear gubbment works to help us keep our hard earned wages...right

So tell me....why set those general limits. why not instead enumerate what offenses could specifically get those maximums? We're talking about people's hobbies again here.

How about...if proven the flight had terrorist intent...$250,000 maximum
Other wise $500 maximum?

 

[JKDSensei]

I'm typically not for new laws of any kind, but .... It's law now.

So instead of crying over spilled milk, I'm hoping that it might help to get some people that shouldn't be flying anything, out of the air, and makes things safer.
And I do welcome that
It'll remain to be seen if it works as planned ..... but I would not 'even' want to be riding the crest of the wave of folks that they decide need to be made examples of ......

lol.
Here we go again. He who gives up a bit of freedom for any amount of security....deserves neither. (was that Ben Franklin?)

 

[LuvMyTJ]

BUT...they could

Yes, they could, but it will be reserved for the worst situations. No one will see that unless they do something really bad and did it intentionally like an act of terrorism.

 

[green0630]

How about 5 bucks to go toward the airplane avoidance system imagined by JKD. I could support something that actually makes sense for UAV operators and not cents for the FAA bureaucrats.

 

[kowalski22]

I'm typically not for new laws of any kind, but .... It's law now.

So instead of crying over spilled milk, I'm hoping that it might help to get some people that shouldn't be flying anything, out of the air, and makes things safer.
And I do welcome that
It'll remain to be seen if it works as planned ..... but I would not 'even' want to be riding the crest of the wave of folks that they decide need to be made examples of ......

Its not a law...

 

[buford]

UP to those amounts.... it's meant to set the upper limit. It doesn't mean they will fine that much....

But, that what it says in the official news release. I am not one to assume the penalty will be less, just because I'm a thirteen year old having fun with a Christmas present.

 

[buford]

Its not a law...

If you don't want to ride the wave, I would suggest staying out of the water.

 

[GoodnNuff]

Several of you are seem to be trying hard to keep your balance as you point out the "slippery slope" you imagine yourselves to be on the precipice of, while trying to juggle your strawmen and red herrings.

Feel the fear.

 

[buford]

BUT...they could
And we all know how hard our dear gubbment works to help us keep our hard earned wages...right

So tell me....why set those general limits. why not instead enumerate what offenses could specifically get those maximums? We're talking about people's hobbies again here.

How about...if proven the flight had terrorist intent...$250,000 maximum
Other wise $500 maximum?

That sounds reasonable to me. Except the 13 year olds, where are they gonna get 500$ LOL

 

[JKDSensei]

Yes, they could, but it will be reserved for the worst situations. No one will see that unless they do something really bad and did it intentionally like an act of terrorism.

You are speculating. There is no way you can definitively say that any more than I can definitively say otherwise.
Again...let's look at the gubbments record on imposing fines across the board. Judges can be fickled and have very bad days.
One guy gets 20 years for stealing gas, another 10 years for murder.
Sometimes it for poe-lit-ikal reasons.

All I'm saying is they should not make fines this steep available for a hobby EXCEPT in specific circumstances such as terrorism or deliberate acts that cause harm. Why give unnecessary power to be used at the discretion of a judge for this situation?

Limit fines to $500 EXCEPT in cases of terrorism. (flying into planes or with explosives etc)

 

[Buckaye]

Its not a law...

It actually is tied to a law if you take the time to read the document.

 

[gfredrone]

That sounds reasonable to me. Except the 13 year olds, where are they gonna get 500$ LOL

Mommy and Daddy AKA legal guardians

 

[JKDSensei]

That sounds reasonable to me. Except the 13 year olds, where are they gonna get 500$ LOL

good point
The parents will pay.

 

[Jeff48920]

I don't think I've ever seen an "illegal flight video" on You Tube. Can you point me to one?

Okay Steve. You can be such a smug and picky guy. You know darn what I mean when I say illegal but for those who don't I will clear it up by saying that certain guidelines are currently endorsed by the FAA. With the exception of the so called "No Fly Zones" these guidelines are nothing more than recommendations and can only be enforced if someone is also engaged in a practice that the FAA considers actionable under its power to enforce actions against persons acting in a reckless and/or dangerous manner.

My post also contemplates the fact that someday these same activities will be codified as regulations that are enforceable on their own.

Some examples on YouTube that might get the attention of the FAA and could lead to an investigation into whether the operator was licensed or not.

Airport

Over 400 ft

over stadium while game is on